Ian C. Vallance

The applicant sought leave to commence a motion to set aside a final order and for an order regarding parenting time with his child, alleging parental alienation.

The respondent opposed, seeking payment of outstanding cost awards, a declaration that the applicant is a vexatious litigant, and security for costs.

The court denied the applicant's motion, finding no grounds under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside the previous order, and that the child was over 18, thus beyond the court's jurisdiction for parenting time.

The court granted the respondent's request, declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant due to persistent non-compliance with court orders and repeated unsuccessful litigation, and ordered security for costs.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules prior to a case conference, seeking to address the respondent mother's relocation with their 20-month-old child.

The mother had moved from Ottawa to Brampton and subsequently ceased the agreed-upon week-about parenting schedule without providing the required 60 days' notice under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the father leave to bring the motion, emphasizing that self-help remedies in child relocation are discouraged, and ordered the resumption of the week-about parenting schedule pending the full motion.

The applicant father sought full recovery costs of over $733,000 following a successful trial where Ontario declined jurisdiction over the parties' child, ordering her return to Dubai.

The respondent mother argued for each party to bear their own costs, citing the binary nature of the jurisdiction issue and her financial limitations.

The court found the mother's post-July 2021 conduct, including evading court orders and hiding the child, constituted bad faith, justifying full recovery costs for enforcement efforts.

While acknowledging the mother's financial means, the court emphasized that such means do not shield a party from cost consequences for unreasonable litigation conduct.

Considering the father's advantageous settlement offers and the complexity of the case, the court awarded the father $250,000 in all-inclusive costs.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent fixed costs of $20,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, with the provision that these costs could be considered support payments for Family Responsibility Office purposes.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, sale of the matrimonial home, and other incidental relief following a 28-year marriage.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home and the division of the respondent's pension as of the date of separation.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent on an interim basis, deferring the issue to trial.

Retroactive and ongoing interim spousal support were ordered based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, with credits given to the respondent for expenses paid towards the matrimonial home.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application for retroactive spousal support, unjust enrichment, and a constructive trust in twelve properties.

The appellant also sought a declaration of a joint family venture and return of shares in an Indigenous staffing company.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the appellant failed to establish a spousal relationship under the Family Law Act, failed to prove unjust enrichment due to insufficient evidence that he was not paid for work performed, and failed to establish a joint family venture due to lack of economic integration.

The court also rejected the appellant's allegation that the application judge improperly relied on the respondent's written submissions.

A father's motion for interim access to his four-year-old daughter was granted after a 22-month denial of access by the mother, who alleged chronic severe violence.

The court, prioritizing the child's best interests and the risk of relationship extinguishment, ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, and a gradual, supervised access schedule for the father, transitioning to unsupervised.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed for an assessment.

The applicant mother sought an emergency order for her 13-year-old child, Xander, to attend the Summit Alternative Program at Fisher Park Public School due to his specific learning disorder and neurocognitive disorder.

The respondent father proposed Cedarview Middle School.

The court, applying legal principles for school placement decisions, prioritized Xander's academic needs, finding the Summit Alternative Program specifically tailored for students with learning disabilities.

The court also considered Xander's wishes (which were deemed not fully mature or independent), and logistical factors, ultimately ruling in favour of the mother's proposed school.

A self-represented appellant sought an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal after serving it one day late due to misinformation about the appropriate appellate court.

The chambers judge dismissed the motion, finding prejudice to the respondent based on an outstanding costs award and determining the appeal lacked merit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the one-day delay caused no actual prejudice, the respondent had been served within the 30-day period with a notice to the wrong court, and the justice of the case required granting the extension despite the apparent lack of merit, particularly given the significant financial consequences of the trial decision.

The parties sought costs following a series of interim motions dealing with custody, access, child and spousal support, and other issues.

The applicant mother sought up to $48,506 in costs, while the respondent father sought up to $35,846.

The court found the mother was largely successful on the main issues, including obtaining interim sole custody and imputing income to the father, though the father had some success on minor issues.

Noting unreasonable behavior by both parties, a lack of offers to settle, and excessive time claimed by the mother's counsel, the court awarded the mother costs fixed at $8,000.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion for security for costs brought by the respondent, Seema Narula, which was dismissed.

The applicant, Farhad Derakhshan, who was self-represented, sought $6,707.00 in costs.

The court awarded Derakhshan $714.30, fixed on a partial indemnity basis, primarily for legal consultation fees and some disbursements, disallowing claims for lost income and unsupported disbursements.

The awarded costs were ordered to be set off against costs Derakhshan owed Narula from a prior unsuccessful motion.

The respondent, Seema Narula, brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant, Farhad Derakhshan, under Rule 24(13)(4) of the Family Law Rules, alleging his case was a waste of time or a nuisance and he lacked sufficient assets to pay costs.

The court found that while the applicant's self-represented presentation caused delays, it was premature to conclude the case itself was a waste of time or a nuisance.

Furthermore, the court was not satisfied that the applicant lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, especially considering his claims of impoverishment due to the respondent's actions.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the applicant was awarded costs.

This decision addresses costs arising from two motions brought by the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) to set aside Summonses to Witness served by Farhad Derakhshan during a matrimonial trial.

Seema Narula, the respondent in the main trial, supported the AGC's motions.

The court found Derakhshan's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith for refusing to withdraw the improper summonses, which sought confidential taxpayer information and evidence from irrelevant federal employees, despite clear warnings.

Costs were awarded to the AGC on a substantial indemnity basis, with a reduction in claimed hours, and to Narula for counsel attendance.

This decision addresses the costs arising from two unsuccessful motions brought by the self-represented applicant, Farhad Derakhshan, seeking various relief including amending the claim, document production, action consolidation, and property inspection by an appraiser.

The motions were dismissed as wasteful of time and money.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, Seema Narula, at 80% of her counsel's hourly rates, totaling $5,388.70, payable within 30 days.

The court emphasized that cost rules apply equally to self-represented litigants and that the applicant's conduct was unreasonable.

In the midst of a family law trial, the applicant served a Summons to Witness on an Area Director at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to verify the respondent's tax filings and provide expert evidence.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to set aside the summons.

The court granted the motion, finding that section 241 of the Income Tax Act strictly prohibits the disclosure of taxpayer information.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the summonsed witness had any relevant or material evidence, and improperly sought to compel a government official to act as an expert auditor.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to set aside a Summons to Witness served by Farhad Derakhshan on Sonia Dion, an employee of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

The grounds for the motion were that Ms. Dion was unlikely to provide relevant and material evidence, the evidence sought was not within her personal knowledge, and the summons constituted a "fishing expedition" and an abuse of process.

The court granted the motion, finding that Derakhshan failed to demonstrate that Ms. Dion possessed relevant evidence concerning the purported fraudulent transfer of shares, which was the central issue Derakhshan sought to address through her testimony.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the respondent's urgent motion for leave to address security concerns during supervised access.

The applicant, having successfully opposed the urgent motion, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of an offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court found the urgent motion issue was not complex or difficult and that the applicant's offer to settle was a significant factor.

The court awarded the applicant costs, but reduced the claimed amount due to excessive time spent on client communication and review, fixing the total costs at $17,396.27.

The applicant sought costs following a motion where the respondent was found to be non-compliant with previous court orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and disclosure of medical information.

The applicant requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's failure to comply with a separation agreement and court orders.

The respondent argued for no costs due to disability and divided success.

The court, applying Rule 24 factors, found the applicant largely successful and awarded partial indemnity costs of $3,500, noting the respondent's unreasonable behaviour and financial capacity.

The respondent mother sought leave to proceed on an urgent basis with a motion to address the level of security for children during supervised access visits with the applicant father, citing new criminal charges against the father, home break-ins, and alleged death threats.

The court applied the two-part test for urgency from *Rosen v. Rosen*, considering the availability of a case conference date and efforts to negotiate a short-term resolution.

The court found that the mother failed to satisfy both parts of the test and that the circumstances were not so extreme as to warrant immediate intervention, especially given the mother's prior willingness to continue access arrangements despite some of the alleged events.

The motion for urgency was dismissed, and the parties were directed to address the issues at the scheduled case conference.

Following a family law motion addressing issues including custody, access, child support, and sale of the matrimonial home, the successful party sought full recovery costs exceeding $17,000.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered factors such as success, reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, complexity of the motion, proportionality, and expectations of the unsuccessful party.

While the successful party prevailed on the issues addressed at the motion, the court found the circumstances did not justify full indemnity costs because the conduct of the opposing party was not outrageous or vexatious and no offer to settle had been exceeded.

The court therefore assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis and considered the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.