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.

The Husband brought a motion to amend his application to withdraw admissions regarding the interpretation of a marriage contract.

The Wife brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of counselling records for a section 30 assessment, interim sole decision-making responsibility for healthcare, and disclosure of rental platform records.

The court refused to allow the Husband to withdraw his admissions but permitted him to plead an alternate interpretation.

The court ordered the Husband to sign consents for the release of counselling records if requested by the assessor, declined to grant the Wife interim sole decision-making responsibility but made specific orders for the children's healthcare, and ordered the Husband to sign consents for the release of rental platform records.

The applicant father sought the return of his three-year-old child to Dubai after the respondent mother removed the child to Ontario without his consent.

The mother argued that Ontario should assume jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, alleging a history of family violence and claiming the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and determined that the child's habitual residence was Dubai.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction, finding no risk of serious harm, and ordered the immediate return of the child to Dubai.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim in-person parenting time with his two-year-old daughter pending a trial on jurisdiction and wrongful removal.

The father sought to exercise parenting time in Turkey, where he was residing, while the respondent mother opposed any travel outside Canada due to fears the father would abduct the child to Dubai.

The court granted the father's request for a four-week parenting time period in Turkey, finding it in the child's best interests to maintain a relationship with her father.

To mitigate the risk of abduction, the court imposed stringent safeguards, including requiring the father to post $200,000 in security, surrender his passports, and consent to a UAE court order granting the mother sole custody.

The moving party brought a motion to strike the responding party's pleadings and for costs due to her failure to comply with a prior disclosure order.

The court found that the responding party had disobeyed the order and that her non-compliance was willful, despite her claims that her former lawyer was responsible.

However, the court concluded that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort and the non-compliance was not egregious enough to warrant such a drastic measure.

The court dismissed the request to strike pleadings but ordered the responding party to pay $5,000 in costs and to produce the remaining outstanding disclosure forthwith.

Following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion to suspend the applicant father's parenting time based on unverified allegations of abuse, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father, who was wholly successful, sought costs for the motion and numerous related appearances.

The court applied the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, finding the father's behaviour reasonable and his time spent proportionate to the serious nature of the allegations.

The court also found the father's offer to settle was as favourable or more favourable than the motion's outcome, triggering Rule 18(14).

Costs were fixed at $35,000 payable by the mother, subject to a set-off against previous costs owed by the father.

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 mother brought a motion to suspend or restrict the father's access to their two children, alleging physical and sexual abuse by the father.

The court reviewed the admissibility of various hearsay statements, children's disclosures, and business records, including Children's Aid Society files.

The court found that the mother failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, as the abuse allegations were inconclusive following police and CAS investigations.

The court noted that supervised access visits had been positive and the children were safe in the father's care.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and the court ordered a gradual reintegration of the father's unsupervised access in accordance with a prior order.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law application regarding child support for failing to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the remedy was not excessive given the appellant had breached six previous orders and received multiple warnings.

The court also upheld the motion judge's award of full recovery costs based on a finding of bad faith.

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 applicant mother previously moved for a stay of an interim custody and access order, which was dismissed.

The respondent father sought his costs of the stay motion on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,318.46.

The applicant argued for no costs due to divided success, or alternatively $1,000.

The court found no grounds for substantial indemnity costs, as the alleged unreasonable conduct occurred post-motion.

The court rejected the applicant's argument of divided success, finding the respondent was substantially successful.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $2,433.53.

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.