Irina Nastase Davis

This costs endorsement arises from a successful motion by Prem Kumar Kapila, an added respondent, to be removed from a family law proceeding initiated by his son, Sahil Kapila, against his former daughter-in-law, Rubi Chhina.

Prem sought full recovery of his costs from Rubi, who had named him as a party without proper claims.

The court awarded Prem $10,250 plus HST in costs, finding Rubi's reliance on former counsel's advice and her claim of modest means insufficient to deviate from the cost consequences of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court emphasized Prem's offer to settle and Rubi's control over significant funds as factors supporting the award.

The applicant, Sahil Kapila, brought a motion to remove his father, Prem Kumar Kapila, as an added respondent in a matrimonial dispute with his former spouse, Rubi Chhina.

Rubi had added Prem, making various claims including domestic violence, trespass, rent/utilities, and trust claims over property and funds.

The court found that Rubi's claims against Prem did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under Rule 7(3) of the Family Law Rules, nor did they meet the threshold for adding a party under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion to remove Prem as a party, thereby also dismissing Rubi's cross-motion seeking financial disclosure and freezing of Prem's assets.

The applicant mother unilaterally suspended the respondent father's in-person access to their four-year-old daughter in March 2020, alleging that the father and his partner were physically and emotionally abusing the child.

The father brought a motion to reinstate his access.

The court found that while there had been a material change in circumstances, the allegations of abuse were not established on the evidence.

The court found the mother's extensive recordings of the child, the child's statements, and photographs of bruises to be of limited probative value and highly prejudicial.

The court reinstated the father's access substantially as ordered in the prior trial judgment, with additional terms prohibiting recording and directing further assessment of the child's behavioral and health needs.

The court issued an endorsement on costs following the dismissal of the respondent father's urgent motion.

The applicant mother was entirely successful on the motion and sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court noted the parties' failure to comply with court directions regarding submissions and the father's non-compliance with previous orders concerning the matrimonial home.

Considering the mother's more favourable Offer to Settle and the father's unduly lengthy and irrelevant affidavits, the court awarded the mother $15,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 30 days.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking expanded and overnight access to the child, Raphael, and a change in access exchange location.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that the motion was not urgent, noting that existing access arrangements were largely being followed and that the father had misrepresented the urgency.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to existing court orders and bail conditions, and the need for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or a private assessment to determine the child's best interests regarding overnight access.

The father's motion was dismissed.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change spousal support brought by the husband.

The husband sought to reduce spousal support from $2,300 per month to $530 per month, retroactive to June 1, 2016.

The wife responded to the motion and made counter-claims for security of spousal support through life insurance.

The husband withdrew his motion after the wife responded and did not attend any subsequent court dates.

The wife was successful in obtaining orders for life insurance security and other protections.

The court awarded costs to the wife on a substantial recovery basis, finding the husband's conduct unreasonable and his failure to respond to the costs claim unopposed.