J. Allison Campbell

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a trial on parenting issues between Maryana Chyher and Amar Al Jaboury.

The court reviews the parties’ submissions, the relevant Family Law Rules, and the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation.

The court finds that the respondent, Mr. Al Jaboury, acted unreasonably and awards the applicant, Ms. Chyher, $60,000 in costs for the trial, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This decision concerns a high-conflict family law matter involving allegations of domestic violence, parental alienation, and the best interests of two children, A.G. and S.G., following the separation of Maryana Chyher and Amar Al Jaboury.

The court reviews extensive evidence, including expert parenting assessments, police and child protection reports, and the children's own views and preferences.

The court finds that Mr. Al Jaboury engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour and alienated the children from their mother.

Ultimately, the court orders a shared parenting regime to commence March 1, 2025, with Ms. Chyher having sole decision-making authority (except for religion in each parent's home), and sets out detailed provisions for parenting time, communication, travel, and costs.

This ruling addresses an interim motion concerning parenting time for four children following the separation of the applicant father and respondent mother.

The respondent mother sought various relief, including primary residence and a parenting schedule, while the applicant father sought full custody and decision-making authority.

The court denied the applicant's requests for leave to file additional affidavits and for an adjournment.

Focusing on the children's best interests, stability, and their expressed views and preferences, particularly those of the older children, the court ordered a temporary, without prejudice, parenting schedule.

The children are to reside primarily with the applicant father in Kemptville, with the respondent mother having alternate weekend and weekly Thursday parenting time, including time on Islamic holy days.

The court also addressed concerns about family violence and parental conduct, reserving costs and adjourning the motion for review upon the mother securing permanent housing.

The Applicant, Amanda Brandi Nicole Cameron, and the Respondent, William Craig Vincent, were in a common-law relationship and separated.

The primary outstanding issue was whether the Respondent was unjustly enriched to the detriment of the Applicant, specifically regarding his employment pension, under the doctrine of joint family venture.

The Applicant sought compensation via pension division or a monetary award.

The court found that the Respondent was unjustly enriched, concluding that a monetary award calculated on a "value surviving" basis was appropriate, but declined to order a specific division of the pension.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $104,125 as compensation for the unjust enrichment, to be disbursed from the proceeds of the jointly owned home.

This 8-day trial concerned parenting and child support for the parties' 5-year-old son.

Key issues included the parenting schedule, travel restrictions, relocation restrictions, holiday parenting time, decision-making authority, and imputation of income for child support.

The court ordered a shared 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule, prioritizing the applicant's work schedule.

The respondent was restricted from international travel with the child without the applicant's consent, and the applicant was granted possession of the child's passport.

Restrictions were also placed on future residential moves and school changes for both parties.

Decision-making for medical/health was made joint with the respondent having final say in case of disagreement, and for education was joint with the applicant having final say.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, finding her intentionally under-employed.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking the return of the parties’ child to Renfrew County, Ontario, or, alternatively, transfer of the child to her care in Virginia.

The child had been unilaterally relocated by the applicant father to New Brunswick to live with the paternal grandparents, in breach of a prior US court order and the Divorce Act's relocation provisions.

The court found the father and grandparents failed to comply with legal requirements and that it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the primary care of the mother in Virginia, despite the grandparents' arguments regarding stability and the child's purported preferences.

The appellant challenged a family law order requiring him to pay child support and spousal support, alleging unfair trial management, misapprehension of evidence, errors in law regarding support, unjust enrichment, joint family venture, child support, and credibility assessments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for the appellant's arguments, affirming the trial judge's comprehensive reasons, balanced trial management, and well-supported credibility assessments, particularly regarding the appellant's lack of credibility concerning his relationship and finances.

The court also upheld the discretionary lump sum spousal support award.

The parties brought temporary motions concerning child support, spousal support, sale of the matrimonial home and a motor vehicle, and financial disclosure.

The court ordered the respondent to provide extensive financial disclosure, finding his previous behaviour unreasonable.

It ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home with specific terms, including a $100,000 retention from the respondent's share for equalization.

The court rejected the respondent's request to impute income to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay $1,299 monthly child support and $4,000 monthly spousal support, with a portion of the spousal support being a third-party payment for housing expenses until the home's sale.

The respondent was also ordered to maintain life insurance to secure support.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the parties' 11-year-old child to her primary care and an order that the child attend school in-person.

The respondent father, who had temporarily assumed primary care at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence and an order for virtual schooling, citing his and his partner's diabetes as risk factors.

The court found that the father had engaged in self-help by refusing to return the child.

Applying recent jurisprudence on COVID-19 school attendance, the court held that the benefits of in-person schooling for the child, who has learning disabilities and an Individual Education Plan, outweighed the unquantified health risks to the father's household.

The mother's motion was granted.

This endorsement addresses costs following a complex family law trial involving corporate interests, income determination, child and spousal support, and property division.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $578,388.22, while the Respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $150,000 against the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant substantially, though not completely, successful on major issues.

The Respondent's conduct, particularly concealing the sale of a business, was deemed extremely unreasonable and prolonged litigation, ruling out any costs award in her favour.

No bad faith was found by either party.

Considering the Applicant's success, the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, the complexity of issues, and the parties' ability to pay, the court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $350,000 in costs.

The Respondent moved to vary a temporary spousal support order, seeking suspension of payments retroactive to December 1, 2018, and disclosure.

The Applicant opposed, seeking significant disclosure, access to the matrimonial home, and a non-dissipation order.

The court dismissed the non-dissipation order due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation.

The motion to vary spousal support was treated as a de novo hearing, as the original order was "without prejudice" due to an incomplete financial record.

The court found the Applicant still in need of support and the Respondent able to pay, but noted changes in the Respondent's income.

The spousal support was reduced from $1,500 to $1,000 per month, effective May 1, 2019, and remained on a without prejudice basis.

The Applicant's disclosure requests were addressed, and the Respondent was ordered to provide extensive financial disclosure.

The applicant, having been the more successful party in a ten-day family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, arrears, life insurance, and equalization, sought partial and full indemnity costs.

The respondent argued for divided success and sought costs based on her offers to settle.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party, noting the importance and difficulty of the custody issues.

While the applicant made no formal offers, both parties demonstrated reasonable behaviour in attempts to settle.

The court assessed the reasonableness of counsel's rates and the time spent, adjusting for prior cost awards and excessive hours claimed by the applicant.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the respondent to the applicant.

This trial addressed custody, parenting schedule, child support, and life insurance for the parties' child.

The court ordered joint custody, an equal residential schedule, and found shared custody for child support purposes, resulting in no ongoing table child support from June 1, 2017, due to equal incomes.

Arrears were calculated, and both parents were ordered to maintain life insurance for the child.

A divorce order was also issued.