Jane Mukongolo

Temporary motion regarding relocation of two children (ages 5 and 2) from Belleville back to Toronto.

The mother relocated to Belleville with the children following a domestic incident that resulted in the father's arrest on assault charges.

The father sought return of the children to their habitual residence in Toronto, police enforcement, and costs.

The mother opposed the return and sought primary residence and sole decision-making.

The court found both parties bore the onus of proving whether relocation was in the children's best interests under s. 39.4(7) of the CLRA, and the mother failed to meet her burden.

The court ordered the children returned to Toronto, granted primary residence to the mother on a temporary basis, and dismissed the requests for sole decision-making, police enforcement, and costs.

This endorsement addresses the school placement of a child, M.T., and associated costs, following a prior court order.

Despite a directive to obtain a Voice of the Child Report, both parties failed to do so proactively.

The court deemed inadmissible additional evidence submitted by both parties that went beyond the scope of the requested information.

Relying primarily on M.T.'s Report Card, the court found credible the applicant's concerns regarding the child's social integration, academic challenges in mathematics, and the detrimental impact of a lengthy daily commute.

Consequently, the court determined it was in M.T.'s best interests to return to her former school, Ingleborough Public School.

On the issue of costs, the court found mixed success for the applicant, noting her incomplete evidentiary foundation and limited proactivity, and fixed costs at $8,000, payable partially immediately and the remainder from the respondent's share of matrimonial home proceeds.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking orders for their daughter, M.T., to return to her former school, Ingleborough Public School, and for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed both requests, preferring M.T. to remain at Havergal College and seeking more time to buy out the Applicant's share of the home.

The court deferred a final decision on M.T.'s schooling, ordering a Voice of the Child Report to ascertain her wishes, and temporarily directed M.T. to continue at Havergal.

Regarding the matrimonial home, the court ordered its sale, finding the Respondent's delay unjustified, and set out a detailed process for cooperation, including selecting a real estate agent and developing future housing plans, with a portion of sale proceeds to be held in trust pending equalization.

Costs were reserved for the schooling issue and not awarded for the home sale due to divided success.

The moving party father sought to set aside a final order made at an undefended trial pursuant to Family Law Rule 25(19)(e).

The underlying order granted the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility, child support based on imputed income, and an equalization payment.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment.

The court found the father's delay in bringing the motion concerning, his explanation for default implausible, and that he failed to raise an arguable defence on the merits regarding equalization or imputed income.

The motion was dismissed, though the father was granted leave to file an Answer solely regarding parenting time.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's claims for divorce and custody on jurisdictional grounds, and for the return of the children to Dubai.

The mother had fled Dubai with the children, alleging domestic violence, and claimed refugee status in Canada.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction under the Divorce Act because neither party had been ordinarily resident in Ontario for one year prior to the application.

However, the court assumed jurisdiction over custody and access under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding the children were habitually resident in Ontario due to the father's delay and acquiescence, and alternatively, that the children had a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

This is a costs decision following a three-day trial in a motion to change a custody and access order.

The mother sought to relocate with the five-year-old child to Mongolia.

The mother was successful at trial and claimed costs on a full recovery basis of $54,575.20.

The father opposed the costs claim, arguing either no costs should be awarded or costs should be fixed at an amount within reach of either party.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding she was the successful party and that the father's conduct, particularly his unreasonable claim for joint custody and related child support reduction claims, warranted a costs award.

The court fixed costs at $25,000 all-in (fees plus HST and disbursements plus HST), enforceable as support.

This is a costs decision in a family law matter involving a mother's claims for child support and a father's claim for spousal support, as well as a motion to strike the father's answer and for final unopposed orders.

The mother was successful on all motions.

The court awarded costs on a substantial recovery basis, finding the father's conduct throughout the litigation was unreasonable, including his refusal to leave the matrimonial home, his failure to comply with court orders and disclosure requirements, his unreasonable positions on support, and his failure to pay previous costs orders.

The court rejected the father's argument that his inability to pay should shield him from liability for costs, particularly given his unreasonable conduct.

The mother sought to relocate with the five-year-old child to Mongolia.

The father opposed the relocation and sought joint custody and increased access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and permitted the mother to relocate, finding that the move was in the child's best interests despite the reduction in contact with the father.

The court rejected the father's claim for joint custody, finding insufficient history of cooperation between the parents.

Child support was adjusted retroactively based on the father's actual income since the original order.

A costs decision concerning counsel's conduct in a family law matter involving custody and child support claims.

The respondent's counsel repeatedly failed to attend court appearances despite being counsel of record, ignored court directions to explain her conduct, and failed to properly withdraw from the file.

The court found this conduct caused unnecessary costs to both the applicant and the respondent, and ordered the counsel to pay personal costs to both parties and to refrain from charging fees or disbursements for work on the case.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion for custody and access in a high-conflict family law matter involving a child with significant special needs and medical requirements.

The applicant mother sought custody and access, while the respondent father made competing claims for sole custody and supervised access for the mother.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother and restricted the father's access.

The mother was successful on the motion and sought costs of $14,203.20.

The father argued the amount was excessive and claimed inability to pay.

The court found the father's conduct was unreasonable throughout the litigation, including his refusal to vacate the home despite repeated requests, his assault of the mother, his refusal to engage with settlement negotiations, and his failure to present adequate evidence for his claims.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a substantial recovery basis.