Jared Teitel

The court rendered a decision on costs following a motion to change child support.

The respondent had brought the motion to vary child support, and was largely successful.

The applicant had refused to pay child support for children in the respondent's care and continued to collect support from the respondent, despite the children no longer living with her.

Both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour during the litigation, including uncooperative settlement efforts.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and was entitled to partial recovery costs.

The court considered the proportionality of the costs claimed and the applicant's financial circumstances, reducing the awarded amount.

The court declined to enforce the costs award as support due to the respondent's past failure to pay costs on a timely basis.

The Applicant, M.M.B., and Respondent, C.M.V., were involved in a motion to change child support and address parenting issues for their three children.

The Respondent sought a reduction in child support payments and repayment of overpaid support due to a change in the children's primary residence to his care.

The Applicant, self-represented, argued against the change, citing the Respondent's alleged bad faith conduct and her financial hardship.

The court found a material change in circumstances, determined that parental conduct was irrelevant to child support obligations, and ordered the Applicant to pay significant retroactive child support and ongoing monthly support to the Respondent, as the children were primarily residing with him.

The court also clarified s. 7 expenses and set a review date for future child support.

This decision concerns costs arising from the Applicant/Father's successful motion for contempt against the Respondent/Mother for breaching a final parenting order.

The Mother was found in contempt in 2021, and penalties, including expanded parenting time for the Father, were ordered in 2024.

The Father sought $28,701 in costs, while the Mother sought $38,137.

The court awarded the Father $20,000 in costs, finding him to be the more successful party overall, despite his offer to settle being more favourable than the final order.

The court declined to set off the costs against child support obligations.

The applicant father sought a reversal of primary parenting time as a penalty after the respondent mother was found in contempt for breaching a final parenting order by denying overnight parenting time.

The court found that the mother had not purged her contempt, as she failed to offer make-up time and continued to obstruct the father's parenting role.

However, the court declined to order a reversal of primary parenting time, finding it would not be in the child's best interests given her strong attachment to the mother and the potential for emotional harm.

Instead, the court ordered five weekends of make-up parenting time, expanded summer parenting time for the father, and directed the parties to use a parenting coordinator and communication app to minimize conflict.

The appellant, Rosetta Commisso, appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing her claims against her former mother-in-law, Evangelia Karatzoglou.

Commisso alleged that Evangelia held two properties in trust for her former spouse, Philip Karatzoglou, which should be included in his net family property for equalization purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that there was no evidence of beneficial ownership by Philip in either property (Rainbow Valley or Bullock Drive) and that Commisso lacked standing to advance a trust claim on behalf of her former spouse for equalization purposes.

The court also found summary judgment appropriate in this family law context.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the moving party's motion for security for costs of an appeal.

The appellant, Rosetta Commisso, was found to be impecunious and there was good reason to believe her appeal, challenging factual findings of a summary judgment dismissing her trust claims against her former mother-in-law, was frivolous and vexatious.

The court applied the two-part test under Rule 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 38(26) of the Family Law Rules, emphasizing the holistic consideration of justice.

The appeal was deemed to lack merit as it primarily challenged factual findings rather than errors of law, and partial summary judgment was found appropriate.

This is a costs decision following a successful summary judgment motion by Evangelia Karatzoglou ("Lisa") against Rosetta Commisso ("Rosa").

Lisa sought over $40,000 in costs, while Philip Karatzoglou ("Phil"), the applicant in the main action, sought over $18,000 in costs related to Rosa's claims against Lisa.

Rosa, who is impecunious, argued for no costs and that the amounts sought were excessive.

The court applied the Family Law Rules regarding costs, including the presumption of costs for the successful party and the impact of Rule 18 offers to settle.

The court balanced the factors, including the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and Rosa's financial predicament.

The second respondent, Lisa, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the claims made against her by the first respondent, Rosa.

Rosa claimed that her former spouse, Phil, held a beneficial interest in two properties owned by Lisa, and alternatively claimed unjust enrichment.

The court found that Rosa lacked standing to advance a trust claim on behalf of her former spouse.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of a sham trust or unjust enrichment.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and Rosa's claims against Lisa were dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim order to remove the requirement that he facilitate daily Facetime calls between the respondent mother and the child during his extended holiday parenting time.

The mother opposed the motion and sought additional relief, including make-up parenting time.

The court found that while the mother's previous contempt constituted a material change in circumstances, the father failed to demonstrate that eliminating the calls was in the child's best interests.

Both the father's motion and the mother's requests for additional relief were dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion to reinstate his pleadings, which had been struck due to his willful and egregious failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court considered the factors for setting aside a default judgment under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Noting that the respondent had retained new counsel and made efforts to provide disclosure, the court emphasized the importance of having a complete evidentiary record to make accurate decisions regarding ongoing financial obligations.

The court reinstated the respondent's pleadings and ordered the parties to attend a settlement conference.

The respondent, Ardian Fishka, brought a motion to dismiss two family law appeals initiated by the appellant, Melissa Bell, arguing they were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the extensive litigation history, noting the appellant's repeated re-litigation of decided issues, abusive conduct, and deliberate non-compliance with court orders, including orders for security for costs and previous cost awards.

The court found the appeals clearly met the criteria for dismissal under Rule 2.1, emphasizing the need for finality in litigation and preventing the abuse of court resources.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt for repeatedly breaching a final order regarding his overnight parenting time.

The court found that the mother intentionally breached clear and unequivocal terms of the order on multiple occasions, often requiring the father to resort to police enforcement.

Given the mother's pattern of disregarding court orders and resorting to self-help measures, the court declined to exercise its discretion against a contempt finding, concluding it was in the child's best interests.

The mother was found in contempt, and the matter was adjourned for a penalty hearing.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the court held a focused trial to determine parenting and child support issues for three children.

The court considered whether to release the two younger children from a court-ordered parenting schedule based on their views and preferences.

The court released the 16-year-old child from the schedule effective August 2022 but declined to release the 14-year-old child.

The applicant mother was granted sole decision-making authority.

The court also calculated child support and section 7 expense arrears, ordering the respondent father to pay outstanding amounts.

Ongoing child support was reduced to $1,850 per month to reflect the shared parenting arrangement and the eldest child attending university.

The father sought costs of $11,000 on a full recovery basis following a successful motion where the mother was ordered to post security for costs.

The mother, who was self-represented, argued she was impecunious and sought to pause or minimize costs.

The court found the mother engaged in unreasonable, excessive, and abusive litigation conduct, but stopped short of finding bad faith.

The court fixed costs at $7,000.

The court declined to order the costs enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office or set off against child support, instead ordering that failure to pay would allow the father to bring a motion to dismiss her appeal.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding decision-making and parenting time for their seven-year-old daughter.

The father sought sole decision-making and the continuation of a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole decision-making, a reduction in the father's parenting time, and a change to the child's surname.

The court found that neither parent should have sole decision-making due to the risk of marginalizing the other, and instead ordered a parallel parenting regime with divided domains of authority.

The court maintained the 2/2/3 schedule to provide stability and dismissed the mother's request to change the child's surname.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to declare the appellant mother a vexatious litigant, dismiss her appeal, or alternatively, order her to post security for costs.

The mother was appealing a final order regarding child support and had a history of filing voluminous materials and failing to pay past costs orders.

The court declined to declare her a vexatious litigant, noting that such an order should be considered by the Ontario Court of Justice where the dispute originated.

However, finding good reason to believe the appeal was a waste of time and an abuse of process, the court ordered the mother to post $24,436.63 as security for costs before proceeding with the appeal.

Following a three-week family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility, both parties sought costs exceeding $200,000.

The court found that the parties achieved equal success at trial and that both had engaged in unreasonable behaviour that unnecessarily protracted the litigation.

Considering the parties' limited financial means and the best interests of the child, the court ordered that no costs be payable by either party.

The applicant father sought joint decision-making and expanded parenting time, including overnights, for his four-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time, raising concerns about the father's alcohol use and unverified allegations of abuse.

The court awarded sole decision-making to the mother due to the parents' high conflict and poor communication.

The court granted the father expanded parenting time, including overnights and summer access, finding it in the child's best interests to have a meaningful relationship with him.

However, the father was ordered to complete an alcohol abuse program and use a breathalyzer device before and during his parenting time until completion.

The Applicant Father sought to exclude private investigator surveillance evidence obtained by the Respondent Mother, arguing she failed to provide complete disclosure of the investigators' files despite multiple court orders.

The Mother sought leave to admit the evidence under Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the Mother's failure to disclose the complete file prejudiced the Father's ability to assess the evidence and prepare for trial.

Given the highly prejudicial nature of the videos, the lack of full disclosure, and the inability to cross-examine the investigators, the court excluded the surveillance evidence in its entirety, including for the purpose of impeachment.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support for the parties' 11-year-old son, seeking to impute income to the father in excess of $100,000 and requesting retroactive support dating back to 2013.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the mother's allegations of hidden income and lifestyle-based imputing were unfounded.

The father's income was determined based on his Line 150 tax returns with a modest addition from a personal injury settlement received in 2017.

The court dismissed the mother's disclosure motion and found that no additional disclosure was required.

The court also imposed restrictions on the mother's future access to the court due to her abusive litigation conduct and disproportionate claims.