J.A.S. Wilcox

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of an Alberta custody and parenting order requiring the return of the parties’ child to Alberta and providing for shared parenting time.

The court considered s. 41 of the Children’s Law Reform Act governing recognition of extra‑provincial custody orders and whether the respondent had received reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in the Alberta proceeding.

The court found the respondent had not been given reasonable notice and therefore had no meaningful opportunity to participate.

The court also concluded that the Alberta order appeared to have been made without sufficient consideration of the child’s best interests and was therefore contrary to Ontario public policy.

The court refused recognition of the Alberta order and held that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine custody and access due to the child’s habitual residence in Ontario resulting from undue delay in enforcement proceedings.

Following a consent order resolving the father's motion to change child support and access, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $18,112.13, arguing the father delayed the resolution by failing to provide necessary financial disclosure.

The father sought costs of $12,500, noting he was successful in having his child support reduced for three years following a workplace accident.

The court found that the father's failure to provide timely financial disclosure unnecessarily delayed the proceedings.

The father was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the mother.

The applicant brought a motion during a family law trial to exclude the respondent's expert evidence regarding domestic violence.

The applicant argued the report was served late, was not relevant to the jurisdictional issue, and was unreliable.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and found the evidence relevant to the overriding consideration of the child's best interests and the potential for serious harm.

The court held that the late service was not fatal under the Family Law Rules and that reliability concerns should be addressed through cross-examination.

The motion was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's appeal of a trial decision, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent opposed full indemnity costs, citing limited financial means.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $11,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court determined costs following dismissal of a motion seeking removal of plaintiffs’ counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the plaintiffs as the successful parties.

Although the motion raised a potentially significant issue regarding counsel’s role, the court found delay in bringing the motion and concerns suggesting it may have been brought for tactical reasons.

The amount sought by the plaintiffs was considered excessive for the scope and complexity of the motion.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount payable by the defendant.