Jeffrey Hart

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a high-conflict family law trial between Egle Maria Paglialonga and Jairo Umana Arias.

The court found the mother’s conduct in refusing parenting time to the father to be unreasonable and awarded the father $43,505 in costs, reflecting a near full recovery for trial costs and a partial recovery for pretrial conduct.

The decision discusses the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in costs awards, the importance of proper Bill of Costs documentation, and the risks of including privileged information.

A costs decision following urgent motions regarding custody and access to a 12-year-old child.

The mother sought an order for the child's immediate return to her care after the father unilaterally withheld the child during summer vacation.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking custody and primary residence.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering the child's return to her care and awarding her sole custody with restricted access to the father.

The costs decision addresses whether the mother should recover her legal costs or whether the father's conduct warrants a costs award in his favour.

A family law trial concerning access and child support for a child born in 2004.

The applicant father sought expanded access on a week-about basis or 50% shared parenting, and sought to change or set aside a temporary child support order with arrears of approximately $70,000.

The respondent mother sought to maintain the existing access arrangement (alternate Sundays during the day only at a supervised access centre) and sought enforcement of the child support order with all arrears due forthwith.

The trial was complicated by the father's multiple criminal convictions for fraud, his repeated incarcerations, and his lack of remorse.

The court found the father was not a credible witness and preferred the mother's evidence.

The court expanded access to include Saturday overnight visits on alternating weekends at the paternal grandparents' home, imputed income to the father at $75,000 based on his access to a family trust, set ongoing child support at $782 per month, and fixed arrears at $53,740.

A child protection disposition hearing following a finding that three children were in need of protection due to emotional harm resulting from parental neglect and exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse.

The mother had exposed the children to crack cocaine use, domestic violence with an abusive boyfriend, serious school absences, and neglect of medical and dental needs.

The father sought custody.

The court granted final custody to the father under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that the children were thriving in his care and that the mother lacked insight into the harm caused and continued to pose risks through poor judgment and manipulation during access visits.

The court ordered supervised access initially, transitioning to unsupervised weekend and holiday access.

Following separation and divorce proceedings, the court adjudicated unresolved issues concerning equalization-related debt, reimbursement of post‑separation house expenses, damage to matrimonial property, and entitlement to spousal support.

The applicant alleged a loan from her father that should be recognized as a debt on the valuation date, sought reimbursement of mortgage and tax payments made after separation, and claimed long‑term spousal support based on alleged disability.

The court accepted evidence that a bona fide loan of $77,902 existed at separation but rejected the claim for reimbursement of house expenses.

It found the respondent responsible for damage to a kitchen countertop occurring after separation.

The court determined the medical evidence did not establish ongoing disability and ordered time‑limited spousal support only to facilitate transition to self‑sufficiency.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for final sole custody of the child of the relationship.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that custody requires a trial with witnesses and up-to-date evidence.

The court found that the respondent had been the primary caregiver since the parties' separation in 2006, that the child was thriving in her care, and that the applicant and respondent were unable to communicate effectively regarding parenting matters.

The court granted sole custody to the respondent and dismissed the applicant's motion for expanded access pending trial.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary supervision order for a child with high-functioning autism who remained in the care of his mother pending a full protection hearing.

The society alleged the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm based on reports of inappropriate physical discipline, the mother's aggressive and confrontational behaviour toward service providers, her refusal to cooperate with the society, and her lack of understanding of the child's special needs.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk and granted a temporary supervision order with specific terms and conditions, including prohibitions on physical discipline and requirements that the mother sign consents for information sharing with service providers.

The paternal grandmother sought to be added as a party to child protection proceedings brought by the Children's Aid Society.

The mother and stepfather opposed the motion.

The court applied the test from Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. S.H., S.W. and D.R. and granted the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party served the child's best interests, would not unduly delay proceedings, was necessary to determine the issues, and that the grandmother was capable of putting forward a viable plan.

The grandmother was granted leave to file her answer and plan of care and to bring a motion for access.