J. Moldaver

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' 16-year-old son from an educational and therapeutic program in Utah, United States.

The urgency was predicated on the COVID-19 pandemic and the imminent closure of the Canada-US border.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to return to Canada immediately, given the health concerns and government recommendations for citizens abroad.

The court ordered the respondent mother to turn over the child's passport and required both parties to cooperate in facilitating the child's return, after which he would self-quarantine with the applicant for 14 days.

The applicant was successful on a motion regarding the residential schedule of the parties' daughter and sought costs of $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

While the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs due to his success and beating his offer to settle, the court found that both parties had engaged in blameworthy conduct that escalated the conflict contrary to the child's best interests.

Consequently, the court reduced the applicant's cost recovery and awarded him $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the mother brought a motion to continue a section 30 parenting assessment and to order reunification therapy for the parties and their youngest son.

The father brought a cross-motion to appoint a lawyer for the child or order a Voice of the Child Report.

The court found a history of order non-compliance by the father and determined that the child's estrangement from the mother required immediate intervention.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering reunification therapy to commence immediately alongside the section 30 assessment, and dismissed the father's motion, finding that further involving the child in the litigation was not in his best interests.

The wife sought costs of $48,221.92 following successful motions primarily regarding support, interim disbursements, and disclosure.

The husband opposed the amount but did not provide a comparative bill of costs.

The court found that the husband engaged in bad faith through a pattern of deceptive disclosure and non-disclosure regarding his financial circumstances.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the wife $35,000 in costs on a full recovery basis for the support issue, with $25,000 enforceable as a support order.

The applicant brought a motion for interim disbursements, a preservation order, and to lift a stay of enforcement of a temporary support order.

The court found that the respondent had been reticent in providing financial disclosure, necessitating the applicant to incur significant expert and legal fees to determine his true income.

To level the playing field, the court ordered the respondent to pay $60,000 as an interim disbursement under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to make a preservation order and ordered that the stay of enforcement remain in place, provided the interim disbursement is paid.