Joanne Lagoudis

The court fixes costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time and counseling for the parties' child, D.C. The Applicant (father) was successful in most of his requested relief, and the Respondent (mother) was found to have acted in bad faith by withholding information, flouting court orders, and seeking to reduce the Applicant's parenting time.

The court orders the Respondent to pay $30,000 in costs to the Applicant, to be paid within twelve months, and rejects arguments for reduction based on the Respondent's financial or personal circumstances.

The applicant, Jose Silva, sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a house formerly co-owned by his late son and daughter-in-law, now solely owned by the respondent, Filipa Andreia Valadao.

Silva claimed an interest in the property based on funds he contributed, variously described as a loan, trust, or entitlement to sale proceeds.

The court found that while Silva raised a triable issue regarding a possible resulting trust, the claim was weak, inconsistent, and could be satisfied by damages rather than an interest in land.

The court also found the CPL was sought for improper purposes, including malice toward the respondent.

The motion for a CPL was dismissed.

The decision addresses a motion by A.C. to enforce a prior order regarding parenting time and family systems therapy for the parties' child, D.C., following a history of domestic violence and high-conflict litigation.

The court finds that the respondent, K.C., has failed to comply with orders regarding both parenting time and therapy, and has unilaterally enrolled D.C. in individual counselling contrary to the court's direction for family systems therapy.

The court orders the resumption of parenting time, directs the parties to engage in family systems therapy, and retains jurisdiction to supervise compliance.

This motion addressed whether a final order concerning child parenting and jurisdiction should be set aside due to lack of notice to the paternal grandmother, who had de facto care and control of the child in India.

The court set aside the parenting-related provisions of the final order, finding that the paternal grandmother, as a person with care and control, should have been named as a party and received notice.

However, the court affirmed Ontario's jurisdiction over the parenting dispute, determining the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario at the commencement of the original application and that Ontario was the more appropriate forum under the "balance of convenience" test, despite the child residing in India.

The parties separated after a six-year marriage characterized by the applicant father's coercive control and family violence.

The father sought equal parenting time and sole decision-making for education and healthcare, while the respondent mother sought primary parenting time, joint decision-making, and spousal support.

The court found that the father's history of violence significantly impacted the mother and child, causing severe anxiety.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making authority and primary parenting time, with the father receiving alternating weekends and conditional summer time.

The father was also ordered to pay full Table child support and spousal support at the high end of the range due to the economic consequences of his abusive conduct.

The Applicants, maternal grandparents, brought a motion for security for costs of $30,000 against the added party, Deesho Kaur Bains, the paternal grandmother.

Deesho was seeking to set aside a final consent order that required the child, Sareen, to be returned to Ontario from India, and to assert that India was the proper jurisdiction.

The child had been residing in India with Deesho for nearly four years after her father took her there without notice.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, emphasizing that in family litigation, the best interests of the child are paramount, and security for costs should only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

The court found Deesho's participation necessary and relevant to the child's best interests.

The Applicant Father brought a motion for contempt against the Mother for failing to comply with a previous order regarding their child's school enrollment and attendance, and the Father's parenting time.

The court found that the Mother breached the orders by intentionally delaying school enrollment, using illness as an improper means to prevent school attendance, and withholding parenting time.

Despite finding breaches, the court exercised its discretion not to make a formal finding of contempt, emphasizing that such findings are a last resort in family law.

However, the court imposed new, specific orders to ensure the child's school attendance and the Father's parenting time, and ordered the Mother to pay costs to the Father due to her unreasonable behaviour.

The applicants (grandchildren) sought occupation rent and damages from the respondent (son) for his exclusive occupation of a co-owned home and for property damage/removed items following the death of their grandparents.

The parties had previously settled the ownership and possession issues.

The court found the respondent unjustly enriched by his exclusive occupation and awarded occupation rent for a 15-month period, along with damages for specific property damage (hardwood floor) and improperly removed fixtures (chandeliers).

Other damage claims related to the general condition of the home were denied, as they were deemed to have been factored into the property's valuation during the buy-out.

The court also addressed the admissibility of expert evidence regarding market rent.

The Applicants sought costs after the Respondent failed to comply with prior court orders to vacate and transfer his interest in a jointly owned property.

The parties resolved the underlying motion for consequential relief, but the issue of costs remained.

The court found the Applicants were entitled to costs due to the Respondent's non-compliance, rejecting the argument that counsel's withdrawal absolved him of his obligations.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 to the Applicants, noting the motion was simple and virtually guaranteed of success, warranting a reduction from the amount sought.

The applicants sought an order enforcing Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties on January 13, 2020.

The respondent's counsel had withdrawn from the file.

Due to the urgency of the matter and the suspension of regular court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court ordered immediate compliance with the Minutes of Settlement and directed the respondent to provide contact information for his real estate legal representative and file a Notice of Intention to Act in Person.

This costs endorsement followed a three-day trial in a family law matter.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent husband and his mother.

The court found the applicant largely successful on the major trial issues of equalization of property and spousal support.

The respondent husband was found to have engaged in unreasonable conduct, particularly regarding property disclosure and trial presentation, which necessitated extensive litigation.

The respondent mother's claim for costs against the applicant was dismissed, as her involvement stemmed from the respondent husband's lack of clarity.

The applicant was awarded partial recovery costs against the respondent husband.

The parties separated after a 15-year arranged marriage.

The applicant sought equalization, retroactive child support, and spousal support.

The respondent claimed a large deduction for a promissory note to his father regarding the purchase of the matrimonial home, and argued he had a resulting trust interest in his mother's half of the home.

The court rejected the promissory note as unproven, drew an adverse inference from the respondent's failure to call his father, and found no resulting trust.

The court awarded the applicant an equalization payment of $181,909.96, retroactive child support of $11,352, and compensatory spousal support of $3,200 per month for 13 years, but denied retroactive spousal support.