Joelle Ruskin

This costs endorsement addresses the outcome of a motion in a family law matter.

The court orders the Applicant mother to pay full recovery costs to the Respondent father, citing the Applicant's bad faith conduct, including a history of litigation intransigence, violation of court orders, and vexatious proceedings.

The court finds the costs award fair and proportionate in the circumstances.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order to prevent the applicant mother from taking further steps or commencing new proceedings without leave of the court and payment of outstanding costs, citing a long history of vexatious litigation and non-compliance with court orders.

The court granted the father's motion, finding the mother's conduct to be persistently vexatious and an abuse of process, justifying the extraordinary order under the Family Law Rules and the principles of the Courts of Justice Act.

This decision addresses cross-motions concerning parenting time and decision-making for an 11-year-old child.

The father sought a temporary suspension of the mother's in-person contact due to her persistent non-compliance with court orders, repeated false allegations of abuse against the father, and demonstrated parental alienation tactics.

The mother, in turn, sought immediate full custody and suspension of the father's contact.

The court dismissed the mother's motion in its entirety, finding her allegations unfounded and her conduct harmful to the child.

The father's motion was largely granted, resulting in a temporary three-month suspension of the mother's in-person parenting time, with supervised phone calls, to protect the child's best interests and encourage the mother to seek necessary help.

Following a 10-day trial on parenting issues where the respondent father was entirely successful, he sought partial indemnity costs of $350,000 plus half the costs of a section 30 assessment.

The court found that the applicant mother's conduct throughout the litigation was deplorable and unreasonable, driven by false allegations of abuse and alienating behaviours, though it fell just short of bad faith.

The court awarded the respondent his requested costs of $389,346.18, noting the amount was fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity of the issues and the applicant's conduct.

The father brought a motion to enforce and vary a final parenting order after the mother repeatedly withheld the child in breach of the order.

The court found that the mother's actions placed the child at risk by disrupting the structured predictability he needed.

The court ordered the appointment of a therapeutic parenting counsellor, reduced the mother's parenting time, and included police enforcement provisions to ensure compliance with the parenting schedule.

The applicant mother sought joint custody, parallel decision-making, and equal parenting time of the parties' 10-year-old child.

The respondent father sought sole custody and decision-making responsibility, with the child spending 5 out of 14 days with the mother, along with therapeutic interventions.

The court found that the mother engaged in egregious post-separation conduct, including making unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father, which caused emotional harm to the child and raised significant concerns of parental alienation.

Relying on expert assessments, the court concluded that the mother was unable to co-parent and that her hostility towards the father remained unresolved.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, limited the mother's parenting time to 5 out of 14 days, and ordered therapeutic supervision for the mother.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' four children attend school for in-person learning and that parenting transitions take place at the school.

The respondent father, a medical doctor, opposed in-person learning due to COVID-19 risks and the children's alleged history of respiratory issues.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found no compelling medical evidence that the children were at increased risk and concluded that the benefits of in-person learning, including structure and peer interaction, outweighed the risks.

The court ordered the children to attend school in-person and requested further submissions on the issue of parenting transitions.

The applicant sought sole custody of the child and permission to relocate with the child from Toronto to New Ross, Nova Scotia.

The respondent sought joint custody and opposed the relocation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding her to be the primary caregiver and psychological parent, and permitted the relocation, noting the applicant's strong support system in New Ross and the child's established connection to the area.

The court also ordered child support based on the respondent's income and addressed section 7 expenses, while spousal support was waived by the applicant upon relocation being granted.