Julie J. Gravelle

The parties in a family law matter submitted costs submissions several months after the extended deadline ordered by the court, without providing any explanation for the delay.

The judge, who was in his final sitting week before retirement and had already disposed of his notes, refused to consider the late submissions.

The judge directed counsel to take the matter up with the Local Administrative Judge for Family or the Regional Senior Judge if they wished to pursue it further.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion for an order allowing her to relocate to Montreal with the parties' two children.

Prior to the motion being heard, the mother unilaterally moved to Montreal with the children without the respondent father's consent.

The court applied the principles for interim mobility and found that the mother had not met her burden of showing that the move was in the children's best interests at this stage.

The court noted conflicting evidence regarding the father's conduct and the children's well-being, concluding that a full trial was necessary to resolve the issues.

The motion was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to return the children to Ottawa pending trial.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and modifications to the parenting plan.

The parties settled most issues but left the determination of child support for 2015-2016 and costs to the court.

The applicant had taken a five-month unpaid leave of absence in 2015 to care for her ill father and husband, resulting in a significant drop in her income.

The court applied the Drygala test and found the applicant was intentionally under-employed, as her leave was not due to her own health or the needs of a dependent child.

The court imputed an income of $85,000 to the applicant and calculated the set-off child support amount, resulting in $72 in arrears owed by the respondent.

The court also awarded $4,500 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct and disproportionate litigation approach.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the Applicant wife for financial disclosure, interim spousal, and child support.

While many issues were resolved by consent on the motion day, the court made interim orders for spousal and child support and ordered further disclosure.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the Respondent's late financial disclosure.

The Respondent sought full costs, arguing his offers to settle were comparable to the outcome.

The court found mixed success on disclosure, acknowledging the Applicant's reasonable pursuit, but noted the Respondent's support offers were close to the ordered amounts.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent fixed costs of $9,215.83, inclusive of HST, considering the offers to settle and the timing of concessions.

The moving party sought an order permitting her to obtain a passport for the parties’ young child and to travel with the child to Algeria without the other parent’s consent.

The responding parent opposed the travel request due to security concerns arising from Canadian travel advisories and the fact that Algeria is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The court balanced the benefits of the child maintaining contact with extended family against the risks associated with travel and the possibility of non‑return.

The court concluded that the risks outweighed the benefits for the proposed trip.

The passport request was granted, but the request to travel with the child to Algeria was denied.

Décision portant uniquement sur les dépens après une motion en droit de la famille concernant l'horaire parental, les vacances estivales et les activités sportives des enfants.

La Cour a appliqué les règles 24(1), 24(11) et 18(14) des Règles en matière de droit de la famille, concluant que le succès était partagé mais que l'intimé avait obtenu davantage de succès.

La Cour a aussi tenu compte du caractère tardif de l'offre de règlement de l'intimé et de la capacité de payer de la requérante.

Des dépens de 500 $ ont été accordés à l'intimé.

On a family law motion to change, the court varied an earlier parenting and child support order after one child began residing full-time with the father and the parties experienced ongoing conflict over scheduling and special expenses.

The court endorsed consent terms on several issues, adjusted long-weekend exchanges and summer parenting time based on the children’s best interests, and replaced the prior section 7 expense-sharing mechanism with a simpler equal-contribution regime.

Claims for historical arrears of special or extraordinary expenses and for reimbursement of an alleged overpayment were rejected because the evidentiary record did not establish prior consent or entitlement.

Following a motion regarding parenting time for an infant child, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party father had sought a rapid progression to a 50/50 access schedule, while the responding mother sought a gradual increase in parenting time.

The court found the mother was largely successful on the motion because the ordered access schedule closely resembled her proposal.

Considering the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the matter, and proportionality, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful party.

Following a seven‑day family law trial concerning custody, relocation, child support, and access, both parties sought full recovery costs.

The court found that success at trial was clearly divided: the applicant obtained sole custody, income imputation, and child support, but failed on her late‑raised request to relocate the child to Nova Scotia, while the respondent succeeded in maintaining the child’s residence in Ontario and obtaining a graduated access regime but failed on other financial and custody claims.

The court also found litigation misconduct by the respondent, including failure to pay child support despite sufficient income and inadequate financial disclosure.

However, the applicant’s late and inadequately supported mobility claim was central to the trial and undermined her entitlement to costs.

Balancing the divided success and litigation conduct, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2006 order to seek sole custody of his two sons, alleging severe parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion for joint custody and a new psychological evaluation.

The court accepted the psychological evaluation finding severe parental alienation by the mother, who had fostered an unhealthy dependence and involved the children in the litigation.

To repair the father-son relationship, the court awarded the father temporary sole custody with a period of no contact for the mother, followed by supervised access, and eventually transitioning to a shared week-about joint custody arrangement.

The mother's requests for a new evaluation and appointment of children's counsel were dismissed.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, permission to relocate to Nova Scotia with the parties' two-year-old child, and child support.

The respondent father sought joint custody, opposed the relocation, requested increased access, and claimed undue hardship regarding child support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding a lack of cooperation and trust between the parents.

The relocation request was denied as the mother's plan was hastily formed and lacked concrete employment prospects, while the child's relationship with the father needed to be facilitated in Ottawa.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the father, imputed income to him for child support purposes, and dismissed his claim for undue hardship.

Following a motion to vary a prior family law order, the responding party sought costs after partially succeeding in terminating child support but failing to vary spousal support.

The opposing party argued that no costs should be awarded because the offer to settle was not clearly bettered.

The court held that the written offer to settle should have been taken seriously and that it was better than the ultimate order with respect to the child support issue.

Although success was mixed, the court exercised its discretion to award modest costs.

Costs were fixed at $1,000.

The moving party father brought a motion to vary a 2006 order to terminate his child and spousal support obligations following his job loss.

The court found that the 23-year-old daughter was no longer a child of the marriage as she was independent and had withdrawn from parental care, terminating child support.

However, the court dismissed the motion to vary spousal support as premature, noting the father's severance package and the lack of financial disclosure from both parties, requiring a better evidentiary record.

The applicant father was successful in an emergency motion regarding the parties' son's residence after the respondent mother unilaterally withheld the child.

The applicant sought $9,000 in costs on a full recovery basis.

The respondent argued she was unable to pay due to being on Ontario Works and having a medical condition.

The court awarded nominal costs of $150 to the applicant, considering the respondent's financial circumstances and the ongoing changes to the child's residence.