Karen Dosanjh

This decision addresses complex parenting issues including choice of dentist and school, holiday parenting time, travel consent, attendance at extracurricular activities, contempt allegations, and child support with s.7 expenses.

The court emphasizes the best interests of the child, Charlotte, born 2019, and resolves disputes over dental care by appointing Dr. Kevin Dann, and school attendance by ordering Charlotte to attend the local public school rather than private school due to insufficient evidence of need and financial concerns.

The court declines to find the mother in contempt for a missed parenting time weekend but orders make-up time.

Regarding child support, the court imputes income to the father based on expert valuations, finds significant arrears, and orders proportionate sharing of special expenses including capoeira classes and dental costs.

This is a case management ruling in a high-conflict family law matter involving parenting, equalization, and support.

The court addressed the parties' failure to comply with filing directions for a combined Settlement/Trial Scheduling Conference, including lack of settlement conference documents, expert reports, and financial statements.

The ruling sets out strict timelines and directions for future steps, including motions regarding parenting time and expert appointment, OCL involvement, and preparation for a peremptory trial in May 2023, emphasizing the need to avoid further delay in the child's best interests.

The father brought a motion seeking a 2/2/3 interim parenting schedule, while the mother brought a cross-motion for child support, sale of the matrimonial home, and sole decision-making.

The court dismissed the mother's motion as the issues had not been conferenced and lacked urgency.

The court denied the father's request for a 2/2/3 schedule, finding that his unpredictable work schedule and reliance on extended family did not support it.

The court ordered a parenting schedule that maintained the pre-separation status quo, with the children residing primarily with the mother and the father having alternate weekends and Wednesday evenings.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support and interim disbursements following the breakdown of a 23-year traditional marriage.

The court imputed an income of $0 to the applicant and determined the respondent's income for support purposes to be over $2 million, adding back personal expenses paid by his corporations (including significant auto racing expenses for their son) and a portion of pre-tax corporate income.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $45,000 per month and a further interim disbursement of $100,000 to allow the applicant to fund her litigation and expert fees.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2007 child support order, seeking to terminate support for his 30-year-old intellectually disabled son and rescind all arrears.

The applicant opposed, seeking ongoing support and fixed arrears.

The court found the son was unable to withdraw from parental charge due to disability, entitling him to ongoing support under the amended Family Law Act.

The court determined the son's monthly needs, ordering the parents to contribute equally.

Arrears were significantly reduced due to Family Responsibility Office (FRO) inaccuracies and the applicant's delay in seeking Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, but not fully rescinded.

This endorsement addresses costs following a 10-day trial to change a 2015 final order concerning parenting and child support.

Both the applicant father and respondent mother sought costs, each claiming to be the successful party.

The court found mixed success, noting that while the mother had more individual issue wins, the father succeeded on more substantive issues, including maintaining three weekends of access per month and the imputation of his income at $30,000.00.

The court also found both parties had behaved unreasonably and in bad faith over the years, contributing to ongoing conflict.

Considering the father's more favourable Offer to Settle and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the father reduced costs.

The parties, parents of two children, sought to vary a 2015 final order regarding custody, access, and child support due to ongoing high conflict and differing interpretations of the order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to worsening conflict and non-compliance.

The decision addressed communication, telephone calls, decision-making, access to information, regular access schedules, summer vacation, Christmas, Mother's/Father's Day, March Break, Thanksgiving, driving for access, police enforcement, child support (imputing income to the father), and Section 7 expenses.

The court aimed to clarify and fine-tune the existing order to minimize conflict and ensure the children's best interests.

The respondent sought an order for wasted costs incurred due to the applicant's counsel's non-attendance at a scheduled Case Conference.

The applicant's counsel failed to attend in person, refused a prior adjournment request from the respondent's counsel, and did not seek a teleconference.

The court found the applicant's counsel's conduct unreasonable, rendering the conference less productive than it should have been.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs, fixed at $1,271.25, and directed the applicant's counsel to provide the endorsement to her client to inform discussions about who should bear the costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant, Ms. Kang, was largely successful in interpreting a consent order, while the respondent, Mr. Kang, was found to be in breach.

Ms. Kang sought substantial indemnity costs, which Mr. Kang opposed, also seeking his own costs.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules, found Ms. Kang entitled to costs due to her success and Mr. Kang's unreasonable conduct and failure to beat his offer to settle.

Costs were fixed at $12,742.33 payable by Mr. Kang to Ms. Kang, to be paid from funds held in trust.

This decision addresses a costs application following two motions in a family law dispute.

The applicant father sought over $117,000 in costs after successfully obtaining orders to prevent the respondent mother from unilaterally changing the children's residence and securing temporary joint custody and increased parenting time.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith by breaching a consent order and deceiving the father about the move.

Despite this finding, the court significantly reduced the requested costs to $24,500 in fees and $2,500 in disbursements, plus HST, emphasizing the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in family law costs awards, and noting the applicant's bill of costs included irrelevant or overlapping charges.

The applicant father moved for summary judgment to enforce an alleged settlement agreement in a family law dispute.

The court found that a settlement was contractually formed through an exchange of correspondence between counsel, as the respondent mother's purported revocation was not effectively communicated.

However, the court exercised its discretion to refuse enforcement of the settlement due to material changes in the children's circumstances, the mother's prior misconduct regarding their residency, and the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, which necessitated further investigation by the Children's Lawyer.

The father's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant sought to enforce various terms of a consent order dated June 15, 2018, concerning equalization payments, child support arrears, section 7 expenses, and spousal support arrears.

The matrimonial home had been sold, and proceeds were held in trust, but the parties disagreed on the amounts to be disbursed.

The respondent disputed the calculation of post-separation advances and interest, and attempted to renegotiate the agreement through a release.

The court clarified the terms of the consent order, accepting the applicant's calculations for advances and ordering the immediate release of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home, including accrued interest, to satisfy the outstanding obligations.

The respondent was found in breach of the consent order, and costs submissions were ordered.

The Applicant sought costs of a motion and the overall proceeding after a settlement agreement in a high-conflict family law case.

The Respondent also sought costs.

The court awarded the Applicant $5,000 plus HST and disbursements for the motion on a full recovery basis, payable from the Respondent's share of net proceeds.

For the costs of the proceeding, the court found neither party substantially successful in the settlement but determined the Applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs due to the Respondent's unreasonable and obstructionist behaviour, including failure to disclose financial information and comply with court orders.

The quantum for the proceeding costs was reserved for a further attendance, requiring the Applicant to submit a revised bill of costs excluding "steps in the case" where costs were already dealt with.

The Respondent's claim of inability to pay was rejected due to his lack of financial disclosure and unreasonable conduct.

The defendant, Festus Samuel, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the sexual activity occurred with the complainant's consent, focusing on the reliability of her evidence.

The complainant, an 18-year-old with limited alcohol experience, consumed alcohol and experienced blurred vision and motor impairment.

Her testimony regarding non-consent was challenged due to inconsistencies, particularly concerning a prior sexual encounter with a co-accused and details of the events.

While her distress upon returning home was compelling, the court found her evidence of non-consent not sufficiently reliable to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for various forms of relief.

The applicant sought an advance on equalization, the release of RESP funds, payment of a prior costs award, and an order striking the respondent's pleadings for failure to disclose information regarding his taxi licence.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce, receive an advance on equalization, and remove the joint valuator.

The court granted the applicant a $30,000 advance on equalization, ordered the RESP funds placed in trust, and directed the respondent to pay the valuator's retainer and prior costs from his own funds.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings but restricted his ability to lead valuation evidence at trial.

The respondent's motions were dismissed.

Following a family law trial addressing spousal support, child support, arrears, and equalization of net family property, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the trial findings, including that the respondent owed a substantial equalization payment to the applicant and that the applicant had been largely successful in the litigation.

Applying Rules 24(1) and 24(11) of the Family Law Rules and considering settlement offers, the court concluded the applicant achieved substantial success and had beaten the respondent’s settlement offer.

The court also considered the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, the limited complexity of the matter, and the conduct of the parties.

Costs of $18,000 inclusive of disbursements were awarded to the applicant.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order governing access to the parties’ infant child by seeking expanded parenting time, including additional overnight access and earlier commencement of weekend visits.

The applicant mother opposed the timing of expanded overnight access, arguing that any increase should occur more gradually.

The court considered the child’s best interests and the evidentiary record, which included allegations between the parties and multiple police and child protection contacts that produced no substantiated concerns.

The court concluded that expanded parenting time with the father was appropriate but that immediate Friday overnight access would be premature.

The order was varied to introduce midweek overnight access and delayed commencement of alternating weekend access beginning on Fridays.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a settlement in a custody and access dispute, alleging she accepted the respondent father's August 9th offer to settle.

The acceptance was faxed at 4:57 p.m. on August 22nd, while the respondent faxed a withdrawal of the offer at 5:05 p.m. the same day.

The court held that under the Family Law Rules, the faxed acceptance after 4:00 p.m. was not effective until the next day, meaning the offer was validly withdrawn before acceptance.

The court also noted it would have exercised its discretion to refuse to enforce the settlement in the best interests of the children, as the parties were not of a common mind and the offer remained open only due to counsel's oversight during mid-trial mediation.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking the sale of a matrimonial home pending trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award under the Family Law Rules.

The successful party sought full indemnity costs, arguing the motion was vexatious and strategically brought on the eve of trial.

The court assessed the relevant factors under Rule 24(11), including complexity, counsel rates, time spent, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Finding the motion was brought in circumstances that created unfair financial pressure and effectively attempted to relitigate prior issues, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The respondent spouse opposed a motion by the applicant spouse seeking an interim order for the sale of a residential property pending trial.

The central dispute was whether the property constituted a matrimonial home and whether the court should order its sale before trial.

The court held there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the status of the property and the respondent’s potential entitlement to spousal support and possessory rights under the Family Law Act.

Given the respondent’s vulnerability as a recent immigrant with limited resources and the imminence of trial, the court declined to exercise discretion to order an interim sale.

The motion was dismissed.