Katherine A. Cooligan

The applicant father brought a motion to have the parties' three-year-old child enrolled in a junior kindergarten French immersion program, while the respondent mother preferred a French-only program.

The court found that neither parent was francophone and that the father, a unilingual anglophone, would be marginalized from the child's education in a French-only school.

Given concerns about the mother's tendency to exclude the father, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to be enrolled in French immersion to ensure both parents could fully participate in her education.

The applicant sought costs of $34,160 on a full recovery basis against a third-party witness who unsuccessfully opposed a motion to be questioned prior to trial.

The third party argued he was a non-party and sought his own costs.

The court found the third party was a party for the purposes of the motion under the Family Law Rules and that the applicant was the successful party.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the respective offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $10,000.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated while living in Belgrade, Serbia.

The father returned to Ottawa and sought sole custody and an order returning their five-year-old daughter to Canada.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to remain in Belgrade with the child.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding it in the child's best interests to remain in Belgrade where she was settled and where the mother had stable, high-paying employment with the United Nations.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the father intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay child support.

The mother was ordered to pay time-limited spousal support to the father.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent mother for various alleged breaches of existing parenting orders, including issues related to the child's last name, travel permissions, school matters, counselling, sports activities, and communication.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish wilful breach beyond a reasonable doubt and that the motion was a disguised attempt to relitigate or vary previous orders, perpetuating high conflict detrimental to the child.

Following a successful motion by the respondent Estate to bifurcate the trial regarding the validity of a marriage contract, the Estate and the co-respondent sought costs.

The Estate claimed over $74,000 in partial indemnity costs, which the applicant argued was disproportionate.

The court agreed that the Estate's costs were excessive and disproportionate for a one-day motion, despite the high stakes and complexity.

The court fixed the Estate's costs at $35,000 and the co-respondent's costs at $2,500.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial where she was successful on virtually all issues.

The respondent, who was self-represented for most of the proceedings, engaged in unreasonable and obstructionist conduct, including failing to provide disclosure, refusing to pay child support, and insisting on a trial for parenting issues before capitulating at the last minute.

The applicant made several reasonable offers to settle that were more favourable to the respondent than the trial outcome.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $85,000 on a substantial indemnity basis from the date of her first offer to settle.

The respondent Estate brought a motion to bifurcate the proceeding, seeking a first trial on the validity of a Marriage Contract, separate from other issues including the applicant's claim to set aside the contract, elect equalization, and seek dependant relief.

The applicant opposed, arguing duplication of evidence and prejudice.

The court granted the bifurcation, finding it would lead to a more just, expeditious, and less expensive determination by potentially narrowing issues and promoting settlement, aligning with the culture shift emphasized in Hyrniak v. Mauldin.

The applicant mother sought costs following a six-day trial where she was largely successful in retaining primary residence and decision-making authority over children's health and education, while the respondent father's claims for equal parenting time and joint decision-making were unsuccessful.

The father also abandoned a constitutional challenge to child support guidelines during closing arguments.

The court found the father's litigation conduct unreasonable, including bringing motions without material change, making accusatory statements, and pursuing a constitutional challenge without evidence.

Despite the father's arguments of inability to pay, the court awarded the mother costs totaling $57,338.05, comprising partial, substantial, and full indemnity costs for different periods and issues, with a minor reduction for junior counsel rates.

The parties proceeded to trial to resolve remaining financial issues following their separation, including the equalization of net family property, occupation rent, and post-separation adjustments.

The court determined that the husband could not exclude the entire value of his interest in inherited farmland, as his interest vested prior to the marriage.

The court also awarded the wife occupation rent, finding that the husband had remained in exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and delayed its sale.

After calculating various post-separation adjustments and section 7 expenses, the court ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment of $80,712.06 to the wife.

The applicant mother sought to suspend the respondent father's supervised access to their 12-year-old daughter and for security for costs.

The father had filed a Motion to Change seeking to enforce existing access orders or obtain unsupervised access, but failed to properly amend his pleadings or adhere to court timelines.

The court struck the father's Motion to Change as an abuse of process and, finding a material change in circumstances due to the father's harassing and threatening behavior and its detrimental impact on the child's mental health, granted the mother's request to suspend access.

The court also imposed conditions on the father for any future access motions and ordered him to pay outstanding and future costs.

Following an uncontested family trial after the respondent's pleadings were struck, the court determined child support, section 7 expenses, equalization, post-separation adjustments, interest, enforcement, and costs.

The court imputed income to the respondent after finding intentional under-employment and relied on adverse inferences arising from persistent disclosure breaches.

The applicant obtained equalization relief, repayment of a corporate loan, reimbursement of carrying costs for jointly owned rental properties, pre-judgment interest, and vesting and transfer mechanisms directed at remaining assets and inheritance interests.

The court also found unreasonable conduct and significant bad faith, awarding substantial full-recovery costs, part of which was enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant, Mr. Rancourt, sought judicial review to set aside an arbitration award concerning child support, arguing he was denied procedural fairness and the opportunity to present his case due to the arbitrator's refusal to grant an adjournment.

Mr. Rancourt had dismissed his counsel eight days before the hearing and requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The court found the arbitrator failed to judicially exercise discretion by not considering all relevant factors for an adjournment, particularly Mr. Rancourt's right to counsel and the prejudice he suffered.

The court granted the application, set aside the arbitration award and costs award, and removed the arbitrator, remitting the dispute to a new arbitrator.

Following a 10-day family law trial regarding child custody and access, both parties sought full recovery costs.

The respondent mother was the substantially successful party, having been awarded sole custody and primary residence, while the applicant father's claims were found to be untenable and pursued in bad faith.

The court applied the principles of bad faith under the Family Law Rules, noting the father's unreasonable litigation conduct and failure to prove serious allegations.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $200,000 all-inclusive, deducting a prior $9,000 costs award owed to the applicant.

The applicant father sought sole custody and permission to move the parties' three-year-old son to Spain.

At trial, he conceded primary residence to the respondent mother but sought joint decision-making and unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the father's claims for joint custody, finding he had made false, salacious allegations against the mother and posed a flight risk.

The mother was granted sole custody and primary residence in Ottawa.

The father was granted supervised access in Ottawa and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $48,000.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking $100,000 in security for costs against the applicant father, who resides in Spain and is seeking sole or joint custody of their child.

The father brought a cross-motion for unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the father resides outside Ontario, his custody claim has merit and is not a nuisance.

The court also denied the father's request for unsupervised access due to outstanding criminal charges and flight risk concerns, instead ordering supervised access.

During an ongoing family law trial, the court issued procedural directions governing the completion of evidence and the management of remaining witnesses.

The respondent was permitted to call several witnesses within strict time limits and was directed regarding the orderly presentation of those witnesses.

The court addressed potential testimony from a treating professional, limiting the evidence to factual observations rather than expert opinions.

Directions were also given concerning a late-produced psychiatric report, potential cross‑examination of the author, possible updated views and preferences evidence for the children through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and updated financial disclosure from both parties.

This was a costs endorsement following a nine-day family law trial involving custody, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court held that the respondent at trial was substantially successful and that none of the parties' offers to settle met the formal and substantive requirements for full recovery costs consequences under Rule 18.

The court further found bad faith by the other party, including the knowing presentation of incomplete and misleading evidentiary materials, which significantly prolonged the trial and justified a sanction.

After excluding certain conference, mediation, and other non-recoverable items, the court fixed costs at $122,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Unmarried parents litigated custody, access, and child support regarding their child.

The applicant father sought joint custody and increased parenting time, while the respondent mother sought sole custody.

The court found the parties lacked the communication and cooperation required for joint custody and concluded that conflict between the parties created a risk of chronic decision‑making impasse.

Sole custody was therefore granted to the mother, with structured access for the father and a detailed parenting schedule.

The court also resolved child support issues under the Child Support Guidelines, imputing income to the father by disallowing unreasonable business deductions and ordering arrears of child support and proportionate contributions to childcare expenses.

The responding party brought a motion for security for costs in a family law proceeding where the applicant sought to set aside a comprehensive separation agreement governing child and spousal support.

The agreement had been negotiated with counsel and based on an income assessment provided by the applicant’s own expert.

The court found the applicant’s claim had little chance of success and that the evidence did not support the allegation that the respondent’s conduct caused the applicant’s reduced income.

The court further found that the applicant lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

Security for costs was therefore ordered.

The parties brought cross-motions seeking primary care of their 18-month-old child.

Both parents had flexible work schedules and had shared care since the child's birth.

Since separation, they continued living in the same home, leading to significant conflict.

The court declined to name either parent as primary caregiver, instead ordering temporary joint custody with a shared parenting schedule.

To minimize conflict, the court ordered a nesting arrangement where the parent with care of the child has exclusive possession of the matrimonial home during their parenting time.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis.