Kavita Vaidyanathan Bhagat

This case involves two motions to change a prior consent order regarding parenting and child support for a 13-year-old child.

The primary issues were the mother's proposed relocation from Mississauga to Burlington, the parenting schedule, decision-making responsibility, extracurricular activities, child support, and retroactive adjustments.

The court granted the mother's request to relocate, finding it in the child's best interests, and adjusted the parenting schedule to give the father three weekends per month and shared summer time.

The court declined to change decision-making responsibility, maintaining the mother's final say after consultation.

On financial matters, the court declined to impute income to the father but imputed a lower income to the mother based on OSAP receipt.

Child support was adjusted retroactively, and an overpayment by the father was credited.

Section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared proportionately to income.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of legal costs following motions concerning the sale of a matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, and child support.

The court found that neither party was predominantly successful on the main issues, as many determinations were deferred pending further disclosure, valuations, and the resolution of claims by third parties.

While the respondent obtained a temporary child support order, the amount was based on the applicant's reported income, which was subject to recalculation.

Given the divided success and the ongoing nature of the substantive issues, the court reserved the decision on costs to the trial judge or a judge presiding over a final determination of the outstanding matters.

The applicant husband sought an immediate sale of the matrimonial home, arguing his current accommodation was inadequate and his equity was being eroded.

The respondent wife opposed the sale, seeking to buy out the husband's interest after determination of equalization and child support.

The court found the motion for immediate sale premature, as the applicant had not pleaded the Partition Act, which is the primary basis for such an order outside specific Family Law Act circumstances.

The court also considered the children's best interests and the financial positions of the spouses, noting significant financial disclosure issues and conflicting property valuations.

The motion was adjourned, with orders for the applicant to amend pleadings, for both parties to provide full financial disclosure, for a joint property valuation, and for the applicant to pay temporary and retroactive child support.

Following a long-term marriage, the applicant sought equalization, retroactive spousal support, and retroactive child support for an adult child of the marriage.

The respondent disputed entitlement and asserted that his payment of household expenses after separation satisfied any support obligation.

The court applied the statutory factors and objectives under ss. 15.2(4) and 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act and concluded the applicant had a compelling compensatory and non‑compensatory claim for support given her age, health challenges, limited income, and the parties’ 23‑year marriage.

Retroactive spousal support, child support, and s. 7 expenses were awarded for the relevant years, along with the outstanding equalization payment.

Following a trial in a family law dispute, the court determined the issue of costs after mixed success on the merits.

The applicant succeeded in obtaining spousal support but failed to establish the validity of the parties’ marriage, resulting in dismissal of her equalization claim.

The respondent successfully argued the marriage was invalid but failed to provide adequate and timely financial disclosure during the proceedings.

The court held that the respondent’s disclosure failures disentitled him to any costs and awarded the applicant partial costs reflecting her limited success.

The applicant was awarded reduced fees and disbursements given that her primary property claim was unsuccessful.

Following a Sikh religious wedding ceremony conducted without a marriage licence or registration under the Marriage Act, the applicant sought equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The central issue was whether the marriage could be deemed valid under s. 31 of the Marriage Act based on good‑faith intention to comply with Ontario law.

The court found the applicant failed to prove she intended compliance with the Marriage Act at the time of the ceremony and therefore the marriage was not valid for purposes of equalization under the Family Law Act.

The court nevertheless considered hypothetical equalization calculations and ultimately dismissed the property claim.

Spousal support was awarded based on the parties’ cohabitation and income disparity.