K. Maurina

Following a re-hearing of a family law trial, the court determined the issue of costs.

The self-represented respondent was substantially successful on the property issues and somewhat successful on support issues.

The court found the applicant acted in bad faith by adopting a 'catch-me-if-you-can' approach to financial disclosure and pursuing meritless trust claims.

The respondent was awarded costs of $65,000, with his time as a self-represented litigant valued at $100 per hour.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

The wife sought a resulting trust interest or unequal division of the husband's investment portfolio, which had grown significantly post-separation.

The court dismissed the trust and unequal division claims, finding the equalization of net family property regime applied.

Both parties were found to be intentionally under-employed, and incomes were imputed to both for support purposes.

The husband was ordered to pay an equalization payment, retroactive child support, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal and child support.

The core issue was determining the respondent husband's income, as he is a lawyer who deducted personal legal fees and other unreasonable expenses from his business income.

The court imputed the husband's income at $248,356 by adding back these deductions and grossing them up.

The court ordered the husband to pay interim spousal support of $2,300 per month and interim child support of $459 per month, leaving retroactive claims and final determinations for trial.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' one-year-old child to Pennsylvania.

The respondent mother had unilaterally removed the child to Ontario, arguing that Pennsylvania was not the child's habitual residence, that the father had acquiesced to the move, and that returning would expose the child to a grave risk of harm due to domestic violence.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Pennsylvania, the father did not acquiesce, and the mother failed to establish that Pennsylvania courts could not protect her from the alleged harm.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to Pennsylvania.

The applicant father sought costs following the settlement of a Hague Convention application for the return of the children to the Netherlands.

The respondent mother had heavily resisted the application and brought an unsuccessful motion to adjourn the hearing.

The court noted the mother's lack of corroborating evidence for her claims of abuse and grave risk of harm, contrasting it with the father's extensive corroborating affidavits.

The court awarded the applicant father partial indemnity costs of $15,000 for the application, $2,000 for the adjournment motion, and ordered the previously awarded $5,000 to be payable forthwith, for a total of $22,000.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought a stay of support enforcement, a refraining order against the suspension of his driver's licence, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings and a finding of contempt for his ongoing failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court dismissed the respondent's motions for a stay and exclusive possession, finding he lacked clean hands and failed to establish a prima facie case for variation.

A refraining order was granted on the condition that the respondent pay current support and $1,000 monthly towards arrears.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings to allow him to participate at trial, but found him in civil contempt for wilful non-disclosure, granting him a final opportunity to purge the contempt before sentencing.

Following a Hague Convention application in which the court ordered the return of two children to Germany after finding the mother had wrongfully retained them in Ontario, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought over $67,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the mother argued that each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be substantially reduced.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Article 26 of the Hague Convention, the court found the father was the successful party but reduced the claimed costs due to excessive billing, duplication of work, inclusion of unrelated steps, and some unreasonable conduct by the father during the proceedings.

The court also considered the mother’s success on a motion involving the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and her financial circumstances.

A global costs award was made reflecting a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two children to Germany.

The children had travelled to Canada with the respondent mother for an educational exchange with the father's consent, which expired in August 2014.

The mother refused to return the children, arguing they were habitually resident in Canada and objected to returning.

The court found the children's habitual residence remained Germany and their retention in Canada was wrongful.

The court rejected the mother's defences under Articles 12 and 13, finding the children's objections were not substantial enough to override the Convention's purpose.

The children were ordered returned to Germany.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court previously denied the motion, allowing the respondent father to remain in the home.

The mother renewed her motion, providing evidence of vitriolic and threatening text messages sent by the father.

The court found that the text messages constituted 'violence' under section 24(3)(f) of the Family Law Act, as they were intended to intimidate and caused psychological harm.

Given the violence and the risk of exposing the child to adult conflict, the court granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.