Kristy Ann Maurina

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay an equalization payment of $353,752.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude his 50% interest in a corporation from his net family property as a gift and inheritance from his late father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the husband failed to meet his evidentiary burden under section 4(3) of the Family Law Act to prove the shares were actually paid for by his father and thus capable of being gifted.

This was a family law costs decision following a trial over mobility, parenting, and child support issues arising from a recognized extra-provincial divorce decree.

The court found the respondent had acted in bad faith by misrepresenting her address and the children's availability, interfering with parenting time, coaching the children, and making false allegations, thereby increasing the complexity and cost of the litigation.

Applying the Family Law Rules and appellate guidance on bad faith costs, the court held that full recovery was the starting point, but reduced the award to account for support-related costs and overall proportionality.

Costs were fixed at $120,000 with staged payment terms.

An application to vary a Texas divorce decree recognized in Ontario under section 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant father sought to impose a geographical restriction on the respondent mother's ability to relocate with the children outside the Region of Peel, Ontario, and sought child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the mother's pattern of conduct including misrepresentation of her address, interference with parenting time, false allegations to police and child protective services, and coaching of children.

The court imposed a geographical restriction, ordered child support, and found the mother in breach of the order, awarding costs.

A costs decision in a family law matter concerning decision-making responsibility for a child.

The parties initially reached a mediated agreement in December 2021, which was rejected by the court due to concerns regarding family violence.

Following an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation and trial commencement, the parties reached a consent agreement on the third day of trial providing for joint decision-making responsibility with consultation requirements and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The respondent sought costs as the successful party, while the applicant opposed costs on grounds of financial hardship and the extraordinary circumstances.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the unusual circumstances, including the court's rejection of the initial consent agreement and the OCL's strong support for the applicant's position, compelled the applicant to proceed with litigation, and that awarding costs would be contrary to the child's best interests.

The moving party brought two motions for leave to appeal in a family law dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the order of Bezaire J. dated May 2, 2025, with no costs awarded.

The court granted the motion for leave to appeal the order of Hebner J. dated May 13, 2025, specifically regarding the suspension of the moving party's parenting time, with costs left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a retroactive child support claim involving three children, focusing on the appropriate start date for support, the imputation of income to the father, and the payment of arrears.

The court applied the framework from Colucci v. Colucci for retroactive support, determining the presumptive start date as February 1, 2021, based on effective notice of dissatisfaction with support.

The father’s income was imputed at minimum wage levels due to lack of medical evidence supporting his claimed inability to work full-time.

The court fixed arrears at $30,000 and ordered a payment plan balancing the father’s financial limitations and the children’s needs.

The mother’s claim for section 7 expenses was denied due to procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.

This was a costs ruling following a successful application by the father under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The court had previously ordered the return of the parties' child to Illinois, finding she had been wrongfully retained in Ontario by the mother.

The father sought full recovery costs of $36,356.06, while the mother argued that no costs should be payable due to her financial circumstances and her focus on the child's best interests.

The court found the mother's litigation conduct and her late-stage challenge to the child's habitual residence to be unreasonable, ultimately ordering her to pay the father $33,000.00 in costs.

The Father applied under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the parties' child, Miraya Devi Chawla, to Champaign, Illinois, alleging wrongful retention by the Mother in Ontario.

The Mother argued that Ontario was the child's habitual residence or, alternatively, that returning the child to Illinois would pose a grave risk of harm due to alleged domestic violence and her uncertain immigration status.

The court found that Miraya's habitual residence was Champaign, Illinois, and that she was wrongfully retained.

The court also found that the Mother did not meet the high threshold for the Article 13(b) exception regarding grave risk of harm, especially with the Father's undertakings to mitigate risks.

The application for the child's return was granted.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after a 29-year marriage.

The trial addressed the equalization of net family properties, numerous exclusion claims primarily by the husband, unequal division, income determination, and spousal support.

The court found the husband's evidence regarding his financial affairs and exclusion claims to be largely unreliable, noting his failure to provide adequate disclosure and his history of non-compliance with court orders.

The court allowed some of the husband's exclusion claims where supported by documentary evidence but denied others due to commingling and lack of tracing.

The wife's claim for an unequal division of net family properties was dismissed.

The court imputed an annual income of $232,500 to the husband due to his inadequate disclosure and ordered him to pay $5,500 per month in spousal support, along with an equalization payment of $353,752.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a 9-day trial concerning contact between a child and the maternal family.

The applicants, the maternal aunt, uncle, and grandmother, sought full recovery of costs based on their success at trial and the respondents' unreasonable and alleged bad faith approach.

The respondents, the child's father and paternal grandparents, sought no costs, claiming divided success.

The court found the applicants were the clearly successful parties, having obtained an order for regular in-person and unsupervised contact that met or exceeded their settlement offer.

While the respondents' conduct in limiting contact was deemed unreasonable, the court did not find it constituted bad faith.

The court declined to award costs for prior steps in the litigation, citing the presumption against such awards unless specifically reserved.

Ultimately, the court awarded partial recovery of costs to the applicants.

The applicant mother sought costs on a full recovery basis after successfully obtaining a declaratory order for the return of her child, who had been wrongfully retained by the respondent father in Mexico.

The father failed to participate in the proceedings, and the child was ultimately returned following an order from the Mexican court.

The court found the father's conduct amounted to bad faith, justifying an award of full recovery costs.

While the requested legal fees were reduced by 10% for proportionality, the mother was also awarded full recovery of her travel expenses incurred in securing the child's return.

The applicant mother sought a declaratory order that the child, Vivian Wu, was wrongfully retained by the father in Mexico City since August 14, 2022, and an order for her immediate return to Ontario under the Hague Convention and the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father failed to participate in the proceedings despite notice.

The court found that Ontario was the child's habitual residence and declared the retention wrongful, ordering the child's forthwith return to Markham, Ontario.

The court also granted the mother's request for letters rogatory to ensure proper service on the father in Mexico.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Florida.

The respondent father had retained the child in Ontario following a parenting visit and claimed the child objected to returning.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Florida and wrongfully retained in Ontario.

The court declined to apply the Article 13 objection exception, finding that the child's sudden refusal to return was the result of parental alienation and undue influence by the father.

The motion for the child's return was granted.

This is a supplementary judgment addressing outstanding issues from an appeal of family arbitration awards concerning property, spousal support, and costs.

The court recalculated the lump sum spousal support, reducing it from $227,185.00 to $170,816.00, based on revised asset bases due to a successful equalization payment appeal and correction of a calculation error regarding the retirement age/duration.

The arbitrator's costs award, which ordered the wife to pay the husband $67,500.00, was set aside, with the court finding divided success and an erroneous approach to assessing reasonableness based on settlement offers.

No costs were awarded for the arbitration or the appeal.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the child to France, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The mother argued the child was habitually resident in Canada and that returning the child to France posed a grave risk of harm.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in France immediately prior to the removal and that the mother's evidence did not meet the high threshold for the grave risk exception under Article 13(b).

The court ordered the child's forthwith return to France.

Appeal from three family arbitration awards arising from a long-term marriage involving equalization, exclusions for inherited and gifted property, ownership of gifted real property, post-separation adjustments, spousal support, and costs.

The court held that the arbitrator erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors in failing to exclude 99% of the balance in two investment accounts traceable to inheritance and gifts under s. 4(2) of the Family Law Act, and substituted a revised equalization result requiring the respondent spouse to pay the appellant spouse.

Although the court found the arbitrator's hearsay analysis concerning beach lot ownership was problematic, it held the hearsay was inadmissible under both the traditional and principled exceptions and upheld the result requiring payment for the share transfer.

The remaining property and unequal division grounds were dismissed, and the spousal support award was upheld in principle subject to limited further submissions on possible mathematical errors.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 28, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The mother left Pakistan with the child without the father's consent or court permission, travelling to Ontario and then British Columbia.

The father applied in Ontario to enforce a Pakistani custody order.

The application judge found British Columbia was the more appropriate forum but simultaneously made a final order declining to recognize the Pakistani order.

The father appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred by making a final order on the merits while declining jurisdiction, which invited a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judgments.

The Ontario order was set aside, allowing the parties to litigate the issues in British Columbia.

This motion concerned a Hague Convention application brought by the mother for the return of the child to Costa Rica.

The father opposed, arguing the child's habitual residence was Canada or that the parties had agreed to the child residing with him.

The court found both parents engaged in discreditable conduct, discounting their affidavit evidence.

Based on objective evidence, the court determined the child's habitual residence was Costa Rica at the time of travel to Canada and that no agreement to change residence existed.

The child was ordered to be returned to Costa Rica forthwith.

No costs were awarded due to both parties' unreasonable conduct.

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.