Laura E. Fryer

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 father sought the return of the children to Ontario after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated them to Alberta.

The court determined that Ontario retained jurisdiction as the children's habitual residence had not changed due to the mother's unilateral move and the father's lack of consent or undue delay.

Despite the mother's failure to provide proper notice of relocation, the court, focusing on the children's best interests, permitted the children to remain with the mother in Alberta on a temporary basis, citing the benefits of immediate access to special needs services and the family's newfound stability there.

The court ordered the mother to provide the father with residential and contact information and professional contacts for the children, and for the father to have virtual visits, with further in-person parenting time to be conferenced.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to retroactively adjust child support, arguing the original imputed income was incorrect and the children ceased to qualify for support earlier.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the respondent failed to provide necessary financial disclosure (income tax returns for 2008-2015) to establish a material change in circumstances for the retroactive variation of income-based support.

The court also declined to rescind arrears or reduce the post-judgment interest rate, emphasizing the respondent's failure to make payments and provide disclosure.

The applicant, Robert Robertson, brought a second motion to change his child and spousal support obligations and to rescind over $700,000 in arrears.

The respondent, Karen McKenzie, conceded to a termination of spousal support and an adjustment of child support due to her increased income, but opposed the rescission of arrears and sought to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant.

The court found no material change in the applicant's circumstances since the last order, rejecting his claims of inability to earn imputed income or health issues.

While acknowledging the respondent's increased income as a material change, the court declined to rescind the applicant's arrears, citing his lack of transparency, unwillingness to voluntarily support his children, and history of litigation.

The court also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant but imposed a requirement for leave before bringing future motions to change, to ensure fairness and efficient use of court resources.

This decision addresses costs following a 16-day family law trial primarily concerning complex parenting issues, including allegations of parental alienation and mental health challenges.

The court found the Mother (Applicant) to be more successful overall.

It apportioned the costs of a custody and access assessment, requiring the Mother to pay 30% ($10,950) of the $36,492 cost.

For the general costs of the proceeding, the Father's unreasonable litigation conduct, despite being self-represented, significantly lengthened the trial and increased the Mother's legal costs.

The Father was ordered to pay the Mother $20,000 in costs, from which the Mother's assessment contribution was deducted, resulting in a net payment of $9,050 to the Mother within 60 days.

The court declined to make costs enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

This decision addresses costs following a trial concerning child support.

The Applicant (Mother) sought full recovery costs of $24,882.29, while the Respondent (Father) argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the Applicant had marginal success on the substantive child support issues but awarded her $10,000 in costs due to the Respondent's unreasonable behaviour, including failure to provide disclosure and obfuscation of income.

The award was deemed proportionate to the issues and outcome, and enforceable as an incident of child support.

The Applicant sought costs totaling $165,618.82 after a six-day trial on financial issues, including income determination, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The Respondent argued for divided success and each party bearing their own costs.

The court found the Applicant marginally more successful, particularly regarding the date of separation and the valuation of the Respondent's business, where the Respondent's positions were less reasonable.

Neither party's offers to settle were severable, complicating the assessment of success.

Considering the reasonableness of the parties' conduct and the proportionality of costs, the court awarded the Applicant $30,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable from the Respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds, noting it was not a case for full recovery.

The Applicant and Respondent, parents of one child, underwent a lengthy trial concerning custody, parenting time, child support, and property equalization.

The court granted sole custody to the Respondent, establishing a detailed parenting schedule.

It imputed income to the Applicant for child support purposes and ordered retroactive child support.

The Respondent's claim for an unequal division of net family property was denied, and she was ordered to pay an equalization payment to the Applicant.

The applicant father sought the return of his daughter, Naomi Rachelle Unger, to Tiveria, Israel, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The family had travelled from Israel to Toronto for a vacation, after which the mother and child remained in Toronto.

The father argued that Israel remained the child's habitual residence and that the mother was wrongfully retaining her.

The mother contended that the parties had mutually agreed to change the child's habitual residence to Ontario, or alternatively, that the father had consented or acquiesced to her remaining in Ontario with the child.

The court found that the parties had a shared, settled intention to reside indefinitely in Ontario, thereby changing the child's habitual residence from Israel to Ontario.

Consequently, the Hague Convention did not apply.

Even if Israel were deemed the habitual residence, the court found that the father had unequivocally consented and/or acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The application for the child's return was dismissed.

The Applicant Husband, successful in a bifurcated trial upholding a marriage contract and denying further spousal support, sought costs of $95,000.

The Respondent Wife opposed, arguing Rule 18 did not apply and the costs were excessive, citing her financial position.

The court found the Husband's offers to settle did not meet Rule 18 criteria due to time limits and conditions, but considered them under Rule 24.

The Husband's position was deemed more reasonable, and the Wife's litigation conduct, including unreasonable settlement positions and unsupported claims, was discouraged.

The court awarded the Husband $80,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, noting the importance of upholding private agreements and discouraging attempts to set aside valid contracts.