Concillia Muonde

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant father's motion for the return of a child was dismissed, and the respondent mother's cross-motion, asserting the child's habitual residence in Ghana and declining Ontario's jurisdiction, was granted.

The court awarded the respondent mother $7,000.00 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the applicant father within 90 days.

The court considered the Family Law Rules and the parties' submissions, finding no bad faith on either side but emphasizing that surreptitious child removal is not condoned.

The applicant father brought a motion requesting the return of the child, alleging the respondent mother wrongfully removed the child from Ottawa to Ghana.

The mother requested an order declaring the child's habitual residence as Ghana and that the Ontario court decline jurisdiction.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine habitual residence under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Finding that the child had lived in Ghana for almost her entire life and only spent 35 days in Ottawa, the court concluded the child's habitual residence was Ghana.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the habitual residence was Ontario, it would decline jurisdiction under section 25 of the Act, as Ghana was the more appropriate forum.

This motion concerned the temporary care and custody of two children, E.-L. and Z.P., following their apprehension due to ongoing adult conflict between the mother and Z.P.'s father.

The Family and Children's Services sought placement with the maternal grandfather, while the mother sought return of the children or placement with kin caregivers (the L.'s), and Z.P.'s father sought placement of Z.P. with him.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the persistent conflict.

It determined that the children could not safely remain with the mother.

The maternal grandfather was deemed unsuitable due to lack of assessment and negative reports.

The court ordered E.-L. to be placed in the temporary care of the L.'s and Z.P. to be placed in the temporary care of her biological father, Mr. P., conditional on him securing suitable housing.

The L.'s were also added as parties to the child protection proceedings.

Following the dismissal of the applicant father's motion to change custody and access, the respondent mother sought costs of $21,127.77.

The court found the mother was entirely successful and that the father had behaved unreasonably throughout the proceeding, including filing false affidavits and failing to provide financial disclosure.

The court awarded the mother costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $18,000, with $6,000 to be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the parties' three children and reimbursement for a loan.

The respondent mother sought dismissal of the father's claims, sole discretion for access, retroactive child support, a restraining order, and an order precluding the father from bringing further motions without leave.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding his evidence lacked credibility and that he was intentionally underemployed.

The court granted the mother sole custody, limited the father's access to the older children to the mother's discretion, ordered supervised and gradually increasing access for the youngest child (Chance) contingent on the father completing parenting courses, imputed income to the father for retroactive and ongoing child support, and issued a restraining order against the father.