Fadwa K. Yehia

The respondent mother sought to stay the Court of Appeal's order requiring the return of a five-year-old child to the United Kingdom pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, pending her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The father had successfully appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed his application for the child's return, on the basis that the father had consented to or acquiesced in the child's retention in Canada.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in conflating consent to relocation with consent to retention.

The motion judge dismissed the mother's stay motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the child's return to the jurisdiction of habitual residence.

The applicant sought spousal support, unequal division of net family property due to the respondent's reckless depletion of assets, return of a trailer, post-separation adjustments, and divorce.

The respondent's pleadings were struck due to non-disclosure.

The court granted ongoing and retroactive spousal support at the high end of the guidelines, ordered an unequal division of net family property, finding the respondent's conduct unconscionable, ordered the return of the trailer or payment in lieu, and granted post-separation adjustments.

The divorce claim was severed.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's bad faith and lack of disclosure.

The appellant (mother) wrongfully retained two young children in Ontario after travelling from Dubai, UAE, where the children habitually resided.

The respondent father applied under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act for a return order.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under s. 23 of the CLRA, finding the serious harm threshold was not met, and ordered the children's return to Dubai.

The Supreme Court of Canada, 5-4, dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge committed no palpable and overriding error in concluding the children would not suffer serious harm, that separation from a primary caregiver does not automatically satisfy the serious harm threshold, and that the father's undertakings regarding the mother's residency should be included explicitly in the return order.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence on both the likelihood and severity of harm.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent (N.) was entirely successful.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $99,500, reflecting a reduction from actual time incurred.

The appellant (F.) argued for each party to bear their own costs or for a reduced award, citing excessiveness and limited means.

The Court of Appeal found no special circumstances to warrant either full indemnity costs or no costs, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent $50,000 in all-inclusive costs, consistent with costs following the result and reasonable expectations.

The appellant mother brought a motion for a stay of proceedings related to the Court of Appeal's decision, pending her leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion judge granted the stay, finding serious issues of public importance arising from the dissenting opinion, a risk of irreparable harm to the children if the stay was denied (potential separation from the primary caregiver and determination of parenting rights based on gender-based principles in a non-Hague Convention country), and that the balance of convenience favored granting the stay.

The stay was conditional on the mother filing her leave to appeal application within 45 days.

In this family law appeal, the appellant sought to enforce a daily financial penalty for non-disclosure, which had accumulated to $224,000.

The motion judge declined to enforce the disproportionate penalty and left the matter to the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found the order to be interlocutory and thus not appealable, quashing the appeal.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the child's habitual residence to be Brampton, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for relief related to parenting issues arising from her move to Scarborough, including the child attending school there.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother in Scarborough and attend school there.

The decision considered the mother's valid reasons for moving, the unsustainability of her commute from Brampton, and the impracticality of maintaining equal parenting time given the distance and the father's inability to relocate.

The court also ordered that the child attend only one daycare due to the pandemic.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, arguing that the parties' three children, who were in his de facto care, were living in cramped conditions in his one-bedroom basement apartment while the applicant mother resided alone in the four-bedroom home.

The motion was deemed urgent due to the children's living situation, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and a recent suicide attempt by one of the children.

The court granted the father exclusive possession, prioritizing the children's best interests, and ordered the father to make periodic payments to the mother to assist with alternative accommodation.

The decision also included a strong admonition against rhetorical excess and irrelevant personal attacks in family law litigation.

The wife and her boyfriend brought a motion to remove the husband's lawyer due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The boyfriend had a brief consultation with the lawyer for his own matrimonial matter, and the husband's answer in the current litigation alleged an affair between the wife and boyfriend and extravagant spending.

The moving parties claimed the lawyer breached duties of confidence, loyalty, and candour, and faced a potential conflict in cross-examining the boyfriend as a witness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no confidential information was disclosed, the relationship between the wife and boyfriend was not confidential, and the two matrimonial litigations were not sufficiently related to create a presumption of conflict.

The court also found no breach of a limited duty of loyalty or candour, and no impediment to cross-examination.