Gabriella Varsha Deokaran

The mother (respondent in the main action) brought a motion to set aside a costs order of $72,000 and $3,000, and sought an extension of time to file her costs submissions, after missing the original deadline.

She claimed to have emailed an extension request that the court did not receive.

The court considered the motion under Family Law Rules, subrule 25(19), and principles for setting aside default judgments.

Despite the mother's history of non-compliance and issues with her counsel's conduct, the court granted a conditional extension, requiring the mother to pay $3,500 towards previous outstanding costs orders.

This payment, along with her costs submissions, would allow the court to consider changing or setting aside the original costs order.

The original costs order was suspended pending compliance with these conditions.

The father, Cletus Oppong Wiafe, sought costs after a two-week trial concerning parenting and child support.

The court found the father to be the more successful party at trial, particularly on the dominant issue of the child's primary residence.

The mother, Gifty Afoakwa-Yeboah, failed to make costs submissions and exhibited unreasonable litigation conduct throughout the case, including non-compliance with court orders, late filings, exceeding page limits, and making unsupported allegations.

Despite the mother's inability to pay, the court declined to discount the costs award due to her reckless and unreasonable conduct, emphasizing the need to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

The court awarded the father $3,000 for production motions and $72,000 for trial costs.

The court rendered a decision on costs for two motions: a recusal motion brought by the Respondent, which was dismissed, and a temporary parenting motion by the Applicant and cross-motion by the Respondent, where the Applicant was largely successful.

The Applicant sought costs for both.

The court found the Respondent's counsel's conduct unreasonable, ill-advised, and non-compliant with court directions, particularly regarding the recusal motion and delays in filing.

The court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $6,471.51 for the recusal motion and $20,000 for the temporary parenting motion, noting the Respondent's counsel's litigation tactics caused significant delay and complexity.

The trial concerned parenting and support orders for the parties' three-year-old daughter.

The child's primary residence was temporarily transferred from the mother to the father by court order due to the mother's non-compliance with previous orders and concerning conduct, including relocating the child without consent and failing to facilitate the father's parenting time.

The court found the mother's credibility to be severely undermined by her dishonesty, false allegations, and defiance of court orders.

The father demonstrated a greater ability to prioritize the child's best interests, facilitate the child's relationship with both parents, and comply with court directives.

The court applied the new amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act, emphasizing the child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion for the judge to recuse herself from hearing further matters in the case, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant (father) had filed an application seeking the return of a child to Ontario and to prevent the mother from removing the child without his consent.

The mother had taken the child to Ghana for five months without the father's consent and subsequently moved to Edmonton, Alberta.

The judge had made several orders including placing the child in the father's care pending the substantive motion.

The mother alleged bias based on the judge reviewing all materials despite her adjournment request, making findings of fact against her, denying procedural fairness, and making subsequent orders to enforce compliance.

The judge dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the mother had not met the high burden of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

A custody and access trial involving a high-conflict separation between parents of a young child.

The father sought sole custody and limited access for the mother, while the mother sought custody with equal time-sharing.

The court found both parents competent but determined the mother should have custody based on her demonstrated willingness to support the child's relationship with the father, contrasting with the father's initial proposal to relocate the child to New York with minimal maternal contact.

The court ordered alternate weekly time-sharing with the father paying child support and spousal support on a declining scale.

This trial addressed complex family law issues including access to the two children of the marriage, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant sought increased access, spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The court found the respondent had actively alienated the children from the applicant and demonstrated a disregard for their best interests.

The court imputed incomes to both parties, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and calculated the equalization payment for net family property.

The respondent's claims for post-separation expenses were offset by occupation rent due to his exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The appellants appealed orders of the trial judge finding fraudulent misrepresentation and unconscionability in relation to three shareholders' agreements.

The appellants argued that rescission was only justified for the first agreement based on fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the fraudulent misrepresentation justified rescission of all three agreements, and alternatively, that the second and third agreements were unconscionable and therefore also subject to rescission.

The court also rejected arguments regarding contract interpretation and procedural fairness.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant, Aryann Shalini Maharaj, sought full indemnity costs of $56,386.43 following an 11-day trial on custody, access, and property issues, alleging the respondent, Lincoln Wilfred-Jacob, acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The respondent argued for no costs or minor costs due to financial burden.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, found the applicant was largely successful in the underlying trial but neither party's conduct amounted to bad faith, though the respondent acted more unreasonably.

Considering the complexity, the respondent's conduct in delaying the case, and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant $40,000 in all-inclusive costs.

A child protection disposition hearing following a finding that three children were in need of protection due to emotional harm resulting from parental neglect and exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse.

The mother had exposed the children to crack cocaine use, domestic violence with an abusive boyfriend, serious school absences, and neglect of medical and dental needs.

The father sought custody.

The court granted final custody to the father under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that the children were thriving in his care and that the mother lacked insight into the harm caused and continued to pose risks through poor judgment and manipulation during access visits.

The court ordered supervised access initially, transitioning to unsupervised weekend and holiday access.

The respondent sought to modify a custody and access arrangement by requesting shared parenting on a weekly basis, arguing he had maintained regular involvement with his son since infancy, maintained stable employment and family circumstances, and lived in close proximity to the applicant.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the child was thriving under the current arrangement and that the respondent's motivation was partially financial.

The Children's Lawyer recommended maintaining sole custody with the applicant and increasing access to include alternate Thursday overnights.

The court accepted the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and dismissed the motion, finding that the child was performing well under the current arrangement and that the child himself preferred the status quo.