Giulianna Rose Buchanan Ferri

This costs endorsement addresses the Applicant's request for full indemnity costs following a successful urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court reviews the relevant Family Law Rules regarding offers to settle and the factors for awarding costs, including the impact of the Respondent's mental health on her ability to respond to settlement offers.

Ultimately, the court awards partial indemnity costs, deferring payment to be set off against equalization or paid from the Respondent’s share of the matrimonial home.

This endorsement addresses a request for costs following motions heard on February 3, 2022.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $5,700, while the applicant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the respondent to be the more successful party overall, despite not obtaining the primary relief initially sought and abandoning some claims.

The applicant did not make an offer to settle, and her claim of divided success was rejected.

While the applicant's financial circumstances were noted, insufficient information prevented a reduction on that basis.

The respondent's costs were reduced due to non-compliance with the court's direction regarding the order of cost submissions.

The court awarded the respondent fixed costs of $3,000, payable in ten equal monthly instalments.

The Father brought a motion seeking the return of one child (R.M.) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and a declaration that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court dismissed the Father's motion, finding that it had jurisdiction under both s. 22(1)(b) and s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 22(1)(b) were met, including that there were no pending extra-provincial proceedings due to the Father's bad faith in concealing UAE custody proceedings from the Mother.

Furthermore, the court found that R.M. would suffer serious physical and psychological harm if returned to the UAE, given the Mother and children's Convention refugee status, the Father's history of abuse and lack of credibility, and R.M.'s strong, consistent views against returning.

The Applicant father opposed the Respondent mother's request to relocate with their son, Ilya, to Australia for three years.

The mother, who was the sole custodial parent, sought permission for the move, citing her husband's employment contract and the family's financial and emotional well-being.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, weighed the disruption to the child's relationship with the father against the benefits of remaining with the primary caregiver and her family unit, as well as the financial stability and reduced stress for the mother's husband.

The court also considered the father's conduct in lodging a false complaint against the mother's husband.

The court granted the mother permission to relocate with the child to Australia for three years, subject to specific access and communication terms, and a requirement for a mirroring order in Australia.

The respondent-father sought costs against the respondent-mother in a child protection matter.

The court found that the mother's conduct throughout the litigation was unreasonable, in bad faith, and disproportionate, causing unnecessary delays and costs.

Despite the general presumption against costs in child protection cases, the court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to award costs due to the mother's conduct, including refusal to cooperate, defiance of court orders, and failure to address protection concerns.

Costs were fixed at $16,000.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Kanata brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application concerning three children.

The mother, B.S., brought a cross-motion seeking various relief, including the return of the children to her care.

The court found the children to be in need of protection due to high parental conflict, the mother's refusal to cooperate with the Society and court orders, and concerns regarding her mental health.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, placing the children in the sole custody of the father, D.S., with supervised access for the mother at the father's discretion, subject to review upon completion of a mental health assessment.