Katherine A. Cooligan

This decision addresses interim motions in a family law dispute between Asghedom Ehdego and Rajpreet Puni regarding the relocation of their child, Leena, from Ottawa to Richmond, BC, and the appropriate interim parenting schedule.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate with the child and granted the father's request for a shared 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule.

The court also addressed issues of child support, imputation of income, and deferred the issue of occupational rent to trial.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the parties' competing evidence on parenting roles, the child's connections to Ottawa and BC, and the legal principles governing interim relocation and parenting orders.

This costs decision follows a 15-day family law trial concerning parenting, support, and equalization.

The court found that the father, Salvatore Ginese, had engaged in severe parental alienation and coercive control, amounting to bad faith conduct.

Although the mother, Rita Fadel, did not obtain the custody reversal she sought, the court awarded her full recovery costs for the trial due to the father's egregious behaviour, but not for the entire proceeding due to mixed success on financial issues.

The father was ordered to pay $165,000 in costs, including the cost of an expert whose involvement was rendered futile by the father's conduct.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought an interim motion concerning parenting, decision-making responsibility, and retroactive child support.

The court addressed allegations of family violence and the admissibility of surreptitious recordings, ultimately finding the recordings highly suspicious and giving them no weight.

The court ordered a phased increase in the father's parenting time, moving towards greater involvement, and established a joint decision-making framework with the mother having final say on most issues, but requiring joint consent for residence changes, school choice, and therapeutic services.

Retroactive child support arrears were calculated with a deduction for the father's contributions to housing.

This is Part 3 of a trial decision concerning property and support issues.

The court addressed the mother's current income, section 7 expenses for the children, and spousal support calculations, following directions from a previous decision.

The father failed to provide requested financial information, leading the court to base its decision on the mother's submissions.

The court accepted the mother's calculations for section 7 expenses and spousal support, using gross amounts for spousal support.

The decision reconciled child and spousal support arrears, setting off amounts against equalization payment and occupational rent previously ordered, resulting in a net amount owed by the father to the mother.

Ongoing child and spousal support orders were made.

This is Part 2 of a trial decision addressing financial issues in a family law matter, following a previous decision on parenting.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, occupation rent, child support, and spousal support.

The mother was awarded an equalization payment and occupation rent.

The court found the mother's mental health decline, caused by the father's parental alienation, was a significant basis for compensatory spousal support, though the quantum for 2023 onwards was deferred pending further submissions.

Child support obligations and s. 7 expenses were also determined, with adjustments made for reasonableness and necessity.

A divorce was granted.

This is a costs endorsement following a dismissed contempt motion.

The Respondent father brought a contempt motion against the Applicant mother for withholding access to their children.

The father failed to attend the final hearing of the contempt motion, leading to its dismissal.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $44,732.89.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $25,000 to the mother, considering the father's financial situation, the understandable actions of both parties given the children's wishes, and the principle that prohibitive costs should not bar access to justice in family matters.

The respondent mother brought a motion at the opening of a family law trial to determine the admissibility of evidence regarding the applicant father's professional misconduct as a police officer.

The father argued that the Police Services Act created an absolute privilege over all information related to his disciplinary proceedings.

The court held that while documents prepared for the disciplinary process and testimony from those involved are inadmissible and non-compellable, the underlying facts of the misconduct, the charges, and the outcome are provable facts at trial.

The court also rejected arguments that the father had waived privilege or that the Divorce Act paramountcy overrode the provincial statute.

The parties brought a motion for directions to determine whether property excluded under their cohabitation agreement could be traced into other assets and remain excluded from equalization.

The applicant argued that the agreement did not explicitly provide for tracing, while the respondent argued that the creation of a new category of excluded property implicitly included tracing rights.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and examined the factual matrix, concluding that the mutual and objective intention of the parties was to exclude pre-marriage property and any property traced from it.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of affidavits sworn by the respondent's former counsel and a law clerk.

The appellant mother challenged the Ontario Superior Court's jurisdiction over her youngest child, who was born in the U.S. and had never been to Canada, in the context of temporary parenting orders.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding of jurisdiction, holding that the Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Divorce Act because the father was ordinarily resident in Ontario.

Furthermore, the mother had attorned to the court's jurisdiction by actively participating in the merits of the underlying motions without formally challenging jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs due to the mother's reliance on public assistance.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Adelaide, Australia.

The mother had travelled to Ontario with the children for a temporary visit but failed to return them.

The court found that the children were wrongfully retained in April 2020 and that their habitual residence immediately prior to the retention was Australia.

The court rejected the mother's argument that the 11-year-old child's views should be considered as an exception to return.

The application was granted and the children were ordered to be returned to Australia.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent mother for various alleged breaches of existing parenting orders, including issues related to the child's last name, travel permissions, school matters, counselling, sports activities, and communication.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish wilful breach beyond a reasonable doubt and that the motion was a disguised attempt to relitigate or vary previous orders, perpetuating high conflict detrimental to the child.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial where she was successful on virtually all issues.

The respondent, who was self-represented for most of the proceedings, engaged in unreasonable and obstructionist conduct, including failing to provide disclosure, refusing to pay child support, and insisting on a trial for parenting issues before capitulating at the last minute.

The applicant made several reasonable offers to settle that were more favourable to the respondent than the trial outcome.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $85,000 on a substantial indemnity basis from the date of her first offer to settle.

The respondent Estate brought a motion to bifurcate the proceeding, seeking a first trial on the validity of a Marriage Contract, separate from other issues including the applicant's claim to set aside the contract, elect equalization, and seek dependant relief.

The applicant opposed, arguing duplication of evidence and prejudice.

The court granted the bifurcation, finding it would lead to a more just, expeditious, and less expensive determination by potentially narrowing issues and promoting settlement, aligning with the culture shift emphasized in Hyrniak v. Mauldin.

The applicant mother sought costs following a six-day trial where she was largely successful in retaining primary residence and decision-making authority over children's health and education, while the respondent father's claims for equal parenting time and joint decision-making were unsuccessful.

The father also abandoned a constitutional challenge to child support guidelines during closing arguments.

The court found the father's litigation conduct unreasonable, including bringing motions without material change, making accusatory statements, and pursuing a constitutional challenge without evidence.

Despite the father's arguments of inability to pay, the court awarded the mother costs totaling $57,338.05, comprising partial, substantial, and full indemnity costs for different periods and issues, with a minor reduction for junior counsel rates.

The applicant mother sought to suspend the respondent father's supervised access to their 12-year-old daughter and for security for costs.

The father had filed a Motion to Change seeking to enforce existing access orders or obtain unsupervised access, but failed to properly amend his pleadings or adhere to court timelines.

The court struck the father's Motion to Change as an abuse of process and, finding a material change in circumstances due to the father's harassing and threatening behavior and its detrimental impact on the child's mental health, granted the mother's request to suspend access.

The court also imposed conditions on the father for any future access motions and ordered him to pay outstanding and future costs.

Following an uncontested family trial after the respondent's pleadings were struck, the court determined child support, section 7 expenses, equalization, post-separation adjustments, interest, enforcement, and costs.

The court imputed income to the respondent after finding intentional under-employment and relied on adverse inferences arising from persistent disclosure breaches.

The applicant obtained equalization relief, repayment of a corporate loan, reimbursement of carrying costs for jointly owned rental properties, pre-judgment interest, and vesting and transfer mechanisms directed at remaining assets and inheritance interests.

The court also found unreasonable conduct and significant bad faith, awarding substantial full-recovery costs, part of which was enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant, Mr. Rancourt, sought judicial review to set aside an arbitration award concerning child support, arguing he was denied procedural fairness and the opportunity to present his case due to the arbitrator's refusal to grant an adjournment.

Mr. Rancourt had dismissed his counsel eight days before the hearing and requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The court found the arbitrator failed to judicially exercise discretion by not considering all relevant factors for an adjournment, particularly Mr. Rancourt's right to counsel and the prejudice he suffered.

The court granted the application, set aside the arbitration award and costs award, and removed the arbitrator, remitting the dispute to a new arbitrator.

Following a 10-day family law trial regarding child custody and access, both parties sought full recovery costs.

The respondent mother was the substantially successful party, having been awarded sole custody and primary residence, while the applicant father's claims were found to be untenable and pursued in bad faith.

The court applied the principles of bad faith under the Family Law Rules, noting the father's unreasonable litigation conduct and failure to prove serious allegations.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $200,000 all-inclusive, deducting a prior $9,000 costs award owed to the applicant.

The applicant father sought sole custody and permission to move the parties' three-year-old son to Spain.

At trial, he conceded primary residence to the respondent mother but sought joint decision-making and unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the father's claims for joint custody, finding he had made false, salacious allegations against the mother and posed a flight risk.

The mother was granted sole custody and primary residence in Ottawa.

The father was granted supervised access in Ottawa and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $48,000.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.

This was a costs endorsement following a nine-day family law trial involving custody, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court held that the respondent at trial was substantially successful and that none of the parties' offers to settle met the formal and substantive requirements for full recovery costs consequences under Rule 18.

The court further found bad faith by the other party, including the knowing presentation of incomplete and misleading evidentiary materials, which significantly prolonged the trial and justified a sanction.

After excluding certain conference, mediation, and other non-recoverable items, the court fixed costs at $122,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.