Lisa A. Johnson

This decision is a costs endorsement following a prior ruling on temporary parenting, support, and communication orders.

The respondent (mother) was the successful party in the underlying motions and sought $6,500 in costs.

The applicant (father) did not submit costs arguments.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering the father's unreasonable conduct, including failure to meet filing timelines, lack of proper financial disclosure, non-compliance with temporary orders, and advancing meritless positions.

Despite the father's limited imputed income, the court ordered him to pay the requested $6,500 in costs, allowing for monthly installments.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking temporary parenting, communication, contact, and child support orders, along with further financial disclosure from the applicant father.

The father opposed the relief and orally sought joint decision-making and unsupervised parenting time.

The court granted the mother's requests, ordering sole decision-making responsibility to the mother, supervised parenting time for the father, and imputing income to the father for child support purposes due to his intentional under-employment and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court cited the father's history of family violence, criminal charges, threats of self-harm, illegal immigration status, and lack of commitment to parenting time and financial obligations as reasons for its decision, emphasizing the child's best interests and safety.

The father's oral claims were dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change parenting terms for a 12-year-old child.

The court granted the respondent (mother) sole custody, removed the applicant's (father) access to the child, and imposed restrictions on the father's social media conduct.

The mother sought costs of $33,948.47, while the father argued costs should not exceed $18,672.

The court awarded costs of $25,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST to the mother.

The decision addresses the application of Family Law Rules costs provisions, the timing and effect of settlement offers, and the distinction between unreasonable behaviour and bad faith conduct.

This is a motion for an extension of time to file costs submissions in a family law matter involving a change to parenting terms.

The applicant (father) had been denied custody and access to the parties' 12-year-old child.

The respondent (mother) sought to file her costs submissions five days late due to inadvertence by her counsel.

The court granted the extension, finding that the brief delay, reasonable explanation, lack of prejudice to the other party, and the injustice of depriving the mother of her costs justified the extension.

Both parents brought motions to change the parenting terms of a 2010 custody order.

The father, who had been convicted of a sexual offence against the child in 2016, sought supervised access through a private facility and to maintain joint custody.

The mother sought sole custody and no access.

The child, now 12 years old, consistently expressed her unwillingness to see the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that sole custody to the mother and no access for the father were in the child's best interests.

The court also made orders restricting the father's social media postings about the mother and child, and permitting the mother to obtain government documentation and travel with the child without the father's consent.

Both parents brought motions to change the parenting terms of a 2010 custody order.

The father, who had been convicted of a sexual offence against the child in 2016, sought supervised access through a private facility and to maintain joint custody.

The mother sought sole custody and no access.

The child, now 12 years old, consistently expressed her unwillingness to see the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that sole custody to the mother and no access for the father were in the child's best interests.

The court also made orders restricting the father's social media postings about the mother and child, and permitting the mother to obtain government documentation and travel with the child without the father's consent.

Postmedia Network Inc. brought a motion to set aside a sealing order and publication ban granted on consent in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The respondent opposed the motion, citing privacy, commercial interests, and the best interests of the children.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that the respondent failed to establish a serious risk to the administration of justice that would justify a complete sealing order.

The court vacated the sealing order but imposed a limited publication ban to protect the identities and privacy of the children, as well as personal identifiers to prevent identity theft.