Lisa Sharp

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law trial between Christine Anonby and Erik Anonby.

The court finds the mother was the successful party on the primary parenting issue and partially successful on property issues.

The court awards the mother $85,000 in costs, finding her billings reasonable and the father’s litigation conduct not unreasonable except for the division of chattel.

The decision reviews the legal framework for costs in family law, the conduct of the parties, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

This family law trial decision addresses parenting and property claims following a 21-year marriage.

The court determined the best interests of the two youngest children (L.A., 17, and F.A., 15), both on the autistic spectrum.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making for education and autism-related therapies, while the father sought shared parenting.

The court found a history of intimate partner violence by the father and his continued lack of insight into the emotional impact of his actions.

The mother was deemed the primary caregiver, highly attuned to the children's special needs, and the children expressed a clear preference for more time with her.

The court granted the mother primary residence, sole decision-making for education and autism-related programming/therapies, and joint decision-making with final authority to the mother on other issues.

The father was granted alternative weekend and one alternate weeknight parenting time.

On property claims, the mother was attributed $7,000 in pre-marital savings, and the father's extensive request for reconciliation of household goods was largely dismissed as unreasonable.

This case involves a high-conflict family law dispute over a 13-year-old child.

The respondent mother unilaterally withheld the child from the applicant father, violating a final parenting order for an alternating week-about schedule, and subsequently filed a motion to change seeking sole decision-making.

The father brought a motion for contempt and enforcement of the existing order.

The court found that the mother knowingly refused to comply with the order and attempted to create a new status quo.

While the elements of contempt were met, the court opted for other avenues to ensure compliance.

The mother failed to prove a material and compelling change in circumstances to justify a temporary variation of the final order.

The court ordered a gradual reintroduction of the alternating week-about schedule, emphasizing that the mother's unilateral actions had negatively impacted the child's mental health and relationship with the father.

This appeal arose from high-conflict divorce litigation, addressing three issues: the division of post-valuation date increase in the matrimonial home's value, the determination of parties' incomes for child support, and the s. 7 expense order.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in applying proprietary estoppel to divide the post-separation increase in the matrimonial home's value, as the respondent did not demonstrate detrimental reliance.

The appeal on income imputation and s. 7 expenses was dismissed, with clarification provided for the latter.

The moving party father brought a motion to find the responding party mother in contempt for failing to facilitate his parenting time under a 2018 order.

The mother argued she had a legitimate excuse because the child was extremely resistant to attending the father's home, and police had declined to force the child to go.

The court found that while the mother intentionally breached the order by failing to bring a motion to change the parenting schedule sooner, it exercised its discretion to declare a breach rather than make a formal finding of contempt, noting contempt is a remedy of last resort.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application, seeking a final order granting joint decision-making responsibility of an Indigenous child to the mother and her former partner.

The father opposed the motion, arguing for shared decision-making and raising concerns about the child's exposure to her First Nations heritage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the proposed order was in the child's best interests, noting the history of domestic violence and the proposed caregivers' commitment to fostering the child's cultural identity.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

Following a seven-day trial regarding custody, relocation, and support, the respondent sought costs of $80,351 on a substantial recovery basis.

The applicant argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on the central issues of sole custody and relocation to Serbia.

However, the applicant had some success on spousal support and imputing income.

Considering divided success, the parties' respective financial positions, and the disparity in time spent by counsel, the court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $37,500, to be set off against $14,000 in retroactive spousal support owed by the respondent.

The applicant sought costs of $22,689.79 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful motion where primary residence and decision-making authority were transferred to him.

The respondent argued against a costs award, citing her financial circumstances and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and that the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $19,500 in costs, including costs for the urgency determination and case conferences pursuant to Rules 17(18.1) and 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

However, payment was stayed until the respondent obtains employment or her financial claims are determined.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to find the child in need of protection and to place her in extended Society care for the purpose of adoption.

The mother consented to the order, while the father opposed it.

The court found that the parents had a history of domestic violence and the father had not presented a viable plan of care.

Applying the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial, found the child in need of protection, and ordered her placed in extended care for adoption.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that S.L. was in need of protection and placement in extended Society care for adoption.

The mother consented to the plan, but the father opposed, seeking S.L.'s return to his care.

The court, relying on previous judicial findings regarding the parents' violent relationship and non-compliance with court orders, found that the father had not raised a genuine issue for trial.

The court determined that S.L. was in need of protection due to the risk of emotional harm from exposure to domestic violence and that adoption was in her best interests, ensuring permanency, cultural connection, and stability.

The Society's motion was granted for S.L., while the father's opposition was dismissed.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated while living in Belgrade, Serbia.

The father returned to Ottawa and sought sole custody and an order returning their five-year-old daughter to Canada.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to remain in Belgrade with the child.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding it in the child's best interests to remain in Belgrade where she was settled and where the mother had stable, high-paying employment with the United Nations.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the father intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay child support.

The mother was ordered to pay time-limited spousal support to the father.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended society care for two Indigenous children, S.L. and L.E.L., due to ongoing exposure to domestic violence and the parents' non-compliance with court orders.

The parents, E.L. (mother) and I.O. (father), opposed this, seeking the children's return.

The court found the children remained in need of protection, citing the high risk of domestic violence and the parents' inability to adhere to supervision orders.

Despite acknowledging the importance of Indigenous heritage and the historical harms of assimilation, the court prioritized the children's safety and stability.

Extended society care was granted, with the court retaining jurisdiction over access to ensure meaningful contact with birth parents and cultural preservation.

The respondent, Gady Sirota, brought a motion to remove Gonen Snir as counsel for the applicant, Bracha Yocheved Sirota, alleging a conflict of interest due to a prior close personal relationship and the exchange of confidential information relevant to the matrimonial proceeding.

The court found that Mr. Snir had a close personal relationship with Mr. Sirota and received confidential information, including advice on marital difficulties, which created a clear conflict of interest.

Despite the applicant's argument regarding her right to counsel of choice and language barriers, the court ordered the removal of Mr. Snir as counsel, emphasizing the integrity of the judicial system over the right to chosen counsel in this instance.

The applicant sought temporary sole custody of the parties' four-year-old daughter in Ottawa, while the respondent sought to return to Belgrade, Serbia, with the child.

The court considered the child's best interests, the status quo, and mobility factors under the Children's Law Reform Act and relevant jurisprudence.

The court found the child's status quo since June 15, 2018, was residence in Belgrade, Serbia, and no compelling circumstances existed to change this temporarily.

Temporary custody was granted to the respondent, permitting her to return to Serbia with the child, with a detailed access schedule for the applicant.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' three-year-old son to the United Kingdom.

The mother admitted to wrongfully removing the child to Canada but opposed his return, arguing that returning him would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to the father's alleged domestic violence, pursuant to Article 13(b).

The court reviewed the evidence of past violence and involvement of child protection authorities in the UK, concluding that the mother failed to establish that the alleged violence was severe, likely to recur, or life-threatening.

The court ordered the child's return to the UK.

This child protection application concerned the future of M.H., a child apprehended at birth due to parental drug use.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown wardship for adoption.

The father, B.H., sought custody or joint custody with his sister, S.H., or for S.H. to have full custody.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the father's long-standing and unaddressed drug dependency, dishonesty, and unstable behaviour, which posed a risk of physical harm.

The father's proposed plans of care were deemed unrealistic and insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The sister's late proposal for custody was also rejected due to her lack of insight into the father's issues.

Crown wardship with no access for adoption was ordered, as the relationship between father and child was not found to be beneficial to the child, and access would impair adoption.

The court also commented on the excessive delay in the proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown Wardship for two children, A.B-F. (11) and E.B-H. (6), who had been in foster care for 24 months.

The mother, J.B., sought their return.

The court reviewed the children's special needs, the mother's parenting history (including losing four older children), her struggles with anxiety and anger, and her inability to consistently provide a stable and predictable environment.

The court found that the mother had not made sufficient sustainable changes to meet the children's demanding special needs.

Considering the children's best interests, particularly A.B-F.'s expressed wish not to return home and the need for permanency, the court granted Crown Wardship for adoption.

The court also ordered continued access between the siblings and limited access between the children and their mother and extended family, acknowledging the meaningfulness of these relationships while prioritizing the children's stability and future opportunities for adoption.

The parties consented to an order designating the mother as the primary residential parent of their five-year-old child, with the father having extensive access.

The sole remaining issue at trial was whether the mother should be permitted to relocate the child's permanent residence from Ottawa to Toronto, where she had secured employment.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court found that the move was in the child's best interests, noting the mother's role as primary caregiver, her financial stability in Toronto, and the father's ability to exercise his access in Toronto.

The court considered costs following a 16-day family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant father sought substantial indemnity costs of $32,744.50, arguing success on most issues and the respondent mother's bad faith.

The respondent mother argued that prior costs were determined by Justice Shelston and that the father caused trial delays.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(11), the court found mixed success for both parties and noted unreasonable behaviour from both, including the father's breaches of interim orders and the mother's unreasonable position on travel.

Given the mixed success and the parties' conduct, the court ordered no costs.

The parties sought costs for a motion where the applicant sought a change in exchange time for their daughter and the respondent sought leave to abridge timelines for an expert report and an increase in child support.

The court found that success on the motion was divided, as the respondent was unreasonable on the exchange time issue but the applicant should have recognized an increase in child support was inevitable.

The court declined to make an order for costs in favour of either party.