Marc A. D’Heureux

Following a successful family law motion, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought full recovery costs while the unsuccessful party argued for no costs or a nominal award.

Applying Rule 24(11)(b) of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct.

The court found that communications from the responding party’s counsel contained inappropriate accusations and unnecessarily escalated the dispute.

As a result, the court awarded full recovery costs with a punitive element to mark its disapproval of the behaviour.

The respondent father brought a motion to stay an Ontario application for child support on the basis that he resided in Florida and that Ontario should decline jurisdiction under forum non conveniens or require the claim to proceed under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and held that the child’s ordinary residence in Ontario constituted a sufficient presumptive connecting factor to ground jurisdiction.

Relying on Court of Appeal authority, the court found that the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act does not displace jurisdiction under the Family Law Act but provides an alternative procedure.

The respondent failed to demonstrate that Florida was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The motion to stay the Ontario proceeding was dismissed.