Maria Elka Zagazeta Garcia

The applicant father sought primary residence and opposed the respondent mother's proposed relocation to Mexico with their one-and-a-half-year-old child.

The mother, who had precarious immigration status in Canada and could not work, sought to relocate to Mexico where she had family support and employment prospects.

The court found that the child's primary residence should remain with the mother, who had been the primary caregiver since birth.

The court permitted the relocation, finding it was in the child's best interests given the mother's need for stability and the father's inconsistent exercise of parenting time and escalating conflict.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility, and the father was granted regular virtual parenting time and in-person parenting time when travelling to Mexico.

Following a motion regarding spousal support and striking pleadings where success was divided, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $10,000, while the respondent sought no costs or $10,000 payable to him.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and noted the respondent's unreasonable litigation behaviour, including failing to provide disclosure or comply with court orders.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion heard on September 16, 2020.

The Applicant sought $10,000 in costs, while the Respondent requested no costs or $10,000 from the Applicant.

The court found divided success on the underlying motion issues (striking pleadings, spousal support, indexing support), but determined the Applicant was the more successful party, particularly regarding spousal support.

The Respondent's litigation behaviour was deemed unreasonable due to non-compliance with orders and lack of cooperation.

Considering the divided success, the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, and offers to settle, the court awarded the Applicant $9,000 in costs, inclusive of HST.

Costs for a prior case conference were not awarded as they were not reserved to the motion judge.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders and lack of financial disclosure, and sought temporary spousal support.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting it is a remedy of last resort, but ordered the respondent to obtain a civil divorce forthwith and cooperate with the applicant's request for a religious divorce (Talaq).

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $2,600 per month, retroactive to May 1, 2020, to account for delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent's pleadings, and for spousal support retroactive to the date of separation, with annual indexing.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings, deeming it a remedy of last resort, but ordered the respondent to comply with prior orders for financial disclosure and obtaining a civil divorce, and to cooperate with the applicant's request for a Talaq.

The court imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent and $15,000 to the applicant, and ordered temporary spousal support of $2,600 per month, retroactive to May 1, 2020.

The request for indexing spousal support was denied as it was a temporary order.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' four-year-old son, with the respondent mother bringing a cross-motion for the same relief.

The parties separated in February 2011 after marrying in May 2008.

Following separation, the respondent mother made allegations of abuse against the applicant, which were investigated by the Children's Aid Society and found to be unsubstantiated.

Criminal charges were subsequently withdrawn when it became apparent the child had been coached.

The court found the respondent mother had engaged in a campaign to discredit the applicant and subjected the child to unnecessary intervention.

The applicant father was found to offer a more stable environment and balanced approach.

The court granted temporary custody to the applicant father with liberal and generous access to the respondent mother.