Maria Linhares de Sousa

This endorsement addresses costs following a complex family law trial involving corporate interests, income determination, child and spousal support, and property division.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $578,388.22, while the Respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $150,000 against the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant substantially, though not completely, successful on major issues.

The Respondent's conduct, particularly concealing the sale of a business, was deemed extremely unreasonable and prolonged litigation, ruling out any costs award in her favour.

No bad faith was found by either party.

Considering the Applicant's success, the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, the complexity of issues, and the parties' ability to pay, the court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $350,000 in costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a prior order, seeking sole custody, termination of his child support obligation, and an order for the respondent mother to pay child support.

The motion also addressed the mother's financial disclosure obligations and the imputation of income for child support purposes.

The court found the mother's financial disclosure to be unduly delayed and inconsistent.

It imputed income to the mother based on her annual expenses, which were funded by her investment assets, rather than her declared line 150 income.

The court ordered the mother to pay child support and section 7 expenses based on the imputed income, retroactive to December 1, 2014.

The court also addressed the costs of the custody and access portion of the motion, finding that the father was entitled to costs up to the point the mother abandoned her custody claim.

This decision addresses costs following an application under the Hague Convention for the return of two children to Hong Kong.

The applicant, Mr. Habimana, was successful in obtaining an order for the children's return, as the respondent, Ms. Mukundwa, failed to establish a risk of harm.

The court found Ms. Mukundwa's conduct in removing the children to be unreasonable.

Neither party's offers to settle triggered automatic cost rules.

Considering the complexity, importance of the issues, and the parties' conduct, the court awarded Mr. Habimana $25,000 in costs, inclusive of legal fees incurred in Hong Kong and Canada, and transportation costs for the children and their mother's return.

The applicant sought unsupervised access and weekend access to his son, and to be relieved of random steroid testing.

The respondent opposed unsupervised access, seeking continued supervision, and requested child support based on an imputed income of $30,000.

The court ordered temporary supervised weekend access for the father, maintained the mother's primary residency and decision-making authority, and continued the father's obligation for random steroid testing.

The existing child support order was continued, and the father was ordered to provide full financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which an adverse inference could be drawn, and an income of $30,000 per annum could be imputed.

The Superior Court of Justice addressed a motion and cross-motion concerning interim child and spousal support.

The respondent mother sought support, while the applicant father sought income imputation for the mother, specific income determination for himself (including employment expense deductions), and proportional sharing of daycare costs.

The court rejected the father's proposed higher income imputation for the mother, instead imputing a lower part-time income effective several months later, acknowledging her medical leave.

The court included a one-time RSU payment in the father's income for support purposes and allowed his employment expense deductions and ongoing support payments for an older child, but denied anticipated post-secondary expenses for that child.

Interim child and spousal support were ordered, with retroactive application and a future adjustment based on the mother's imputed income, aiming for roughly equal net disposable income.

The respondent-father sought costs against the respondent-mother in a child protection matter.

The court found that the mother's conduct throughout the litigation was unreasonable, in bad faith, and disproportionate, causing unnecessary delays and costs.

Despite the general presumption against costs in child protection cases, the court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to award costs due to the mother's conduct, including refusal to cooperate, defiance of court orders, and failure to address protection concerns.

Costs were fixed at $16,000.

The applicant father sought the return of his two sons to Hong Kong under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The respondent mother contested, raising the Article 13(b) defense of grave risk of harm and an intolerable situation due to alleged spousal abuse and uncertain immigration status.

The court found that the mother did not meet the high threshold for the grave risk defense, noting no evidence of physical or psychological abuse of the children and that Hong Kong courts could address family law issues.

The court ordered the children's forthwith return to Hong Kong, subject to several undertakings by the father to ensure the mother and children's safe return and stability.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Kanata brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application concerning three children.

The mother, B.S., brought a cross-motion seeking various relief, including the return of the children to her care.

The court found the children to be in need of protection due to high parental conflict, the mother's refusal to cooperate with the Society and court orders, and concerns regarding her mental health.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, placing the children in the sole custody of the father, D.S., with supervised access for the mother at the father's discretion, subject to review upon completion of a mental health assessment.

The respondent father brought a motion regarding retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses for an adult child with mental health challenges.

The applicant mother was largely successful on the motion, as the father conceded the child remained a child of the marriage and the mother received retroactive section 7 expenses.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the mother's legal fees were excessive due to changing counsel, but awarded her $2,000 in costs payable by the father, noting her reasonable offer to settle.

The father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for an adult child attending college and requesting retroactive credit for alleged overpayments.

The mother opposed the motion and sought retroactive support for two older, now-independent children.

The court dismissed the father's request for retroactive credit and found the adult child remained a dependent entitled to ongoing support.

The court ordered base child support to continue and directed the parties to share section 7 expenses for tuition and medical costs proportionate to their incomes (65% father, 35% mother).

The mother's claim for retroactive support for the older children was dismissed.

The court considered written submissions on costs following a motion and cross-motion concerning custody, access, child support, property, and a restraining order.

While success on custody and access timesharing was divided, the Respondent was successful on final decision-making authority, interim child support, and the restraining order.

Neither party filed formal offers to settle.

Applying Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules and considering the relevant factors, the court found the Respondent had greater success and awarded her $1,500 in costs, all-inclusive, to be paid by the Applicant within 30 days.

This motion and cross-motion addressed interim parenting arrangements, child support, and property issues following the parties' separation.

The Applicant father sought joint shared custody or primary residence, while the Respondent mother sought sole custody, primary residence, child support, section 7 expenses, and a restraining order.

The court denied joint shared custody, maintaining primary residence with the mother, but granted the father increased access.

Child support was ordered for two children based on the father's income, declining to reduce it due to an unenforced prior support obligation from another biological parent.

Section 7 expenses and health coverage were ordered to be shared/maintained.

A restraining order against the father attending the former matrimonial home without consent was granted.

Property issues were deferred for future resolution.

This decision addresses costs in a long-standing family law dispute involving custody, access, and child support.

The respondent's motion to change custody and access was dismissed by consent, and support issues were resolved after the respondent provided complete financial disclosure, which had been significantly delayed.

The applicant was substantially successful on custody and access, and the final agreement largely mirrored the applicant's settlement offers.

The court found the respondent caused delays, particularly in financial disclosure, and awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, including GST/HST and disbursements.

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.