Mary Margaret Cybulski

The Applicant mother sought costs following a settled disclosure motion, while the Respondent father sought partial indemnity costs, claiming the motion was unnecessary.

The court found the father's ongoing lack of compliance and delays with financial disclosure to be unreasonable conduct.

The mother was deemed the successful party on the substantial issue of disclosure, despite the motion settling.

The court awarded the mother elevated fixed costs of $2,800, finding the father's conduct warranted such an award but did not reach the threshold of bad faith for full indemnity.

The father's request for costs was dismissed.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following a trial where S.B. was the entirely successful party.

S.B. sought full indemnity costs of $157,681.47, citing G.S.'s bad faith conduct, failure to follow court orders, and causing significant delays and unnecessary litigation steps.

The court found G.S.'s conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, noting the waste of court time.

After accounting for some overlaps with previously ordered costs and a trial adjournment not attributable to G.S., the court found the requested fees reasonable and ordered G.S. to pay S.B. $146,000 in costs.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of the children to Ottawa and unsupervised access.

The respondent mother opposed, requesting the children remain with her in Niagara and that the father's access be supervised due to his mental health issues.

The court ordered the mother to return the children to the matrimonial home in Ottawa, granted her exclusive possession, and allowed the father unsupervised access three times a week.

The mother was permitted to travel with the children to Niagara one week per month, during which the father could exercise access in Niagara.

The court found no compelling reasons for relocation and no evidence warranting supervised access.

The father moved for a temporary order to increase his parenting time, reduce child support, and address section 7 expenses.

The mother opposed and sought orders for decision-making authority, retroactive and ongoing child support, and other child-related issues.

The court addressed the admissibility of hearsay evidence (letters) under the principled exception, finding them reliable and necessary.

The father's request for equal parenting time was granted, applying the "maximum contact" principle.

The mother's request for sole decision-making authority was denied as premature.

Child support was adjusted based on a set-off calculation using the father's 2018 income and the mother's current income.

Summer parenting was set at two five-day periods per parent.

The mother was permitted to renew children's passports without the father's signature due to the father's surreptitious conduct, but international travel without the other parent's consent was denied due to COVID-19 restrictions.

The applicant sought an order for the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and an amendment to her application to reference the Partition Act.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing prejudice if sold before trial, and sought medical disclosure and an independent medical examination of the applicant.

The court granted the amendment and some medical disclosure by consent, and ordered the applicant to provide hospital records.

However, the applicant's motion for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home was denied, and the respondent's request for an independent medical examination was dismissed.

The court found that the trial was imminent, the applicant's financial hardship was not sufficiently proven, and the fair market value of the home was in dispute, making a pre-trial sale prejudicial to the respondent.

The applicant mother sought costs following a six-day trial where she was largely successful in retaining primary residence and decision-making authority over children's health and education, while the respondent father's claims for equal parenting time and joint decision-making were unsuccessful.

The father also abandoned a constitutional challenge to child support guidelines during closing arguments.

The court found the father's litigation conduct unreasonable, including bringing motions without material change, making accusatory statements, and pursuing a constitutional challenge without evidence.

Despite the father's arguments of inability to pay, the court awarded the mother costs totaling $57,338.05, comprising partial, substantial, and full indemnity costs for different periods and issues, with a minor reduction for junior counsel rates.

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 applicant and respondent sought a court order to determine which French elementary school their child, Dezmond, should attend commencing September 2018.

The applicant proposed l’École élémentaire catholique Au Coeur d’Ottawa, while the respondent proposed l’École élémentaire et secondaire publique Maurice-Lapointe.

The court considered the child's best interests, including parental involvement, commute times, and the quality of education, ultimately ruling in favour of the applicant's proposed school due to significantly less travel burden on the child and the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with her three-year-old daughter from Ottawa to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

The mother sought to move for new employment, to marry her boyfriend, and to access her family support network, as she had no family support in Ottawa.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it was not in the child's best interests and would reduce his contact.

The court applied the two-stage test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, finding a material change in circumstances.

Considering the mother's role as the child's primary caregiver, the father's history of frequently cancelled access visits due to work commitments, the mother's legitimate reasons for moving, and the minimal disruption to the child due to her young age (not yet in kindergarten), the court granted the mother's motion to relocate.