Meghann Melito

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of his two-year-old child from Ontario to Australia.

The respondent mother opposed the application, arguing the child's habitual residence was in Ontario and raising exceptions under Articles 13(a) and 13(b).

The court found that the child's habitual residence had become Ontario prior to the alleged wrongful retention, largely due to the parties' relocation plans and the father's abusive conduct and withdrawal of financial support.

Alternatively, the court found the father had acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent husband brought a motion to vary a preservation order under section 12 of the Family Law Act to allow him to obtain a mortgage to close the purchase of a pre-construction condominium.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, citing the husband's failure to disclose significant assets, including foreign bank accounts and real estate, and his history of transferring funds out of the country.

Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions, the court found a serious question to be tried regarding the equalization payment, a risk of irreparable harm due to potential dissipation of assets, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The motion to vary the preservation order was dismissed.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and an order prohibiting the respondent husband from obtaining further orders until he satisfied outstanding undertakings.

The court found the respondent failed to make sufficient efforts to comply with undertakings to produce contact information and mortgage applications.

The court ordered the respondent to take specific steps to obtain the documents and prohibited him from seeking further orders until the mortgage applications were produced.

The court also found the applicant established a prima facie case for interim spousal support, imputed an income of $300,000 to the respondent, and ordered him to pay $1,790 per month.

The parties disputed the costs of motions regarding their children's school enrollment, in which the applicant was successful.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably by unilaterally enrolling the children in a different school and refusing to adhere to their prior educational plan.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs because the applicant refused to participate in mediation/arbitration.

The court found neither party's conduct warranted a departure from partial indemnity costs.

The applicant was awarded $9,033.00 in costs, payable upon the resolution of the remaining issues or the sale of the family residence.

The applicant husband brought a motion to strike the respondent wife's pleadings, dispense with her consent to the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home, and obtain temporary exclusive possession.

The wife had repeatedly failed to comply with a prior consent order requiring her to cooperate in listing the home for sale and to provide financial disclosure, and she did not attend the motion.

The court declined to strike the wife's pleadings at this stage but granted the husband sole carriage of the sale and temporary exclusive possession of the home to facilitate its sale, along with costs.

Following a successful Hague Convention application ordering the return of two children to Nevada, the applicant father sought costs for the Ontario proceedings and related expenses.

The court found that the respondent mother acted in bad faith by concealing the children's whereabouts and deceiving the court about their passports.

The court awarded the father full recovery costs of $6,240 for the bad faith conduct and an additional $30,000 for the balance of the proceedings, deferring payment of the latter amount to allow the mother to regularize her immigration status and pursue business plans.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two infant children from Ontario to Nevada.

The respondent mother opposed the return, alleging domestic violence and arguing that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation under Article 13(b).

The court found that the children were habitually resident in Nevada and wrongfully removed by the mother.

The court held that the mother failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish the Article 13(b) exception, noting the availability of legal and protective resources in Nevada.

The application was granted and the children were ordered returned to Nevada.

The Applicant sought costs following partial success on a motion to stay the Respondent's motion to change.

The Applicant claimed costs on a full recovery basis, arguing the Respondent acted in bad faith and that she beat her offer to settle.

The court rejected the bad faith argument and found the offer to settle was not as favourable as the order obtained.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, reduced to reflect her divided success, fixing the amount at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce the terms of a final order and sought costs.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and also sought costs, arguing she was substantially successful because the father only succeeded on two of the eleven terms he sought to enforce.

The court found the father was the successful party, noting that the breach of any term in a court order is one breach too many.

However, the court apportioned costs for divided success, discounting the father's partial indemnity costs claim by 60 percent and awarding him $6,400.