Meghann P. Melito

This is a costs decision following a successful appeal by the mother in a family law matter involving the Hague Convention and refugee status.

The mother's appeal overturned the application judge's decision to return the child to the country of origin after Canada granted the child refugee status.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the mother as the wholly successful party, fixing costs at $50,000 for the application and $30,000 for the appeal, totalling $80,000, while reversing the application judge's award of $75,000 to the father.

A wrongfully retained child was ordered returned to her country of origin after Canada granted her refugee status.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in failing to apply the rebuttable presumption against the return of a refugee child and in dismissing the child's objection to return.

The court held that when a child has been recognized as a Convention refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board, a rebuttable presumption arises that there is a risk of persecution on return.

The application judge improperly questioned the refugee determination process and reweighed evidence without oral testimony or cross-examination.

Additionally, the child's clear and repeated objection to return, based on fear of violence by the father, was not given proper weight.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination of parenting and decision-making authority under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving the validity of a family trust, equalization of net family property, unjust enrichment, and support issues.

The court found the Simcoe Group Trust to be a sham, ordered its assets and debts included in the Respondent’s net family property, and granted the Applicant an unequal division of property and lump sum spousal support.

The ruling also addresses the parties’ incomes, child support, and the impact of the Respondent’s financial conduct on the outcome.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion for restrictions on access to the court file and decision in a Hague Convention child abduction appeal, where the child had been granted refugee status.

The appellant sought anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of documents created under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court reviewed the open court principle, the best interests of the child, and the test for discretionary limits on openness from Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

The court ordered anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of IRPA documents, but declined to seal the entire file, balancing the child’s privacy and safety against the public interest in court openness.

This costs award follows the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Family Law Act and Divorce Act.

The court considered the parties' submissions on costs, the novelty and importance of the issues, and the proportionality of the costs sought.

The court declined to order full indemnity costs as requested by the respondent, instead awarding $25,000, finding this amount reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The husband appealed a family law judgment made following an uncontested trial in which he did not participate due to his failure to comply with court orders regarding financial disclosure and pleadings.

The wife brought a motion to quash the appeal based on the husband's ongoing non-compliance with support and costs orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, finding it more appropriate to hear the appeal on the merits.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in proceeding with an uncontested trial given the husband's repeated breaches of court orders and failure to provide financial disclosure.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a family law trial.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing success on parenting issues and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour, including her failure to make settlement offers and unilateral relocation.

The applicant sought no costs, citing divided success and precarious financial circumstances.

The court found divided success but determined the respondent was more successful overall, particularly on the primary parenting issues.

Considering the applicant's unreasonable conduct and financial situation, the court awarded partial costs of $10,000 to the respondent, payable over time.

The respondent's request to prevent further litigation until costs were paid was denied, as was the request for costs to be enforceable by FRO.

The Respondent Father moved to vary a previous order to expand his parenting time with the child.

The Applicant Mother opposed, proposing a more restrictive expansion.

The court, considering the child's best interests and a s. 30 Assessment, granted a graduated expansion of the father's parenting time, including alternate weekends, midweek time, and extended summer holiday periods, while rejecting some of the father's specific requests regarding transitions and travel distance.

The court emphasized the importance of promoting the child's relationship with both parents despite high parental conflict.

The applicant sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, along with child and spousal support.

The respondent sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and child support from the applicant, with spousal support based on imputed income for the applicant.

The court found the parties had a high-conflict relationship and that the applicant's choices contributed to instability.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making and primary residence, with the applicant having regular parenting time.

The court imputed income to the respondent for support purposes due to missed EI benefits but declined to impute income to the applicant due to her immigration status.

Spousal support was ordered payable by the respondent to the applicant, with arrears fixed, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) were adjusted due to the applicant's basic needs and immigration status.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for judgment following an uncontested trial in a family law matter.

The court addresses outstanding issues including child support arrears, spousal support, section 7 extraordinary expenses, pre-judgment interest on an equalization payment, life insurance to secure support obligations, compliance with a prior order for a family car, and establishing a consistent parenting schedule.

The court made specific orders on each of these financial and parenting issues.

The applicant sought an uncontested trial on parenting, support, section 7 expenses, division of property, and divorce.

The respondent failed to file an answer or comply with previous court orders.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the children, imputed income to the respondent for child and spousal support, and ordered the respondent to be solely responsible for a joint line of credit and to pay full indemnity costs due to his bad faith conduct and non-participation.

The court declined to make a final equalization payment order due to insufficient financial disclosure from the respondent, requiring further information from the applicant to finalize certain financial orders.

This appeal involved cross-appeals concerning the recognition of an Omani foreign divorce and the Superior Court's jurisdiction over parenting issues for the parties' child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the recognition of the Omani divorce, finding that the applicant had attorned to the Omani court's jurisdiction by voluntarily participating in the proceedings on the merits.

The court also upheld the Superior Court's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over parenting matters, determining that the child was habitually resident in Ontario at the relevant time, and that the Omani divorce order did not oust this jurisdiction.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking an order to return their 5-month-old son to Oman, claiming it was the child's habitual residence.

The applicant wife opposed, asserting that Ontario was the child's habitual residence and thus the Ontario court had jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario under s. 22(1)(a) of the Children's Law Reform Act, and alternatively, that jurisdiction was established under s. 22(1)(b).

The respondent's motion was dismissed, and the applicant's cross-motion for jurisdiction was granted.

The Applicant brought a motion to find the Respondent in breach of court orders for disclosure and to strike his pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to persistent failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court found the Respondent in breach, struck his Answer, but allowed a 30-day period for compliance and a subsequent motion for reinstatement, emphasizing the egregious nature of the non-compliance and its impact on the administration of justice.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant on a full-indemnity basis.

This is a case management ruling in a high-conflict family law matter involving parenting, equalization, and support.

The court addressed the parties' failure to comply with filing directions for a combined Settlement/Trial Scheduling Conference, including lack of settlement conference documents, expert reports, and financial statements.

The ruling sets out strict timelines and directions for future steps, including motions regarding parenting time and expert appointment, OCL involvement, and preparation for a peremptory trial in May 2023, emphasizing the need to avoid further delay in the child's best interests.

Appeal of a motion judge's order terminating indefinite spousal support after 22 years.

The respondent sought termination in anticipation of retirement, while the appellant sought an increase to $15,000 per month.

The motion judge found a material change in circumstances based on the appellant's failure to return to the workforce despite having marketable skills and professional qualifications.

The motion judge terminated support effective October 5, 2016, and awarded costs of $50,000 against the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the termination, finding no error in principle and dismissing all grounds of appeal.

The Applicant sought to dismiss or stay the Respondent's Motion to Change a final order due to the Respondent's chronic non-compliance with multiple prior court orders, including those for spousal support, interim disbursements, costs, disclosure, life insurance designation, and corporate share transfer.

The court found a consistent pattern of willful non-compliance and granted the Applicant's motion in part, staying the Respondent's Motion to Change until he complies with outstanding financial obligations not subject to FRO enforcement and all conduct-related orders.

The Applicant's motions for summary dismissal and security for costs were dismissed as premature or moot.

The appellant sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a costs order in a family law matter.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no merit to the proposed appeal and determining that the trial judge had properly applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the trial judge's findings of bad faith against the appellant were fully supported by the record and that the costs order was justified under the mandatory language of Rule 24(8).