Meghann P. Melito

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the respondent successfully had an Omani divorce recognized.

The respondent sought over $36,000 in costs, including expert disbursements.

The court rejected the respondent's claim of beating an offer to settle, finding the offer non-severable.

The court also expressed concerns about the utility and reasonableness of expert evidence.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive, payable by the applicant, but payment was deferred until the outcome of the costs of the upcoming trial, allowing for potential set-off.

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.

The responding party commenced family law proceedings in Ontario.

The moving party subsequently obtained a religious divorce in Oman, which was later formalized and upheld by the Omani courts.

The responding party participated in the Omani proceedings, contesting jurisdiction and the merits of the divorce, and seeking custody.

The moving party brought a motion in Ontario to recognize the Omani divorce.

The court granted the motion, finding that the responding party had voluntarily attorned to the jurisdiction of the Omani courts by participating on the merits and seeking substantive relief, precluding her from challenging the foreign court's jurisdiction in Ontario.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of M.D. Faieta J. dated September 12, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,167.

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 mother brought the parties' child from Quebec to Ontario without notice, alleging coercive control and extreme COVID-19 isolation by the respondent father.

She sought to have the Ontario Superior Court assume jurisdiction over parenting matters under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act, arguing the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction, finding that s. 23 is intended for international cases involving non-signatories to the Hague Convention, not domestic inter-provincial disputes where the Quebec Superior Court is equally bound to consider the child's best interests.

The application was stayed pending a decision from the Quebec court on whether it would decline jurisdiction.

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 parties, separated parents of two children, brought cross-motions for directions regarding which schools their children should attend for the 2021/2022 academic year.

The applicant sought to maintain the parties' pre-separation education plan, which involved the older child attending a 50/50 French Immersion program at a school in Caledon and the younger child attending a full French school in Orangeville for kindergarten.

The respondent, who had unilaterally enrolled the children in a different school in Orangeville after purchasing a home there, sought to have both children attend the new school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as stability, the parents' ability to support the children's education, and the children's community connections.

The court found that maintaining the pre-separation education plan was in the children's best interests and ordered the children to attend the schools proposed by the applicant.

The moving party sought to quash an appeal brought by the responding party from a motion judge's dismissal of a request to reconsider a costs order.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's order refusing to reconsider the costs disposition was interlocutory, as it did not finally dispose of any substantive right.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the moving party.

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.

The Father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' four-year-old daughter to Arizona, her habitual residence, after the Mother unilaterally removed her to Ontario.

The Mother sought a declaration that Ontario had jurisdiction and argued that the Hague application was commenced more than one year after the wrongful removal, and that the child was settled in Ontario.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Arizona, the removal was wrongful, and the Father did not consent or acquiesce.

The court determined that the Hague proceedings were commenced within one year of the removal.

Even if not, the court found the child was not sufficiently settled in Ontario to dismiss the application, emphasizing the Convention's objectives of deterrence and rapid return, especially for a young child whose environment is primarily family-centric.

The court ordered the child's return to Arizona.

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.

This is a costs decision arising from a blended Hague Convention and child protection hearing.

The father successfully obtained an order for the return of the child to Minnesota, establishing that the child had been wrongfully removed from her habitual residence.

The mother had secretly removed the child from the father's custody in Minnesota and brought her to Canada.

The court found the child was in need of protection but ordered her return to Minnesota with conditions, including supervised access and a transition plan.

The father sought costs of $194,055.33 against both the mother and Justice for Children and Youth, claiming full recovery based on bad faith.

The court awarded partial costs to the father against the mother only, finding no bad faith but unreasonable conduct in the unlawful removal of the child.

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 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 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).

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to change a final custody order that had granted him sole custody of his two sons and required them to attend a reunification program.

The younger son had repeatedly run away and refused to live with the appellant or attend the program.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the son's extreme resistance constituted a material change in circumstances and that it was no longer in his best interests to enforce the custody order.

The court also dismissed the son's cross-appeal seeking a declaration that he had withdrawn from parental control, finding the motion judge's order that no person had custody or access rights over him was sufficient.