Mercedes Ibghi

In a family law motion arising from a final child support order made after an uncontested trial, the responding party sought to stay the payor's Motion to Change because of substantial arrears and ongoing non-compliance.

The court declined to impose a stay on the issues relating to ongoing child support, holding that there was a credible basis for a post-order material change in the children's living arrangements and that fairness required a determination on the merits.

The court also permitted a rule 25(19)(a) fraud-based challenge to be heard within the Motion to Change proceeding, adopting a flexible approach under the Family Law Rules.

Although the moving party did not fit neatly within the enumerated grounds for security for costs, the court ordered proportionate security of $30,000 in light of the procedural history, unpaid financial obligations, and continuing litigation risk.

The appellant father sought a stay pending appeal of retroactive child support and costs orders, reinstatement of his suspended driver's licence, and a refraining order against further federal enforcement measures.

The court held that the appeal met the low serious-issue threshold in relation to the application of retroactive support principles and the departure from the presumptive three-year period, but the interests of justice did not favour a stay because the balance of convenience, clean hands, and delay all weighed against the moving party.

Relief under the support-enforcement scheme was also denied because the moving party had not satisfied the statutory conditions for driver's licence reinstatement or for preventing a federal licence denial application.

The court nonetheless directed that monies paid to the Director in excess of the prior unstayed costs order and any costs ordered on the motion be held pending disposition of the appeal.

The applicant mother and respondent father, both Swiss citizens, separated in 2022.

The mother sought to maintain primary residence of their three children in Toronto, while the father, who had to return to Switzerland due to immigration issues, sought to relocate the children to his residence in Switzerland.

The mother made numerous unsubstantiated allegations of abuse and misconduct against the father.

The court found that while both parents offered suitable plans, relocating the children to Switzerland would cause significant upheaval and sever their relationship with their older half-sibling.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence remain with the mother in Toronto, but granted the father generous parenting time during summers and holidays, along with regular virtual access.

The court also imputed income to the mother based on regular family gifts, ordered proportional sharing of special expenses, granted the divorce, and awarded $90,000 in costs to the father due to the mother's unreasonable conduct during the litigation.

The respondent obtained a successful motion for a parenting order regarding three children of a marriage in Switzerland and sought substantial costs of $9,772.24.

The applicant opposed the costs award, arguing no costs should be awarded or alternatively that costs should not exceed 40% on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was the successful party overall despite some issues being decided in the applicant's favour, and awarded costs of $6,000 including disbursements and HST, applying the proportionality principle and considering all factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Cette décision porte sur une motion du père intimé visant à exercer son temps parental avec les trois enfants du mariage en Suisse durant l’été 2025.

La mère s’oppose à ce que le père ait dix jours consécutifs de temps parental et propose des conditions alternatives, notamment le retour quotidien des enfants.

Le tribunal analyse l’intérêt supérieur des enfants, la répartition des frais de voyage, la question de la résidence habituelle, et les garanties de sécurité.

L’ordonnance accorde au père dix jours consécutifs de temps parental en Suisse, avec partage des frais et diverses conditions logistiques et de sécurité.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following an uncontested child support trial where the father was found to have acted in bad faith by deliberately misrepresenting his financial position and failing to comply with court orders.

The court awarded the mother $100,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be enforced as support by the Director under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The court emphasized the importance of proportionality and reasonableness in costs awards and recognized the exceptional circumstances due to the father's conduct, which necessitated extensive legal efforts by the mother to uncover his true financial status.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's claims for equalization, retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, and a constructive trust over the former matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the claims for equalization and retroactive support, finding them statute-barred or otherwise too late due to lack of timely notice and potential prejudice to the payor.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the constructive trust claim over the property proceeds, noting credibility issues and the applicability of discoverability to real property claims.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The court heard a family law trial involving divorced spouses, Maria and Antonio Moretti, addressing claims for spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, constructive trust over the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and breach of trust.

The court dismissed Maria's claims for retroactive and ongoing spousal support and equalization, finding her to have recklessly dissipated assets through gambling and undeclared income, which made an equal division unconscionable.

Antonio's claims for occupation rent and breach of trust were also dismissed.

The only remaining issue was ongoing child support for their adult son with autism, for which further evidence was required.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal and a motion to introduce fresh evidence brought by the appellant.

The respondent sought costs, but the appellant failed to file submissions.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the appeal and motion for fresh evidence, including proceedings in the Divisional Court, at $17,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the appellant to the respondent.

The appellant, Jason Sutton, appealed a family law judgment and associated costs order made in favour of the respondent, Alison Sutton, after a trial.

The trial judge awarded the respondent an equalization payment, lump sum spousal support, and costs, secured by a charge on the matrimonial home.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's factual findings regarding the respondent's imputed income, the use of a "list" in determining spousal support, and the costs award, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, no error in principle in the costs award, and denied the fresh evidence application, reiterating that it is not the role of the appellate court to retry the case.

The moving party father brought a motion for a refraining order to enjoin the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from applying to suspend his passport due to child support arrears.

The moving party claimed he was unemployed and needed to travel to Algeria to visit his ill mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it had no discretion to interfere because the moving party had not entered into a payment plan or satisfied the Director that he was unable to pay the arrears.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if it had discretion, it would have denied the motion because the moving party did not come to court with clean hands, having prioritized discretionary expenses over child support.

The self-represented appellant commenced an appeal in the Divisional Court from a final family law order granting spousal support and equalization.

The amounts ordered were well in excess of the Divisional Court's monetary jurisdiction under s. 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal, arguing prejudice from delay and that she had previously warned the appellant he was in the wrong court.

Applying the test under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, the Divisional Court found there had been confusion regarding jurisdiction and ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal.

This ruling addresses the costs of an urgent motion brought by the father to reinstate parenting time, which was resolved by consent.

The father sought full recovery of costs, arguing the mother's non-compliance necessitated the motion.

The mother sought her own costs or that each party bear their own, arguing the motion was unnecessary and she was more successful as counselling was agreed upon.

The court found the father was more successful in reinstating parenting time, which the mother had unilaterally suspended in breach of a prior order.

However, the father also behaved unreasonably by not informing the mother about a counselling session with the child.

Considering both parties' unreasonable conduct and offers to settle, and the disproportionate legal costs, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $3,500.00 in costs.

The applicant sought an equalization payment and retroactive child support.

The respondent had declared bankruptcy and was discharged in 2011.

The court held that the equalization claim was a provable claim extinguished by the bankruptcy discharge.

However, child support obligations survive bankruptcy.

The court imputed income to the respondent for the years he lived in Cameroon, finding he was intentionally underemployed.

Child support arrears were fixed at $50,939, and ongoing support was ordered.

A costs decision following a two-day trial in a family law matter concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant sought costs of $40,000 (including legal fees of $34,398, disbursements of $1,000, and HST of $4,602).

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith throughout the litigation, which lasted six years.

However, the court determined that full recovery of costs was not appropriate given the complexity and duration of the matter, and the applicant's own conduct contributed to delays.

The court applied Rule 18(14) regarding settlement offers and found the applicant's offer of settlement met the required conditions.

The court awarded costs of $33,000, payable within 60 days.

A family law matter concerning custody, access, and child support for two children born to unmarried parents who separated in 2011.

The applicant mother sought exclusive custody, regular visitation rights for the father at her discretion with five days' notice, child support according to guidelines, and contribution to extraordinary expenses.

The respondent father sought equal parenting time or alternatively three weekends per month, and a reduction in child support based on excessive hardship due to other financial obligations.

The court granted the mother's requests for discretionary access, rejected the father's excessive hardship claim due to insufficient evidence, and ordered child support retroactively and prospectively according to guidelines, with contribution to childcare expenses.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving a child with complex medical needs (short bowel syndrome requiring G-tube feeding and intravenous nutrition).

The child was apprehended in July 2015 after the mother, a permanent resident from Niger, faced housing instability, expired work permit, and loss of income in Alberta.

The Society sought Crown wardship for adoption.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to the mother's failure to adequately care for the child given the circumstances at the time of apprehension.

However, after hearing extensive evidence regarding the mother's demonstrated ability to care for the child in Alberta, her improved cooperation with the Society, and the child's strong bond with his mother, the court ordered the child be placed in the mother's care subject to Society supervision for six months rather than granting Crown wardship.

The decision emphasizes the importance of continuity of care, cultural and linguistic considerations, and the least disruptive course of action.

The applicant sought to set aside a divorce order, equalization of net family properties, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant not credible, noting his history of deception and disregard for financial disclosure.

The court questioned the validity of his prior Russian divorce and dismissed all his claims, citing the short duration of the marriage, the applicant's dishonesty regarding his financial state, and his minimal contributions to the relationship.

This ruling addresses costs related to motions for temporary relief in a family law matter.

The applicant (wife) sought income attribution, child support, spousal support, disclosure, and life insurance.

The respondent (husband) sought disclosure and insurance security.

The court found a mixed outcome, attributing a lower income to the husband than sought by the wife, ordering child support, denying spousal support, and granting disclosure and life insurance.

Both parties were found to have unreported income and incurred significant legal costs disproportionate to their limited resources.

Despite mixed success, the wife was deemed the overall successful party, but due to the disparity between her claims and the orders, and the absence of an offer to settle, she was awarded only token costs.

High-conflict custody dispute where each parent had primary care of one child following separation.

The court found that the parties were incapable of effective communication, rendering joint or parallel parenting unworkable.

Relying on expert evidence from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and Children’s Aid Society, the court emphasized the importance of siblings being raised together and determined that the mother was the more suitable custodial parent despite flaws in both parties’ conduct.

Sole custody of both children was granted to the mother with structured access to the father.

The court also addressed child support, retroactive support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property, ultimately declining spousal support and equalization while establishing prospective child support and a credit mechanism for retroactive support.