Mohan D. Sharma

The Applicant mother initiated a motion to change a consent Final Order regarding decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for their child, M. The court found a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent father's non-compliance with communication orders, abusive communication, and frustration of the Parenting Coordinator process.

The court granted the Mother sole decision-making responsibility (with a positive onus to consult), adjusted the parenting schedule to reduce the Father's weeknight overnights while extending one weekend per month, and ordered the Father to pay monthly child support and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses with an annual cap.

The court declined to find parental alienation.

This is a costs decision following a 10-day trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant father was substantially successful on primary issues including parenting and financial orders.

The court found the Respondent mother's conduct unreasonable due to her persistence in unsubstantiated abuse allegations, failure to make offers to settle, late abandonment of relocation relief, and non-compliance with court orders.

While bad faith was not established, the unreasonable conduct and the Applicant's reasonable offers to settle justified a costs award.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis, deducting amounts related to criminal proceedings and significantly discounting law clerk fees for administrative tasks.

The Respondent was ordered to pay $130,000 in costs to the Applicant.

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the Respondent's pleadings, the Applicant sought a declaration of resulting trust over the matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, resolution of retroactive support claims, and a divorce.

The court found that the matrimonial home was held in a resulting trust for the Applicant, as she had made all financial contributions and title was placed in the Respondent's name for liability purposes.

The court determined that the Applicant had significantly overpaid spousal support and dismissed all retroactive support claims by setting them to zero.

A divorce was granted, and the Applicant was awarded fixed costs.

The parties separated and engaged in high-conflict family litigation.

The mother and her family influenced the young child to make false allegations of sexual abuse against the father, leading to criminal charges of which the father was ultimately acquitted.

The father was denied parenting time for over two years due to the allegations and the involvement of the Children's Aid Society.

The court found parental alienation occurred, though not necessarily with malice, and ordered a swift phased-in return to a 50/50 shared parenting schedule.

The court imputed income to the mother for child and spousal support purposes, ordered a brief continuation of spousal support, and dismissed the father's claim for malicious prosecution.

This was a costs endorsement following two family law motions concerning release of sale proceeds held in trust to a moving non-party with an ownership interest in the property.

The court reviewed the purposes of costs under the Family Law Rules, including partial indemnification, encouragement of settlement, sanctioning inappropriate conduct, and the primary objective of dealing with cases justly.

Substantial indemnity costs were refused against two opposing parties because their positions, while unreasonable, did not amount to bad faith.

However, one respondent's changed position between the two motions justified a higher costs burden, resulting in fixed costs of $10,000 against that respondent and $7,000 jointly and severally against the other two respondents.

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $340,000 based on multiple offers to settle.

The applicant failed to file responding costs submissions despite court reminders.

The court found the applicant took unreasonable positions and failed to comply with financial disclosure obligations.

However, considering negative findings regarding the respondent's historical income and the high rates charged by counsel, the court fixed costs at $250,000 payable by the applicant, enforceable as a support order.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking an advance on equalization, interim disbursements, permission to mortgage a property, quantification of a penalty for non-disclosure, and orders compelling compliance with prior court orders.

The applicant husband opposed, arguing the respondent's non-compliance with parenting orders and his own financial difficulties.

The court dismissed the request for an advance on equalization due to significant uncertainty regarding the net family property calculation and property valuations.

However, it granted interim disbursements of $118,000 to the respondent to "level the playing field" for legal and expert fees, allowing the applicant to secure a loan against his unencumbered condominium to satisfy this payment.

The court declined to quantify the penalty or issue new compliance orders, directing these issues to be addressed at a case conference with the assigned case management judge.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $6,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The moving non-party, Mohsen, brought a motion within a family law proceeding for the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a property he jointly owned with the respondent husband.

The applicant wife and respondent mother-in-law opposed the release, seeking preservation of the funds.

The court found that issue estoppel applied, as a prior order had already determined Mohsen was entitled to his share of the proceeds.

The court further held that Mohsen was not bound by a prior oral agreement to sell his share for a fixed amount, as that agreement had been repudiated, and that he was not liable for a second mortgage on the property.

The court ordered $144,185.13 to be released to Mohsen.

The Respondent mother and the Children's Lawyer brought a summary judgment motion against the Applicant father seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, child support, contribution towards s.7 expenses, no equalization payment, and dismissal of the father's spousal support claim.

The father, who is self-represented and suffers from significant disabilities, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that a fair and just determination could not be made due to insufficient evidence, particularly regarding the father's medical condition and financial disclosure, and the rushed scheduling of the motion.

However, the court issued interim parenting orders granting the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, with the father's parenting time to be in accordance with the children's wishes, including supervised contact for the younger child.

The court also ordered further disclosure and a settlement conference, declining to award costs to any party due to mixed conduct.

This judgment addresses two related applications concerning the interpretation of a Parking Agreement and an Assignment Agreement.

The primary issues involved determining the correct formula for calculating parking rates, the necessity and admissibility of expert evidence, whether retroactive payments were due, and the authority of the parties to negotiate and fix parking rates.

The court interpreted the Parking Agreement to require rates based on commercial, bona fide, arm's length public parking rates, not landlord-to-tenant rates.

It rejected expert evidence as unnecessary for rate determination and found the submitted evidence from both sides deficient.

The court ordered retroactive payments from June 1, 2019, and implied a good faith obligation for all parties to negotiate the parking rate, clarifying that neither 1284225 Ontario Limited nor 200 Ferrand Realty Limited could unilaterally negotiate or impose rates.

This was a family law costs endorsement following a two-week trial concerning equalization, valuation disputes, loans from family members, spousal support, and post-separation adjustments.

The court found the applicant was predominantly and substantially successful and held that the respondent’s disclosure failures, document dumps, unsupported allegations, unreasonable positions, and inefficient trial conduct materially increased the costs of the litigation.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court concluded that the applicant had made reasonable offers to settle which she beat on significant issues, while the respondent had not.

Costs were fixed at $190,000, payable forthwith, with enforcement permitted against the respondent’s real property interests and post-judgment interest ordered.

The Applicant, Donna Rose Meffe, sought full indemnity costs following a two-week trial where she was largely successful on most issues, including the date of separation, business valuations, and spousal support.

The Respondent, Dominic Anthony Meffe, who was self-represented, opposed the costs request, arguing for partial indemnity and alleging unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant predominantly successful and the Respondent's conduct unreasonable, citing his failure to comply with disclosure orders"document dumps" and unreasonable positions on key issues.

The court fixed costs at $190,000 payable forthwith and allowed registration of the order against the Respondent's properties due to his history of non-compliance with court orders.

The parties, who cohabited for 15 months and had one child, separated in January 2021.

The applicant sought sole decision-making, relocation, and significant child and spousal support, alleging the respondent earned $900,000 annually from drug dealing.

The court ordered joint decision-making and denied the relocation, imposing a 10km geographic restriction.

The court imputed a high income to the respondent for 2021 based on lavish spending but declined to impute illegal income prospectively, setting his 2022/2023 income at minimum wage.

The applicant's income was imputed significantly higher for 2022/2023 based on bank deposits.

Spousal support was awarded for 2021 only.

After crediting the respondent for condo carrying costs and support overpayments, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $54,472.88.

This judgment concludes a four-day trial addressing child support and spousal support.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes, calculated child support under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and assessed the respondent's entitlement to spousal support.

The court declined to impute additional income to the applicant from reimbursed business expenses, finding them legitimate.

For child support, the court ordered the applicant to pay a set-off amount plus an additional $100 per month to ensure similar standards of living for the children in both households, considering the income disparity and the respondent's higher housing costs.

The respondent's claim for spousal support, both compensatory and non-compensatory, was dismissed, as the court found no economic sacrifices made by him during the marriage and that his mental health did not impede his ability to work.

The parties separated after a short marriage of less than three years.

The court resolved final issues regarding parenting, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court ordered a parallel parenting regime and a gradual increase in the father's parenting time, culminating in equal shared parenting.

The father's income was imputed for support purposes, resulting in retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support awards.

The court also ordered an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, finding that an equal division would be unconscionable given the short duration of cohabitation and the father's pre-marriage acquisition and improvement of the matrimonial home.

The applicant brought a contempt motion arising from the respondent's failure to maintain court-ordered life insurance, or alternatively post security, to secure ongoing child support obligations.

The court dismissed oral preliminary motions for recusal and for dismissal of the contempt proceeding, rejecting an argument based on the Kienapple principle and holding that contempt remained available under the Family Law Rules despite other procedural consequences already imposed.

Applying the civil contempt test, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent had actual knowledge of the relevant orders and intentionally failed to comply.

The court ordered payment of $100,000 into court as security, imposed a $10,000 penalty, provided for escalating daily penalties and preservation remedies upon continued non-compliance, and awarded full indemnity costs reduced to $57,744.16.

Following an urgent motion where the applicant father successfully obtained an order for the return of the parties' child from India, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the respondent mother's unilateral retention of the child in India was calculated and unreasonable, warranting sanction.

The applicant was awarded costs of $17,000 on a near full indemnity basis.

Following a trial where the plaintiff achieved partial success in a partnership dispute, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendants had made a Rule 49 offer to settle 19 years into the litigation.

The court found that the defendants beat their offer when comparing the trial judgment plus the plaintiff's costs up to the date of the offer.

Applying Rule 49.10(2), the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the offer date, and the defendants were entitled to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to reduce either party's entitlement based on conduct or divided success, resulting in a net costs award of $179,174.88 payable to the plaintiff.

The applicant mother sought an interim order to relocate with the parties' two children from Toronto to Ottawa due to a mandatory military posting.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing British Columbia was the children's habitual residence.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction as the children were habitually resident there pursuant to the parties' separation agreement.

The court granted the interim relocation, finding compelling circumstances, and ordered a flexible parenting schedule for the father.

The court declined to order child support, finding the father would suffer undue hardship due to the high costs of travel to exercise parenting time and his existing support obligations for two other children.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that Ontario has jurisdiction over the parties' child and for the child's return from India.

The respondent mother had travelled to India with the child for a scheduled visit but refused to return to Ontario.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act and declined to yield jurisdiction to the courts in India.

The court ordered the respondent to return the child to Ontario within 30 days and made interim parenting and asset preservation orders.