M. Roshan

This decision addresses the issue of costs following an 11-day trial concerning property equalization, child support, spousal support, and a claim for damages related to family violence.

The court found the Mother (Respondent) to be more successful overall, particularly on the novel tort claim for family violence and the Father's income imputation.

Despite the Father's arguments for divided success, the court awarded costs to the Mother, considering her relative success, the parties' conduct, the complexity of issues, and the Mother's offers to settle.

The Father was ordered to pay the Mother $20,000 in all-inclusive costs, which included a portion for her self-representation time.

This document provides supplementary reasons to a prior judgment (A.A. v. K.A., 2022 ONSC 1303), correcting calculation errors related to retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, and the final accounting between the parties.

The corrections resulted in an updated total amount owing from the Father to the Mother, specifically an additional $8,049 in full satisfaction of family and civil claims, and revised retroactive spousal support of $30,555.

The court also ordered that neither party claim tax deductions for the retroactive support due to the revised after-tax cost/benefit calculations.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard an 11-day trial concerning property equalization, child support, spousal support, and a claim for damages related to family violence.

The court recognized a common law tort of family violence, finding the Father liable for a 16-year pattern of physical, psychological, and financial abuse.

The Mother was awarded $150,000 in compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages for the tort.

The court also made findings on the parties' incomes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and determined the final equalization payment, largely in the Mother's favour.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the parties' 13-year-old son to move with her and his younger sisters to Ajax.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing the son should remain in Mississauga where he attends school and plays high-level soccer.

The court conducted a confidential interview with the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court determined that the son should remain in Mississauga on an interim basis to minimize disruption to his schooling and soccer routines, but ordered a robust access schedule to ensure he maintains contact with his mother and sisters.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2003 child support order based on changed circumstances.

He had lost employment due to injury and sought to reduce support to zero.

The respondent mother sought retroactive variation for three years, claiming the applicant had failed to disclose employment income as required by the original order.

The court found the applicant had breached his disclosure obligations and ordered retroactive support from May 1, 2010 based on actual income earned in each year.

For 2013, the court imputed income equivalent to full-time minimum wage rather than accepting the respondent's argument to impute income based on expenses.

The court also ordered the applicant to contribute to school uniforms and shoes as section 7 expenses and suspended ongoing support during his full-time college retraining period while requiring arrears payments.

The respondent in a family proceeding brought a motion to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation registered against residential property, arguing the applicant had no reasonable claim to an interest in the land.

The applicant asserted a constructive, resulting, or implied trust based on unjust enrichment arising from an eight‑year cohabitation during which she performed domestic and caregiving roles that allegedly enabled the respondent to focus on his business activities.

Applying the test under s. 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act and the principles in Kerr v. Baranow, the court held that although the claim appeared weak, it was not devoid of merit and constituted a reasonable claim to an interest in land.

The court further exercised its equitable discretion to maintain the certificate, noting evidence that the moving party had previously engaged in sham transfers and asset shielding.

The motion to discharge the Certificate of Pending Litigation was dismissed.