M. Stangarone

The applicant father brought a motion for increased and unsupervised parenting time with the parties' three-year-old child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging the father had substance abuse issues, posed a danger to the child, and that the child was immunocompromised and at risk due to COVID-19.

The court found the mother's evidence of substance abuse to be historical and vague, and noted the father had passed numerous drug and alcohol tests.

The court concluded the mother's restrictions were excessive and not in the child's best interests, granting the father's motion for unsupervised parenting time, including overnights, subject to continued breathalyzer testing at pick-up and drop-off.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory arbitration endorsement award that denied some of her expert's requests for financial disclosure.

The respondent argued the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that the arbitral award was procedural and interlocutory in nature.

Relying on established case law, the court held that it has no jurisdiction to intervene in interlocutory arbitration awards and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent father brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, alleging the applicant mother breached various custody and access orders and seeking an order for reunification therapy with their 17-year-old son.

The mother brought a cross-motion to dismiss.

The court applied the three-part test for relief under Rule 1(8) and found no breach by the mother on a balance of probabilities.

The court further held that even if a breach had occurred, it would not order reunification therapy given the child's age, his resistance to the process, and the risk of negatively impacting his relationship with the father.

The father's motion was dismissed.

Following a Hague Convention application in which the court ordered the return of two children to Germany after finding the mother had wrongfully retained them in Ontario, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought over $67,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the mother argued that each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be substantially reduced.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Article 26 of the Hague Convention, the court found the father was the successful party but reduced the claimed costs due to excessive billing, duplication of work, inclusion of unrelated steps, and some unreasonable conduct by the father during the proceedings.

The court also considered the mother’s success on a motion involving the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and her financial circumstances.

A global costs award was made reflecting a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two children to Germany.

The children had travelled to Canada with the respondent mother for an educational exchange with the father's consent, which expired in August 2014.

The mother refused to return the children, arguing they were habitually resident in Canada and objected to returning.

The court found the children's habitual residence remained Germany and their retention in Canada was wrongful.

The court rejected the mother's defences under Articles 12 and 13, finding the children's objections were not substantial enough to override the Convention's purpose.

The children were ordered returned to Germany.

Following a trial where the respondent successfully obtained an order under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Indiana, the respondent sought costs of $87,394.46.

The applicant opposed the quantum, citing excessive billing and her own impecuniosity.

The court found the respondent's bill of costs excessive and reduced the starting point.

While the court would have awarded $35,000 in partial indemnity costs, it further reduced the award to $12,500 to account for the applicant's precarious financial circumstances and the best interests of the child, noting that impecuniosity is a relevant factor but does not provide complete immunity from costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis for three motions, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith and unreasonably by failing to provide financial disclosure and thwarting a settlement conference.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments that his behaviour was reasonable and that costs should be deferred.

Finding the respondent's conduct warranted full recovery, the court awarded the applicant $22,000 in costs, to be paid from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.