Omar Khan

This is a costs endorsement following a motion and cross-motion concerning spousal and child support.

The applicant was deemed the successful party on the underlying motion, as spousal support was ordered despite the respondent's consistent refusal to offer any.

The court found the respondent's approach unreasonable.

Although the applicant's offers to settle did not strictly conform to Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules, they were considered under Rule 18(6) and found to have been unreasonably rejected by the respondent.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, but the amount was reduced due to the inclusion of work unrelated to the specific motion.

The respondent was ordered to pay fixed costs of $7,500 to the applicant.

The applicant sought spousal support, while the respondent sought child support and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses.

The court imputed rental income to the respondent based on an underutilized basement apartment and determined the applicant's income primarily from income replacement benefits.

The court ordered temporary spousal support for the applicant and child support for the respondent, but dismissed the respondent's claims for uninsured dental, medication, and tutoring costs due to insufficient evidence and lack of prior consultation.

The parties, who separated in 2017, brought competing motions to change a temporary shared parenting schedule and to determine which school their four-year-old child should attend.

Both parents sought primary residence or a change to the schedule.

The court dismissed both motions regarding the parenting schedule, finding neither party demonstrated a material change in circumstances or compelling evidence warranting an immediate change to the status quo.

On the issue of schooling, the court ordered the child to attend the public school in Angus proposed by the mother, finding it was in the child's best interests to attend a school closer to the mother's residence and to minimize exposure to parental conflict.

The respondent, Muhammad Ali, brought an urgent motion to terminate a warrant for committal for 118 days, issued due to child support arrears, citing the risks of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change in circumstances.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) opposed the termination, arguing the request was res judicata and correctional facilities had implemented protective measures.

The court found the motion urgent due to pandemic risks.

While acknowledging the need for enforcement, the court suspended the warrant of committal, rather than terminating it, to protect the respondent from COVID-19 exposure, allowing FRO to seek to lift the suspension once pandemic risks subside.

The applicant father and respondent mother, who never lived together, brought competing motions regarding temporary access and child support for their infant child.

The applicant sought gradually increasing unsupervised access without geographic restrictions.

The respondent sought extended supervised access at a family visit centre and various preconditions.

The court granted the applicant's motion in substantial part, ordering a phased transition from supervised to unsupervised access beginning with Saturday visits at the family visit centre, expanding to community access in Dufferin County and Peel Region, and eventually to the Greater Toronto Area.

The court increased child support to reflect the applicant's increased income and ordered proportionate contribution to daycare expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents recognizing each other's roles and building trust for the child's benefit.

Following a contested family law motion concerning access and temporary child support, both parties sought costs.

The court considered the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that costs follow the event and evaluated which party achieved substantial success.

The respondent on the underlying motion was found to have achieved success on the primary issues, including the amount of temporary child support and the terms of supervised access.

Although unsuccessful on several minor issues, those matters were considered insignificant relative to the central disputes.

The court therefore awarded the successful party partial indemnity costs of $4,500, rejecting a claim for full indemnity costs as excessive and unsupported.

In a family law motion arising after separation and criminal charges against the father, the court addressed temporary access, child support, evidentiary issues, and ancillary relief.

Portions of the mother’s affidavit referring to settlement offers and statements from case conferences were struck as inadmissible under the Family Law Rules.

The court held that supervised access at an institutional centre should only be ordered where necessary for safety and that, on the evidence, supervision by the father’s family members was sufficient.

Temporary child support was set based on the father’s disability income rather than his prior employment income, as the evidence did not support intentional unemployment or imputation of income.

Additional issues concerning credit for prior payments, insurance benefits, and return of a motor vehicle were also determined.