Omar Rambhajan

The mother sought costs following her success on the father's motion to change child support.

The court found that the father acted in bad faith by hiding his income, running a cash business, and lying about his employment status.

As a result, the mother was entitled to full recovery costs under subrule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the mother $12,500 in costs, payable immediately, and ordered that the costs be enforceable as a support order by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

On a motion to change child support, the moving party sought to reduce support to zero based on social assistance, alleged inability to work, and undue hardship.

The court held that where income had previously been imputed, the payor bore the burden of proving a material change and explaining why the original imputation should no longer stand.

The court found the moving party not credible, found the financial disclosure inadequate, rejected the medical evidence as insufficient to establish inability to work, and concluded that he was either earning or capable of earning the previously imputed annual income of $50,000.

The undue hardship claim under s. 10 of the guidelines was dismissed, but the monthly table amount was updated to reflect the new guideline tables effective October 1, 2025.

The court also ordered that the moving party obtain leave before bringing any future motion to change support.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a high-conflict family law trial between Egle Maria Paglialonga and Jairo Umana Arias.

The court found the mother’s conduct in refusing parenting time to the father to be unreasonable and awarded the father $43,505 in costs, reflecting a near full recovery for trial costs and a partial recovery for pretrial conduct.

The decision discusses the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in costs awards, the importance of proper Bill of Costs documentation, and the risks of including privileged information.

The applicant father sought primary weekday parenting time and interim child support for the parties' two children.

The respondent mother cross-moved for dismissal, declaratory orders for torts of family violence and battered women's syndrome, supervised visits for the father, sole decision-making, and child support.

The court dismissed the respondent's tort claims, affirming no such torts exist in Ontario.

The court criticized the respondent's motion materials for non-compliance with practice directions.

The court found both parties engaged in family violence: the respondent through emotional/psychological abuse by withholding children and misusing police contact, and the applicant through financial abuse by not paying support and attempting to divert child benefits.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule, rejecting the father's request for primary weekday care and the mother's request for supervised visits and sole decision-making.

Interim child support was ordered, with the applicant paying retroactive and ongoing set-off support based on imputed incomes.

Detailed communication and transition orders were also made, superseding criminal undertaking conditions.