Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCJ

A costs endorsement in a family law matter concerning a mother's application to relocate with her 12-year-old child to Dominica and seek retroactive child support.

The father failed to provide required financial disclosure and failed to timely complete an intake form for the Office of the Children's Lawyer, causing the Office to decline services and rendering a scheduled settlement conference unproductive.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and awarded costs to the mother.

This ruling addresses a defence application to prevent the Crown from calling evidence in response to two Charter applications due to the Crown's late or absent responses.

For the first application (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)), the court found the Crown's late response did not cause surprise and permitted evidence.

For the second 'overholding' application (ss. 7, 9), the Crown had not responded and sought to introduce new, undisclosed evidence.

The court ruled against delaying the case for new disclosure, allowing the Crown to respond only with previously known evidence and denying an adjournment for new evidence.

The father brought an urgent motion for the return of the children to Toronto, their habitual residence, after the mother unilaterally relocated them to Pembrooke.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking an order to permit the relocation.

The court found that the children's habitual residence remained Toronto due to the father's timely objection to the move.

The mother failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify the temporary relocation, and her allegations of family violence were not substantiated on the evidentiary record.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo and compliance with notice requirements under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father's motion was granted, and the mother's cross-motion was dismissed, with an order for the children to be returned to Toronto.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the child, Maddaline, to her primary care as per a separation agreement, after the respondent unilaterally withheld the child following a temporary COVID-19 arrangement.

The respondent sought to maintain primary care based on the child's stated preference.

The court found urgency due to the respondent's self-help actions in changing the long-standing status quo.

While acknowledging the child's views, the court determined that the views were potentially influenced by the circumstances created by the respondent and lacked sufficient consistency over time.

The court ordered the child's immediate return to the applicant's primary care and school in her catchment area, upholding the prior status quo.

Claims for temporary decision-making and a police assistance clause were dismissed without prejudice.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking extended society care for two children, J.G.P.G. and J.B.G., following the termination of an interim care order.

The respondent mother, M.G., did not file responding materials, and the respondent father, F.B., though noted in default, was permitted to make submissions.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the children's permanent placement, and ordered extended society care with specified access for both parents and the children's older sister, D.G.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support seeking $4,564 per month pending trial.

The respondent opposed the motion but offered to consent to $2,500 per month.

The court considered the applicant's need and the respondent's ability to pay.

The applicant had not been employed since 2018 and was receiving only Canada Emergency Response Benefit income of $2,000 per month, with monthly expenses of approximately $7,009.

The respondent received monthly income from a structured settlement annuity of $6,850 plus CERB of $2,000, with monthly expenses of approximately $8,748.

The court determined that the applicant had established a prima facie case for entitlement to temporary support and that the respondent had the ability to pay.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $3,900 per month commencing September 1, 2020, with credit for rent payments already made by the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings in a Motion to Change proceeding.

The father had failed to comply with multiple court orders, including: cessation of child support payments (arrears of $11,900), failure to provide financial disclosure despite court orders and multiple adjournments, failure to pay a costs order, and refusal to engage in court-ordered reunification counselling.

The court found egregious and exceptional circumstances warranting the striking of the father's Response to Motion to Change, Affidavit in Support of Custody and Access, and Financial Statement.

However, recognizing the involvement of children and the potential merit of the father's claim regarding changed circumstances due to retirement, the court provided a pathway for re-engagement with specific compliance conditions to be met by December 31, 2020.

Motion by the respondent mother to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the interests of her daughter in an ongoing child protection application.

The child has been the subject of a protection application since August 2016, with allegations of abuse by the father that have been investigated and found unsubstantiated by multiple professionals.

The matter involves high domestic conflict between the parents and is proceeding to trial.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests, finding that legal representation is deemed desirable under section 78 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, given that the child is not permitted to be present at trial and the competing positions of the parents cannot adequately protect her interests.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for three children.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $34,843 after obtaining a successful judgment on most issues, including sole custody of the children.

The respondent (father) failed to file costs submissions within the required timeline and subsequently sought his own costs in his response, which the court found procedurally improper and substantively without merit.

The court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother) in the amount of $22,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, taking into account the respondent's unreasonable conduct, limited financial circumstances, and poor litigation decisions.

This is a costs decision following the court's determination of two motions: the respondent's motion for summary judgment and the applicant's motion for temporary child support.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the applicant on the issue of entitlement to child support and awarded both retroactive and prospective temporary child support.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $17,789.72, arguing success, failure of the respondent to make settlement offers, unreasonable litigation behavior, and bad faith.

The respondent argued no costs should be awarded or alternatively costs should be limited to half of partial indemnity costs due to divided success.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs, finding the applicant was substantially successful, the respondent engaged in unreasonable behavior including refusing to respond to settlement offers and bringing numerous unsuccessful procedural motions, and while not finding bad faith, the respondent's conduct warranted full cost recovery.

This is a costs decision arising from motions in a family law matter.

The court granted the mother temporary custody of two children, permitted travel without the father's consent, and ordered the father to pay temporary child support retroactive to July 1, 2015, including arrears of $11,577.

The father's motion for joint custody, shared parenting time, and child and spousal support was dismissed.

The mother sought costs of $9,094.74 while the father sought approximately $1,800.

The court awarded costs to the mother as the successful party, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules and the reasonableness of the amounts claimed.

A costs decision arising from a motion to change a child support order.

The respondent father sought to reduce his monthly child support obligation based on a decrease in income.

The parties settled the motion on March 31, 2015, with the father agreeing to maintain the original support amount until the child completed secondary school, while the mother abandoned her claim for past special expenses.

The court determined that the mother achieved greater success and awarded her partial costs of $3,000, finding divided success but favoring the applicant's position.

A costs decision following a family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant was substantially successful on most issues, winning on seven key matters including shared parenting transition day, texting provisions, travel notice requirements, child support calculation methodology, and dance cost contributions.

The respondent succeeded only on the child support arrears quantum issue.

The court found the matter should have been resolved by motion rather than full trial, as all issues had been resolved until the respondent's counsel took control in fall 2014.

The applicant made a reasonable settlement offer that the respondent rejected on a vindictive basis.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a party-to-party basis pre-trial and on a full recovery basis for trial costs.

A child protection society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order with no access for a child apprehended at birth and in care for nearly three years.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child under supervision.

The father was in default and did not participate.

The court found the child in need of protection based on the parents' history with the society, prior judicial findings, and the mother's ongoing substance abuse, mental health issues, cognitive limitations, unstable relationship with the father, and lack of cooperation with the society.

The court rejected the mother's argument that a triable issue existed regarding whether her drug use negatively impacted her parenting ability, finding insufficient evidence to support such a claim.

The court made the child a Crown ward with no access to either parent, prioritizing the child's need for permanency planning and adoption prospects.

This is a costs decision following a one-day child support trial.

The court imputed the respondent father's income at $35,000 per annum and ordered him to pay child support of $830 per month for four children, retroactive to July 1, 2012, while dismissing the applicant mother's claim for contribution to section 7 special expenses.

The mother sought costs of $3,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court awarded costs in full, finding the mother was successful, had made a reasonable settlement offer that was not accepted, and that the father had acted unreasonably by failing to provide timely financial disclosure, being found not credible, underreporting income, and ceasing child support payments.

An applicant in child protection proceedings brought an application for court-appointed legal counsel, arguing she had exhausted legal aid appeals, could not afford private counsel, and found the issues too complex.

The Attorney General opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while legal representation would be beneficial, the applicant was intelligent and articulate with sufficient capacity to represent herself.

The applicant had rejected the Attorney General's offer of funded counsel on a repayment basis, and the court found her financial circumstances would have permitted such an arrangement.

The court also noted that finding counsel willing to take the case would likely cause delays that were unnecessary given the applicant's demonstrated competence.

The court addressed whether it was functus (without jurisdiction) to reconsider a costs ruling made on March 11, 2013, after the respondent's counsel's written submissions on costs were inadvertently sent to an incorrect fax number and not received by the court prior to the ruling.

The court determined it was not functus and that it was in the interests of justice and procedural fairness to reconsider the respondent's materials and revisit the costs ruling.

An interjurisdictional support order application brought by a father residing in Winnipeg, Manitoba against a mother residing in Sault Ste.

Marie, Ontario.

The father sought child support from the mother for their biological child and a child to whom he stood in loco parentis, and sought to vary or terminate existing support orders from British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba courts.

The application was converted to a case conference due to both parties' absence.

The court identified significant procedural deficiencies in the applicant's application and the respondent's failure to file required documentation, and adjourned the matter to allow both parties to cure these deficiencies.

This is a costs decision in a child protection matter under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant apprehended a child based on allegations of physical and emotional abuse in the home where the child resided with his mother and the V. family.

The matter was resolved within two months through a consent order and subsequent supervision services agreement, with the application withdrawn.

The mother sought costs against the Society.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding that the Society conducted a thorough investigation, acted fairly and reasonably, and properly reassessed its position as new information became available.

The court held that the Society's conduct met the standard of fairness expected of child protection agencies.

A costs endorsement following a motion for child support and orthodontic expenses.

The applicant sought costs of $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, while the respondent sought no costs award.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and had made a reasonable offer to settle on December 14, 2011, which complied with all conditions under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent's offer to settle was significantly less favourable than the final order.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable within 45 days, taking into account the respondent's ability to pay and the tax deductibility of legal fees for support recipients.