Pamila Bhardwaj

The father brought a motion to change a 2018 final order for child support, seeking a retroactive and prospective reduction based on his enrollment in a college program and receipt of OSAP funding.

The mother opposed the reduction and brought a cross-motion seeking an increase in support based on the current minimum wage.

The court applied the framework from Colucci v. Colucci and found that neither party established a material change in circumstances.

The court held that the father's transition from social assistance to OSAP funding did not demonstrate a decrease in his earning capacity below the minimum wage imputed in the original order, nor did it establish an increase in capacity to justify the mother's request.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed, and the original child support order remained in effect.

The moving party sought panel review of an order refusing a further extension of time to perfect an appeal from a Superior Court order.

The court held that review of a motion judge's decision is deferential and not a de novo reconsideration.

The moving party identified no legal error or misapprehension of evidence in the motion judge's reasoning on delay and prejudice.

The panel declined to reweigh the factors and dismissed the motion with costs.

The moving party sought enforcement of an earlier disclosure order requiring production of an “unredacted” Crown brief in related withdrawn criminal proceedings for use in an upcoming family trial.

The court found the non-party ministry’s handling of disclosure was unsatisfactory and significantly delayed, but held that the prior order could not reasonably be interpreted as compelling disclosure of privileged Crown communications and work product without any privilege analysis.

The court also held that a brief To Be Spoken To endorsement did not finally determine privilege issues for the present motion.

On a balance of probabilities, the redacted categories were privileged, and breach was not established.

The motion was dismissed, with no costs ordered against the moving party.

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 decision addresses a costs endorsement following parenting motions concerning a 6-year-old child.

The mother was successful and sought costs of $13,526.

The father, initially represented by counsel but later acting in person, did not file costs submissions.

The court reviewed general principles of costs under the Family Law Rules, including reasonableness, proportionality, and conduct of the parties.

The father breached court orders by overholding the child and attending the child's school contrary to the order.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 payable monthly by the father, considering his modest means and ongoing child support obligations.

The applicant father sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed, citing potential adverse impacts on their autistic child's mental health and prejudice to her equalization and support claims.

The court found no expert evidence to support the claim of adverse impact on the child's health and determined that the mother's financial claims could be adequately protected by holding sale proceeds in trust.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering the sale of the matrimonial home with closing delayed until the end of the school year to mitigate disruption for the children.

In this interim parenting motion, the applicant father sought primary care of the elder child and shared care of the younger, while the respondent mother sought primary care and decision-making authority for both children.

The court found compelling evidence of the applicant's physical and psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behavior towards the respondent, which exposed the children to family violence.

Preferring the respondent's evidence, the court determined that the children's best interests, particularly their safety and well-being, required them to reside primarily with the respondent mother, who was also granted sole decision-making authority.

The court rejected the applicant's "status quo" argument, finding it was created through coercive behavior, and emphasized the importance of children having a relationship with both parents while prioritizing safety in cases of family violence.

This costs endorsement followed a two-day trial regarding child support.

The applicant sought costs of $24,654.89.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and the costs consequences of an unaccepted offer under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant's second offer to settle was found to be more favourable to the respondent than the trial result, triggering the presumptive full recovery of costs from that date.

The court found the respondent's conduct, including concealing financial circumstances, misrepresenting separation date, and asserting a meritless spousal support claim, to be unreasonable and manipulative, justifying the full costs award despite potential hardship to the respondent.

This endorsement addresses the applicant mother's request for costs following a successful undefended trial for child support.

The respondent father failed to file an Answer/Claim or provide financial disclosure, leading to unnecessary litigation costs.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, found the mother's counsel's hourly rate reasonable but the total time claimed disproportionate to the case's complexity.

Costs were fixed at $8,500, significantly less than the $14,543 sought, with a payment plan considering the father's modest income but also his unreasonable conduct.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support and contributions to special expenses from the respondent father for their 11-year-old son, arguing for income imputation due to the father's under-reporting and non-disclosure.

The father opposed, claiming a later separation date and lower income.

The court found the father lacked credibility, engaged in blameworthy conduct by misrepresenting income and failing to provide financial disclosure, and determined the parties separated in 2013.

The court imputed income to the father for various years and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2017, along with a contribution to special expenses.

A payment schedule for the accumulated arrears was also set.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and child support, while the respondent father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting time.

The court found the father's evidence inconsistent and uncorroborated, noting his history of family violence, breaches of court orders, and false allegations of abuse.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, adopted her detailed parenting schedule, and imputed income to the father for child support, ordering retroactive payments.

This trial concerned the respondent father's child support obligations for the parties' four-year-old son.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support from November 1, 2018, imputation of the father's income at $43,235, and 50% contribution to the child's swimming expenses.

The father, found in default for failing to file responding material, opposed retroactive support and argued for a later start date, no support during his incarceration, and no ongoing support.

The court found the father in default, dismissed his request for an adjournment and extension, and proceeded with an uncontested trial on support issues, allowing the father only to make oral submissions.

The court imputed the father's annual income at $42,000 from November 1, 2018, including during his incarceration, citing his blameworthy conduct and the child's disadvantaged circumstances.

The court also ordered the father to pay 50% of the child's swimming expenses as an extraordinary expense.

The father was credited $1,000 for past payments, and arrears were fixed at $14,779.

The court determined costs for two temporary motions within a motion to change parenting and support.

For the first motion (production of documents), the mother was successful, and the father was ordered to pay her $1,500.

For the second motion (temporary parenting time), the father was successful in achieving his requested supervised parenting time, and the mother was ordered to pay him $750.

The court also analyzed the application of Rule 18(14) regarding offers to settle, finding that neither party's offer met the strict technical requirements for the presumptive costs consequences.

Overall, the costs were set off, resulting in the father owing the mother $750.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant mother sought to restrict the respondent father's parenting time due to his unvaccinated status and non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found the mother to be the more successful party, having significantly reduced the father's parenting time and imposed safety measures.

Despite the mother's offer to settle not meeting the strict requirements for full indemnity costs, the court awarded partial costs, finding the father's conduct unreasonable for not making an offer and failing to address safety concerns.

The court considered the father's modest income in setting a payment schedule.

This trial addressed parenting arrangements and child support for the parties' two-year-old son.

The Applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary care, while the Respondent father sought the same.

The court found the mother to be a more credible witness, demonstrating greater responsibility in addressing the child's medical needs and showing positive steps towards stability.

Conversely, the father's credibility was undermined by contradictory evidence, a history of neglecting the child's medical care, and ongoing criminal charges, raising concerns about the child's safety and well-being in his care.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making authority for the child's health, education, and significant extra-curricular activities.

The father was awarded parenting time for three consecutive weekends per month and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The decision emphasized the paramountcy of the child's best interests, considering factors such as physical and emotional safety, stability, and parental cooperation, in accordance with the amended Children's Law Reform Act.

The father applied to revoke the legal change of his daughter's surname from 'Russell' to 'Thompson', alleging the mother obtained the change fraudulently by failing to provide proper notice under the Change of Name Act.

The court found the mother intentionally sent blank papers instead of the required notice and affidavit of service, thereby obtaining the name change by fraud.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties based on their past litigation conduct and communication, finding the mother's actions to be hostile and vindictive, and the father's conduct reasonable.

The application was granted, and the name change was revoked.

The Applicant sought a temporary parenting order for increased unsupervised access to his three-year-old son, Rudi, which had been limited by the Respondent due to COVID-19 concerns and the vulnerability of her co-resident parents.

The court, considering the child's best interests, the evolving public health context, and previous judicial endorsements, granted the Applicant's motion for increased parenting time and unsupervised visits, emphasizing that the child's need for parental contact outweighed the Respondent's parents' objections, which were deemed rooted in mistrust rather than evidence-based health concerns.

The Respondent sought costs arising from two motions: a long motion that settled and an urgent motion where the Respondent was wholly successful.

For the long motion, the court found divided success and awarded modest costs to the Respondent.

For the urgent motion, the Applicant was found to have acted in bad faith by failing to remove a Certificate of Pending Litigation as agreed and ordered, misleading parties, and obstructing the property sale.

This conduct led to a full indemnity costs award for the Respondent.

The Applicant's arguments regarding the Respondent's unreasonable behavior and her limited financial means were given limited weight.

This is a costs decision arising from motions brought by the parties regarding custody and access to their four-year-old daughter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother sought enforcement of an existing custody order and requested temporary changes to limit the father to virtual access.

The father sought temporary custody of the child.

The court granted the mother's motion to enforce the existing order and dismissed the father's motion to change custody.

The court made temporary modifications to the access order, granting the father substantial parenting time including weekend access and midweek overnight visits, along with daily virtual access for both parents.

The mother was determined to be the more successful party and was awarded costs.

This is a costs decision arising from motions regarding temporary custody and parenting time for a 10-month-old child.

The respondent (father) was successful on the temporary custody issue and was the more successful party on the parenting time issue.

The applicant (mother) sought equal parenting time or alternatively three out of every four weekends, while the respondent proposed parenting time similar to what the court ultimately ordered.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but suspended payment for 2020 and ordered monthly payments of $75 starting January 1, 2021, taking into account the applicant's limited financial circumstances as a 20-year-old unemployed individual receiving only modest support from the Children's Aid Society.