Pamila Bhardwaj

The applicant mother sought child support for a three-year-old child from the respondent father.

The mother requested the table amount of $510 per month based on an assessed income of $55,336.

The father claimed undue hardship under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines and requested a reduced amount of $200 per month.

The court assessed the father's income at $51,938 for 2019 and $53,236 for 2020, resulting in table amounts of $478 and $491 respectively.

The father's undue hardship claim was dismissed as he failed to demonstrate exceptional, excessive, or disproportionate hardship.

The court found the father had surplus income and that his discretionary expenses (particularly a $630 monthly car payment) were not necessary.

The court ordered the father to pay the table amount retroactively from February 1, 2019, with credits for payments made and arrears payable at $100 per month.

The applicant mother sought temporary spousal support of $2,100 per month and sought to impute the respondent father's income at $102,884 annually while claiming zero income for herself.

The respondent father sought temporary child support from the mother, claiming she should be imputed minimum wage income of $29,120 annually, and sought spousal support at the low range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court determined that the father deliberately reduced his income from $102,884 to $50,000 by changing positions, but found this reduction reasonable due to new child care responsibilities.

However, the court imputed the father's income at $80,000 due to inadequate financial disclosure and suspicious circumstances.

The court found the mother entitled to temporary spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds and ordered the father to pay $1,350 per month, significantly exceeding the SSAG ranges due to compelling financial circumstances and basic needs exceptions.

The father's claim for child support was dismissed.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to find the applicant (mother) in contempt of the access provisions of a January 4, 2019 order.

The court dismissed the contempt motion.

The applicant sought costs of $4,746.

The respondent argued the costs were excessive.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 to the applicant, significantly discounting the claimed amount due to the applicant's inappropriate and abusive email communications to the respondent, which escalated animosity between the parties and contributed to the motion being brought, despite the respondent's motion being ill-conceived and lacking merit.

This motion concerned two primary requests by the respondent mother: (1) to dismiss the father's appeal from a 2016 trial decision for delay, and (2) to continue an interim order for supervised access pending a motion to vary the existing access order in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court applied the test for dismissal for delay, considering the significant two-year delay, lack of explanation, prejudice to the child's stability, and the father's failure to pay previous costs orders and provide evidence of merit.

The court also found ongoing concerns regarding the father's ability to provide a safe environment and his conduct during access, justifying the continuation of supervised access.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a default order dated November 6, 2017, which granted sole final custody of a four-year-old child to the mother and awarded child support of $442 per month based on an imputed annual income of $49,100.

The father argued he was actively involved in the proceeding and nearly completed his materials when noted in default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father's supporting affidavit lacked substance and failed to disclose adequate grounds for a defence on the merits.

The father had failed to file required financial documentation despite multiple extensions and nearly eight months since service of the application.

This is a costs decision following a focused hearing on access to a three-year-old child.

The father, as the successful party on the merits, sought costs of $11,695.50.

However, the court denied all costs due to the father's egregious post-trial conduct, specifically his public Facebook post containing vulgar and abusive language directed at the trial judge.

The court found that while the father was technically successful and had made a reasonable settlement offer, his unreasonable behaviour warranted deprivation of costs as a sanction and deterrent.

The respondent father brought a motion for unsupervised overnight access to his two young daughters on alternate weekends and sought to terminate his child support obligation and rescind arrears, claiming his detention and strict bail conditions prevented him from working.

The applicant mother opposed and cross-moved for no access pending receipt of evidence from the Children's Aid Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The mother alleged a pattern of domestic violence, including forcible confinement and assault during a four-day period in June 2017.

The court found the allegations sufficiently concerning and ordered supervised access once weekly for two hours through the Children's Aid Society, pending further evidence.

The court rejected the respondent's request to terminate child support, finding evidence that he owned and controlled a substantial international shipping company with significant income available to him, inconsistent with his claim of minimum wage employment.

A costs decision following a seven-day family law trial concerning custody, parenting time, and child support.

The mother was substantially successful on all issues and sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $60,340.

The father, representing himself, sought costs from the mother in the amount of $157,330, claiming victimization and making serious allegations against the mother's counsel and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $45,000, disallowing the law clerk fees in their entirety and reducing the overall award to account for the father's modest financial circumstances.

The respondent mother, who was substantially successful on all issues in a three-day custody and access trial, sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $36,103.

The applicant father argued that costs should be limited to $10,000-$12,000 based on his financial constraints and the importance of custody matters.

The court awarded costs of $31,674, finding that the mother was entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court disallowed the paralegal fees entirely due to lack of detail in the bill of costs, excessive hourly rates, and the nature of work performed.

The court emphasized that the costs rules are designed to discourage family law litigation and that parties cannot escape costs consequences by arguing the importance of custody cases or their honest beliefs about the child's best interests.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial regarding child support obligations.

The applicant (mother) sought full recovery of costs of $17,868.13, while the respondent (father) sought no costs order.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful than the father at trial.

The father failed to make a settlement offer, delayed disclosure, and did not comply with multiple court orders.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $50 per month starting March 1, 2017, recognizing the father's limited financial circumstances while emphasizing that litigants of modest means must act reasonably or bear the consequences.

A custody and access trial involving two parents seeking sole custody of their three-year-old son.

The mother sought custody based on being the primary caregiver since birth, while the father sought custody citing the mother's emotional instability, repeated threats of self-harm and harm to the child, and mental health concerns.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, finding that while the mother adequately meets the child's physical, medical, and educational needs, her emotional instability and inability to control her behavior in front of the child creates a real risk of emotional harm.

The court granted the mother substantial access including alternate weekends and weekday visits, and ordered the father to pay child support retroactively.

The court also made critical findings regarding the inadequate response by Native Child and Family Services of Toronto.

A mid-trial ruling on the admissibility of voice recordings and certified transcriptions of telephone conversations between the parents in a custody dispute.

The father sought to introduce ten recordings of conversations with the mother to support his claim that she is emotionally unstable and poses a risk of emotional harm to their young son.

The mother objected on grounds that the recordings were made surreptitiously and that public policy should discourage such evidence.

The court admitted both the recordings and transcripts into evidence, finding either that the recordings were not surreptitious (as the mother had been advised of recording in 2014) or, alternatively, that the probative value outweighed policy considerations given the importance of the issues and the best interests of the child.

The respondent brought an urgent ex parte motion for temporary sole custody of the child, alleging that the applicant had denied him access and was failing to meet the child's educational and emotional needs.

The applicant opposed the motion and raised concerns about the respondent's removal of the child from Toronto in violation of a prior court order.

The court found a material change in circumstances and granted the respondent temporary sole custody, finding that the applicant had failed to address the child's complex needs, including trauma from sexual assault, stress-related auditory hallucinations, learning difficulties, and potential gender identity issues.

The court terminated the respondent's child support obligation and ordered further submissions regarding the applicant's access to be heard on a return date.

A custody and access trial involving a nine-year-old child whose parents have been in litigation for four years.

Both parents initially sought joint custody but ultimately both sought sole custody.

The father sought week-on, week-off parenting (50-50), while the mother sought primary residence with specified holiday access.

The court found the mother to be the more credible and child-focused parent.

The father was found to have engaged in verbal and physical abuse toward the mother, demonstrated aggressive and hostile behavior toward professionals, and lacked insight into his conduct.

The mother was found to be proactive in addressing the child's developmental and emotional needs.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with specified parenting time to the father.

The appellant, Pedro Alves, sought a stay of a custody and access order issued by Justice Spence, which granted sole custody of the parties' child, Miguel, to the respondent, Julia Quintana Londran.

The appellant argued that Justice Spence erred by reversing the status quo.

Applying the three-part test for a stay (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience), the court found that while the appeal raised a serious issue, the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to the child.

The court emphasized the child's need for stability and found no evidence that Miguel was suffering from the change in custody.

The balance of convenience also favored refusing the stay.

Consequently, the appellant's motion for a stay was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs of $3,000.00.

A trial concerning custody, access, and child support for a four-year-old child.

The applicant father sought sole custody with limited access to the respondent mother, while the respondent mother sought sole custody with alternate weekend and Wednesday access to the father.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding that despite the father's provision of stable housing and instrumental care, the mother was more child-focused and better able to recognize and address the child's developmental needs.

The father demonstrated a pattern of attempting to minimize and eliminate the mother's involvement in the child's life, including attempting to have the mother deported.

The court also found evidence of the father's history of domestic violence and his dismissive attitude toward the mother.

Child support was ordered at $207 per month based on the father's WSIB income.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on child support obligations.

The court imputed income to the father and ordered him to pay child support.

The mother sought costs of $9,356.40, while the father sought no costs award.

The court found the mother was the successful party and entitled to costs, but reduced the award to $4,800 due to the mother's failure to make an offer to settle and the lack of a detailed bill of costs.

The court distinguished between bad faith and unreasonable behaviour, finding the father's incomplete financial disclosure was unreasonable but not in bad faith.

The costs are to be paid at $200 per month starting June 1, 2016.

The applicant mother sought child support from the respondent father for their eight-year-old child.

The father claimed he had no ability to pay, citing his pursuit of a professional football career and full-time university enrollment.

The court found the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to him based on his capacity to earn.

The court rejected the father's argument that his educational and athletic pursuits justified non-payment of child support, finding that parental obligations take precedence over personal career aspirations.

The court imputed income at $25,000 per annum retroactive to December 1, 2014, and $30,000 per annum from January 1, 2016, resulting in monthly child support obligations of $200 and $245 respectively.