Pam MacEachern

This endorsement determines costs following a decision granting the Applicant interim unsupervised access.

The Applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, arguing he was the successful party and the Respondent acted unreasonably by failing to file responding material.

The Respondent opposed, citing financial hardship and alleging unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant was the successful party, although his offers to settle did not trigger full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The Respondent's failure to file material was deemed unreasonable.

Considering all factors, including the reasonableness and proportionality of the parties' behaviour and the offers to settle, the court awarded the Applicant $5,500 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable monthly.

The Respondent brought a motion to strike the Applicant's pleadings, for security for trial costs, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court found the Applicant had wilfully and egregiously failed to comply with three previous court orders, including two cost orders totaling $15,000 and a detailed disclosure order.

The Applicant's financial statements were found to be misleading and untrue, failing to disclose significant debts.

Applying a three-pronged test for striking pleadings, the court determined that there was a triggering event, striking the pleadings was appropriate given the exceptional circumstances and wilful non-compliance, and no other remedies would suffice.

The Applicant's pleadings were struck, the Respondent was granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and was permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial.

A conditional order was made allowing the Applicant to seek reinstatement of his pleadings if he fully complied with outstanding cost and disclosure orders by a specified date.

This endorsement determined costs following a previous decision where the respondent's motion for interim supervised access was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was the successful party and the respondent acted unreasonably.

The court awarded the applicant costs, finding her behavior reasonable and the respondent's unreasonable due to lack of disclosure and a tailored access plan.

The respondent's limited financial means were considered but did not insulate him from costs given his conduct, outstanding child support, and previous unpaid cost orders.

The respondent sought a change in interim access for Easter holidays and a set-off of costs against child support arrears.

The applicant opposed the Easter access request but consented to the cost set-off.

The court dismissed the motion for interim Easter access, finding no basis to vary the existing interim order, which had adjourned further access issues pending a Children's Lawyer report and contemplated holiday access beyond Easter.

The court emphasized the high test for varying interim access and noted the child's views and preferences.

Costs were fixed for the motion, and a net set-off was ordered against child support arrears, resolving all outstanding costs between the parties.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for the production of various records from the mother, H.D., in child protection proceedings.

The Society sought police records and mental health records for the mother, dating back to 2002 or 2010.

The mother consented to some productions but objected to the broad scope of others, arguing a lack of evidentiary basis for relevance.

The court, applying the "may be relevant" test under s.130(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, found that while some records were relevant, the Society had not established an evidentiary basis for the full scope requested.

The court ordered production of police and mental health records from 2015 to present, and specific records related to the children and a possible court-mandated assessment for the mother, but denied the broader requests.

The respondent sought interim supervised access to his two children, aged 9, after having no access since November 2017 due to charges of possession and distribution of child pornography and a prior conviction for sexually assaulting a minor.

The applicant opposed the motion, citing significant concerns about the respondent's criminal charges, mental health, and lack of disclosure.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for interim supervised access, finding it was not in the children's best interests given the serious nature of the charges, the respondent's mental health issues, the lack of information on the children's views, and outstanding disclosure.

The court ordered a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and further disclosure from the Children's Aid Society and the respondent regarding his medical status and treatment.

The applicant, Michael Andrew Sealey, brought a motion seeking interim unsupervised access to the parties' 10-year-old child, L.V. The respondent, Cherie Nicole Hoyte, opposed the motion, citing past allegations of abuse, abandonment, neglect, and substance abuse, which had previously led to supervised access.

The court found no basis for a risk of harm warranting continued supervised access, noting that previous allegations were unsubstantiated and the child's recent expressed wishes appeared influenced.

The motion was granted, establishing a graduated schedule for interim unsupervised access, with specific provisions for communication with the child and access exchanges.

The Applicant sought additional access to the child due to the Respondent's denial of access.

The parties agreed on a revised interim access schedule, with the court deciding two remaining issues regarding third-party exchanges and drop-off locations.

The court also addressed outstanding and new costs, ordering the Respondent to pay $1,500 in existing costs and an additional $500 for a withdrawn motion and an adjourned appearance.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests and the need for parties to comply with court orders and communicate via OurFamilyWizard.com.

The Applicant, Mr. A., brought an urgent motion seeking interim access to the parties' three children.

The Respondent, Ms. L., opposed the equal time-sharing request, advocating for alternate weekend access.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) and police were investigating allegations of abuse against Mr. A. The court, prioritizing the children's best interests, found Ms. L. to be the primary caregiver prior to separation and her evidence regarding abuse allegations more credible.

The motion for equal time-sharing was dismissed, and Mr. A. was granted supervised access on alternate weekends pending completion of investigations.

The applicant sought further penalties against the respondent for continued non-compliance with court-ordered access, following a prior contempt finding.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments that an appeal automatically stayed the orders or rendered the judge functus officio.

The court emphasized the respondent's obligation to comply with existing access orders, expedited the respondent's motion to vary, granted the applicant leave to amend his application for sole custody, and awarded costs to the applicant for the respondent's inappropriate conduct.

This decision addresses the costs of a contempt motion where the respondent was found not in contempt regarding the designation of an irrevocable trustee for child support life insurance.

The respondent, as the successful party, sought full recovery costs.

The court considered the respondent's unreasonable delay in providing crucial information from the insurer and the applicant's persistence with the motion despite receiving that information.

Ultimately, the court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, reducing the requested amount due to his delay and the excessive nature of his legal fees, while also acknowledging the applicant's continued pursuit of the motion.

This decision addresses the costs of disclosure motions in a family law matter where both the applicant and respondent were self-represented.

The court found that both parties had divided success and warranted criticism for their conduct regarding disclosure obligations.

Neither party made a formal offer to settle.

Given the divided success and unreasonable conduct from both sides, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent for repeatedly breaching an interim access order and subsequent judicial directions regarding their child.

The respondent unilaterally changed the access schedule and failed to comply with court orders, including specific directions from other judges.

The court found the respondent in contempt, emphasizing that court orders are not suggestions and unilateral changes are unacceptable.

Remedies included the continuation of the original access order, additional access for the applicant, and a suspended monetary penalty for the respondent, contingent on future compliance.

The applicant sought retroactive and ongoing child support for the youngest child, and an order for the respondent to maintain life insurance.

The respondent failed to appear or provide financial disclosure.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on lifestyle and adverse inference, ordered retroactive child support from October 2009, ongoing child support, and life insurance coverage.

Costs were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant sought an urgent order to travel with the parties' child to Iran during school holidays.

The respondent opposed, citing significant risks including Iran not being a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the child's dual Iranian and Canadian citizenship, and the lack of Canadian consular support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant's reasons, including an ailing grandparent, insufficient to outweigh the substantial risks to the child's best interests, particularly the risk of non-return to Canada.

The court emphasized that such complex issues are better addressed at trial.

This decision addresses costs following a motion in a family law matter.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs, arguing success on spousal support.

The respondent contended for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the applicant successful on spousal support but noted her unreasonable conduct regarding child-related issues.

Applying the principles of costs, including reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $1,200, acknowledging her partial success while accounting for her conduct.

This decision addresses the costs following a previous motion in Niranjan v. Rajaghatta, 2018 ONSC 5557.

The Applicant, Hema Niranjan, sought full recovery of her costs, arguing she was the successful party and the Respondent, Niranjan Rajaghatta, acted unreasonably.

The Respondent, self-represented, also sought costs, claiming success on child support and alleging the Applicant acted unlawfully.

The court found the Applicant was the successful party on the central issues of disclosure and the sale of the Brookstone property, and that her behaviour was reasonable.

The Respondent's behaviour was deemed unreasonable due to filing an unidentified affidavit and failing to provide full and frank disclosure.

Consequently, the court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $3,500, payable forthwith.

The applicant sought to stay the enforcement of child support until his Motion to Change was determined.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to strike the applicant's pleadings due to his non-payment of two previous cost orders.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding he had the ability to pay costs but was refusing to do so, thereby attempting to circumvent prior court orders.

The court stayed the applicant's Motion to Change proceedings until all outstanding costs were paid in full, including those awarded in this motion.

The respondent was granted leave to bring a future motion to strike the applicant's pleadings if costs remained unpaid by a specified date.

Costs for this motion were awarded to the respondent and the Family Responsibility Office.

This hearing confirmed a provisional order from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia that varied spousal support.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support, while the respondent requested refusal of confirmation or a variation to $900 per month.

The court confirmed the provisional order but varied it to nominal support of $1 per year, rather than complete termination, citing the long marriage and economic disadvantage to the respondent.

The court also ordered ongoing income disclosure between the parties.

The applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent for failing to irrevocably designate her as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy in trust for their children, as required by a previous court order.

The court found that the respondent was not in contempt, as the order explicitly made the designation conditional on whether it was allowed by the insurer, and the insurer did not permit an irrevocable trustee designation.

The motion was dismissed.