Pam MacEachern

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.

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 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.

The Applicant sought to vary a 2013 Final Order regarding parenting and child support, primarily due to a change to an equal timesharing arrangement for their child.

The motion also addressed life insurance to secure child support and minor adjustments to parenting provisions.

The court granted the motion with modifications, adjusting child support based on a set-off amount reflecting current incomes and equal timesharing, and imposing mutual life insurance obligations on both parties, with specific coverage amounts and annual reductions.

Minor parenting provisions were also updated to reflect the current living arrangement.

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.

The applicant brought a motion to change the child support provisions of a prior order, seeking updated child support and reimbursement for extraordinary expenses due to the respondent's default in providing income information and payments.

The court granted the requested adjustments to child support based on the respondent's imputed income and ordered payment of arrears for extraordinary expenses, as well as fixed monthly contributions for ongoing and future extraordinary expenses, including orthodontics.

The Respondent mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody, no access to the Applicant father, and a restraining order, following the Applicant's arrest for first-degree murder.

The Applicant did not file a responding affidavit.

The court granted the Respondent temporary sole custody, no access to the Applicant, permission to obtain a passport for the child and travel internationally without the Applicant's consent, and an interim restraining order against the Applicant for the safety of the Respondent and children.

The court declined to extend the restraining order to the maternal grandparents due to jurisdictional and standing issues and limited the radius to 100 meters.

Leave was granted for the Respondent to amend her Answer.

The applicant sought summary judgment for sole custody, no access, child support, and a restraining order against the respondent, who was incarcerated for sexually assaulting the applicant's other child.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, no access to the respondent (unless agreed/ordered), and a restraining order for both children, mirroring criminal terms for the child K. and permanent for child L. However, the court declined to impute income to the respondent for child support due to his incarceration and limited means, reducing his obligation to $0 for the present, with future support to be determined upon re-employment.

This trial endorsement addresses a family law dispute concerning child custody, access, and mobility.

The primary issue was the respondent mother's desire to relocate the child from Ottawa to the Sterling (Belleville) area.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the respondent and move with her.

Sole custody was granted to the respondent, with a detailed parenting schedule for the applicant father, including alternate weekends, specific holiday access, and alternating summer weeks.

The court also issued orders regarding transfer logistics, the applicant's driving credentials and insurance, and inter-parental communication.

The Children's Lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody for the mother and specified access for the father for the child, Jack.

The parties agreed on access terms.

The court granted the mother sole custody, giving significant weight to the 16-year-old child's well-reasoned wishes to mitigate parental conflict, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The father brought a motion to change, and the mother brought a cross-motion, primarily concerning child support adjustments and parenting arrangements for their 14-year-old child.

The court determined the annual child support adjustments retroactively from April 1, 2015, based on the methodology prescribed in a previous 2013 Order, including the treatment of a severance payment as income and the calculation of s.7 expenses with tax credits and a $1,500 activity cap.

The mother's request for sole religious custody was dismissed, as was her request for non-variable child support.

The court made minor adjustments to the parenting schedule, including transfer locations, pick-up/drop-off times, March Break sharing, and telephone access, but dismissed both parties' requests for more significant changes, emphasizing the child's best interests and the existing delicate balance in a high-conflict co-parenting relationship.

The applicant brought a motion for further disclosure regarding the respondent's residence, income, vehicle ownership, and compliance with court orders.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking interim access and adjustments to child support.

The court partially granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to produce specific documents including his 2014 CRA Notice of Assessment, letters regarding vehicle ownership, proof of insurance, and evidence of completing the Back on Track program.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion for interim relief, noting the impending trial date.

Both parties were ordered to provide updated financial statements and complete income tax returns.

The applicant sought an annulment of her marriage based on non-consummation and alleged immigration fraud by the respondent.

The court dismissed the application, finding that non-consummation due to wilful refusal is insufficient for annulment, as it requires evidence of permanent physical or psychological impotency.

Furthermore, the court reiterated that immigration fraud cannot be a valid ground for annulment under Ontario law, citing established precedent.

The applicant was granted leave to amend her application to seek a divorce.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking comprehensive financial disclosure from the Respondent, an order for interim child support, and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed the motion and attempted to bring a cross-motion, which was dismissed due to late service.

The court found the Respondent had failed to provide full and frank disclosure despite previous orders and drew an adverse inference regarding his divestment of corporate shares.

The court granted the Applicant's requests for detailed disclosure, ordered the continuation of interim child support, and mandated the sale of the jointly owned property, finding no prejudice to the Respondent's claims under the Family Law Act.

The court adjourned an uncontested trial in a family law matter, granting the applicant leave to amend her pleadings and making several interim orders.

Final orders for divorce, custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization were declined due to insufficient evidence, lack of proper notice to the respondent, and procedural deficiencies in the applicant's presentation.

The existing equal parenting arrangement for the twin children was ordered to continue, and interim child and spousal support were ordered based on an imputed income for the respondent, pending further disclosure and a final determination.

The Respondent moved to suspend or terminate interim spousal support, review spousal support, and change the primary residence of the youngest child for school purposes.

The Applicant cross-moved regarding the children's school and parenting schedule.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion to suspend or terminate spousal support, maintaining the existing order.

The review of spousal support was adjourned due to lack of updated financial information.

The court ordered a return to the alternating week-on week-off parenting schedule as proposed by the Applicant and directed both parties to apply for a cross-boundary transfer for the youngest child to attend Trillium Public School, aligning with the older child's school, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The Applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining interim unsupervised expanded access in a prior motion.

The Respondent opposed, arguing divided success and financial hardship.

The Court found the Applicant was the successful party on the motion and that his offer to settle met the requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

Considering the parties' limited financial means and the principles of modern costs awards, the Court awarded the Applicant $2,500 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for the respondent to pay all costs of transporting the children to and from school, and to pay costs of a prior motion heard on July 10, 2018.

The court denied both requests on an interim basis.

It found that the separation agreement did not expressly obligate the respondent to bear all transportation costs due to her relocation, and that the applicant's pleadings did not encompass the requested relief for transportation costs.

The court ordered that, on an interim basis, each party would be responsible for their own transportation costs and their own costs for both the July 10, 2018 motion and the current August 28, 2018 motion, citing a lack of constructive communication between the parties.

The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order to place the child, J.Q., in the Extended Care of the Society, with discretionary access for the mother and maternal grandmother.

The mother opposed the motion but failed to file responding material.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the child remained in need of protection due to the mother's ongoing substance abuse issues and inconsistent engagement with support services.

The father and paternal grandmother were in default.

The motion was granted, placing the child in the Society's extended care to provide stability and certainty.

Following a successful motion regarding interim parenting, disclosure, and an alcohol assessment, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The applicant had served an offer to settle that was as favourable or less favourable than the final order.

The court found the applicant presumptively entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed at $7,138.34.