Craig Perkins

The applicant sought disclosure for claims of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, tracing, and spousal support.

The respondent moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims based on limitation periods and to strike or stay the application due to unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's disclosure motion, granted the respondent's summary judgment motion, dismissing the property claims due to expired limitation periods and laches, and stayed the application until the applicant complies with all outstanding costs orders.

The respondent wife brought a motion to stay the applicant husband's divorce application in Ontario, arguing that England was a more appropriate forum for the divorce proceedings, where she had also initiated an application.

The husband sought dismissal of the wife's motion and for his Ontario application to proceed.

The court found that the wife failed to discharge the onus of demonstrating that England was a more appropriate forum, noting that the parties were married in Ontario, had their only common residence and matrimonial home there, and the husband resided and had assets in Ontario.

The court dismissed the wife's motion for a stay, allowed the husband's application to proceed, and provided directions for future service and filing, awarding costs to the husband.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following several motions concerning a final consent order in a family law matter.

The original order granted custody of two sons to the father and prevented the mother's access.

The motions involved the Chief of Police seeking to remove a police enforcement clause, the mother seeking to change custody or have no custody order, and the father seeking enforcement and disclosure.

The court ultimately rescinded the final order in its entirety, declaring no person had statutory or non-statutory custody or access rights.

The mother, deemed successful in setting aside the order, sought full costs from the father.

The father argued for no costs, citing divided success and the mother's past parental alienation.

The court, exercising its discretion, awarded no costs, considering the mother's success but also her lack of effort to promote compliance with the previous order and her history of alienation.

The mother and the Chief of Police brought motions to change a final custody order that granted the father sole custody of two teenage sons and required police enforcement to compel the sons to attend a reunification program.

The sons, aged 16 and 18, had consistently refused contact with the father and actively evaded police enforcement.

The court found a material change in circumstances, removed the police enforcement clause, and rescinded the custody order entirely, concluding that it was impossible to enforce and no longer in the children's best interests.

No new custody order was made, leaving the sons to determine their own residential and contact arrangements.

The children and the Chief of Police were represented by separate counsel on the motions.

This was a costs decision following a family law appeal concerning custody, relocation, and trial fairness.

The appellant father succeeded only in having the matter returned to the Ontario Court of Justice for clarification and amendment of the final order, but failed in his primary objective of overturning the relocation and custody result.

The court held that the respondent mother's success on the more substantial issues was greater in light of the issues involved, the work done, and the time spent.

Costs of $13,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were awarded to the respondent mother, payable within 60 days.

The father appealed a final order of the Ontario Court of Justice granting the mother sole custody of a young child and permitting relocation to England, with specified access to the father.

The father alleged legal error in the relocation analysis, trial unfairness arising from late-produced evidence, misapprehension of facts, and deficiencies in the wording and enforceability of the final order.

The court held the trial judge correctly applied the best interests of the child test and made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing evidence regarding relocation, parental cooperation, and family connections.

However, the appellate court found that when settling the wording of the final order the trial judge should have considered proposed clarifications and additions rather than limiting changes to those consented to by both parties.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part, affirming the custody, relocation, and access determinations but remitting the final order to the trial judge to address wording, completeness, and enforceability issues, and determining that a July 2014 access visit satisfied the Toronto access requirement subject to travel reimbursement.

The mother, who had sole custody of the parties' two children, brought a motion to change a final consent order to permit her to relocate with the children to the Washington DC area to live with her fiancé.

The father opposed the move and brought a cross-motion to adjust child support.

The court applied the established relocation framework and found that a material change in circumstances had occurred.

The court determined that the move was in the children's best interests, noting their strong bond with the mother and her fiancé, their expressed preference to move, and the mother's role as the primary parent.

The mother's motion to relocate was granted, and temporary child support was ordered pending a reference to finalize the amounts based on imputed income.

Following unsuccessful motions and an appeal challenging two arbitration awards in a family law dispute, the successful party sought recovery of full costs totalling over $62,000.

The court considered the Family Law Rules governing costs, including the impact of settlement offers and the principle of proportionality.

Although the successful party achieved a result as favourable as his offer to settle, the court assessed the reasonableness of the total costs claimed.

Balancing proportionality, the complexity of the proceedings, and expectations of the losing party, the court awarded reduced costs consisting of $40,000 in legal fees plus tax and $1,333 in disbursements.

On a motion to change a 2011 consent order governing custody, residence, and child support under the Children’s Law Reform Act and Family Law Act, the father alleged the mother acted in bad faith by interfering with his relationship with the children and sought sole custody with primary residence in Ontario.

The children had moved with the mother to California pursuant to the consent order while Ontario retained jurisdiction.

After an eight‑day trial, the court found no bad faith by the mother and concluded the father failed to establish that transferring the children’s residence was in their best interests.

However, material changes in circumstances justified revisiting decision‑making authority and financial arrangements.

The court awarded the mother sole custody while maintaining the existing residence and access schedule, reduced the father’s table child support based on income excluding certain capital gains, and imposed limits on section 7 expenses.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent husband brought an unopposed Form 14B motion seeking validation of service of his answer, which had been uploaded to an electronic document exchange website known as “SIX.” The issue was whether uploading a document to the website constituted regular service under rule 6(2)(c) of the Family Law Rules, which permits service by depositing a copy at a document exchange to which the person’s lawyer belongs.

The court considered the technical operation of the platform and interpreted the terms “depositing” and “document exchange” in the context of electronic communication.

The court held that the website functioned as a document exchange and that the opposing lawyer “belonged” to it by having access and notice through the platform.

Service was therefore valid under the rule.

The applicant in a family law case claimed a constructive trust in the respondent's house arising from an alleged 13-year cohabitation.

The respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a constructive trust claim for an ownership interest in land is an 'action to recover land' governed by the ten-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court also noted that if the Real Property Limitations Act did not apply, there would be a gap in the legislative scheme for family law constructive trust claims.

The applicant sought costs after the respondent withdrew her answer in a family law application concerning the validity of a separation agreement and referral of child support issues to mediation/arbitration.

The applicant argued that under rule 12(3) of the Family Law Rules he was entitled to near full recovery of legal fees exceeding $22,000.

The court held that rule 12(3) entitles a party to costs thrown away by a withdrawal but does not automatically require full indemnity recovery.

Considering proportionality, the limited procedural steps taken, and the absence of unreasonable conduct, the court fixed costs at a reduced all‑inclusive amount.

Payment of the costs award was deferred until specified milestones relating to the mediation/arbitration of the child support dispute.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a final joint custody order seeking custody and primary residence of the child with her in Hamilton.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the prior order, including the child’s increased age, escalating parental conflict, and significant stress affecting the child’s well-being.

Evidence from professionals and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer indicated the child strongly preferred to reside with the mother and would benefit from the stability of that arrangement.

The court held that the child’s wishes carried considerable weight given her age and circumstances.

A temporary order was granted changing residence to the mother and permitting the child to attend school in Hamilton, with parenting time to the father.

Following a motion determining that Ontario would not exercise jurisdiction over custody and access issues concerning children residing in Mexico, the court stayed the father’s application.

The decision addressed only the issue of costs.

Although the mother was the successful party on the jurisdiction motion and presumptively entitled to costs under rule 24(1), the court considered both parties’ conduct.

The court found that the father attempted to circumvent prior proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice, while the mother engaged in deceptive conduct regarding her relocation plans.

In light of the mother’s misconduct, the court substantially reduced her costs recovery and fixed costs at $5,000.

The applicant father sought an order for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over two children who had been living in Mexico with the respondent mother for approximately 18 months and requested access under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The mother opposed jurisdiction, arguing that the children’s habitual residence had shifted to Mexico and that the father had failed to timely assert his rights in Ontario proceedings.

The court found that the mother had obtained custody orders in Ontario and subsequently established the children’s residence, schooling, and routine in Mexico, thereby relocating their habitual residence.

The father’s prolonged inaction and failure to challenge the custody orders or pursue remedies earlier amounted in law to acquiescence to the children’s new circumstances.

The court held that even if Ontario retained jurisdiction, Mexico was the more appropriate forum to determine issues relating to the children’s best interests.

Following a seven‑day trial concerning a Hague Convention application for the return of a child to a foreign jurisdiction, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant father had sought the return of the child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, while the respondent mother successfully relied on the Article 13(b) exception to resist return.

The successful party sought full recovery costs of over $83,000, arguing complete success and reliance on discretionary factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected the argument that costs could only be awarded under Article 26 of the Hague Convention and held that the ordinary operation of Rule 24 applied.

While some reductions were warranted, the court found the bill of costs generally reasonable and awarded the successful party $64,000 in all‑inclusive costs.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an accounting of assets transferred to the applicant mother to satisfy a net family property equalization order, as well as temporary spousal support payable to him and potential striking of the mother's pleadings for non‑compliance.

The motion arose in the context of a 1998 final order granting the mother substantial equalization and support entitlements following a long marriage.

The court held that while the father could seek disclosure relating to credits against the equalization judgment, he had not utilized available disclosure mechanisms under the Family Law Rules and had not provided updated financial disclosure required for a motion to change support.

The court also found no sufficient explanation for the father’s request to terminate and reverse spousal support obligations after many years.

The motion was dismissed, with disclosure issues left to proceed through normal procedural mechanisms.

In a family law proceeding involving divorce, property division, and spousal support, the parties brought a consent “basket” motion seeking an order permitting questioning and the bringing of motions following a case conference.

The court considered the interaction between Rules 13, 14, and 20 of the Family Law Rules.

It held that Rule 13(13) independently authorizes questioning on financial statements once the required request for additional information has been made, without requiring a separate court order under Rule 20(5).

The court further clarified that Rule 14(4) only prohibits motions before completion of a case conference; once the conference is completed, no additional order is required to bring motions.

The requested consent order was refused as unnecessary.

The applicant father sought the return of a child to Perú under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after the respondent mother retained the child in Ontario beyond a court‑authorized travel period.

The mother conceded the retention was wrongful but relied on the Article 13(b) exception, arguing that returning the child would expose her to a grave risk of psychological harm or an intolerable situation due to persistent domestic violence, threats, harassment, and violent confrontations involving the father and his family in Perú.

After a full trial, the court found credible evidence of ongoing intimidation, physical altercations, and the child’s exposure to violence and instability.

The court concluded the mother met the high threshold under Article 13(b), and that undertakings or temporary protective measures would not sufficiently mitigate the risks, particularly given the likelihood of further harassment and possible arrest of the mother upon return.

The application for the child’s return was dismissed, allowing the mother’s custody claim in Ontario to proceed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a dismissed motion for summary judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

On consent, no costs were awarded for the motion for leave to appeal or the appeal itself.

Regarding the underlying motion for summary judgment, the court declined to award costs to the successful respondent because it had failed to file a key affidavit for tactical reasons.