Peter Hearty

The Applicant mother sought full recovery costs following a successful motion to enforce parenting time.

The Respondent father failed to file costs submissions.

The court found the father's repeated failure to facilitate virtual parenting time, willful disregard for court orders, and attempts to cause harm to the mother constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Despite the finding of bad faith, the court awarded a fixed amount of $6,500, less than the full recovery sought, considering the father's limited financial means and the overall objective of fairness and reasonableness in costs awards.

The applicant father and respondent mother, both with military backgrounds, shared parenting of their two children in Chalk River.

The mother, a warrant officer, was posted to Kingston and sought to relocate the children with her.

The father opposed the relocation, seeking primary residence in Chalk River.

The court applied the relocation framework under the Children's Law Reform Act and found that moving the children to Kingston was not in their best interests, given their strong ties to their school, community, and father in Chalk River.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence remain with the father, with the mother having generous parenting time.

The applicant mother brought a motion alleging the respondent father breached a parenting order regarding virtual and in-person parenting time with their child.

She sought specified unsupervised parenting time in Nova Scotia and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the father in wilful non-compliance due to repeated missed virtual calls, obstruction of in-person visits, and disrespectful communication.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to exercise discretion in the father's favour.

The court ordered temporary, supervised in-person parenting time for the mother in Nova Scotia for two to three weeks during the summer, with the mother responsible for travel costs.

The OCL was appointed due to concerns about the child's emotional well-being, school attendance, and academic performance.

The respondent mother, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, brought a motion for a temporary order permitting her to relocate the parties' two children from Chalk River to Kingston due to a military posting.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking an order that the children remain in Chalk River and that the existing shared parenting arrangement continue.

Applying the Plumley principles for interim relocation, the court found a genuine issue for trial and no compelling circumstances to justify an interim move that would disrupt the children's stable environment and close contact with the father.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and the father's cross-motion was granted in part, maintaining the status quo pending trial.

The applicant father sought full recovery costs of over $733,000 following a successful trial where Ontario declined jurisdiction over the parties' child, ordering her return to Dubai.

The respondent mother argued for each party to bear their own costs, citing the binary nature of the jurisdiction issue and her financial limitations.

The court found the mother's post-July 2021 conduct, including evading court orders and hiding the child, constituted bad faith, justifying full recovery costs for enforcement efforts.

While acknowledging the mother's financial means, the court emphasized that such means do not shield a party from cost consequences for unreasonable litigation conduct.

Considering the father's advantageous settlement offers and the complexity of the case, the court awarded the father $250,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The applicant father sought the return of his three-year-old child to Dubai after the respondent mother removed the child to Ontario without his consent.

The mother argued that Ontario should assume jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, alleging a history of family violence and claiming the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and determined that the child's habitual residence was Dubai.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction, finding no risk of serious harm, and ordered the immediate return of the child to Dubai.