Phyllis Brodkin

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate her son from Toronto to Surrey, British Columbia, and to vary the access order accordingly.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court found that the mother had established a material change in circumstances (a 25% reduction in her income) that affected her ability to meet the child's needs.

Applying the two-part test from Gordon v. Goertz, the court conducted a fresh inquiry into the child's best interests and found that the proposed move would not materially alter the father's ability to exercise access.

The court granted the mother's application to relocate, finding that her views as the custodial parent were entitled to great respect and that the move was made in good faith for legitimate financial and personal reasons.

The applicant mother sought final custody of the child and orders permitting her to obtain a passport and travel internationally with the child without the respondent father’s consent.

The respondent’s Answer had been struck after he failed to post court‑ordered security for costs and he did not attend trial.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the child was thriving in the mother’s care in Canada and had a stable home environment.

Evidence of past misconduct and concerns regarding flight risk supported continuation of supervised access for the father when he visits Canada.

The court granted the mother sole custody and authority to obtain or renew the child’s passport without the father’s consent and awarded costs to the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking security for costs in the amount of $25,000 for an upcoming custody trial, while the respondent father sought to adjourn the scheduled trial.

The respondent resided outside Ontario, had failed to pay substantial prior costs awards totalling $79,000 plus interest, and maintained assets outside the jurisdiction.

Applying r. 24(13) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that multiple factors justifying security for costs were present, including unpaid costs orders and the respondent’s residence outside Ontario.

The court further found the respondent’s position lacked merit and that the circumstances constituted an exceptional case warranting security for costs in a custody matter.

The adjournment request was dismissed and the respondent was ordered to post $25,000 security for costs or risk having his Answer struck.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss a family law application seeking child and spousal support on the basis that parallel proceedings were already underway in Kenya.

The moving party argued the Ontario proceeding duplicated existing divorce and children’s cases initiated earlier by the responding party in Nairobi and constituted forum shopping.

The court held that at the time the motion was served there were ongoing proceedings between the same parties concerning the same subject matter, satisfying Family Law Rule 16(12)(c)(iii).

The court further found that the attempt to withdraw overlapping claims in Kenya after the motion was served to preserve the Ontario proceeding amounted to an abuse of process.

Although Ontario technically had jurisdiction over support issues, Kenya was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The respondent sought costs following a successful cross-motion to enforce access and the dismissal of the applicant's motion for private school tuition.

The court found the applicant's behaviour unreasonable, noting her motion lacked merit and she unilaterally terminated access despite a separation agreement.

The respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle that was more favourable than the final order.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the respondent costs on a full indemnity basis.

However, finding the docketed hours excessive, the court reduced the claimed amount of $40,829.62 and fixed costs at $25,000.00.

The father appealed a trial judge's order permitting the mother to relocate to Italy with their two children.

The father argued the trial judge erred in applying the principles of Gordon v. Goetz by focusing on the mother's reasons for moving, failing to adequately weigh the disruption to the children, and failing to prioritize maximizing contact with both parents.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge conducted a full and sensitive inquiry into the best interests of the children and made no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties’ children to Scotland, alleging the mother wrongfully removed them from that jurisdiction.

The court considered whether the children’s habitual residence had reverted to Scotland after the mother and children travelled there for a Christmas visit.

Applying established principles regarding habitual residence and shared parental intention, the court found no evidence of a settled intention to relocate permanently to Scotland.

The evidence demonstrated that the mother and children intended to return to Ontario following a temporary holiday.

The court held that the children’s habitual residence remained Ontario and dismissed the Hague Convention application.

Following a family law trial concerning property division and spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs exceeding $123,000 plus expert fees, while the respondent argued that success was divided and no costs should be awarded.

The court found that although the applicant was unsuccessful on spousal support, she achieved success on the primary property issues at trial.

Applying proportionality and partial indemnity principles, the court reduced the claimed fees and declined to award full recovery costs.

Costs were fixed for fees, disbursements, and a reduced contribution toward expert expenses.

The parties separated after a 25-year marriage.

The respondent obtained a divorce in Greece, while the applicant commenced proceedings in Ontario for property division and spousal support.

Applying Greek law to the property division, the court determined the incremental increase in each party's assets and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant an equalization payment of $63,284.18, plus $50,000 for her share of their jointly owned yacht.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for spousal support, finding that under the Divorce Act, an Ontario court lacks jurisdiction to grant corollary relief once a foreign divorce has been granted, and alternatively, that there was no entitlement to support.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision dismissing his application under the Hague Convention for the return of his six-year-old daughter to Peru.

The mother had wrongfully retained the child in Ontario but invoked the Article 13(b) 'grave risk' exception, citing a history of domestic violence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that returning the child to Peru would expose her to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the mother's custody claim to proceed in Ontario.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate to Rome, Italy, with the parties' two children.

The parties were not separated but agreed to have the mobility issue determined first.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, finding that the mother was the primary caregiver and that her professional and financial prospects, as well as her emotional well-being, would be significantly enhanced in Italy.

The court concluded that the benefits of the relocation outweighed the risks and disruptions, and granted the mother's application to relocate with the children.

The moving party father brought a motion at the Court of Appeal for unsupervised access to his child pending his appeal of a Superior Court decision dismissing his Hague Convention application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, which restricts such motions to the Superior Court or Family Court.

In the alternative, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would dismiss the motion on the merits due to a real risk that the father would remove the child to Peru.

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 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.

The mother appealed an order under the Hague Convention requiring the return of her daughter to the United Kingdom.

The application judge found that the child's habitual residence was the U.K., as the parents had not given up their residence there when they travelled to Canada.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings regarding habitual residence or his decision not to require oral testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion to transfer an appeal of a Hague Convention application from the Court of Appeal to the Divisional Court.

The underlying application was heard in the Family Court branch of the Superior Court of Justice.

The moving party argued that under section 73 of the Children's Law Reform Act and section 21.9.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, the appeal properly lies to the Divisional Court.

The responding party argued that the appeal should remain in the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the moving party, finding that on a plain reading of the statutory provisions, the first appeal of an order under Part III of the CLRA made at a Family Court lies to the Divisional Court.

The motion was granted and the appeal was transferred.

The wife appealed a trial judge's decision staying her Ontario application for equalization of net family property and spousal support on the basis that Greece was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the wife sought to introduce fresh evidence consisting of an application the husband filed in Greece after the Ontario trial, which contradicted his previous evidence regarding the parties' assets.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence under the Palmer test, finding it radically changed the parameters of the property issues.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the stay, and ordered the proceedings to continue in Ontario.

The appellant wife appealed a review order that reduced her spousal support from $2,700 to $1,350 per month and imposed a termination date.

The parties had been married for 25 years.

The reviewing judge had reduced support based on the respondent husband's expected reduction in income and a finding of 'double-dipping' related to the equalization of his business.

The Divisional Court found that the reviewing judge erred in principle by imposing a time limit on support without analyzing whether the objectives of the Divorce Act were met, noting that time-limited support is only appropriate in unusual circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and the original support order was reinstated.

The mother brought a motion to vary a child support order for two adult children attending post-secondary education.

The motion judge ordered the father to pay child support pursuant to s. 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines but provided no reasons explaining how the quantum was determined.

The father appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate and failed to consider the necessary factors under s. 3(2)(b), such as the financial ability of each parent and the means and needs of the children.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of the law.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $8,200.