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 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 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.

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.