Poroshad Mahdi

The applicant father and respondent mother disputed parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for their three young children.

The mother had a history of severe alcohol addiction, which led to a car accident with the children in 2017 and a subsequent relapse in 2019.

However, she had maintained sobriety for 18 months prior to trial.

The father sought sole decision-making and limited parenting time, while the mother sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found that the mother had successfully managed her addiction and that it was in the children's best interests to have equal parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

A transition period was ordered to gradually increase the mother's parenting time.

Ongoing child support was terminated upon the commencement of equal parenting time due to the father's disproportionately higher housing costs.

This decision addresses a costs award following a successful motion for temporary spousal support.

The applicant mother sought partial recovery costs of $12,500, while the respondent father argued for no costs.

The court found the mother to be the successful party, noting her settlement offer was closer to the final order than the father's.

The court dismissed the father's argument that the mother's legal aid funding disentitled her to costs, affirming that legally aided persons stand in the same position as other litigants.

The court also determined that the father's pre-litigation conduct, while unreasonable, did not constitute "bad faith" for the purpose of full costs recovery.

Considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs sought, the court awarded the mother $7,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable monthly.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support seeking $4,564 per month pending trial.

The respondent opposed the motion but offered to consent to $2,500 per month.

The court considered the applicant's need and the respondent's ability to pay.

The applicant had not been employed since 2018 and was receiving only Canada Emergency Response Benefit income of $2,000 per month, with monthly expenses of approximately $7,009.

The respondent received monthly income from a structured settlement annuity of $6,850 plus CERB of $2,000, with monthly expenses of approximately $8,748.

The court determined that the applicant had established a prima facie case for entitlement to temporary support and that the respondent had the ability to pay.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $3,900 per month commencing September 1, 2020, with credit for rent payments already made by the respondent.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion heard on September 16, 2020.

The Applicant sought $10,000 in costs, while the Respondent requested no costs or $10,000 from the Applicant.

The court found divided success on the underlying motion issues (striking pleadings, spousal support, indexing support), but determined the Applicant was the more successful party, particularly regarding spousal support.

The Respondent's litigation behaviour was deemed unreasonable due to non-compliance with orders and lack of cooperation.

Considering the divided success, the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, and offers to settle, the court awarded the Applicant $9,000 in costs, inclusive of HST.

Costs for a prior case conference were not awarded as they were not reserved to the motion judge.

Following a motion regarding spousal support and striking pleadings where success was divided, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $10,000, while the respondent sought no costs or $10,000 payable to him.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and noted the respondent's unreasonable litigation behaviour, including failing to provide disclosure or comply with court orders.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders and lack of financial disclosure, and sought temporary spousal support.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting it is a remedy of last resort, but ordered the respondent to obtain a civil divorce forthwith and cooperate with the applicant's request for a religious divorce (Talaq).

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $2,600 per month, retroactive to May 1, 2020, to account for delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent's pleadings, and for spousal support retroactive to the date of separation, with annual indexing.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings, deeming it a remedy of last resort, but ordered the respondent to comply with prior orders for financial disclosure and obtaining a civil divorce, and to cooperate with the applicant's request for a Talaq.

The court imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent and $15,000 to the applicant, and ordered temporary spousal support of $2,600 per month, retroactive to May 1, 2020.

The request for indexing spousal support was denied as it was a temporary order.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and section 7 expenses for the parties' child.

The respondent father, who had not seen the child in over three years and failed to provide financial disclosure, sought joint custody and child support for his adult daughter from a previous relationship.

The court granted the mother sole custody and permitted her to travel and obtain government documents without the father's consent.

The father was granted supervised access.

The court imputed an annual income of $42,000 to the father due to intentional underemployment and ordered him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, as well as his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The father's claim for child support for his daughter was dismissed.

This costs endorsement followed an eight-day trial primarily concerning custody, access, and various financial issues.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $125,000, while the respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court conducted a contextual analysis of success, considering the importance of issues and time devoted to them, rather than a simple tally.

It found that success was divided across the multiple contested issues, including custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization, occupation rent, and matrimonial home carrying costs.

The court also noted that both parties contributed to the inefficiency of the litigation by pursuing minor issues and incurring disproportionate legal fees.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs payable by either party.

Following a trial that resulted in a shared parenting arrangement, the parties could not agree on the quantum of ongoing child support.

The respondent argued for a strict set-off amount of $715 per month based on their respective incomes.

The applicant sought a higher amount due to the disparity in their incomes and her modest expenses.

Applying section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and the Contino framework, the court found the set-off amount inappropriate given the significant disparity in the parties' incomes and monthly expenses.

The respondent was ordered to pay $1,000 per month in child support.

The parties separated following an incident of domestic violence.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property, including a resulting trust claim over an investment property.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and major decision-making authority, finding the respondent's unresolved anger and refusal to take responsibility contraindicated joint custody.

The respondent's access was expanded but his request for a week-about schedule was denied as premature.

The court found a resulting trust in favour of the applicant for the investment property, ordering it sold and the proceeds split equally.

The applicant's jewellery and a property in Pakistan were excluded from equalization.

A lump sum of $1,000 was awarded for spousal support.

This family law trial addressed custody and access for two children, property equalization, retroactive s. 7 expenses, and spousal support.

The applicant sought sole custody and spousal support, while the respondent sought joint custody.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding that the high-conflict environment and the parties' inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment, occupation rent, and child support, but the applicant's claim for spousal support was denied due to a lack of economic disadvantage from the marriage or its breakdown.

In this motion to change child support, the father sought to modify the existing support order following a change in custody whereby the child moved to his home full-time in April 2018.

The parties disputed the father's income for 2018 and the mother's income, as well as which special expenses should be shared.

The court determined the father's income at $194,663.61 based on actual T4 income and the mother's income at $44,982.98 after accepting her business expense deductions with appropriate adjustments.

The court exercised discretion to defer the mother's contribution to special expenses until 2019 to avoid an unjustified windfall to the father, given the timing of the custody change relative to his increased income.

The applicant father brought a motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking to remain in the home with the parties' special needs daughters.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an immediate sale would cause undue disruption to the children's educational and daily routines.

The court ordered that the home not be listed for sale until at least the end of the current academic year to serve the best interests of the children.

Rajeev Bhogal brought a motion for interim sole custody and child support for their eleven-year-old daughter, S, following the sale of the matrimonial home.

Prithy Jennifer Bhogal opposed, arguing the motion was premature given ongoing Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) involvement and due to contested affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed Rajeev's motion, finding it premature without OCL input and due to contested affidavit evidence.

Instead, the court ordered an interim shared parenting schedule as proposed by Prithy, pending OCL conclusions and a settlement conference.

The Father brought a motion seeking an alternating weekly summer parenting schedule and a variation of the parenting time commencing September 1, 2018.

The court limited the motion to summer access, as leave for the variation was not granted.

The Father argued for a "week about" schedule based on an OCL report's future recommendation, while the Mother raised concerns about a child's mental health, which the court found inconsistent and unsubstantiated for the purpose of the motion.

The court declined to vary the summer access from the 2017 agreement, which provided each parent with one full week in July and one in August, with the regular schedule applying otherwise.

Maternal grandparents sought access to their two young grandchildren following the death of the children's mother by suicide.

The father opposed the application and sought to restrict contact.

The court granted the grandparents' motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer to investigate and report on the matter.

The court found sufficient merit to the grandparents' access claim and determined that it was in the children's best interests to have the OCL investigate, despite the father's concerns about intrusiveness and the children's stated reluctance to have contact.

This is a motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access of a child with autism spectrum disorder and other medical conditions.

The applicant mother sought to maintain sole custody with supervised access for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought joint custody with expanded unsupervised access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and awarded joint custody with a parallel parenting arrangement, granting the father significant decision-making authority regarding medical and educational matters, and a phased increase in parenting time.

The court found the mother had engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour and excluding the father from the child's life, contrary to the child's best interests.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis following successful motions regarding the respondent's breach of solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the complexity of the issues and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court reduced the applicant's claimed fees by 15% for unrelated services but ordered the respondent to pay $47,328.90 in costs immediately, rejecting his request to pay from the future sale of the matrimonial home.

This is a costs decision following a four-day family law trial in which the respondent (father) was granted custody of four children and the applicant (mother) was given specified access.

The father sought costs of $36,692.31, while the mother submitted that costs should be fixed at $20,321.36.

The court considered the father's offer to settle dated January 5, 2015, which the mother failed to accept despite it being more favourable than the final judgment.

The court applied the presumption of costs in favour of the successful party and considered factors including the complexity of the case, the reasonableness of each party's behaviour, counsel's rates, time spent, and the mother's ability to pay.