Ravinder Mann

Following a successful Hague Convention application for the return of the parties' child to Ohio, the applicant father sought $52,000 in costs.

The respondent mother argued the bill was excessive and noted the father's failure to comply with undertakings and pay child support.

The court found the father's bill of costs excessive, noting unreasonable hourly rates for clerks and students, duplicated work, and improper billing practices.

Due to the excessive bill and the father's non-compliance with undertakings, the court fixed costs at $20,000, payable by the mother at $200 per month given her financial circumstances.

In a Hague Convention return application, the moving party sought the child’s return to Ohio after removal to Ontario.

The court determined the child’s habitual residence was Ohio immediately before the April 24, 2025 removal and found the removal wrongful under the Convention.

The court rejected defences of consent or acquiescence and grave risk of harm or intolerable situation under Article 13.

The court ordered the child’s immediate return to Ohio, subject to undertakings, and declined to order police enforcement at this stage.

The accused, C.N., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a seven-year-old complainant, V.V. The trial turned on the credibility of the child witnesses and the accused.

The court reviewed the evidence, including video surveillance, police interviews, and testimony, and applied the legal framework for assessing credibility and adverse inferences.

The judge found the accused's evidence not credible, accepted the core of the complainants' evidence, and convicted C.N. on both counts.

This motion arose from the separation of the Applicant father and Respondent mother.

The Respondent had de facto possession of the matrimonial home due to criminal charges against the Applicant.

The Respondent sought sole possession of the home, child support, and parenting time.

The Applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child and spousal support, and parenting time.

The court addressed parenting time (mostly by consent), imputed income to both parties, ordered interim child support from the Applicant, and ordered a $5,000 undifferentiated payment from the Applicant to the Respondent.

The court granted the Applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding the balance of convenience favored him despite domestic violence allegations.

No interim spousal support was ordered due to the short marriage and other factors.

The court also issued directions for ongoing disclosure and a timetable for the litigation.

The applicant husband moved to sever the divorce from corollary relief claims for spousal support and property, while the respondent wife cross-moved to stay or dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction and alleged prejudice to proceedings in India.

The court held that jurisdiction existed because the respondent had attorned by filing an Answer seeking spousal support and equalization of property.

Applying Rule 12 (6) of the Family Law Rules, the court found no reliable evidence that proceedings concerning property had been commenced in India or that a Canadian divorce would prejudice the respondent's property or support rights there.

The severance motion was granted and the cross-motion was dismissed.

This is a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act involving an amended protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding a child (A.L.) born in 2010.

The child was apprehended on December 17, 2010, due to the mother's mental health crisis, suicidal ideation, domestic conflict within the parental relationship, and concerns about parental capacity.

The Society sought a Crown wardship order with no access to facilitate adoption.

The parents opposed the application and sought the child's return to their care.

The court found the child was in need of protection but determined that return to the parents with a supervision order was in the child's best interests, rejecting the Society's adoption plan.

The court applied section 70(4) of the CFSA to extend the time for Society wardship to facilitate a gradual transition home over four months.