Richard G. Startek

This is a costs decision following a successful application by Sukhvinder Kang (Applicant) against Resham Dhillon (Respondent) for the sale of a property.

Kang sought partial indemnity costs of $24,202.65.

The court found that Dhillon's evidence in the main application was inconsistent and lacked credibility, and that his denial of previously acknowledged facts regarding property ownership unnecessarily increased Kang's litigation costs.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57.01 and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, concluding that the costs sought by Kang were fair and reasonable given the circumstances and Dhillon's conduct.

The applicant sought partition and sale of a property, asserting 50% beneficial ownership despite the respondent holding sole legal title.

The respondent denied beneficial ownership and raised limitation period defenses.

The court found the applicant to be a 50% beneficial owner based on evidence including a UK consent order from divorce proceedings and the respondent's own acknowledgments.

The court dismissed the limitation period defenses, finding the cause of action accrued when the respondent first refused to cooperate in the sale after a lien was discharged.

The court ordered the property's sale and an accounting of rents, but dismissed the applicant's claim to offset amounts owed under the UK consent order, citing lack of jurisdiction and delay.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning the custody and access of their two children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, alleging the children were alienated from the respondent father and his new wife.

The respondent father sought sole custody, alleging the mother was alienating the children from him.

The court found both parties contributed to the conflict but determined the mother's evidence lacked credibility on several substantive issues.

The court awarded custody to the father with an equal timesharing arrangement, finding he was more likely to facilitate contact with the other parent.

The court also ordered ongoing therapeutic intervention to ensure a balanced relationship between the children and both parents, and determined the parties' incomes for child support purposes.

The court determined costs following a four-day family law trial concerning parenting schedules and school location for the parties' son.

Victoria (Respondent) was deemed substantially successful on the key trial issues, including the parenting schedule and the location of the child's school, despite some mixed success on specific aspects.

Applying the presumption of costs in favour of the successful party under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded Victoria $35,000 in costs, payable by Keith (Applicant) within 60 days, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness in fixing the amount.

The parties, Keith Bradley Stouffer and Elizabeth Victoria Stouffer, separated after two and a half years of marriage, with one surviving child, Myles.

The trial addressed key unresolved issues including Myles's parenting schedule, school location, and child support.

The Applicant (father) sought to maintain Myles's current school in St. Catharines and a near-equal parenting schedule.

The Respondent (mother) proposed changing Myles's school to Smithville, near her new residence, and a parenting schedule with more school-day time for her.

The court ruled in favor of the Respondent, permitting Myles to attend school in Smithville from September 2019, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

A new four-week revolving parenting schedule was adopted, which reduced the father's parenting time but was deemed consistent with the maximum contact principle.

Child support was ordered from the father to the mother based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, with section 7 expenses shared equally, considering the mother's upcoming maternity leave.

The parties, separated since 2015, brought cross-motions for temporary orders concerning the residence and access of their two daughters.

The respondent sought police enforcement of access, an order compelling the applicant to retain a therapist, and make-up time.

The applicant sought a restraining order against the respondent, suspension of access, temporary custody, and permission to change the children's school.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion in its entirety, finding his requests unfounded and noting his failure to facilitate therapeutic intervention and potential parental alienation.

The respondent's motion was largely granted, affirming previous access orders and directing the applicant to comply with therapeutic requirements, encourage the children's relationship with their mother, and cease disparaging the respondent or involving his new partner in access exchanges.

In a last-minute motion, the court addressed a dispute between separated parents regarding their three-year-old child's junior kindergarten enrollment.

The mother, who had unilaterally relocated to Niagara-on-the-Lake, sought to enroll the child there.

The father sought enrollment in Hamilton, consistent with a separation agreement and the child's established Hamilton-based status quo.

The court emphasized that the child's best interests must prevail over a "fait accompli" created by one parent's unilateral action.

It found that the mother's relocation jeopardized the successful equal-time-sharing arrangement and that major changes with mobility implications should not be made on a temporary basis without compelling circumstances.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and granted the father's request for enrollment in Hamilton, establishing a temporary equal time-sharing arrangement with the mother responsible for transportation.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a separation agreement concerning child support and section 7 expenses under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The dispute focused on whether certain extracurricular, school, medical, and communication expenses qualified as extraordinary expenses.

The court applied the test from Andrews v. Andrews requiring that section 7 expenses be extraordinary, necessary in the children’s best interests, and reasonable given the parents’ means.

Competitive swimming, school football participation, a school trip, uninsured medical and dental expenses, and children’s cell phone expenses were found to qualify as section 7 expenses.

The court also determined that a prior lump sum payment satisfied arrears up to the date of payment.

Following a motion and cross‑motion in a family law proceeding concerning temporary parenting time and spousal support, both parties sought substantial indemnity costs and alleged unreasonable conduct by the other.

The court noted that success on the underlying motion was divided, with the applicant obtaining increased time with the child and the respondent obtaining spousal support.

Given the mixed outcome and the parties’ comparable claims for costs, the court found that neither party should be rewarded with a costs award or required to pay the other’s costs.

The court therefore declined to order costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased temporary time-sharing with the parties' five-year-old daughter, and the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for temporary spousal support.

Despite conflicting affidavit evidence, the court applied the maximum contact principle under the Divorce Act and granted the applicant increased parenting time.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay temporary spousal support of $1,350 per month based on the parties' respective incomes and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.