Ritika Narang

This costs endorsement follows a brief trial and an earlier endorsement dated October 7, 2024.

The applicant, A.H., was largely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

The respondent, E.A.J., left the courthouse before the matter was finalized and did not file any submissions on costs as directed.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $88,758.00, but the court found this unjustified and made no finding of bad faith against the respondent.

The court awarded costs of $60,000.00, to be paid by February 28, 2025, noting the applicant’s reasonable efforts to resolve the case and the respondent’s lack of cooperation.

The applicant husband sought unsupervised parenting time for the parties' two children (ages 6 and 2).

The respondent wife opposed, citing allegations of family violence and the husband's criminal charges.

The court found it in the children's best interests to have temporary supervised parenting time, noting the husband's lack of detailed involvement in the children's care as presented in his affidavits and the wife's legitimate safety concerns.

The motion for unsupervised access was effectively denied, and a temporary order for supervised parenting time was granted, with a future check-in conference to review and potentially expand access.

The applicant, Ms. Wang, sought costs after successfully obtaining a comprehensive parenting order and a detailed summer schedule for the child, following the respondent's (Dr. Tang) unilateral suspension of parenting time.

Ms. Wang sought full costs of $9,661.50.

Dr. Tang argued for divided success or deferral of costs.

The court found Ms. Wang was the successful party on the dominant issue and that Dr. Tang's litigation conduct was unreasonable, particularly his refusal to mediate.

Despite Ms. Wang's inadequate Bill of Costs and lack of an Offer to Settle, the court awarded partial costs of $6,780 to Ms. Wang, considering the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

This decision addresses cross-motions concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility for a 15-year-old child.

The father sought to suspend the mother's parenting time, gain sole decision-making, and dispense with the mother's consent for various matters, citing past conduct.

The mother sought to restore weekend parenting time and alternating weeks during the summer.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding his requests disproportionate and noting his lack of willingness to support the child's relationship with the mother.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering a specific parenting schedule, including adjustments for the father's pre-planned summer activities, and emphasized the need to resolve outstanding financial issues, including the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought urgent leave to bring a motion for sole custody and specific parenting time of the parties' three-year-old child, Ta’leah, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent had unilaterally terminated the applicant's access, citing health concerns.

The court granted leave, found urgency, and restored the applicant's pre-existing access schedule with modifications for communication and compliance.

The court also provided directions for the respondent to bring an urgent cross-motion for child support, emphasizing the independence of access and support issues.

Police enforcement was deemed premature.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought sole custody, child and spousal support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent did not appear.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, imputed the respondent's income based on a past tax assessment, and ordered child and spousal support.

The court declined to order exclusive possession of the matrimonial home but ordered its sale, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, with leave to file further evidence.

The respondent sought an order for wasted costs incurred due to the applicant's counsel's non-attendance at a scheduled Case Conference.

The applicant's counsel failed to attend in person, refused a prior adjournment request from the respondent's counsel, and did not seek a teleconference.

The court found the applicant's counsel's conduct unreasonable, rendering the conference less productive than it should have been.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs, fixed at $1,271.25, and directed the applicant's counsel to provide the endorsement to her client to inform discussions about who should bear the costs.

This decision addresses multiple interim motions in a family law dispute concerning child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, retroactive support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed incomes for both parties, ordered child and interim spousal support, dismissed the wife's claims for educational expenses, and ordered the sale of the matrimonial home.

The matter was scheduled for an expedited trial.