Rono Anand Baijnath

The applicant wife brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief, obtain an order for an Islamic religious divorce, and seek security for costs.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that a divorce would prejudice his annulment claim and property division.

The court found no legal basis for the annulment claim, as the evidence did not support non-consummation or fraud for immigration purposes as grounds for annulment.

The court granted the divorce severance and ordered the respondent to cooperate in obtaining the Islamic religious divorce, noting these orders would not prejudice the respondent's property claims.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent lacked assets to pay costs, despite the respondent's unreasonable conduct and an unpaid prior costs order.

This ruling on costs followed a 7-day bifurcated trial where the applicant was entirely successful on the issues of marriage validity, spousal status for support and equalization, and valuation date.

The applicant sought costs approaching full recovery for the entire proceeding since 2014.

The respondent failed to provide costs submissions and did not respond to the applicant's offer to settle.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith throughout the litigation, including delaying proceedings, selling the matrimonial home without the applicant's knowledge, making false declarations, attempting to mislead the court, and being disrespectful.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant full recovery costs from the date of her offer to settle and costs approaching full recovery for the period preceding the offer, totaling $100,973.65, to be paid forthwith and secured as a charge against the respondent's residence.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on a motion to change a prior custody and access order.

The respondent father sought to modify an August 2015 order to obtain unsupervised access with his three-year-old son and to terminate a restraining order against him.

The court granted the father's request for unsupervised access on a graduated schedule with eventual overnight visits, terminated the restraining order (while imposing contact restrictions), and dismissed his request for joint custody.

The applicant mother sought no costs or alternatively $1,500, while the father sought $18,000.

The court found the father was the more successful party overall, though success was divided.

The mother's conduct, particularly deliberate misrepresentations in her affidavit regarding the father's contact with the child and the parties' living arrangements, was found to constitute bad faith.

The court ordered the mother to pay costs of $12,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court heard a costs endorsement following an urgent motion on December 8, 2015, where the respondent was largely successful.

The applicant argued against costs due to late submissions, alleged deficiencies in the respondent's Bill of Costs, and claims of the respondent misleading the court and acting in bad faith.

The respondent sought substantial recovery, citing the applicant's unreasonableness and non-participation.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and entitled to costs, despite both parties failing to serve formal Offers to Settle.

The court awarded the respondent $5,232.50 in costs plus HST and disbursements, totaling $6,074.88, to be paid from the applicant's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds.

A costs endorsement arising from a custody motion involving a child whose parents and siblings were killed in Afghanistan.

The applicants (maternal uncle and aunt) sought urgent custody of the child who had been residing with the respondent (father's nephew) since 2014.

The respondent successfully opposed the urgent motion and prevailed on the substantive custody issues.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial recovery basis of $32,916, considering the applicants' modest financial means while recognizing their unreasonable litigation conduct and failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer.

A temporary motion for custody and guardianship of a four-year-old orphan from Afghanistan who survived a Taliban attack that killed his parents and siblings.

The applicants, the child's maternal uncle and aunt, sought temporary custody until the maternal grandmother could arrive in Canada.

The respondent, the child's father's nephew who had obtained legal guardianship in Afghanistan and brought the child to Canada for medical treatment, opposed the motion and sought custody.

The court found that the respondent had validly obtained guardianship in Afghanistan with the consent of the maternal grandmother, that the child had been in the respondent's stable and loving care for nearly two years, and that the applicants' allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated and made in bad faith.

The court granted custody to the respondent and his wife, denied the applicants' request for the Office of the Children's Lawyer to be appointed, and prohibited the applicants from having contact with the child without the respondent's consent.