CITATION: K. v. M., 2016 ONSC 1878
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-76817-00
DATE: 2016-03-16
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: K. K. v. M. M.
BEFORE: JUSTICE VAN MELLE
COUNSEL: F.H. Streiman, for the Applicant
H.M. McCullough, for the Respondent
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] On January 26, 2016 the Applicant Dr. K. brought a motion returnable February 10 to vary parts of a temporary Court Order of mine dated September 28, 2015. He asked that the respondent, M. M. exercise supervised access to the two children of the marriage V. born September 2004 and J. born October 2009, for one two hour visit per week at the Peel Region supervised Access Centre at their Woodbridge location or weekly visits to be supervised by Side by Side services to take place in Brampton.
[2] Dr. K. moves as well for a variation of the court order of Justice Edwards dated May 10, 2013 to allow him to apply for passports for the children and to travel with the children without the Ms. M.’s consent.
[3] In his affidavit Dr. K. stated that he wanted to take the children to Disney World in Florida; to Mont Tremblant, Quebec or Big White Ski resort in British Columbia; to Newfoundland; and to India for two months in June-August 2016.
[4] Ms. M. claimed in her notice of motion dated February 4, supervised access to be held at Access for Parents and Children (APCO) at Jane and Wilson; weekly access, 2 hours per visit; release of $10,000 from expected equalization funds; counselling for the children at Peel Children’s Centre; access to children’s medical and school records and the appointment of the OCL.
[5] Immediately prior to the motion, the parties were able to resolve most of the outstanding issues. They agreed that Ms. M. could exercise supervised access for one two hour visit per week at APCO at Jane and Wilson; they agreed that Dr. K. could take the children to Disney World; Mont Tremblant or Big White and Newfoundland. They were unable to agree to travel to India.
[6] After argument, I decided that Dr. K. should NOT take the children to India as two months was too long a period for the children to be gone when we are in the process of trying to re-establish Ms. M.’s time with the children. I refused to order a payment to Ms. M. in the amount of $10,000.00. There was no evidence at all that an equalization payment would be due to Ms. M. and in any event, Ms. M. owes a great deal of money to Dr. K. as a result of costs orders in connection with this litigation.
[7] On consent the issue of costs was left to me to deal with.
[8] Dr. K. claims costs of $13,707.33. He says that he brought his motion for two reasons. The first was to change the location of the supervised access visits between Ms. M. and the children and to terminate the supervision of the visits by her therapist Betty Stockley (as recommended by Dr. Goldstein in November 2015). The second was to allow Dr. K. to remove the children from the Province of Ontario for travel. He submits that he was successful on both these issues. Dr. K. says as well that for months prior to the motion (May 5, 2015 regarding the travel issue and November 2015 regarding the change of supervised access), Dr. K. made several attempts to resolve the issues addressed in the motion.
[9] Ms. M. seeks costs of $5,000.00. She says that she brought her motion specifically to have the access moved to an APCO location more convenient for her and the children. She states as well that she was successful in resisting Dr. K.’s motion to take the children to India.
[10] Fortunately the parties were able to reach a resolution on most of the issues before me. Unfortunately the resolution was arrived at just before the motion was to be argued. Ms. M.’s motion was not prepared until February 6, some 4 days before the scheduled motion date. Her Offer to Settle is dated February 9, the day before the motion. This is late in the day and in any event dealt only with the custody/access issues
[11] I find that neither party was particularly successful. Dr. K. persisted in his request to take the children to India for two months without providing specific details for the court and more importantly, while we are trying to reintegrate Ms. M. into the life of the children. Ms. M. persists in claiming an equalization payment without producing a draft Net Family Property or any evidence that she would in fact be entitled to an equalization payment. She also persists in claiming an equalization payment despite the fact that she still owes Dr. K. money on account of previous costs awards.
[12] I therefore decline to award costs to either party in respect of these motions.
[13] Additionally, Ms. M. may not renew her motion for the release of funds on account of equalization without providing additional and better evidence.
Van Melle J.
DATE: March 16, 2016
CITATION: K. v. M., 2016 ONSC 1878
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-76817-00
DATE: 2016-03-16
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: K. K.
v.
M. M.
BEFORE: JUSTICE VAN MELLE
COUNSEL: F.H. Streiman, for the Applicant
H.M. McCullough, for the Respondent
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
JUSTICE VAN MELLE
DATE: March 16, 2016