Rana v. Rana, 2017 ONSC 6060

CITATION: Rana v. Rana, 2017 ONSC 6060

COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-21535

DATE: 20171011

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Sajid Rana, Applicant

AND:

Aisha Rana, Respondent

BEFORE: J. Ferguson, J.

COUNSEL: K. Maurina, for the Applicant

S. Bookman and G. Bookman, for the Respondent

HEARD: August 31, 2017

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] This was a Hague Convention proceeding that was settled on the eve of the hearing.

[2] It was a lengthy and litigious proceeding wherein the children’s return to the Netherlands, (“their habitual residence”) was heavily resisted by the mother. It included numerous motions (all of in which the father was successful), a settlement conference and the exchange of extensive affidavit materials.

[3] The father seeks costs of just over $25,000.00 on a full indemnity basis and just short of $16,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

[4] On August 24, 2017 there was a motion before Kiteley, J. to adjourn the hearing. The mother was not successful on that motion and Kiteley, J. reserved the costs of that hearing to the judge hearing the Hague application. The father seeks costs in the amount of $4,400.00 of that attendance.

[5] Kiteley, J. had previously awarded the father his costs in the amount of $5,000.00 for other motions on which the father was successful. The payment date of those costs was reserved to the judge hearing the Hague application.

[6] In the respondent’s costs submissions she maintains that she was subject to years of abuse by the applicant who was convicted of assaulting her in 2012. There is only evidence of the one episode of assault. The rest are mere bald allegations. The affidavit from the victim counsellor filed on behalf of the mother was totally self-serving and contained inadmissible hearsay evidence of what the children allegedly told her. Further, she continues to maintain that the applicant left her in the Netherlands and travelled to Pakistan in order to remarry. It was denied by the father. Again there is no evidence of this. She takes the position that it was only after she was settled in Canada that she decided to remain in Canada. That makes no difference in any event to the determination of costs.

[7] Whereby I did not make findings of fact as a result of the settlement of the Hague application, it certainly appears that the mother, without the father’s knowledge or consent, applied to the Dutch court asking for new passports and asking for permission to travel with the children to Canada. She told the children’s school they were travelling for a brief holiday. There were then many continual problems with the father obtaining contact with the children after they arrived and stayed in Canada.

[8] The mother in her materials put forward no evidence from any Dutch authorities, the Dutch police, the Dutch child protection bureau, the doctors in the Netherlands, the children’s school, family, friends and specifically anyone from the Ahmadiyya Muslim community or anyone in the community to support her position that there was a grave risk of harm to the children, or that they would be placed in an intolerable situation if they were returned home to the Netherlands.

[9] The father put forward extensive affidavits corroborating his position which certainly strengthened his case.

[10] The father is entitled to his partial indemnity costs in the amount of $15,000.00 inclusive of disbursements, HST and these cost submissions as a result of the application. He is further entitled to the amount of $2,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST for the mother’s unsuccessful motion brought on August 24, 2017. Those amounts together with the cost award already made in the amount of $5,000.00 are to be payable forthwith (a total of $22,000.00).

[11] It is not appropriate to award the father’s brother’s travel expenses.

J. E. Ferguson, J.

Date: October 11, 2017