Court File and Parties

CITATION: Patel v. Bhatt, 2026 ONSC 2958

COURT FILE NO.: FC-25-310-0001

DATE: 2026-05-20

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Zimil Patel, Applicant

AND:

Hiral Bhatt, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice D. Piccoli

COUNSEL: Mark A. Simpson, Counsel for the Applicant

Ravinder Mann, (H. Dhaliwal attending as agent) Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: In writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] On February 12 and 13, 2026, the court heard an application brought by the applicant, Zimil Patel (the “father”), under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Can. T.S. 1983 No. 35 (the “Convention”) for an order directing the return of the parties’ daughter, Yavi Patel, born August 13, 2024 (the “child”), to Ohio, United States. The respondent (the “mother”) opposed the relief.

[2] On February 24, 2026, I released my decision to order the child be returned to Ohio and that the father comply with the undertakings he signed on February 13, 2026, which were attached to my decision. I invited and received written submissions on costs. As a result of the mother’s assertions in her submissions that the father had failed to comply with the undertakings and that he was not paying child support, the court allowed the father a right to reply by May 1, 2026. He did not reply.

[3] The father seeks $52,000 in costs. Those costs include $55,138.57 for his Canadian lawyer and their articling student and law clerk, $2,583 for his Ohio counsel, and $2,154 for his immigration expert’s fees. He estimates time to prepare the costs submissions and remaining steps added a further $5,000. He says he spent $64,875.57 in total and is asking for 80% or $52,000. This figure includes $7,500 for the mother’s notice of withdrawal dated October 17, 2025, which he says should be paid to him on a full indemnity basis. He argues that mother prolonged and complicated the proceeding by advancing unsuccessful defenses, requiring a lengthier hearing and parallel proceedings. Without any supporting case law, he says that although financial circumstances may be considered, courts have held that this factor carries limited weight in wrongful removal cases. He argues that in any event, the mother is employed and actively participated in the litigation.

[4] The mother acknowledges that the father is entitled to costs but submits that the bill of costs is unreasonable and disproportionate and that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity scale. She maintains there was duplication of work and some of the work related to Ohio matter, not the Hague application. She argues that the law clerk and articling student rates are excessive because they include consultations within the law firm, research, file reviews and administrative tasks. The mother’s full indemnity bill totaled only $20,399.34. Although the matter was important to both parties, it was not complex. The parties’ history was short.

[5] The mother also asserts that the father has failed to comply with his undertaking. He did not pay the up to $1,500 per month towards temporary housing for the mother, did not pay for the one way airfare to Ohio, or reimburse her for travel expenses to and from Ohio, except for $175, and refused to consent to vary or lift the restraining order which resulted in her one month unpaid leave from work and roaming charges of $650. She maintains that she remains the primary caregiver, the father has not paid any child support, and she has limited financial means.

[6] For the reasons that follow, this court orders that the mother pay to the father $20,000 in costs and that it be paid at a rate of $200 per month, commencing June 2026.

The Law

[7] Article 26 of Convention concerns costs and is as follows:

Upon ordering the return of a child or issuing an order concerning rights of access under this Convention, the judicial or administrative authorities may, where appropriate, direct the person who removed or retained the child, or who prevented the exercise of rights of access, to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the applicant, including travel expenses, any costs incurred or payments made for locating the child, the costs of legal representation of the applicant, and those of returning the child.

[8] Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, provides that subject to the provisions of an Act or Rules of Court, costs are in the discretion of the court, which may determine by whom and to what extent the costs shall be paid. This section must be read in conjunction with r. 24 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (the “Rules”), which set out numerous principles to guide the court in the exercise of its discretion in the Family Law context.

[9] The modern Rules respecting costs aim to foster four fundamental purposes:

a. To partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation;

b. To encourage settlement;

c. To discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and

d. To ensure that cases are dealt with justly, in accordance with the primary objective of the Rules set out in r. 2(2).

See Ryan v. McGregor (1926), 1925 460 (ON SCAD), 58 O.L.R. 213 (C.A.), at p. 216; British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371; Fong v. Chan (1999), 1999 2052 (ON CA), 46 O.R. (3d) 330 (C.A.); Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 395; Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867.

[10] The cost Rules changed on January 22, 2025. Parties are now required to confer in advance and be prepared to argue costs at each stage in a case: rr. 24(17), (18). The parties were unsuccessful in resolving the issue of costs.

[11] The mother acknowledges that the father was successful in the hearing. I agree with the mother that the father’s bill is excessive and that because the father has not complied with undertakings in the order, he is not entitled to full indemnity. I also agree this noncompliance is connected to her inability to pay as the primary caregiver not receiving child support.

[12] The Rules emphasize the importance of reasonableness and proportionality: Mattina, at para. 10; Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840, 143 O.R. (3d) 519, at para. 4. Full indemnity does not necessarily mean that an applicant will receive the full amount of costs claimed. The claim must still be reasonable and proportionate. It must also reflect, to some extent, the reasonable expectations of the paying party: Tintinalli v. Tutolo, 2022 ONSC 6276, at para. 20.

[13] I wish to comment briefly on the bill of costs. A bill of costs is not the statement of account sent to the client or a printout from a software program used by a law firm. A bill of costs is a detailed, itemized list of legal fees and expenses that one party claims from the other. It sets out what legal services were provided, how much time was spent, the hourly rates and any disbursements. The hourly time should be broken down by date and task. It should be organized chronologically and provide a total.

[14] The mother’s counsel provided a proper bill of costs. The father’s counsel did not. I am not prepared to go through and address each line item of the software program print out provided by father. It is of note that father did not identify the role or title of each person working on his matter or summarize each person’s hourly rate. As such, the court relied on mother’s submissions in that regard.

[15] In reviewing the father’s bill of costs, my general observations are as follows:

(a) Administrative items which should form part of a lawyer’s normal hourly rate were billed separately (e.g., drafting a notice of change in representation, asking the Waterloo courthouse for access to Case Center, saving documents to the client file, and filing documents internally).

(b) The costs related to a withdrawal of a previous application are not before me.

(d) It appears that the hourly rate of the articling student is $285 per hour – that is excessive.

(e) The involvement of a lawyer, law clerk and articling student resulted in duplicated work at various stages, particularly as it relates to file review.

(f) The bill includes time spent after the Hague hearing on updates from Ohio counsel regarding separate Ohio proceedings.

(g) Some research time is reasonable, but counsel is expected to have working knowledge of the issues when they take on a case. In this case the amount of time spent researching was excessive.

(h) Drafting the documents should have been straightforward. This was a two-day hearing. There was no questioning.

[16] The time charged by counsel exceeds what is appropriate. The court finds that in all of the circumstances, the appropriate amount of full indemnity costs would be $25,000.

[17] The father unreasonably failed to comply with his undertakings. Given his non-compliance, the court finds that the reasonable, fair and proportionate amount of costs that the mother should pay is $20,000. That is what a reasonable person could expect to pay in these circumstances: see Wedig v. Gaukel, 2007 14349 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 7; see also C.C. v. D.R., 2018 BSCS 291.

[18] As it relates to the mother’s ability to pay, difficult financial circumstances are not always a reason to deprive a successful party of costs or to reduce the amount of costs: Beaulieu v. Diotte, 2020 ONSC 6787, at para. 9. This factor will be less mitigating when the impecunious party has acted unreasonably, or where their claim was illogical or without merit: D.D. and F.D. v. H.G., 2020 ONSC 1919, at paras. 44, 57; Gobin v. Gobin, 2009 ONCJ 278, at para. 24. In this case, based on the information before the court, the mother remains the primary caregiver to the child and she is not receiving child support. Given the present circumstances, the court finds that it is reasonable that she pays the costs ordered at a rate of $200 per month.

[19] As such, this court orders that the mother pay the father’s costs in the amount of $20,000 at a rate of $200 per month, commencing June 2026, and each month thereafter.

_______________________________

Piccoli, J.

Date: May 20, 2026