ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
MANDEEP RAJ
R. Murthi and S. Sandhu, for the Applicant
- and -
JYOTI SEROYA
Self represented
Respondent
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Background
[1]. In reasons released March 27, 2026, I confirmed that California is the jurisdiction in which this parenting dispute must be determined pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention.”) As a result, I ordered that the parties’ son be forthwith returned to Tuolumne County, California.
[2]. Costs Submissions were originally due on April 17, 2026. Because the respondent mother could not be located after the release of my decision, I extended the timelines for costs submissions in my endorsement of April 27, 2026.
[3]. On May 26, 2026, I received the applicant father’s costs submissions in accordance with that extension.
[4]. I also received counsel for the father’s affidavit of service showing that both the father’s costs submissions and my endorsement extending the timelines had been served on the mother on April 27, 2026.
[5]. The father seeks a full recovery of his fees in the amount of $108,4811 on a Bill of Costs showing total fees of $72,134.52, disbursements of $7,994.87 and HST thereon of $10,416.82 for a total of $90,446.21; plus, the reimbursement of $30,364.64 for his travel and accommodation costs incurred from March 2025 to April 2, 2026.
[6]. The father’s travel and accommodation fees are attached at Schedule A to this endorsement and include his costs for the agreed parenting time in August of 2025 that was refused by the mother upon his arrival in Canada.
[7]. The mother’s deadline for her costs submissions was June 12, 2026. No costs submissions have been served or received. Although not formally removed from the record, her lawyer during the trial, Ms. MacIntosh has indicated in earlier attendances that she is no longer retained.
[8]. The father’s costs submissions indicate that no Offer to Settle was ever served by either party in this Application.
Entitlement to Costs
[9]. As the successful party, the father is presumptively entitled to his costs pursuant to Rule 24(3)2 of the Family Law Rules (“the Rules.”) Those costs reflect the time sensitive, urgent nature of this proceeding which was actively case managed to an early trial heard February 12, 20 and 23, 2026. Written closing submissions were received the following week.
[10]. The father’s Bill of Costs record fees incurred after closing submissions of approximately $18,064 ($16,626 Mr. Sandhu at $350 an hour, $1,367 Ms. Murthi at $350 an hour, and $71.22 by the law clerk, Ms. Sharma.) Some of these fees apply to the stay motions and the appeal, communications with the Peel Police Services and an attendance before me on April 27, 2026, in which Mr. Raj sought a police enforcement order. The entries with respect to stay motions or an appeal cannot be considered in these reasons as they are addressed within other Orders or before the Court of Appeal. I can consider the costs of police enforcement.
[11]. The disbursements of $7,994.87 include two research memos, one for $5,309.87 and a second for $1,695. There is also an entry for research on October 17, 2025. Research is not generally accepted as a recoverable cost as the expertise of counsel - which is informed by research - is already reflected in the hourly rate.3 However, given the low hourly rate of counsels in this matter, I will allow for some recovery of the research memo, but not a full recovery.
General Legal Provisions
[12]. Costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes (1) to partially indemnify successful litigants; (2) to encourage settlement, (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants and (4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly under subrule 2 (2) of the Family Law Rules. See: Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867.
[13]. The two most important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840. Amounts actually incurred by the successful litigant may therefore not be determinative. See: Hackett v. Leung, 2005 CanLII 42254 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 4888 (Ont. S.C.J.).
[14]. A determination of the amount of costs is not the signing of a blank cheque, or the reimbursement of one’s entire Statement of Account. There must be a clear and proportionate correlation between legal fees incurred and the importance or monetary value of the issues at stake. See: O’Brien v. O’Brien, 2017 ONSC 402.
[15]. An award of costs is subject to the factors listed in subrule 24(14) and (7) of the Rules, which reads:
24(14) In setting the amount of costs, the court shall consider,
a) the reasonableness and proportionality of each of the following factors as it relates to the importance and complexity of the issues:
(i) each party’s behaviour,
(ii) the time spent by each party,
(iii) any written offers to settle including offers that do not meet the requirements of rule 18,
(iv) any legal fees, including the number of lawyers and their rates,
(v) any expert witness fees, including the number of experts and their rates,
(vi) any other expenses properly paid or payable; and
(b) any other relevant matter.
Analysis
Costs of the Application
[16]. There are a number of factors which point to a high recovery of fees in this matter.
a. The proceeding required multiple conferences and extensive written material. By December 31, 2025, the respondent mother had served affidavit materials exceeding 700 pages with extensive hearsay, opinion, argument, and repetitive exhibits, much of which was irrelevant to a Hague Convention Application. Hague Convention decisions only affect where a parenting dispute is to be determined, not the substantive outcome.
b. The California Superior Court decision dated January 6, 2026, required the filing of additional materials. Further affidavit material was served again in the first week of January 2026.
c. The Respondent Mother’s witnesses were interested family witnesses. For many serious allegations, there was no independent corroboration police reports tied to the alleged incidents, medical records, child protection records, or contemporaneous third-party documentation. As a result, significant cross-examination to test credibility and reliability of the family members was required.
d. An attempt by the court to allow for parenting time on February 13, 2026 resulted in a brief affidavit being filed by the father and a disproportionate record of over 300 pages filed by the mother. The record attempted to introduce fresh evidence, adding unnecessary volume and cost mid-trial.
e. After the evidence closed and before the judgment issued, the Respondent Mother served further affidavits and attempted to introduce new evidence and expert opinion.
f. The mother went into hiding after the release of the decision, requiring police enforcement and a follow-up attendance. The father asserts that the mother unduly complicated enforcement by communicating extreme and unsubstantiated risk narratives to law enforcement. The father asserts that the mother’s conduct throughout this proceeding amounts to bad faith and warrants elevated near full costs.
[17]. I have examined the father’s Bill of Costs and generally find the fees incurred to have been necessary and proportionate to the task at hand. Although I do not have the mother’s account with which to assess her reasonable expectation of the costs of this proceeding, I can take a general view that an unsuccessful party would anticipate a significant payment of costs in these circumstances.
[18]. Additionally, it is necessary to make a finding of bad faith conduct on the part of the mother. Early in the trial, the mother openly acknowledged that she was in breach of the Orders of the California Court, stating that she “would only obey an Ontario Order.” But when the Ontario Order was not in her favour, she disobeyed it as well. When I consider the mother’s litigation conduct, including her disappearance with the child after the release of my decision and the requirement for police enforcement, I find that it is appropriate to give the father a substantial, near full recovery on the costs of the trial and the subsequent enforcement steps subject to my comments above as to entitlements to fees and disbursements.
[19]. I will order only a partial recovery on the fees incurred during the case management period which precipitated the parenting trial because no Offers to Settle were made. Justice Shaw made extensive efforts to resolve and organize these issues, and it is disappointing to learn that the father did not make any written Offer to resolve the situation, even an Offer of no costs should their son be immediately returned to California.
[20]. In reviewing the father’s Bill of Costs, the caselaw and the factors in Rule 24(14) of the Family Law Rules, I find that the fair, reasonable and proportionate amount of costs to be paid in these circumstances is the amount of $78,535, which I calculate as follows:
a. the rounded amount of $65,000 in fees on the total fees of $72,134.52,
b. The rounded amount of $4,500 in disbursements, and
c. HST thereon of $9,035
Costs Pursuant to Article 26 of the Hague Convention
[21]. The father seeks his costs of seven trips to Ontario between March 2025 and April 2026 pursuant to Article 26 of the Hague Convention. Article 26 governs the financial costs of international child return proceedings, and states in its final paragraph that:
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.
[22]. A plain reading of Article 26 demonstrates that the court retains its discretion as to the amount of costs (using the “may, where appropriate” language) and that such costs can be in addition to those ordinarily provided for in family law litigation.
[23]. Here, the father made two trips to Ontario before the trial, the first in March of 2025 ($4,461.95) to discover and participate in the mother’s parallel litigation in Ontario - the California proceeding already being in progress, well advanced and with the mother’s participation - and the second in August 2025 to exercise parenting time agreed to within the California proceeding, which was abruptly denied upon his arrival at Pearson Airport ($1,566.30.) I find that these two trips are fully compensable in accordance with Article 26.
[24]. The father also made two trips to Ontario during the February trial which are a week apart. He shows only travel costs of $6,300.97, asking the court to infer that it would not have been cost effective for him to simply stay in Ontario for the week, or alternatively, to infer that he was not able to stay in Ontario.
[25]. The balance of trips to Ontario occurred after the release of my decision on March 27, 2026, and during the period of police enforcement to locate and recover the parties’ son:
March 30 - April 2, 2026 $4,416.00
April 10 - 22, 2026 $7,062.76
April 26 – 28, 2026 $2,737.44
April 28 - 30, 2026 $3,819.22
[26]. The amounts are stated to include return travel to Ontario from California, accommodation when so stated, transportation (car rental, gas, taxi/Uber), baggage fees, meals, and related airport/parking charges. The amounts were incurred in USD and have been converted in the Schedule to CAD at a rate of 1 USD = 1.38 CAD.
[27]. Article 26 of the Hague Convention has three objectives:
a. to compensate the left behind parent for costs incurred in locating and recovering the abducted child;
b. to punish an abducting parent; and
c. to deter other parents from attempting to abduct their children.
See Beatty v. Schatz, 2009 BCSC 769, 2009 CarswellBC 1555.
[28]. Beatty goes on to state at para 17 that the Hague Convention anticipates that all necessary expenses incurred to secure the child’s return will be shifted to the abductor, both to restore the left-behind parent to the financial position s/he would have been in had there been no removal or retention, as well as to deter such conduct from happening in the first place. See also, Solem v. Solem, 2013 ONSC at para. 10.
[29]. In Kommineni v. Guggilam, 2022 ONCJ 191, Justice Zisman decided a similar claim for costs under the Rules and Article 26 in which a father was completely successful at trial, finding that the mother had wrongfully removed the child from her habitual residence. Citing the above principles, she granted rounded costs of $75,000 on a claim for $105,734.78.
[30]. Here, an amount of $30,364.64 is the total claimed cost of seven trips to Ontario from California over a 13-month period. However, as set out above, determining the amount of costs is not the signing of a blank cheque. I do not have a breakdown of the father’s actual costs, an understanding of why he took each trip individually (such as the back-to-back trips of April 26-28 and April 28-30) and what efforts were made to mitigate his travel costs.
[31]. In reviewing the accounts set out at Schedule “A” and considering the purposes of an Article 26 award of costs: the need to discourage, sanction and deter abducting parents, and again considering the factors in Rule 24(14) which guide my discretion, including the finding of bad faith during the enforcement period; I grant the father his travel and accommodation costs in the rounded amount of $26,500 inclusive of applicable taxes.
Conclusion
[32]. In these reasons, I have chosen to separately analyse the Rule 24 litigation costs and the Article 26 costs, but ultimately, I must take a holistic view of the costs to be paid by the mother.
[33]. The Rule 24 costs and the Article 26 costs share many of the same purposes, particularly with respect to the post March 27, 2026 period of enforcement. Under both Rule 24(10) being the provision for a full recovery upon the finding of bad faith conduct, and Article 26 the clear intention, so far as is possible and appropriate, is to make the left behind parent financially whole. As observed by Justice Zisman in Kommineni, no amount of money can compensate for the worry, stress and loss of time with a child.
[34]. The respondent mother, Ms. Seroya is ordered to pay costs of $105,035 ($78,535 + $26,500) to the applicant father, Mr. Raj. Unless the parties agree to a payment plan in writing, costs are payable within 30 days of the date of this Order.
Schedule “A”
All amounts are stated in Canadian dollars (CAD). Conversion applied: 1 USD = 1.38 CAD (USD/CAD 1.38).
Period
Category
Expense categories
Amount (CAD)
March 2025 trip
Non-Article 26 – Attend court date attempt (discretionary)
Hotel, airline tickets, baggage, food, car/gas, Uber, parking fees
$4,461.95
August trip
Non-Article 26 – Parenting time attempt (discretionary)
Hotel, airline tickets, baggage food and airport parking fees
$1,566.30
February trips (two times)
Article 26 – Trial Court attendances
Airfare, baggage, food, car/gas and other travel costs
$6,300.97
April 10 – 22, 2026 first trip ($5117.04 USD)
Article 26 – Court enforcement attendances
Airfare, lodging, food, car, gas, Uber, and parking fees
$7,062.76
Apr 26–28, 2026 ($3383.65 USD)
Article 26 – Court enforcement attendances
Airfare (2), baggage, airport parking, gas, car rental, hotel, and food
$2,737.44
Apr 28–30, 2026 ($3607.55 USD)
Article 26 – Court enforcement attendances
Airfare (2), baggage, airport parking, gas, car rental, hotel, and food
$3,819.22
March 30, 2026 - April 02, 2026 ($3200.00 USD)
Article 26 – Return implementation enforcement
Tickets, airfare, accommodation, car rental and food
$4,416.00
Footnotes
- This amount may be in error as it is calculated as including only $18,035.42 in Article 26 expenses, which total $30,364.64 (See Schedule A) The fees, disbursement and HST sought ($90,446.21) plus the Article 26 costs are $120,810.85.
- I bring to counsel’s attention the misciting of the Rules numbers in their costs submissions, please note the January 2025 update.
- Additionally, the invoice for a significant disbursement must be attached to the costs submissions so that a court can be certain that the HST charge has not been duplicated, i.e. charge in the invoice, and then charged again in the Bill of Costs.