Scott J. DeGroot

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking primary residence, sole decision-making, and other relief in a family law matter involving two daughters.

The court declined to grant primary residence but made orders for parenting time and counselling.

In this costs endorsement, the court determined that the mother was entitled to costs despite not achieving complete success on the motion.

The mother had made two formal offers to settle and one informal offer that were similar to or better than the results achieved.

The father's conduct in denying the mother any parenting time until court-ordered, combined with his failure to make any settlement offers, warranted a costs award.

The court ordered the father to pay $20,000 in costs to the mother, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion without notice brought by the respondent seeking urgent orders regarding the primary residence and parenting time of the parties' child following the applicant's unilateral relocation.

The court found that the respondent did not establish the necessary urgency or grounds to proceed without notice for changing the child's primary residence or relocation.

However, due to serious allegations concerning the applicant's partner's criminal charges, the court granted a limited without-prejudice order restricting the child's contact with the named individuals pending further investigation.

The court emphasized the need for involvement of the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and proper jurisdictional considerations for the ongoing matter.

This is a costs decision following a three-day family law trial concerning parenting and decision-making for a child.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs, arguing greater success and unreasonable conduct by the applicant.

The applicant sought no costs, citing divided success and modest financial resources.

The court found that while the respondent was somewhat more successful overall, neither party fully met their settlement offers, and both exhibited reasonable and unreasonable conduct at various stages of the litigation.

The court ultimately ordered each party to bear their own costs, concluding that the trial was unnecessary and both parties should have done more to avoid it.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a shared parenting order, seeking sole decision-making and primary residence, while the applicant mother sought to maintain the shared arrangement or a week-about schedule.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's aging, the unworkable original schedule, and high parental conflict.

Applying the best interests of the child test, and giving significant weight to the child's expressed views from Voice of the Child Reports, the court ordered joint decision-making and primary residence with the father during the school week, with extended alternate weekend and Wednesday parenting time for the mother, and a week-about schedule during summer holidays.

The court also addressed child support arrears.

The parties separated in 2021 and entered into a separation agreement providing for equal parenting time and joint decision-making with the applicant father having final authority.

The applicant subsequently abused his decision-making authority, repeatedly withheld the children, and made unfounded allegations of physical abuse against the respondent mother to the police and CAS.

Following a trial, the court ordered that equal parenting time continue on a 2-2-3 schedule, but granted sole decision-making responsibility to the respondent mother due to the applicant's history of unilateral decision-making and creation of adult conflict.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to permit her and the parties' 8-year-old child to travel to England and Scotland, and to dispense with the applicant father's consent.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking urgent orders for parenting time and declarations that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act supersedes the Divorce Act.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding the trip to be in the child's best interests and noting the father provided no valid reason for withholding consent.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion as inappropriate for an urgent interim motion and adjourned the parenting issues to a case conference.

The parties submitted written arguments regarding costs following the applicant's successful motion for enforcement of a disclosure order and interim spousal support.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on a written offer to settle that was more favourable than the order obtained.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent's dilatory approach to financial disclosure necessitated the motion.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $5,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The parties separated in 2015 and the mother sought sole custody, primary residence, and child support for their eight-year-old son.

The father sought sole custody and alleged the mother alienated the child and caused him financial abuse.

The court found no evidence of alienation or abuse by the mother, noting she provided a stable home and facilitated access.

The court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, ordered alternate weekend access for the father, and imputed income to the father to calculate ongoing and retroactive child support.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order that had terminated his access to his two children due to a history of emotional abuse, harassment, and anger issues directed at the applicant mother and witnessed by the children.

The court applied the two-stage test from Gordon v. Goertz, finding that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

Despite engaging in minimal psychiatric consultation and an anger management course, the father lacked insight into his past abusive behavior, continued to blame others, and did not adequately address his mental health issues.

The court dismissed the motion to reinstate access but ordered the parties to use an online communication platform for child-focused information exchange and restricted the father from bringing further variation applications for 15 months without leave.