Shelly Kalra

A Hague Convention application for the return of a child to Hong Kong was commenced in June 2025.

The respondent in the underlying Hague application sought an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, pending the outcome of a refugee application before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the adjournment request; the applicant vigorously opposed it.

The court, acting as case management judge, denied the adjournment, holding that Hague Convention applications must proceed expeditiously as judge-led proceedings in accordance with Balev and Rule 37.2 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found no blanket prohibition against proceeding while a refugee application is pending, and held that indefinitely deferring the Hague hearing would risk the child aging out of the Convention's protection and breach Canada's international obligations.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking an order for the Applicant Mother to administer ADHD medication to their child C seven days a week, decision-making responsibility for medical treatment, section 7 expenses, and the Disability Tax Credit.

The Applicant Mother brought a cross-motion regarding a section 30 assessment and financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the Father's motion regarding the ADHD medication, finding the current plan in the child's best interests and that a change in decision-making authority was not necessary.

The court ordered both parties to provide updated financial statements and information for the section 30 assessment, noting the Father's intention to sign the retainer.

Regarding section 7 expenses, the court ordered parties to exchange invoices/receipts and clarified that childcare expenses should be reconciled after tax returns are filed.

For the Disability Tax Credit, the court ordered the parties to split it from 2024 onwards, rather than retroactively or alternating.

The parties, who immigrated to Canada from India, engaged in a high-conflict family law dispute with proceedings in both jurisdictions.

The respondent mother brought a motion arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction and the case should be heard in India.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached in July 2022 and sought temporary child support.

The court dismissed the mother's jurisdiction motion, finding Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and was the appropriate forum.

The court granted the father's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, rejecting the mother's argument that it was accepted by mistake or invalidated by an Indian court injunction.

The mother was also ordered to pay temporary child support.

This motion concerned the appropriate school enrollment for the parties' four-year-old daughter, Nyla, for Junior Kindergarten.

The applicant father proposed Rose Avenue Junior Public School in downtown Toronto, near the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother proposed Crestview Public School in North York, near her residence where the child spends the majority of her time.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle and considering factors such as primary caregiver, stability, support networks, and commute times for the child, found in favour of the respondent mother's proposed school.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the Applicant father sought 37 heads of relief against the Respondent mother.

The court had previously granted the father's motion in part, finding the mother in breach of a prior order and granting some make-up time, while dismissing other requests.

Both parties sought costs on different indemnity bases.

Applying the modern law on costs, the court found that success was fairly evenly divided between the parties.

Despite offers to settle from both sides, neither met the criteria under Rule 18(14) or significantly influenced the decision under Rule 18(16) of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court ordered that there would be no costs awarded to either side, with each party bearing their own expenses.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $160,862 following motions for interim child and spousal support.

The court found that while success on the motions was divided, the respondent and co-respondents had behaved unreasonably, justifying a costs award in favour of the applicant.

However, the court found the applicant's claimed costs to be excessive, disproportionate, and manifestly unreasonable, noting the unnecessary duplication of effort by two counsel.

The court reduced the costs award significantly, ordering the respondent to pay $40,500 and the co-respondents to pay $5,000.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent claimed he was laid off and had no income, despite a history of funding a lavish lifestyle through unreported cash from his family's tax-preparation business.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed, imputed his income at $209,355, and ordered interim child support of $2,789 per month and spousal support of $2,769 per month.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motions to vary interim support and sell the matrimonial home, the respondent sought full recovery costs of $21,127.61, alleging bad faith.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but rejected the bad faith claim, noting the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold of egregious behaviour or intent to harm.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $12,500.

In supplementary reasons following a motion, the court determined the temporary supervised parenting schedule for the respondent mother of a six-month-old child.

The court rejected the applicant father's proposal to have his sister supervise due to high conflict, and rejected the mother's request for overnight parenting time.

The court ordered a specific schedule for virtual and in-person parenting time, with in-person visits to be supervised by the mother's friend or a paid professional, requiring the father to contribute up to $150 per week for the professional supervisor.

The applicant brought a motion to change an interim spousal and child support order, claiming a severe reduction in income due to COVID-19, and sought the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the motion, seeking to maintain exclusive possession of the home and requesting the release of the applicant's share of cottage sale proceeds to satisfy support arrears.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to change support, finding no substantial change in circumstances as the applicant failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure.

The court also dismissed the motion to sell the matrimonial home based on issue estoppel.

The court ordered $125,000 of the applicant's share of the cottage proceeds to be released to the respondent towards support arrears.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking temporary orders that the parties' six-month-old child reside with him, that the respondent mother's parenting time be supervised, and that the mother undergo a psychiatric assessment.

The father raised serious concerns regarding the mother's mental health, including alleged threats of self-harm and erratic behaviour.

The mother disputed the allegations and opposed supervised parenting.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the recently amended Divorce Act, the court granted the motion, finding that supervised parenting was necessary to ensure the child's safety until the mother's mental health challenges could be properly assessed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim variation of final parenting and child support orders, seeking sole custody, updated table support, and increased section 7 expenses for the parties' 15-year-old child's elite ballet training.

The parties resolved the parenting issues on consent.

The court applied the Berta test for interim variation and found the mother established a strong prima facie case and hardship regarding the ballet expenses.

The court ordered the self-represented respondent father to pay updated table support of $1,851 per month and increased his section 7 contribution to $1,000 per month on a temporary basis.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the release of 50% of the net sale proceeds from a jointly owned property, with a portion to be paid to the respondent for child support arrears.

The respondent opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to a mediation/arbitration clause in their prior agreement, and claiming damages for the applicant's alleged misconduct regarding the property sale.

The court found the respondent had waived the arbitration clause by actively participating in the litigation.

The court ordered the release of $604,500.00 to the applicant, less $19,200.00 for child support arrears, with the balance remaining in trust.

The applicant mother sought to suspend the respondent father's in-person access to their child due to COVID-19 concerns, requesting replacement with Skype contact.

The respondent father sought to reinstate his court-ordered access.

The court found that the mother improperly refused access and failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, clear hardship, or urgency for varying the existing order.

The court emphasized the duty to obey court orders and the maximum contact principle, even during a pandemic.

The father's motion to reinstate access was granted with conditions, and the mother's request to suspend access was denied.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent's former lawyer, Murray Maltz, personally, under Rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules.

The motion stemmed from Maltz's actions, including providing a legal opinion on a foreign divorce's validity despite ongoing disputes, removing matrimonial home designations without notice, acting on property sales, misleading opposing counsel about urgency, and disbursing funds to his client while court orders for support and costs were outstanding.

The court found Maltz's conduct to be a series of deliberate actions that assisted his client in avoiding court obligations and unnecessarily increased the applicant's costs.

The court ordered Maltz to personally pay $6,500 in costs.

The applicant sought child support for two children and interim disbursements for legal fees.

The respondent opposed, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction due to ongoing litigation in Pakistan and Malaysia, and that he was already providing sufficient support.

The court found that it had jurisdiction based on a prior order and that there was no reason to defer the issues.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary child support for one child and interim disbursements to the applicant to level the playing field, noting the respondent's significant income and control over assets.

Costs were awarded to the applicant due to her overall success and the respondent's unreasonable approach.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's family law application, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicant had not been ordinarily resident in Ontario for the one year immediately preceding the application, and therefore dismissed the claims under the Divorce Act.

However, the court held it had jurisdiction to hear the corollary claims for property, support, and custody under the Family Law Act and Children's Law Reform Act, as the applicant and children currently resided in Ontario and had a real and substantial connection to the province.

The father brought a motion regarding the residence and schooling of the parties' daughter, which was subsequently settled.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The mother sought full indemnity costs, arguing the settlement mirrored her early offers and the status quo.

The father sought partial recovery costs, claiming his motion was necessary due to the mother's "self-help" actions and that the settlement reflected his offers.

The court, acknowledging the difficulty in determining success in settled cases, found that the final settlement left the parties in the same position as before the father's motion.

The court awarded the mother partial recovery costs of $8,500, finding her counsel's billed hours excessive but recognizing the father's motion had no substantive effect on the children's arrangements.

Following a family law motion involving an emergency without-notice request for a restraining order and supervised access, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The initial emergency order had been set aside after the court determined there was no urgency under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules and restored the prior shared parenting arrangement.

The father, who was wholly successful on the motion, sought full recovery of his legal costs and alleged bad faith by the mother.

The court declined to find bad faith but concluded the mother acted unreasonably by bringing a without-notice motion in circumstances lacking urgency.

Balancing indemnification, deterrence of unreasonable litigation conduct, and the potential impact on the children, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant mother brought an ex-parte emergency motion seeking sole custody of the parties' two daughters and termination of the respondent father's access, alleging volatile behaviour and substance abuse.

The court initially granted a temporary restraining order.

On the return of the motion, the father provided responding materials denying the allegations and explaining the context of the incidents.

The court found the father's evidence equally credible to the mother's, noted the mother's pre-emptive actions, and concluded there was no basis to terminate access or vary custody prior to a full hearing and CAS investigation.

The temporary order was terminated, and the shared parenting schedule under the separation agreement was reinstated.