Stephanie Okola

This is a costs endorsement following a motion decision regarding temporary parenting and child support orders for the parties' daughter.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $4,809 while the applicant (father) sought costs of $3,164 or alternatively requested that each party bear its own costs.

The court found the mother was the more successful party overall, particularly on child support issues where she obtained a significant increase.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $3,600, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable within 30 days.

Two motions were heard regarding parenting time, government documentation, international travel, and child support for a child born in October 2023.

The parties never cohabited.

The mother sought to impute income to the father based on his corporate business operating group homes, claiming he sheltered money to reduce child support obligations.

The father sought expanded parenting time and opposed the mother's travel and documentation requests.

The court ordered a gradual increase in parenting time, permitted the mother to obtain government documentation and travel internationally without the father's consent, and imputed an annual income of $120,000 to the father for child support purposes based on an amount the parties had previously agreed upon, finding the father's claimed $60,000 salary was not credible given his business grossed over one million dollars annually.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the father’s appeal from a family law order that varied parenting and support arrangements.

The court found that the trial judge’s reasons were clear, sound, and based on the evidence, and that the findings were consistent with the Divorce Act.

The trial judge’s decision to grant the mother primary care and sole decision-making authority, as well as to vary child and spousal support, was upheld.

The court emphasized deference to the trial judge’s factual findings and the best interests of the children.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a trial concerning parenting and child support, where the mother was permitted to relocate with the child to Wisconsin.

The court applied the amended Family Law Rules regarding costs, including the technical requirements for offers to settle under subrule 24(12).

The mother was found the successful party and entitled to costs, but the court carefully analyzed the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs claimed, including the claim for second counsel.

The court awarded costs of $36,000 to the mother, payable monthly, considering the father's financial ability and the conduct of both parties.

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a contested relocation and parenting dispute involving an 8-year-old child.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the child to Wisconsin, while the father opposed the move and sought joint or parallel decision-making responsibility.

The court carefully analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, including family violence considerations, the parties’ parenting abilities, and the impact of relocation.

The court found the mother to be the primary caregiver and granted her sole decision-making responsibility, permitting relocation with a detailed parenting time plan for the father.

The father’s income was imputed at $88,800 for child support purposes due to under-employment and lack of financial disclosure.

The mother’s spousal support claim was withdrawn if relocation was permitted.

The applicant father sought a court order for family reconciliation therapy involving himself, the respondent mother, and their child, E. The mother opposed, arguing it was not in E.'s best interests, citing E.'s expressed views against it.

The court, relying on a Voice of the Child report, found E. to be a mature teenager whose wishes, while considered, were not determinative.

The court noted the mother's problematic behavior in hindering the father-child relationship and her failure to propose alternatives.

Concluding that reconciliation therapy was in E.'s best interests to restore contact and address family dynamics, the court granted the father's motion and ordered all parties to participate in therapy under specific terms.

This is a costs endorsement following a six-day trial concerning parenting and support arrangements.

The applicant mother sought over $30,000 in trial costs and additional costs for an urgent motion.

The respondent father sought dismissal of the mother's costs and his own costs for the urgent motion.

The court found the mother's offer to settle was more favourable than the trial outcome on several key issues (decision-making, parenting time, child support, spousal support, government documents), presumptively entitling her to full recovery of costs on those issues under Rule 18(14).

However, the court exercised its discretion to deny costs on the relocation issue due to the mother's unreasonable self-help tactics and also considered the time spent on her handwriting expert whose report was not admitted.

The father's unreasonable conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and respond to offers, was also noted.

Considering all factors, including the father's modest means, the court fixed the mother's trial costs at $18,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable monthly.

Costs for the urgent motion were denied to both parties, as the motion, while not urgent, led to beneficial temporary parenting orders.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside two default judgments made after she absconded with the parties' children to Kenya in breach of a court order.

The mother claimed she fell ill in Kenya and lost access to communication, leading to her default.

The court rejected her explanation as implausible and found she intentionally ignored the court process.

Applying the test for setting aside a default judgment, the court concluded the mother failed to provide a plausible excuse, and setting aside the orders would cause substantial prejudice to the applicant father and undermine the administration of justice.

The motion was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on a motion to change parenting orders for three-year-old twin girls.

The father sought custody and relocation of the children from Niagara Falls to Toronto.

The court dismissed the custody and relocation requests but granted the father extensive access on a graduated basis.

The court found divided success overall, with the father being the more successful party on the dominant issue of parenting time.

The mother's unreasonable behaviour in restricting access and failing to facilitate the father-child relationship warranted costs consequences.

The court awarded costs to the father in the amount of $6,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, taking into account the mother's limited financial means.

The applicant father sought to change a custody order granting sole custody to the respondent mother, requesting custody of the five-year-old twin children or, alternatively, shared parenting.

The father also sought to require the mother to return with the children to the Greater Toronto Area from Niagara Falls.

The parties agreed that a material change in circumstances had occurred, as access had completely broken down.

The court found that custody should remain with the mother, that the children should remain in Niagara Falls, and that the father should have graduated access beginning with four weekly four-hour visits, escalating to alternate weekends, with strict requirements that the mother use a third party for all access exchanges.

A motion concerning interim custody and access of a two-year-old child.

The father sought temporary sole custody after the child sustained unexplained injuries to her face while in the mother's care.

The mother opposed the motion and sought sole custody with liberal access to the father, or alternatively, joint custody.

The court found the mother's evidence regarding the injuries to be inconsistent and unreliable, and determined that the mother had failed to provide adequate supervision and stability.

The court granted the father temporary sole custody with the mother receiving limited supervised day access only.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support, claiming an inability to work due to medical issues.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for a defence medical and to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The court dismissed the spousal support motion, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for entitlement or provide cogent medical evidence of his inability to work.

The court granted the respondent's motion to sever the divorce, noting there were no children of the marriage.

The respondent was awarded costs of $5,000.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change a final child support order.

The respondent (father) sought to reduce his child support payments and rescind arrears that had accrued while the child was not in the applicant's (mother's) care due to child protection proceedings.

The court reduced the father's arrears by $14,940 (representing three years of support) but dismissed the balance of his motion to change.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services, as assignee of arrears, participated in the trial.

The court awarded costs to both the mother and the assignee, finding them to be the successful parties.

The father's unreasonable behaviour, including failure to make settlement offers and incomplete financial disclosure, was considered in the costs determination.

This trial concerned the quantum and duration of spousal support for a long-term marriage (37 years).

The applicant sought $2,000 per month indefinitely or a $200,000 lump sum, while the respondent argued for minimal support and repayment of alleged overpayments.

The court found the respondent had substantially underpaid spousal support and equalization post-separation, leading to the applicant's economic disadvantage.

Considering the significant disparity in assets and means, the court awarded the applicant a lump sum payment of $200,000 and dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order dated September 8, 2009, which imputed his income at $45,000 and required him to pay $415 per month.

The father sought to reduce payments to $150 per month and reduce arrears to $5,000 with repayment at $50 per month.

The applicant mother agreed to a three-year credit for when the child was out of her care and proposed $250 per month arrears repayment.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services, as assignee of support arrears, opposed any reduction.

The court found the father failed to meet his onus to demonstrate changed circumstances warranting variation, noting his lack of credibility, incomplete financial disclosure, and evidence of actual income exceeding his claims.

The court granted only the three-year credit for the child's absence from the mother's care and ordered arrears repayment at $75 per month commencing October 1, 2016.