Stephen Parnell Brennan Eaton

This was a family law costs decision following a trial over mobility, parenting, and child support issues arising from a recognized extra-provincial divorce decree.

The court found the respondent had acted in bad faith by misrepresenting her address and the children's availability, interfering with parenting time, coaching the children, and making false allegations, thereby increasing the complexity and cost of the litigation.

Applying the Family Law Rules and appellate guidance on bad faith costs, the court held that full recovery was the starting point, but reduced the award to account for support-related costs and overall proportionality.

Costs were fixed at $120,000 with staged payment terms.

An application to vary a Texas divorce decree recognized in Ontario under section 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant father sought to impose a geographical restriction on the respondent mother's ability to relocate with the children outside the Region of Peel, Ontario, and sought child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the mother's pattern of conduct including misrepresentation of her address, interference with parenting time, false allegations to police and child protective services, and coaching of children.

The court imposed a geographical restriction, ordered child support, and found the mother in breach of the order, awarding costs.

An appeal concerning the correct appellate jurisdiction and the discretionary transfer of an appeal.

The parties had a divorce order made in Texas that included parenting terms.

The Ontario Court of Justice found jurisdiction to address parenting issues.

The mother appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, which dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal for Ontario under section 73(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The mother requested a transfer to the Court of Appeal late in oral submissions, which the Superior Court judge declined.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court judge's characterization of the order and her discretionary decision not to transfer.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, child support, and a divorce.

The respondent father failed to participate in the proceedings and had not seen the child in two years.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, imputed a minimum wage income to the respondent for child support purposes, and issued a no-contact order.

The court also granted the divorce and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for exclusive possession of the jointly-owned matrimonial home and an interim restraining order against the respondent.

The respondent had recently returned to the home from the UK and engaged in intimidating and verbally abusive behaviour towards the applicant and their adult children.

The court found that the applicant and children had reasonable grounds to fear for their psychological and physical safety.

The motion for a restraining order and exclusive possession was granted.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a Consent Order regarding the annual adjustment of child support.

The applicant argued that the respondent's non-taxable disability income should be imputed in addition to his Line 15000 income.

The court found that the clear wording of the Consent Order precluded the inclusion of income other than the respondent's Line 15000 income.

The applicant was found to be in breach of the Consent Order for failing to sign the necessary documents to adjust the support amount, and was ordered to comply and pay costs.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision dismissing his Hague Convention application for the return of the parties' three children to Michigan and assuming jurisdiction under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found that the father did not have custody rights at the time of removal and that returning the children to Michigan without their primary caregiver mother, who lacked immigration status to return, would expose them to a grave risk of harm from the abusive father.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risk of harm or her decision not to defer to the Michigan court.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions seeking sole decision-making and primary residence for their two children.

The primary issues were the children's COVID-19 vaccination and the eldest child's attendance at in-person school, with the respondent supporting both and the applicant opposing.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making authority for the children's COVID-19 vaccination, finding it to be in their best interests based on public health guidance.

The court also ordered the children to attend in-person schooling starting September 2022, affirming the presumption that in-person learning is generally in a child's best interest.

The applicant retained primary care, and the court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, while also requesting a Voice of the Child Report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer regarding parenting time and school jurisdiction.

The applicant father commenced litigation seeking shared parenting and alleging parental alienation after the children refused overnight visits.

Following an assessment that found the children's views were independent and based on the father's behaviour, the matter settled with the father receiving daytime visits only.

The respondent mother sought costs as the successful party.

The court found the mother was the successful party, as the father's claims were unreasonable and he ultimately capitulated.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.

The applicant father sought leave to bring an urgent motion for parenting time with his three children, alleging the respondent mother had denied contact since a domestic incident.

The respondent mother opposed, asserting willingness for a week-about arrangement and disputing the father's claims.

The court found the applicant's initial letter misleading and the respondent's letter violated court protocols by exceeding page limits and including privileged information.

The court declined to find present urgency for a motion but scheduled a case conference to assist parties in resolving issues and to determine urgency as an element of case management.

Application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of three children to Michigan.

The mother fled Michigan with the children and made a refugee claim in Canada.

The father sought return of the children, arguing wrongful removal.

The court found that under Michigan law, an unmarried father who had signed an Acknowledgement of Parentage did not have custody rights at the time of removal—only the mother held custody.

The court dismissed the application on this basis.

Alternatively, the court found that even if removal was wrongful, the mother established a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) of the Convention due to documented domestic violence, sexual assault, and threats.

The court assumed jurisdiction under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant father brought a motion for overnight access to the parties' 3-year-old child.

The respondent mother opposed overnight access, citing a history of domestic violence and the father's lack of parenting experience, and brought a cross-motion for daytime access only.

The court granted the father's motion in part, ordering a temporary schedule of mid-week and alternate weekend overnight access, finding no compelling reason to deny overnights pending trial and noting the father's successful recent overnight visits.

The mother's cross-motion was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Following a ten‑day family law trial concerning custody and access of two children and an unsuccessful contempt motion, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $69,000, while the respondent argued success was divided and requested no costs or set‑offs for prior awards and assessment expenses.

Applying the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules but recognizing the court’s discretion, the court found partial success for both parties but greater success for the applicant.

The court rejected certain claimed costs, required the parties to share the expense of an expert assessment, and considered the potential financial impact of a costs award on the children.

A reduced lump‑sum costs award of $20,000 was ordered payable by the respondent.

A mother brought an application to vary a prior custody order and sought sole custody of two adolescent children amid a high-conflict parenting dispute marked by allegations of parental alienation.

The father sought a finding of contempt alleging the mother failed to ensure the children attended access visits.

The court found elements of both alienation and justified estrangement, concluding the children’s reluctance to see the father was influenced by both parents’ conduct and the father’s rigid parenting style.

Given the parents’ inability to cooperate and the children’s expressed preferences, sole custody was granted to the mother with defined access to the father.

The contempt motion was dismissed because the father failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother intentionally breached prior access orders.