Susan Nicole Berry

Following the death of the mother of his children, the applicant father sought custody and primary residence of his children who had been residing with their maternal grandparents for approximately ten years.

The father brought an emergency motion for custody prior to a case conference.

The maternal grandparents defended and cross-claimed for joint custody with the maternal aunt and uncle.

The maternal aunt and uncle were added as parties.

The father was unsuccessful in securing any substantive relief.

The matter proceeded to summary judgment, which the respondents won substantially.

This decision addresses the costs award arising from the motions and summary judgment proceedings.

A motion for summary judgment regarding custody and access of two children whose mother died.

The maternal grandparents and maternal uncle and aunt sought joint custody with limited access for the biological father.

The father opposed the motion and sought sole custody with the children relocating to Ottawa.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the respondents, finding that the unchallenged evidence established no genuine issue requiring trial.

The children had resided with the maternal grandparents for ten years in a stable environment.

The father had minimal involvement post-separation, failed to pay child support, and presented an unstructured care plan.

The children's preferences were to remain in Oakville with their maternal family.

Joint custody was awarded to the grandparents and uncle/aunt with limited monthly access for the father.

A costs decision following urgent motions regarding custody and access to a 12-year-old child.

The mother sought an order for the child's immediate return to her care after the father unilaterally withheld the child during summer vacation.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking custody and primary residence.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering the child's return to her care and awarding her sole custody with restricted access to the father.

The costs decision addresses whether the mother should recover her legal costs or whether the father's conduct warrants a costs award in his favour.

The applicant sought costs of a motion on a substantial indemnity or full recovery basis in the amount of $15,642.36.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the motion for unsupervised access but was not entitled to full recovery of costs due to the failure to serve an offer to settle.

The court awarded costs in the reduced amount of $7,500.00, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable within 90 days, finding that the respondent's position on the motion was unreasonable and that some costs were incurred due to unnecessary litigation tactics.

The father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his eight-year-old daughter, who had been in the de facto custody of the mother since the parties' separation over one year prior.

The mother opposed the motion, alleging a history of violence and substance abuse by the father.

The court found insufficient evidence of a pattern of domestic violence or substance abuse, noting that the only incident post-separation was an isolated occurrence more than one year prior.

The supervised access reports demonstrated a warm, loving relationship between father and child with no observed anxiety.

The court granted the motion and ordered unsupervised access to continue on the existing schedule with conditions regarding alcohol consumption and physical discipline.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior consent order seeking permission to relocate the children’s primary residence to the United Kingdom and to impute higher income to the respondent for child and spousal support.

The respondent opposed relocation and sought a variation providing that the children reside primarily with him if the applicant moved, while also requesting support be calculated based on his current income.

Applying the best interests test and the framework from Gordon v. Gertz, the court found the applicant’s reasons for relocation compelling, including immigration limitations preventing employment in Canada, lack of family support in Ontario, and available family and medical support in the United Kingdom.

The court accepted the respondent’s evidence that his current income was $135,000 and declined to impute income at the higher historical level.

The applicant was permitted to relocate with the children, subject to liberal and generous access arrangements for the respondent.

A costs decision following settlement of a family law dispute concerning child support, spousal support, and parenting arrangements.

The applicant sought costs of $5,000.00, arguing that the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including refusal to provide financial disclosure and rejection of mediation proposals, forced her to commence litigation.

The respondent argued both parties should bear their own costs as he was substantially successful.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and awarded costs based on her reasonable pre-litigation settlement offers and the respondent's unreasonable conduct in refusing financial disclosure and rejecting alternative dispute resolution.