Tania Pompilio

The applicant sought leave to commence a motion to set aside a final order and for an order regarding parenting time with his child, alleging parental alienation.

The respondent opposed, seeking payment of outstanding cost awards, a declaration that the applicant is a vexatious litigant, and security for costs.

The court denied the applicant's motion, finding no grounds under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside the previous order, and that the child was over 18, thus beyond the court's jurisdiction for parenting time.

The court granted the respondent's request, declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant due to persistent non-compliance with court orders and repeated unsuccessful litigation, and ordered security for costs.

The parties sought costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding interim custody, parenting time, and the release of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found that success on the motions was divided, as neither party achieved a result as favourable as their position on the main issue of parenting arrangements.

Although the applicant made an offer to settle, he did not obtain a result as favourable as the terms of the offer.

Consequently, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The parties separated and the applicant father withheld the child from the respondent mother, citing concerns about her mental health.

The father sought an order restricting the mother to supervised access.

The mother provided medical evidence showing she was actively engaged in treatment for depression and anxiety and that her condition had significantly improved.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to be in an equal timesharing arrangement on a temporary basis, noting the mother's positive steps in addressing her mental health and her historical role as a primary caregiver.

This costs endorsement followed an urgent motion regarding interim custodial arrangements for a child.

The applicant mother sought partial indemnity costs, arguing divided success and the respondent father's unreasonable behaviour.

The respondent father sought full recovery costs, claiming success on the motion.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful on the main motion regarding custody.

However, the father's actions of resorting to self-help by unilaterally removing the child from daycare and making unsubstantiated allegations about the mother's mental health were deemed unreasonable.

The court emphasized that self-help remedies in custodial matters are to be discouraged and ordered the father to pay the mother $7,500 in costs.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, primary residence, permission to relocate, and child support, initiating proceedings after the respondent father unilaterally retained the child from daycare.

The father sought enforcement of a separation agreement for shared custody with alternating weeks, or an equal time schedule, and disclosure regarding the mother's mental health.

The court dismissed the father's mental health allegations as unproven and condemned his self-help remedy.

On an interim-interim basis, the court ordered joint custody with a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and set an expedited case conference, deferring final determinations on custody, relocation, and the validity of the separation agreement.

Both parties sought costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding disclosure and the pre-trial sale of properties, both of which were dismissed.

The applicant sought costs based on the respondent's misleading statements in a previous affidavit regarding the purchase of a property.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in delivering a misleading affidavit warranted an adverse costs award, but reduced the amount due to the applicant's own unreasonable conduct in refusing a settlement offer.

The applicant was awarded $1,000 in costs.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions seeking the interim sale or transfer of two jointly owned properties—the matrimonial home and a rental property—prior to trial.

The court found that ordering a sale on an interim basis would be premature and could prejudice potential claims for the transfer of property to satisfy equalization payments under section 9 of the Family Law Act.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for the release of trust funds to reimburse a disputed debt.

Both motions were dismissed.

On an interim family motion, the responding party sought joint shared custody while the applicant sought sole custody, primary parenting, support, section 7 contribution, property carrying costs, and related relief.

The court held that both parents were fit and devoted, that there was no established risk of harm to the children in either parent's care, and that the relevant status quo was the pre-tactical parenting arrangement rather than the short-lived supervised regime following criminal charges.

Applying the best interests of the children and maximum contact principles, the court imposed interim joint custody and an alternating-week parenting schedule.

The court also ordered interim child support, section 7 payments, contribution to matrimonial home carrying costs for a limited period, continued benefits coverage, ongoing assessment measures, and no costs.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking termination of child support and reimbursement of alleged overpayments dating back to when the parties’ daughters reached adulthood.

The respondent filed a cross‑motion seeking retroactive child support adjustments and contribution toward the children’s post‑secondary education expenses.

The court found the applicant had failed to provide proper financial disclosure, intentionally under‑reported income, and engaged in blameworthy conduct by avoiding contact and concealing financial information for many years.

Applying the Child Support Guidelines and the principles from S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), the court imputed income to the applicant and awarded retroactive child support and section 7 expenses dating back to 2000.

The court also ordered payment of outstanding historical cost awards and directed that the sums be paid directly from the applicant’s frozen investment account.

Costs decision following a family law motion to change.

The applicant was entirely successful on the motion and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis exceeding $21,000, while the respondent requested that no costs be awarded.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, finding the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs but that neither party had acted in bad faith and the issues were not complex.

Considering the parties’ conduct, the financial circumstances of both parties, and the applicable jurisprudence, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $86,832 following a five-day custody trial, plus costs for a prior motion.

The court denied costs for the prior motion, noting that under Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, costs must be decided at each step.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding divided success and that the respondent's pursuit of sole custody was not unreasonable.

The court fixed the applicant's costs on a lower partial indemnity scale at $27,650, subject to an $8,000 set-off from a property settlement.