Valerie Akujobi

In a family trial addressing parenting time, decision-making responsibility, child support arrears, section 7 expenses, and costs, the court fixed child support arrears at $3,000 as of September 1, 2025 and found annual income of $50,000 for support purposes.

The court held that decision-making should follow consultation, with final say to the respondent, because joint decision-making was found unworkable on the evidence.

Parenting time was expanded in a staged structure, including increased overnight time and a future increase for the younger child starting September 2026, while maintaining the children’s primary residence with the respondent.

The court also made ancillary orders on exchanges, travel, communication through OurFamilyWizard, extracurricular responsibilities, and summer and holiday arrangements.

Costs of $24,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable by the applicant, with one-third enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a trial on parenting issues between Maryana Chyher and Amar Al Jaboury.

The court reviews the parties’ submissions, the relevant Family Law Rules, and the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation.

The court finds that the respondent, Mr. Al Jaboury, acted unreasonably and awards the applicant, Ms. Chyher, $60,000 in costs for the trial, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This decision concerns a high-conflict family law matter involving allegations of domestic violence, parental alienation, and the best interests of two children, A.G. and S.G., following the separation of Maryana Chyher and Amar Al Jaboury.

The court reviews extensive evidence, including expert parenting assessments, police and child protection reports, and the children's own views and preferences.

The court finds that Mr. Al Jaboury engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour and alienated the children from their mother.

Ultimately, the court orders a shared parenting regime to commence March 1, 2025, with Ms. Chyher having sole decision-making authority (except for religion in each parent's home), and sets out detailed provisions for parenting time, communication, travel, and costs.

This costs endorsement addresses the applicant's request for full indemnity costs following a successful motion for child and spousal support.

The court found the applicant was entitled to full indemnity costs due to the respondent's failure to comply with disclosure orders and other procedural requirements.

The court declined to award an additional penalty amount, finding that costs under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules are limited to reimbursement of legal fees and disbursements.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,627.50 in costs.

This 8-day trial concerned parenting and child support for the parties' 5-year-old son.

Key issues included the parenting schedule, travel restrictions, relocation restrictions, holiday parenting time, decision-making authority, and imputation of income for child support.

The court ordered a shared 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule, prioritizing the applicant's work schedule.

The respondent was restricted from international travel with the child without the applicant's consent, and the applicant was granted possession of the child's passport.

Restrictions were also placed on future residential moves and school changes for both parties.

Decision-making for medical/health was made joint with the respondent having final say in case of disagreement, and for education was joint with the applicant having final say.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, finding her intentionally under-employed.

The Applicant sought $150,000 in interim costs but was unsuccessful.

The Respondent then sought costs for that unsuccessful motion.

The court exercised its discretion to defer the determination of costs for the motion to the trial judge.

The decision was based on the lack of a final determination of substantive issues, the narrow scope of the interim costs motion, and a concern that an immediate costs order might impair the Applicant's ability to finance and prepare for trial, particularly regarding expert evidence on the Respondent's financial affairs.

The applicant brought a motion for child and spousal support, seeking to impute income to the respondent due to his failure to comply with disclosure orders and intentional under-employment.

The applicant also sought to prohibit the respondent from further participation in the proceeding and to compel disclosure from a non-party.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent, ordered child support of $397 per month and interim spousal support of $344 per month.

The requests to prohibit the respondent's participation and to compel disclosure from a non-party were denied.

The Applicant sought an interim disbursement costs order of $150,000 to fund financial experts and counsel for an upcoming trial, arguing the Respondent had significant income.

The Respondent claimed financial destitution due to the commercial real estate market downturn.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding she failed to provide sufficient evidence of her inability to fund the litigation from other sources (e.g., family loans) and lacked a detailed breakdown of future costs, as opposed to past expenses.

The court emphasized that interim cost awards are discretionary, limited to exceptional cases, and require clear demonstration of necessity and reasonableness for future litigation expenses.

Following a motion determining the child's habitual residence to be Nigeria, the successful respondent mother sought costs on a full recovery basis, including legal fees and living expenses incurred while remaining in Ontario.

The court found the applicant father's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith.

The court awarded the mother $30,000 in costs, noting the father had already paid $11,200 in interim support which covered a large portion of the mother's living expenses.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a restraining order, child and spousal support, and parenting orders.

The court rescinded the ex parte restraining order but continued the applicant's exclusive possession of the home, ordering her to pay its carrying costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses, while the claim for temporary spousal support was dismissed due to lack of ability to pay.

The court also made temporary orders regarding medical decision-making, parenting time, and non-removal of the children from Ottawa.

The Applicant mother sought Ontario jurisdiction for a parenting order for three children she removed from Nigeria without the father's consent.

The Respondent father sought the children's immediate return to Nigeria, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the children were wrongfully removed and retained, declined jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act, and ordered their immediate return to Nigeria, concluding that the Nigerian courts would prioritize the children's best interests despite allegations of domestic violence and concerns regarding LGBTQIIA+ issues.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary parenting order based on a newly released parenting assessment.

The assessment concluded there was a significant risk of ongoing harm to the children due to the father's alienating behaviours and exposure to parental conflict.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the children were at risk of severe emotional harm if the current arrangements continued.

The court ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother, the father's parenting time be supervised, and the family immediately commence reunification therapy.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $15,735.25 for a motion regarding interim support, alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The respondent sought costs of $2,500, arguing the applicant's requests were excessive.

The court found the applicant was the successful party as she received higher interim support, but noted her relief sought was excessive and she failed to serve an offer to settle.

The respondent was criticized for delaying financial disclosure.

The court denied full indemnity costs, finding no bad faith, and awarded the applicant fixed costs of $4,000.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary parenting order to change the children's primary residence to his home, or alternatively for shared parenting.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to suspend the father's parenting time and order reunification counselling, alleging parental alienation.

The court found no material change in circumstances that would compel a change to the interim order, noting the conflicting evidence and the ongoing involvement of the Children's Aid Society.

Both motions were dismissed without prejudice, pending the release of a parenting assessment and CAS report.