Vlad Floca-Maxim

Following a high-conflict parenting trial, the successful respondent sought costs of $20,456.56 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicant's repeated unreasonable behaviour, including denying parenting time and sabotaging the respondent's relationship with the child, warranted substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs in the all-inclusive amount of $20,456.56 and declined to order a stay pending appeal as it was unnecessary under the rules.

The respondent brought a motion seeking permission to relocate with the child to Petawawa, Ontario, due to a military posting.

The applicant opposed this request.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that there were serious credibility and factual issues that could not be resolved on an interim motion.

The court noted the respondent's failure to provide sufficient evidence of compelling circumstances for the transfer or that she had explored alternatives to delay the transfer.

The proposed relocation would significantly reduce the child's parenting time with the applicant.

The matter was ordered to proceed to trial on a priority basis to determine decision-making responsibility and a parenting schedule.

The mother appealed an order returning her three-year-old child to Pakistan and recognizing a foreign divorce.

The motion judge had summarily determined, based solely on conflicting affidavit evidence, that the child was habitually resident in Pakistan and faced no serious risk of harm if returned.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the mother was denied procedural fairness because the conflicting evidence regarding parental intention and domestic violence required a more robust evidentiary hearing.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a proper evidentiary hearing.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with the parties' 3.5-year-old child from Ottawa to Southwestern Ontario, citing worsening PTSD symptoms.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging the mother breached previous orders prohibiting her from removing the child from the National Capital Region, and sought expanded parenting time.

The court found the elements of civil contempt were met but exercised its discretion to dismiss the contempt motion.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding she had misled medical professionals about her support network and that the move was not in the child's best interests.

The mother was ordered to return to Eastern Ontario, and the father was granted a gradual increase in parenting time.