In a recent case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sent a strong message about the financial consequences of unreasonable litigation conduct in family law—especially where parenting issues and children’s best interests are at stake.
Background
The parties separated in July 2020 and became embroiled in a bitter dispute over parenting arrangements. The Applicant-mother, who had been the primary caregiver during the marriage, alleged that the Respondent father engaged in a pattern of coercive control, physical abuse, and harmful manipulation of the children.
For five months after separation, the Respondent prevented the children from having any contact with their mother. The court later found that his conduct actively alienated the children from her, damaging their relationship and prolonging the litigation unnecessarily.
The Trial and Initial Decision
Parenting issues went to trial in two phases—January 16–31, 2024, and August 6, 2024. Justice Engelking released the main parenting decision on February 13, 2025, setting out the final parenting arrangements and inviting both parties to make submissions on costs.
Parties’ Positions on Costs
- Applicant’s Position: The mother argued that the father’s bad faith and unreasonable conduct justified a full recovery costs award of $103,000. In the alternative, she sought $92,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $61,800 on a partial indemnity basis.
- Respondent’s Position: The father claimed he was the more successful party because the children’s views were considered and argued he had litigated reasonably. He sought $113,700 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a 2022 Offer to Settle, which he said was more favorable to the mother than the trial result.
Key Legal Principles
Justice Engelking reaffirmed that under the Family Law Rules, the purpose of costs is to:
- Indemnify successful parties for their legal expenses,
- Encourage reasonable settlement offers, and
- Discourage inappropriate behavior during litigation.
Court’s Findings
The court concluded that the Respondent’s conduct was both unreasonable and harmful. His actions had:
- Alienated the children from their mother,
- Caused significant emotional harm, and
- Needlessly extended the litigation.
While the father relied on his April 2022 Offer to Settle, the court found it problematic because:
- It addressed all issues (including financial ones) and was not severable from the parenting matters,
- The trial outcome was actually more favorable to the mother on key issues like decision-making authority.
The Costs Award
The Applicant’s legal bill was adjusted downward to account for time spent on non-parenting and post-trial issues. In the end, Justice Engelking ordered the Respondent to pay $60,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, on a partial indemnity basis.
This amount was considered both reasonable and proportionate in light of the circumstances.
Why This Case Matters
This decision is a clear reminder that:
- Family courts will penalize unreasonable and harmful conduct, especially where children are manipulated or alienated from a parent.
- Offers to settle must be carefully drafted and genuinely reasonable to have an impact on costs.
- Even in high-conflict parenting cases, the court expects parties to focus on the children’s best interests and avoid tactics that prolong litigation.
DISCLAIMER: The information provided in this Blog or any other Blog on this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established through this writing. You should consult with a qualified attorney for advice tailored to your specific situation. The lawyer and their firm disclaim any liability arising from reliance on this Blog.