Judge finds father sought reasonable award, orders mother pay $20K net
The Ontario Court of Appeal did not allow a mother to appeal a costs order upon determining that she alleged no specific error in the costs decision, which found that the father reasonably requested under half the “extreme” costs incurred.
After lengthy family law proceedings, the trial court issued a substantive order placing the parties’ minor child in the primary care of the father, the respondent in Ghahsareh v. Ehsani, 2025 ONCA 795.
The father succeeded on most issues, namely parenting time, decision-making, and ongoing child and spousal support. Meanwhile, the appellant mother prevailed in terms of retroactive child support and limited spousal support.
Regarding costs, Justice S. James Mountford of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice acknowledged the mother’s success in the retroactive support issue. However, he noted that this issue took little time to resolve.
The trial judge ruled that the father made five settlement offers, displayed admirable conduct, and emerged as the more successful party at trial. On the other hand, according to the judge, the mother apparently made no offers, as well as showed bad faith and ‘very disturbing’ and unreasonable behaviour.
The judge held that the father reasonably requested $131,855.10, less than half the ‘extreme’ costs exceeding $271,000 that he had incurred. After setting off the requested amount against retroactive and ongoing support owed by the father, the judge ordered the mother to pay net costs of $20,000.
The mother, who was self-represented, appealed the substantive and costs orders.
On Apr. 17, Copeland J.A. said the mother’s costs appeal could proceed. In an endorsement dated June 19, Gomery J.A. decided that the substantive appeal should not move forward.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied leave to appeal the trial judge’s costs order. The appeal court noted that it would have dismissed the appeal even if it had been willing to grant leave for the mother to appeal the costs order.
The appeal court ordered the mother to pay the father $7,500 in appeal costs, including harmonized sales tax and disbursements.
The appeal court accepted that the mother was dissatisfied with the trial result, given that she clearly loved her children and considered the issues very important.
However, the appeal court pointed out that the mother’s materials failed to allege a specific error on the judge’s part or address the test for leave, which the rules required for an appeal confined to the issue of costs.
The appeal court ruled that the judge:
The appeal court saw no error in principle, no plainly wrong award, and no basis to grant leave for the mother to appeal the costs order.
