Ontario Superior Court Orders Father to Pay $60,000 in Costs for Unreasonable Behaviour in Family Law Dispute
In a significant ruling, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered a father to pay $60,000 in trial costs to the mother due to his unreasonable and harmful behaviour during family law proceedings. The case, Chyher v. Al Jaboury, highlights the court’s commitment to addressing conduct that prolongs litigation and increases costs.
The legal dispute centered on parenting time, decision-making authority, and abuse allegations following the breakdown of the marriage in 2020. The mother alleged a history of domestic violence, including physical abuse, sexual impropriety, and coercive control throughout the relationship.
The court found the father’s behaviour to be unreasonable and harmful, contributing to the escalation of legal costs. This ruling underscores the court’s discretion to award costs against litigants acting in bad faith or unreasonably delaying proceedings.
Read more about this case and its implications for family law proceedings in our in-depth analysis.
Case Background and Detailed Findings
The couple, married in 2008, have two sons born in 2009 and 2010. The mother left the family home in July 2020 and filed for divorce the following month, seeking various relief, including custody, support, and a restraining order. She alleged a history of domestic violence, including physical abuse, sexual impropriety, and coercive control during the marriage.
In its ruling, the court found the mother to be a victim of her husband’s abuse throughout their relationship. The court also determined that the father engaged in unreasonable and harmful behaviour, which impeded the resolution of the case and contributed to escalating legal costs.
Costs Submissions and Court Analysis
After the main issues were decided, both parties submitted arguments on costs. The mother sought $103,000 in legal costs, arguing the father acted in bad faith and engaged in unreasonable conduct. She also presented alternative figures of $92,000 as substantial indemnity costs or $61,800 as partial indemnity costs.
The father, on the other hand, claimed he was the more successful party at trial and requested $113,700 in costs. He argued that he had made a settlement offer in April 2022 that was more favourable to the mother regarding parenting time than the eventual trial decision. He also highlighted his financial contributions to reunification therapy and supervised parenting time for nearly two years.
The court rejected the father’s argument that his settlement offer should shield him from costs liability. It noted that the offer could not be separated into parenting and financial matters, and the mother could not have accepted it without agreeing to unacceptable financial terms.
Final Order and Rationale
On July 18, 2025, in *Chyher v. Al Jaboury*, the court ordered the father to pay the mother $60,000, including harmonized sales tax and disbursements. The award was based on several key factors:
- The mother’s status as a victim of abuse throughout the marriage.
- The father’s unreasonable and harmful conduct that prolonged the litigation and increased costs.
- The lack of severability in the father’s settlement offer, which made it an ineffective defence against costs liability.
- The need for cost orders to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour in family court proceedings.
Broader Legal Context
Family courts have discretion to award costs against litigants whose behaviour is found to be in bad faith or unreasonably delays or complicates proceedings. Such orders aim to discourage litigation tactics or conduct that escalate conflict, increase costs, or undermine the justice process.
In this and similar cases, courts weigh not only the success of the parties at trial but also their conduct, the reasonableness of settlement offers, and the proportionality of legal expenses to the issues at stake. This approach ensures that the legal process remains fair and equitable, particularly for victims of abuse who may face significant financial and emotional challenges during litigation.
Conclusion
The case of *Chyher v. Al Jaboury* underscores the importance of courts considering the broader context of litigation, including the conduct of parties and the impact of their actions on the legal process. The court’s decision to award $60,000 in legal costs to the mother reflects a balanced approach, taking into account her status as a victim of abuse and the father’s unreasonable behaviour that prolonged the case.
This ruling also highlights the family court’s discretion in awarding costs to address bad faith conduct and discourage litigation tactics that escalate conflict. It serves as a reminder that the legal system seeks to maintain fairness and equity, particularly for victims of abuse who may face significant challenges during legal proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
How are legal costs determined in family law cases?
Legal costs in family law cases are determined based on factors such as the conduct of the parties, the reasonableness of settlement offers, and the proportionality of legal expenses to the issues at stake. Courts may award costs to sanction bad faith or unreasonable behaviour that prolongs litigation.
Can a party’s conduct impact the awarding of legal costs?
Yes, a party’s conduct can significantly impact the awarding of legal costs. If a party is found to have acted in bad faith or engaged in unreasonable behaviour, the court may order them to pay costs to the other party as a form of sanction.
Why was the father ordered to pay $60,000 in legal costs?
The father was ordered to pay $60,000 in legal costs because the court found his conduct to be harmful and unreasonable, which prolonged the litigation and increased costs. The court also determined that the mother was a victim of abuse, which further supported the cost award in her favour.
What is the purpose of awarding legal costs in family court?
The purpose of awarding legal costs in family court is to discourage bad faith conduct, sanction inappropriate behaviour, and ensure fairness in the legal process. It also aims to compensate the other party for unnecessary legal expenses incurred due to unreasonable actions.
How does this case impact future family law cases?
This case reinforces the principle that courts will hold parties accountable for their conduct during legal proceedings. It highlights the importance of making reasonable settlement offers and acting in good faith to avoid cost sanctions. This approach encourages more efficient and respectful litigation practices in family law cases.
