When Family Litigation Crosses the Line: Costs, Bad Faith, and Post-Trial Motions
Written on behalf of Shariff & Associates
Family law litigation is often emotionally charged, complex, and expensive. While Ontario’s Family Law Rules encourage cooperation, proportionality, and settlement, courts are increasingly prepared to impose serious financial consequences when a party engages in bad-faith conduct or unnecessarily prolongs litigation.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in G.P.R. v. A.K. offers a striking example of how litigation behaviour can dramatically influence outcomes, particularly when it comes to costs, child-related expenses, and post-trial motions. The case involved a lengthy parenting and property dispute, followed by supplementary reasons addressing costs, section 7 expenses, and the father’s failed attempt to reopen property issues after trial.
A Long and Contentious Family Law Trial
The underlying trial in G.P.R. v. A.K. spanned 16 days over several months and addressed nearly every major issue that can arise in a family law dispute. These included parenting arrangements, child support, retroactivity, special and extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and property issues relating to the parties’ jointly owned home.
The trial was not only lengthy but deeply adversarial. The court noted that virtually all facts were disputed, requiring extensive documentary evidence, numerous witnesses, and expert testimony. The trial judgment, released in September 2025, resolved the substantive parenting, support, and property issues, but left costs and some outstanding section 7 expenses to be addressed later.
Following the trial judgment, the parties returned to court through written submissions and additional motions, culminating in the supplementary reasons released in January 2026.
Parenting and Child Support Outcomes Set the Stage for Costs
While the supplementary decision focuses on costs and post-trial issues, it is vital to understand the broader context of the parenting and child support findings, as these played a critical role in the court’s costs analysis.
On parenting, the mother was entirely successful. The court imposed a significantly more restrictive parenting regime on the father than he had sought, based on serious concerns about the child’s best interests. The mother was granted decision-making responsibility, while the father’s parenting time was limited and subject to strict conditions.
Regarding child support, the court imputed income to the father of $200,000—double the income level proposed by the mother in her earlier offer to settle. While the court did not order child support retroactive to the date the mother sought, the higher imputed income ultimately resulted in a more favourable financial outcome for her.
The Role of Offers to Settle in Family Law Costs
One of the most critical aspects of the decision was the court’s treatment of the mother’s offer to settle under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.
The mother had served a severable offer to settle in November 2024, well in advance of trial. That offer addressed parenting, child support, and section 7 expenses. Although the offer did not resolve all issues (particularly property), it remained open and compliant with the Rules.
The court found that the mother achieved results that were more favourable than her offer on the key issues of parenting and child support. As a result, she was entitled to full recovery costs from the date of the offer onward for those issues.
By contrast, none of the father’s three offers to settle were accepted, and the court found that they were not reasonably capable of acceptance due to problematic parenting and support terms. This imbalance weighed heavily in the costs analysis.
Divided Success Does Not Mean Equal Costs
Although the mother was clearly successful on parenting and largely successful on child support, the court acknowledged that there was divided success overall, particularly in relation to property issues.
Both parties sought to challenge or reinterpret their domestic contracts, including a separation agreement governing their home in Thornhill. The court ultimately enforced the agreement and criticized both parties for disingenuous and strategic manoeuvring during the trial. As a result, the mother was denied costs relating to the property issues and was not permitted to recover her expert’s fees for evidence the court found unnecessary.
Despite this divided success, the court emphasized that divided success does not automatically justify a minimal or symbolic costs award. Instead, the court must assess relative success, proportionality, and litigation conduct. In this case, the mother remained the clearly more successful party overall.
Bad Faith Conduct and Its Financial Consequences
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the decision is the court’s detailed finding that the father engaged in bad faith litigation conduct. The court identified multiple instances of bad faith by the father, including denigrating the mother during trial, interfering with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s work, attacking the integrity of professionals involved in the case, and making unfounded allegations against opposing counsel and the judiciary.
The father was also found to have attempted to deceive the court regarding financial disclosure and property agreements, failed to meet his disclosure obligations, and brought numerous mid-trial motions that disrupted proceedings and unnecessarily increased costs.
While the court acknowledged that the father claimed emotional distress and mental health challenges, it noted that he failed to provide adequate evidence to support those assertions. As a result, they did not excuse or mitigate his litigation conduct.
Under Rule 24(10), a finding of bad faith requires the court to order full recovery costs. This significantly increased the financial consequences faced by the father.
Fixing Costs: Proportionality Still Matters
Despite finding bad faith and entitlement to full recovery costs on certain issues, the court carefully applied the principle of proportionality when fixing the quantum of costs.
The mother sought over $340,000 in legal fees and disbursements. The court found the fees reasonable given the complexity, length, and intensity of the litigation. The mother’s counsel was experienced, charged reasonable hourly rates, and appropriately delegated work.
However, the court declined to award the full amount claimed. Recognizing that roughly one-third of the trial time was devoted to property issues for which the mother was not entitled to costs, the court reduced the award accordingly.
Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $220,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, and ordered full recovery of that amount. This figure reflects a balancing of success, misconduct, and proportionality, rather than a mechanical calculation.
Ability to Pay Is Not a Shield Against Costs
The father argued that he lacked the ability to pay such a significant costs award, pointing to his existing legal fees and the possibility that he would need to sell his home.
The court rejected this argument. It noted that child support was based on an imputed income of $200,000, that the father had equity in the jointly owned property, and that financial hardship does not excuse litigation misconduct.
The court reiterated a principle increasingly emphasized in Ontario family law: parties who cannot afford prolonged litigation should be motivated to pursue settlement seriously and avoid unnecessary proceedings. Failure to do so may result in severe financial consequences.
Section 7 Expenses: Fixing Outstanding Child-Related Costs
In addition to costs, the supplementary decision addressed outstanding section 7 expenses incurred between February and September 2025.
The trial judgment had ordered that certain special and extraordinary expenses be shared 60 percent by the father and 40 percent by the mother. The mother provided detailed documentation of expenses paid during the relevant period, and the father failed to respond meaningfully.
The court fixed the father’s outstanding share at $5,256.33 and ordered immediate payment.
Post-Trial Motions and the Importance of Finality
While the costs issue was under reserve, the father brought yet another motion, seeking permission to rent out part of the Thornhill property on an interim basis.
The court dismissed the motion outright. It found that the father was attempting to introduce a new remedy long after trial, in a manner that could disrupt the orderly implementation of the property provisions already decided.
The court emphasized that the litigation was effectively over. The trial judgment clearly set out what would happen: either the father would pay the amounts owing and retain the property, or the property would be sold. The court refused to add new terms or reopen property issues at this late stage.
Scorched-Earth Family Litigation Can Lead to Significant Costs Outcomes
G.P.R. v. A.K. is a powerful reminder that family law litigation is not only about legal rights, but also about responsibility, reasonableness, and respect for the court process. Parties who pursue scorched-earth litigation or act in bad faith do so at significant financial risk.
For individuals navigating separation, parenting disputes, or complex financial issues, early legal advice and a strategic, settlement-focused approach can make a meaningful difference; not only in outcomes, but in long-term cost and emotional toll.
Shariff & Associates: Providing Trusted Advocacy in Complex Family Law Disputes in Markham & Stouffville
Family law disputes are emotionally charged, but litigation strategy and courtroom conduct can have lasting financial consequences. As this case demonstrates, Ontario courts take a firm approach to bad-faith behaviour, unreasonable motion practice, and a refusal to engage meaningfully in settlement.
If you are facing a parenting dispute, child support conflict, or complex separation involving significant costs exposure, the dynamic family and divorce lawyers at Shariff & Associates can help you protect your position and avoid unnecessary risk. Speaking with our team early in the process can make a meaningful difference in both outcome and cost. To book a confidential consultation, please contact us online or call 905-591-4545.