Al-Hassan v. Ankamah, 2024 ONSC 531

CITATION: Al-Hassan v. Ankamah, 2024 ONSC 531 COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-1509 DATE: 2024/01/24 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: ) ) Niendow Oma Al-Hassan Applicant – and – Ama Gaynor Ankamah Respondents ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) John Allan , counsel for the Applicant Concillia Muonde , for the Respondent ) ) ) HEARD: In Writing COSTS ENDORSEMENT DOYLE J.

Overview [ 1 ] On December 13, 2023, the Court dismissed the applicant father’s motion for the return of the child M.A. born in November 2014 (“the child”) who he alleged was wrongfully removed/abducted from his care in Ottawa by the respondent mother and brought to Ghana. [ 2 ] The Court granted the mother’s motion and found that the child’s habitual residence was Ghana and that the Superior Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction or should decline jurisdiction. [ 3 ] If the parties could not agree on costs, they were to file costs submissions. [ 4 ] Both parties’ written costs submissions exceeded the length as stipulated in the direction in my endorsement.

In the future, the Court will consider rejecting submissions which do not comply with my directions. [ 5 ] Having considered the Family Law Rules , the parties’ written submissions and the Bill of Costs, the Court awards costs in the amount of $ 7,000.00 (inclusive of HST and disbursements) payable by the father to the mother within 90 days. Mother’s Position [ 6 ] The mother is requesting her costs $38,126.51 on a full indemnity basis.

As the successful party, the mother is presumptively entitled to costs. [ 7 ] She alleges that the father acted in bad faith by: misleading the Court regarding the child’s whereabouts, breaking up with the mother when the child was in his care to gain litigation advantage and the absence of consideration for the mother’s lack of status in Canada.

In addition, his materials lacked completeness and did not provide family history. [ 8 ] Counsel for the respondent had to prepare a detailed family history and materials to ensure that the complete context was before the court. [ 9 ] There were no offers as the parties’ respective positions were irreconcilable. Father’s Position [ 10 ] The father submits that he acted reasonably and responsibly, following the surreptitious removal of the child by the mother to Ghana. This was

an act of bad faith which caused financial and emotional harm to the father. The Court should not condone the

mother’s actions by awarding costs. [11] The mother blocked the father from communications at key points of time. [12] In contrast, the mother’s removal of the child is denounced by Canadian legislation and taken seriously under internationallaw. Therefore, success is mixed. [13] The mother’s materials were prolix and contained uncredible facts and exhibits and dealt extensively with primary care eventhough this was not contested. There were irrelevant documents filed incurring unnecessary fees.

The hearing only took 3.5 hours andthe amount claimed is exorbitant. [14] Whereas the father was forthright in his materials filed, the mother’s application in Ghana is “laden with falsehoods andmisleading facts”. [15] Also, there was no offer to settle from the mother. In addition, the father did not request security for costs even though themother was a foreign resident. Legal Principles [16] In Mattina v.

Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that modern costs rules are designed to foster fourfundamental purposes (1) to partially indemnify successful litigants; (2) to encourage settlement; (3) to discourage and sanctioninappropriate behaviour by litigants and; (4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly. (Rule 2(2) of the Family Law Rules). [17] There is a presumption of costs in favour of the successful party.

An award of costs is subject to the factors listed in Rule24(12). [18] The Rules provide the Court with a broad discretion in awarding costs and the list of factors are set out in rule 24. [19] The overarching principle is to fix an amount that is fair, reasonable, proportionate and within the parties’ reasonableexpectations. See Boucher v. Public Accountants, (Ont. CA).

Analysis [20] Firstly, the mother, as the successful party, is presumptively entitled to costs. [21] The central issue in this matter was whether this Court had jurisdiction to make a parenting order for the parties’ child.Specifically, the Court must determine whether the child is habitually resident in Ontario or in Ghana pursuant to s. 22 of Children’s LawReform Act, (“CLRA), R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.

Neither party took the position that the child would be at risk of harm if she was allowed toreturn to Canada within the meaning of s. 23 of the CLRA. [22] The main facts were not contentious in that the child was only in Ontario for about 1 month and her life was in Ghana. Thissupports a finding that the child’s habitual residence is in Ghana. [23] The Court declined to exercise its discretion to take jurisdiction on this matter. [24] I do not find that that the behaviour of either party rises to the level of bad faith as defined in rule 25(8) and the case law.

For afinding of bad faith, the action must be carried out with an intent to inflict harm to the other party and to inflict financial or emotionalharm and to conceal information relevant to the issues or deceive the other party or the court. See S.(C.) v. S. (M.) 2010 ONCA 196, [2010] O.J. 1064 (ONT C.A) [25] Both parents have not been forthright nor candid with the other parent. I find that both parties made misguided but genuineattempts to gain litigation advantage in this case. The father by ensuring only the child had Canadian citizenship and separating while thechild was in his care.

However, it should be noted that he paid for the mother’s flight to Canada so that she could determine if the childhad settled in. And the mother attempted to gain litigation advantage by taking the child without the father’s consent.

The parties havefailed to provide poof that there was an intent to inflict harm and that this was the significant part of the person’s intent. [26] I have determined that costs on a full indemnity basis is not justified. [27] There is no bad faith, but a message must be sent that surreptitiously removing a child is not condoned by the courts despitethe clear evidence that the child’s habitual residence is Ghana. [28] Upon reviewing the Bill of Costs, time spent, a rate of $325 hour with 10 years experience is reasonable, and expensesincurred. [29] This was not a complex hearing and there were no allegations of risk of harm if the child was ordered returned to Canada. [30] For the most part, the parties agreed on much of the timing of the events.

The father conceded that the mother had cared forthe child in Ghana. [31] Considering all the above, the Court finds that a fair and reasonable amount of costs to be paid by the father to the mother is$7000.00 (inclusive of HST and disbursements). _____________________________

Madam Justice A. Doyle Date : January 24, 2024 CITATION: Al-Hassan v. Ankamah, 2024 ONSC 531 COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-1509 DATE: 2024/01/24 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Niendow Oma Al-Hassan Applicant – and – Ama Gaynor Ankamah Respondent COSTS ENDORSEMENT Doyle J. Released: January 24, 2024