In the recent Ontario Court of Justice decision of Ankrah v. Amponsah, 2026 ONCJ 197, Justice Stanley Sherr ordered costs following non-compliance with procedural requirements. The decision reinforces that unreasonable conduct during the course of litigation can lead to negative financial consequences.

On Dec. 11, 2024, the mother issued an application for parenting and child support orders. The father’s answer was filed on Jan. 20, 2025, seeking parenting time for the parties’ three-year-old son.

In March 2025, the parties reached an agreement on the issues of primary residence, decision-making responsibility and parenting time. The parties were required to attend at Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO) and complete its intake process. The father did not complete the process, and the case was adjourned twice to allow him the opportunity to do so.

The matter returned to court at the end of September 2025, and the father was ordered to complete the intake within two weeks. The father failed to do so for a third time. Consequently, on March 6, 2026, the court struck his parenting claim, without prejudice to making a future parenting claim, with leave.

On April 2, 2026, Justice Sherr released a cost endorsement related to the March 6, 2026, appearance, based on the parties’ written submissions. As the successful party, the mother was presumptively entitled to costs and sought recovery of $6,321 payable to Legal Aid Ontario. The father sought to fix costs at $300.

A key function of a costs order is to uphold the integrity of the justice system and therefore, the parties’ positions, arguments and conduct are important factors to consider. The mother acted reasonably as she agreed to begin visits at APCO and completed the intake process promptly. She alleged that the father acted in bad faith. The court found that his conduct did not meet the high threshold of bad faith under Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, but nevertheless, his conduct was found to be unreasonable.

Over the course of nearly a year, the father was given several opportunities and warnings, yet he did not comply with the parenting order. Ultimately, the court determined that his actions reflected abandonment of his claim, and his behaviour led the mother to incur additional unnecessary costs.

The mother claimed that she was entitled to costs for all steps in the matter beginning in March 2025; however, the court found that this was not appropriate and limited her entitlement to costs of the parenting issue.

The father had limited financial means, which was a mitigating factor in this decision. The court ordered the father to pay the mother’s costs of the parenting time issue in the amount of $3,955. A payment schedule was ordered given the father’s limited means. He was ordered to keep these payments in good standing, or the full amount would become payable.

This decision highlights that litigants must comply with court orders and actively advance their claims in a timely and diligent manner. Repeated failure to follow through on required steps may be deemed unreasonable and carry cost consequences.

In this case, the father’s inaction over an extended period, despite adjournment and explicit direction from the court, demonstrated a lack of commitment to pursuing his claim. The court treated this not merely as delay, but as conduct that undermined the efficient administration of justice. By essentially abandoning required steps in the process, the father imposed unnecessary expense to the mother.

This decision reinforces the broader principal that costs orders do not only serve to compensate the successful party, but also to promote efficiency, fairness and respect to the judicial process. By holding parties accountable for unreasonable conduct, the court aims to deter delay and encourage compliance with procedural obligations so that judicial resources are used appropriately.

Michael Stangarone, partner, and Jessica-Taylor Leaman, articling student, are with MacDonald & Partners LLP, where they exclusively practise family law.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Press the button below to read the PDF version, or directly on Law360.