Adrienne Curran

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to enforce a final parenting order after the applicant mother unilaterally withheld the children to synchronize their schedule with her partner's children.

The court found that while the mother improperly resorted to self-help remedies, the situation did not meet the strict test for urgency, as there was no real crisis or risk of harm to the children.

The motion was dismissed, but the court ordered make-up parenting time for the father pending an upcoming case conference.

No costs were awarded to discourage the mother's use of self-help remedies.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an interim order for child support arrears and ongoing section 7 expenses, including costs for competitive hockey and swimming.

The father agreed to pay table support and his share of childcare, medical, and educational expenses, but disputed the arrears calculation and his ability to afford competitive sports.

The court dismissed the claim for 2020 child support arrears and deferred the 2019 arrears claim for further submissions based on the Colucci framework.

The court ordered the father to contribute to tutoring, laptops, and specific tournament fees, but found the mother failed to establish that the base costs of competitive hockey and swimming were necessary, reasonable, or consented to as extraordinary expenses.

The mother was successful on a motion regarding the choice of school for the parties' child and sought costs of $7,915.09 on a full indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The self-represented father did not dispute her entitlement to costs but sought a reprieve due to the $37,260.94 in legal fees he owed his own former counsel.

The court declined to award full recovery costs, noting that offers to settle on binary issues like school choice often do not reflect a true intent to compromise.

The court also held that the father's high legal fees could not be used as a shield against a costs award.

The mother was awarded costs of $5,000.

The parties separated and shared parenting of their child on a week-about basis.

The father relocated to the east end of the city and sought to enroll the child in a school near his new residence, while the mother remained in the west end and proposed a school near her home.

The court applied the principles for determining a child's choice of school, focusing on the child's best interests.

The court ordered that the child attend the school in the mother's catchment area, finding it would minimize the child's time in traffic and before/after school daycare given the parents' respective work schedules.

The court determined costs following an urgent motion regarding child access.

The respondent sought $8,000 in costs, while the applicant argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found that the respondent was more successful overall, as the access order largely mirrored her proposal, but reduced her costs due to her unreasonable insistence on a voluntary service agreement as a precondition to access and her disproportionate legal fees.

The respondent was awarded $2,000 in costs.

Following a motion regarding parenting and support issues where the applicant father was largely successful on the primary parenting issues, he sought full indemnity costs of $51,217.01.

The respondent mother sought partial indemnity costs of $15,242.14, arguing mixed success.

The court found the father was the more successful party but reduced his costs to reflect the mother's success on support issues and the excessive materials filed by both parties.

The court awarded the father $12,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.