A. Dror

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of up to $16,510.66 following a contempt motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, while the respondent sought $5,000 in costs or that each party bear their own costs.

The court noted that there was mixed success on the motions and neither party beat their respective offers to settle.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that her modest financial means should justify a costs award against the wealthier respondent.

Given the mixed success and findings sanctioning both parties' behaviour, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant mother brought a contempt motion against the respondent father for allegedly breaching three previous court orders regarding medical disclosure and a section 30 assessment.

The father brought a cross-motion alleging the mother breached orders by unilaterally suspending his parenting time.

The court found the father in contempt of the 2021 order for obstructing the section 30 assessment by demanding changes to the assessor's retainer agreement.

The court found the mother in breach of the 2019 order for engaging in self-help by suspending parenting time without evidence of danger to the child.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and the right to choose the assessor, ordered the father to pay the $12,000 retainer, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the father's parenting time.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory arbitration endorsement award that denied some of her expert's requests for financial disclosure.

The respondent argued the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that the arbitral award was procedural and interlocutory in nature.

Relying on established case law, the court held that it has no jurisdiction to intervene in interlocutory arbitration awards and dismissed the appeal.