Alexi Durgali

The applicant sought that parties bear their own costs, while the respondent sought over $237,000 in costs for a bifurcated parenting trial.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules, found the respondent to be the more successful party at trial.

While acknowledging the applicant's limited means, the court awarded the respondent $104,662 in costs, comprising fees for two law firms and costs thrown away from a prior adjournment, but significantly reduced the amount sought due to excessive billing and the partial success of the respondent's offer to settle.

The applicant brought a procedural motion seeking removal of the respondent’s counsel on the basis of alleged conflict of interest after the lawyer attended the matrimonial home during enforcement of a prior access order and had a brief interaction with the applicant.

The court held that the respondent was entitled under the earlier order to attend the home with third parties, including legal counsel.

The interaction occurred because the applicant deliberately attended the property despite a court order directing her not to be present.

The evidence did not establish that counsel had become a material witness or that any prejudice would arise.

Given the high threshold required to remove counsel of choice, the motion was dismissed.