Alyssa Anne Bach

The respondent father sought full-recovery costs of $24,767 after successfully obtaining an urgent parenting order to reinstate the parties' child in school and modify the parenting schedule.

The applicant mother did not reply to the costs submission.

The court found the father presumptively entitled to costs.

While the mother's conduct was unreasonable (poor preparation, voluminous irrelevant materials, repeated delays), it did not meet the high threshold for bad faith to warrant full-recovery costs.

Considering the importance and complexity of the motion, the father's counsel's reasonable billings (61 hours, $21,918 + HST), and the mother's failure to demonstrate inability to pay, the court awarded elevated costs of $17,000 to the father.

The respondent father brought a motion to alter the parenting arrangement and ensure the child's attendance at Robert Bateman Elementary School, following the applicant mother's unilateral withdrawal of the child from school and commencement of homeschooling, contrary to an existing consent order.

The court found it was in the child's best interest to return to Robert Bateman School, citing the mother's lack of satisfactory explanation for withdrawal, history of neglecting the child's education, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court reversed the interim parenting arrangement, granting the father primary care during the week and sole decision-making authority on education, with the mother having weekend parenting time.

The parties, who share equal parenting time of their six-year-old child, brought cross-motions to change a 2022 final parenting order and cross-motions for declarations of breach under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The mother sought to drastically reduce the father's parenting time and expand her sole decision-making authority, alleging the father breached the order and engaged in family violence.

The father sought increased decision-making authority.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the child's routine illnesses and school attendance, granting the mother enhanced decision-making authority in those specific areas.

However, the court dismissed both parties' requests for major changes to the parenting schedule and decision-making framework, finding that the equal-time arrangement remained in the child's best interests despite the parents' high conflict.

Declarations of breach were made against both parties.

The appellant father appealed a final custody and access order that granted joint custody and gradually increased the respondent mother's access to their child.

The appellant also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the child's recent regressive behaviour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test and consisted largely of uncorroborated hearsay.

The court also dismissed the appeal, concluding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the child's best interests, the mother's history of substance abuse, and the parties' ability to communicate.

The applicant sought costs for successful urgency and jurisdictional determinations, and for a partially successful motion to stay a trial judgment pending appeal.

The respondent sought costs for her success on the stay motion.

The court found mixed success, with the applicant prevailing on urgency and jurisdiction, and the respondent on the joint decision-making aspect of the stay.

Neither party fully succeeded on parenting time.

The court awarded the applicant $2,750 and the respondent $1,250, resulting in a net payment of $1,500 to the applicant, deferred until the appeal's disposition.

The court declined to award costs for preparing costs submissions due to deficiencies in both parties' bills and the applicant's improper disclosure of an offer to settle.

The applicant sought to stay a Final Order awarding joint legal custody and increased parenting time to the respondent, pending an appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay in parenting cases, considering whether the appeal raised a serious issue, if irreparable harm would occur, and the balance of convenience, with the child's best interests as the overriding factor.

While the appeal did not raise a serious issue regarding joint decision-making or the general increase in contact, it did meet the threshold for specific residential arrangements due to fresh evidence of the child's increased anxiety and regressive behaviors post-order implementation, exacerbated by COVID-19 changes.

The motion to stay joint decision-making was dismissed, but a partial, time-limited stay was granted for future incremental increases in the respondent's overnight access and summer holiday access, allowing the child more time to adjust.

The mother brought a motion seeking an order for child support for the parties' one-year-old son.

The father opposed immediate payment, arguing he was incapable of gainful employment due to mental health impairments and that his child support obligation should be deferred until completion of his education plans.

The court found the father's health needs reasonably precluded him from current employment but rejected his proposed deferral of support for 8-10 years as unreasonable.

The court deferred the father's obligation for one year with the expectation he would pursue vocational rehabilitation, then imputed income based on half-time minimum wage employment for year two, and full-time minimum wage employment thereafter.