Bernard R. Gosselin

Following a lengthy high‑conflict custody and access trial, the court was asked to determine costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The trial resulted in joint decision‑making authority with the child’s primary residence remaining with the respondent and a detailed access regime for the applicant.

Both parties sought significant costs and relied on competing offers to settle under Rule 18(14).

The court held that success at trial was divided: the applicant obtained joint decision‑making authority and significant access, while the respondent secured primary residence and prevented the child from missing school for access.

Given the mixed outcome and findings that both parties behaved unreasonably during the litigation, the presumption of costs to the successful party was displaced.

The mother appealed a trial decision ordering that her child be made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

She argued the trial judge over-relied on a parenting capacity assessment and erred by not admitting a psychiatric report.

She also sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, including notes regarding her interactions with her second child and a new psychiatric report.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error by the trial judge.

The court held that the trial judge properly considered all evidence, correctly excluded the improperly tendered psychiatric report, and that the fresh evidence, while admissible, would not have altered the outcome given the mother's cognitive limitations and lack of support.