Beth Kibur

This family law trial addressed a mother's request to relocate with her child, custody arrangements, and child and spousal support.

The court denied the mother's request to move the child's residence more than 100 km from the father, finding it not in the child's best interests due to significant health challenges and the impact on the child's relationship with the father and extended family.

The mother was granted sole custody, with a detailed parenting schedule for the father.

The court ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing support, but dismissed the mother's claim for spousal support, concluding that the parties' relationship, despite having a child, lacked the economic interdependency required for cohabitation under the Family Law Act.

The court also expressed concerns about the Children's Aid Society's investigation process and the tactical use of its involvement by both parents.

This costs endorsement followed a ten-day trial concerning custody, parenting time, and decision-making for a child.

The father (respondent) was largely successful at trial, achieving equal parenting time and final decision-making on health matters, which matched or exceeded his offers to settle.

The mother (applicant) had sought sole custody and reduced parenting time for the father, and her offers were not matched.

The court found the father's conduct reasonable and the mother's position unreasonable.

Consequently, the court awarded the father full recovery costs from the date of his first offer and partial recovery for the period prior, totaling $53,037.63.

Following a trial regarding rectification of a divorce judgment, the court addressed costs.

The applicant successfully obtained rectification of the divorce judgment under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to reflect the parties’ intention that a $100,000 payment be made, while the respondent achieved partial success by obtaining certain credits against that amount.

The court found the applicant had succeeded on the dominant issue but noted the legal question concerning the scope of Rule 25(19) was novel and that some of the litigation arose due to solicitor negligence.

Balancing these considerations, and finding no unreasonable conduct by the respondent within Rule 24(11), the court reduced the costs award.

Nominal costs were awarded to reflect divided success and the unusual circumstances of the case.

Following a family law trial concerning enforcement of a prior custody and relocation order, the parties settled mid‑trial and asked the court to determine costs.

The moving party had served earlier offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the eventual settlement terms.

Applying Rules 18(14) and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that a party who achieves a result as favourable as their offer is presumptively entitled to full recovery of costs, even where the final order arises from minutes of settlement rather than adjudication.

The court found the moving party’s conduct reasonable and the opposing party’s litigation conduct unfocused and unnecessarily expansive.

Despite the responding party’s limited financial means, the court concluded entitlement to costs remained and fixed costs at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought summary judgment for Crown wardship without access in order to pursue adoption of the child by foster parents.

The father opposed the motion and advanced a plan of care proposing that the child reside with him and the paternal great‑grandmother, with daycare and extended family support.

The court held that the society had not established that there was no realistic probability of an outcome other than Crown wardship and that several material issues required a full trial, including the legitimacy of the re‑apprehension, the father’s alleged rehabilitation, kinship placement options, and potential Indigenous heritage considerations.

The court concluded that these matters required credibility assessments and cross‑examination that could not be resolved on a summary judgment record.

The society’s motion for summary judgment and the father’s motion for interim care were both dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.