Beverley Johnston

Following a motion for contempt relating to denial of parenting access, the court determined the appropriate costs award under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party obtained a finding of contempt for failure to comply with an access order for a limited period after a child protection investigation concluded, while the responding party successfully defended other contempt allegations relating to access denied during the investigation and missed telephone access.

The court found success on the motion to be divided and the matter to be of average complexity.

However, the respondent’s failure to comply with the court order without seeking a variation justified a costs consequence.

The respondent was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the moving party.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the applicant mother for denying court‑ordered access and failing to provide telephone access at the exact times specified in a prior order.

The mother argued that she followed a written directive from a child protection agency instructing her to suspend contact during an investigation and that deviations from telephone access occurred due to the child’s baseball schedule while alternate times were offered.

The court applied the civil contempt test requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of deliberate and wilful breach of a clear order.

The court dismissed the contempt allegations related to denial of access during the investigation and telephone access scheduling, finding the conduct was not deliberate.

However, the court found the mother technically in contempt for gradually restoring access after the investigation concluded rather than immediately complying with the order, but held she had purged the contempt by subsequently complying for several months.

Following a family law motion addressing issues including custody, access, child support, and sale of the matrimonial home, the successful party sought full recovery costs exceeding $17,000.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered factors such as success, reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, complexity of the motion, proportionality, and expectations of the unsuccessful party.

While the successful party prevailed on the issues addressed at the motion, the court found the circumstances did not justify full indemnity costs because the conduct of the opposing party was not outrageous or vexatious and no offer to settle had been exceeded.

The court therefore assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis and considered the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.