B.M. Hayes

Following a six‑day motion to change in a family law matter where the father obtained sole custody of a child and termination of child support for another child, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful party sought full indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and the other party’s alleged unreasonable conduct, including concealing the child and engaging in parental alienation.

The court found that although the result at trial was not more favourable than the offer to settle on all issues, the responding party’s conduct was unreasonable and persisted despite prior judicial warnings.

Considering Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the responding party’s limited financial means, the court concluded that substantial recovery of costs was warranted despite impecuniosity.

Costs were awarded to the successful party in the amount of $45,817.89.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order for sole custody of the parties' daughter, with no access to the respondent mother, due to concerns of parental alienation.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial, including the right to cross-examine the father's expert psychiatrist.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding custody, finding that a trial was necessary to determine if the alienation had been overcome by the daughter's exclusive residence with the father over the past year.

The court continued the temporary sole custody order and fixed an uncontested spousal support overpayment at $15,635.