Carol Cochrane

Following a family law trial concerning custody and a proposed relocation of the children, the court determined costs after written submissions.

The respondent had advanced claims for sole custody and relocation but withdrew the mobility claim only on the eve of closing submissions after a full trial had proceeded.

The court found the respondent’s litigation conduct to be unreasonable and in bad faith under the Family Law Rules, including pursuing claims contrary to an assessment report and engaging in conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

Applying Rules 12(3), 18(14), and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering unaccepted offers to settle, the court awarded substantial and partial full recovery costs to the applicant.

Costs were ordered payable immediately.

Separated parents brought a motion regarding their child’s schooling and interpretation of an income provision in their separation agreement.

The father sought enrollment of the child in a private homogeneous French education program, while the mother requested that the child remain in daycare temporarily pending a full trial on long‑term schooling.

Applying the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court held that the evidentiary record on a motion was insufficient to determine the long‑term schooling issue and ordered the child to remain in daycare for the upcoming academic year.

The court further interpreted the separation agreement as requiring income determinations strictly based on Line 150 of each party’s tax return, rejecting deductions for union dues and exclusion of non‑recurring income.