Carolyn T.M. Warner

Following a successful motion regarding a child’s temporary school placement, the applicant sought costs relying on an offer to settle that proposed a final determination of the schooling issue.

The court held that costs generally follow the event under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules and that the applicant was the successful party.

However, the result of the motion was only a temporary order and therefore did not exceed the terms of the applicant’s offer to settle, which contemplated a final order.

As a result, the mandatory full indemnity cost consequences under Rule 18(14) were not triggered.

Taking the offer into account under Rule 18(16), the court awarded costs slightly above partial recovery.

On a temporary motion in a parenting dispute, the moving party sought an order enrolling the parties’ child in a French immersion program rather than a Catholic school following a change in school boundaries.

The responding party argued the matter should be adjourned pending completion of a s. 30 assessment and that the child should remain within the separate school system as the status quo.

The court held the situation was not a traditional change-of-school case because the child would inevitably attend a new school due to boundary changes.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Divorce Act, the court concluded that placement in the French immersion program was less disruptive and preserved the child’s opportunity to enter the program at the appropriate grade level.