Caspar van Baal

The applicant father sought costs following a motion in which he successfully obtained increased interim access time with his child and an order requesting the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and offered a settlement that was less than the relief granted.

The court found the father was the successful party and awarded him costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $3,500.

The father brought a motion seeking appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, joint custody, and equal parenting time, or alternatively an interpretation of a separation agreement to increase his parenting time.

The court found that the agreement established a minimum amount of parenting time rather than a ceiling, meaning increased access could be considered without proof of a material change in circumstances.

However, due to ongoing parental conflict and uncertainty about the child’s wishes, the court declined to order equal parenting time on an interim basis.

Instead, the court quantified additional interim access for the father and set communication boundaries between the parents.

The court indicated that if equal parenting time continued to be pursued, the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer may be appropriate.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had been the successful party on the motion.

The court found no unreasonable litigation conduct by either party and declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed in a lump sum amount payable within 30 days.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint for abuse of process.

The complainant had repeatedly requested last-minute adjournments on the first day of scheduled hearings, citing medical reasons stemming from a car accident.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant showed a complete disregard for the process by failing to notify the Board of his medical issues in a timely manner, despite agreeing to hearing dates.

Concluding that continuing the proceeding would be vexatious and oppressive to the respondents, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.