Cassandra Faye Bruni

The parties made written submissions on costs following the respondent's success on the applicant's motion for reunification therapy and the respondent's cross-motion for child support.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $6,709.26, while the applicant argued each party should bear their own costs or costs should be fixed at $2,500.

The court applied the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, noting that a tempered approach to costs is appropriate in cases involving decision-making and parenting time.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $2,945, payable by the applicant within 60 days.

The applicant mother sought an order for reunification therapy with her 14-year-old child, alleging parental alienation by the respondent father.

The father brought a cross-motion for child support and individual counselling for the child.

The court found no overwhelming evidence of parental alienation to warrant reunification therapy on an interim motion, noting conflicting evidence and the child's stated preferences to distance herself from the mother.

The mother's motion for reunification therapy was dismissed.

The court ordered the mother to pay interim child support based on her projected income of $36,340, rather than the father's higher imputed amount, and ordered further financial disclosure.

Parenting time for the mother was ordered on a temporary, without prejudice basis, in accordance with the child's stated views and preferences.

This case involved two motions in a Status Review proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought to change the placement of child A.A-L.C. to the maternal grandmother, V.C., while the respondent father, J.T., sought placement of his biological child, J.C-T., in his care.

Both children were currently in the care of their mother, A.C., under supervision orders.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that despite the mother's non-compliance with supervision terms and some inappropriate behavior, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a change in circumstances requiring the children's removal from her care, particularly given the lack of evidence of direct harm to the children and the importance of sibling bonds.