Catherine D. Purvis

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children, aged 7 and 2, following allegations that the mother's former partner sexually abused the 7-year-old.

The mother and paternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return to their care.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother or placed with the paternal grandmother, citing their failure to protect the children and abide by previous supervision conditions.

The court ordered the children to remain in the temporary care of the Society, with access at the Society's discretion.

Following a ten‑day family law trial concerning custody and access of two children and an unsuccessful contempt motion, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $69,000, while the respondent argued success was divided and requested no costs or set‑offs for prior awards and assessment expenses.

Applying the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules but recognizing the court’s discretion, the court found partial success for both parties but greater success for the applicant.

The court rejected certain claimed costs, required the parties to share the expense of an expert assessment, and considered the potential financial impact of a costs award on the children.

A reduced lump‑sum costs award of $20,000 was ordered payable by the respondent.

A mother brought an application to vary a prior custody order and sought sole custody of two adolescent children amid a high-conflict parenting dispute marked by allegations of parental alienation.

The father sought a finding of contempt alleging the mother failed to ensure the children attended access visits.

The court found elements of both alienation and justified estrangement, concluding the children’s reluctance to see the father was influenced by both parents’ conduct and the father’s rigid parenting style.

Given the parents’ inability to cooperate and the children’s expressed preferences, sole custody was granted to the mother with defined access to the father.

The contempt motion was dismissed because the father failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother intentionally breached prior access orders.