C. Bird

The applicant father sought costs on a full indemnity basis following a successful interim motion for custody and access, claiming the respondent mother acted unreasonably.

The respondent argued she acted in the child's best interests and that the claimed costs were excessive.

The court found no reason to deviate from the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs, but rejected the claim for full indemnity costs, finding the respondent's conduct did not warrant it.

The court determined the motion was straightforward and fixed costs at $2,500 plus HST.

Following a trial where the respondent successfully obtained an order under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Indiana, the respondent sought costs of $87,394.46.

The applicant opposed the quantum, citing excessive billing and her own impecuniosity.

The court found the respondent's bill of costs excessive and reduced the starting point.

While the court would have awarded $35,000 in partial indemnity costs, it further reduced the award to $12,500 to account for the applicant's precarious financial circumstances and the best interests of the child, noting that impecuniosity is a relevant factor but does not provide complete immunity from costs.

Parents brought cross-motions seeking interim sole custody of two young children following separation.

The court considered conflicting allegations of abuse, the parties’ work schedules, the children’s established residence, schooling, and involvement of paternal grandparents.

Applying the best interests test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the court prioritized stability and continuity in residence and schooling.

The father’s home offered continuity with the children’s long‑time residence, school, and extended family support.

The court granted the father interim sole custody with substantial weekend and mid‑week parenting time to the mother and directed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to investigate.

Parents brought cross-motions seeking interim sole custody of two young children following separation.

The court considered conflicting allegations of abuse, the parties’ work schedules, the children’s established residence, schooling, and involvement of paternal grandparents.

Applying the best interests test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the court prioritized stability and continuity in residence and schooling.

The father’s home offered continuity with the children’s long‑time residence, school, and extended family support.

The court granted the father interim sole custody with substantial weekend and mid‑week parenting time to the mother and directed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to investigate.