Ceilidh Joan Henderson

This decision resolves parenting, decision-making, and child support issues for the parties’ 14-year-old daughter, C.M., following a lengthy family law proceeding.

The court orders a week-about shared parenting arrangement, joint decision-making with tie-breaker authority in specific domains, and imputes income to the applicant for child support purposes.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the best interests of the child, the legislative framework under the Divorce Act, and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the Applicant father sought increased parenting time based on OCL recommendations, which the Respondent mother opposed.

The court partially granted the father's request for increased parenting time, but not to the full extent sought.

In this decision, the court found the father achieved partial success on the underlying motion and was therefore entitled to some costs.

Considering the absence of formal or informal settlement offers from either party, the reasonableness and proportionality of time spent, and counsel fees, the court awarded the father $3000 in costs.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time for the two children, aged 9 and 4, based on interim recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) social worker.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing the existing interim order should continue until the father's criminal trial (for assault and threats against her) concludes.

The court, while exercising caution regarding OCL recommendations before trial, considered the OCL's observations, which noted the son's aggressive behavior in the mother's home and positive behavior with the father, and the son's strong preference to spend more time with the father.

Despite the pending criminal trial, the court found it in the children's best interests to increase the father's parenting time, replacing the previous temporary order with a new schedule including more overnights, pending the criminal judgment and a future settlement conference.

The applicant father scheduled a motion for increased parenting time without first holding a case conference, contrary to a prior court order.

The judge declined to hear the motion and instead conducted a case conference.

The parties reached a consent order regarding the father's parenting time, attendance at parenting courses, a request for an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation, and attendance at a medical appointment for their child.

The father's motion may be rescheduled if necessary.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to restore his access to his two young children, which the respondent mother had denied since September 26, 2019, contrary to a temporary parenting agreement.

The mother sought supervised access, citing an incident on that date, prior concerns about the father's care, his epilepsy medication, and COVID-19 protocols.

The court found the mother's denial of access unwarranted and not in the children's best interests, rejecting her arguments for supervised or limited access.

The father's access was restored to a schedule similar to the prior agreement, and the mother was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion for interim access to the parties' two-year-old child.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined that the matter was not urgent, citing the father's prior inaction, the absence of a case conference, his incarceration history, and criminal convictions for domestic violence against the respondent in the child's presence.

The court also criticized both parties for filing excessive material for an administrative urgency request, exceeding the specified page limits.

The request for an urgent motion was dismissed.

The Applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining interim unsupervised expanded access in a prior motion.

The Respondent opposed, arguing divided success and financial hardship.

The Court found the Applicant was the successful party on the motion and that his offer to settle met the requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

Considering the parties' limited financial means and the principles of modern costs awards, the Court awarded the Applicant $2,500 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim unsupervised access to the parties' 5-year-old child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking to maintain supervised access, which had been in place following an investigation by the Children's Aid Society and police into her allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the applicant.

The investigation concluded with no safety concerns verified.

The court found that the relevant status quo was the liberal access that existed prior to the unverified allegations, not the restrictive supervised access regime that followed.

The court ordered interim unsupervised access for the applicant, gradually increasing to include overnights, and requested the involvement of the Children's Lawyer.

In a family law trial concerning custody and mobility, the applicant sought custody and permission to relocate to England with the parties’ two children, while the respondent sought shared custody with equal parenting time.

The court applied the best-interests analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 16 of the Divorce Act, and the mobility framework from Gordon v. Goertz.

It found that both parents should have joint custody, but that final decision-making authority should rest with the applicant because she had been the more active parent in attending to the children’s medical and emotional needs.

The court further held that relocation to England was in the children’s best interests given the applicant’s stable household, stronger financial prospects, and substantial family support in the United Kingdom, while preserving significant parenting time for the respondent.

Child support was ordered at a reduced amount to account for the respondent’s travel-related parenting expenses.

The court considered costs following a 16-day family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant father sought substantial indemnity costs of $32,744.50, arguing success on most issues and the respondent mother's bad faith.

The respondent mother argued that prior costs were determined by Justice Shelston and that the father caused trial delays.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(11), the court found mixed success for both parties and noted unreasonable behaviour from both, including the father's breaches of interim orders and the mother's unreasonable position on travel.

Given the mixed success and the parties' conduct, the court ordered no costs.