Christopher Harley 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.

This is a costs decision following a trial on custody, access, and child support issues.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing she was the successful party and that the respondent refused reasonable settlement offers.

The respondent argued the custody outcome was mixed, with the applicant not obtaining unrestricted sole custody as sought, and that his offers to settle were reasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs, payable in 24 monthly installments, with $2,250 enforceable as child support through the Family Responsibility Office.

A trial decision on custody, access, and child support for an eight-year-old child born to parents who separated in 2008.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with regular access to the respondent father.

The respondent father sought joint custody with a parallel parenting regime where he would have exclusive decision-making authority over education while the applicant would have authority over extracurricular activities.

The court found that the parties had demonstrated poor judgment in exposing the child to their ongoing conflict and were unable to cooperate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant mother, finding her to be the primary caregiver, while granting the respondent father substantial access rights on a rotating three-week schedule.

The court also ordered child support and addressed special expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.