Christopher McInnis

The parties each brought motions regarding child support and section 7 expenses, both of which were dismissed.

The applicant subsequently sought costs of $9,250 on a full recovery basis, arguing she was the successful party because the respondent's motion was dismissed and she succeeded on the dominant issue of jurisdiction.

The respondent argued for no costs, as both parties failed on the merits.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that neither party was successful and the presumption in Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules did not apply.

The court ordered that neither party be awarded costs.

Cottage property owners sought a further order modifying an interim consent order governing access over a roadway located on neighbouring lands subject to disputed easements.

The moving parties requested relief permitting propane deliveries, septic pumping, contractor access for repairs, roadway maintenance, and vegetation trimming.

The court held that interim use of the respondents’ property should remain limited to basic use necessary to maintain and enjoy the moving parties’ properties while minimizing risk of damage or inconvenience to the respondents.

Limited relief was granted permitting propane delivery, septic pumping, contractor access for necessary repairs, and controlled trimming of roadside branches, subject to strict conditions.

Requests to undertake broader roadway repairs or renovations were denied pending resolution of the underlying litigation.