2 total
The court awarded partial costs to a father for specific issues resolved by settlement, dismissing remaining claims due to insufficient evidentiary foundation.
The court addressed costs for two resolved motions in a high-conflict family law file, neither of which the presiding judge had adjudicated.
The respondent father had initiated both motions concerning the parties' three children, one for travel and one for exchanges, both resolved by settlement.
The court emphasized the cautious approach required for awarding costs in settled matters, particularly when there has been no adjudication on the merits, making it difficult to apply Rule 24 factors due to insufficient evidentiary foundation regarding the litigation process and success.
Despite the general reluctance to go behind negotiated settlements, the court found an exception for specific issues raised by the respondent father concerning the mother's partner's interference, video/audio recordings, and unsupervised children.
The respondent was successful in obtaining an order addressing these issues.
Consequently, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $1,500.00 in costs for these specific issues, and all other costs claims were dismissed.
Mother's request for sole decision-making denied as she primarily drove the parental conflict; parenting schedule modified.
The applicant mother sought to vary a final joint custody order to grant her sole decision-making authority and reduce the respondent father's parenting time, citing ongoing conflict and communication issues.
The court dismissed the request for sole decision-making, finding that the conflict was largely driven by the mother's own unreasonable conduct and failure to adhere to the spirit of the existing order.
However, the court found a material change in circumstances regarding the regular parenting schedule due to the children's evolving views and the logistical issues causing conflict.
The court modified the schedule to reduce transitions and ordered an equal division of holiday time, including a week-about summer schedule.
The court also addressed extracurricular activities, child support, and the treatment of the children's RESP and bank accounts.
