Claudia Bordes

Following a successful motion regarding parenting arrangements, the applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of $12,604.02.

The respondent father argued for a reduced award of $5,000, citing divided success and an all-encompassing offer to settle that was impossible to accept.

The court found the mother was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

While her offer to settle did not trigger Rule 18(14) consequences because it required acceptance in full, her success on the parenting schedule warranted a slight increase from standard partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $9,450.00.

In an addendum to a previous endorsement, the court addressed a factual inaccuracy raised by the respondent father regarding a refused access visit.

The court clarified that while the applicant mother did refuse the access, she did so because the father was agitated, and maintained its conclusion that the father was less inclined to encourage regular access.

The court also ordered the father to vacate the matrimonial home within 14 days and amended the parenting exchange schedule to align with school hours to minimize conflict.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking primary care of the parties' two children, specific parenting time for the respondent father, and to purchase the father's interest in the matrimonial home.

The parties had been living together in the matrimonial home post-separation, resulting in significant conflict.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver and that the father's aggressive conduct in front of the children was concerning.

The court granted the mother primary care and final decision-making authority, established a parenting schedule for the father, and ordered that the mother purchase the father's interest in the matrimonial home within 90 days.

The moving party brought a motion to strike the responding party's motion to change a final parenting order, arguing that the responding party had failed to pay a previous costs award of $20,201.

Alternatively, the moving party sought an order requiring the responding party to post $60,000 in security for costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the unpaid costs were subject to a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and therefore did not constitute wilful non-compliance.

The court also declined to order security for costs, concluding that the responding party's motion raised genuine issues regarding the child's best interests and that such an order would act as an unjust financial roadblock.

The applicant sought unsupervised access and weekend access to his son, and to be relieved of random steroid testing.

The respondent opposed unsupervised access, seeking continued supervision, and requested child support based on an imputed income of $30,000.

The court ordered temporary supervised weekend access for the father, maintained the mother's primary residency and decision-making authority, and continued the father's obligation for random steroid testing.

The existing child support order was continued, and the father was ordered to provide full financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which an adverse inference could be drawn, and an income of $30,000 per annum could be imputed.

This family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant father sought sole or joint custody and equal time sharing, while the respondent mother sought divorce, sole or joint custody with primary residence, child support, spousal support (later abandoned), equalization, and a restraining order.

The court granted the father sole custody with a duty to consult, but the children's primary residence was with the mother.

A detailed parenting schedule was established.

Child support was ordered retroactively from April 1, 2016.

The matrimonial home was valued, and an equalization payment was ordered from the father to the mother, with set-offs for kitchen repair costs, German court costs, and an advance payment.

The father's claim for occupation rent and the mother's claim for a restraining order were dismissed.

The father was ordered to reimburse the mother for a portion of lost child tax benefits.

The moving party's motion to change a custody and access order, based on unfounded allegations of parental alienation, was dismissed.

The responding party, having been entirely successful, sought costs of $21,048.51.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the moving party's unreasonable behaviour in pursuing unfounded allegations.

The court also applied Rule 18(14), as the responding party had made an offer to settle that was more favourable than the final order.

The court awarded the responding party partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total costs at $20,201.01.