C. Marchetti

Following cross-motions regarding parenting time and reunification therapy where the respondent father was largely successful, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The father sought $7,541.15 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant mother argued for no costs or, alternatively, that she pay $3,500.

The court awarded the father $5,500 in partial indemnity costs, reflecting his substantial but not total success on the motions and his reasonable offer to settle.

Following a difficult family law trial involving unfounded allegations of child abuse by the mother, the successful father sought full recovery of his trial costs of $163,244.

The court reviewed multiple offers to settle and found the father's offers regarding custody and access attracted full recovery under Rule 18(14), while his financial offers demonstrated reasonable litigation conduct under Rule 24(5).

The court rejected the mother's argument of divided success and her claim of inability to pay, noting her unreasonable litigation conduct and escalation of claims.

The father was awarded $118,000 in costs.

During an ongoing family law trial, the respondent sought production of a therapist’s clinical file after the applicant decided not to call the therapist as a witness despite earlier representations that he would testify.

The parties had also exchanged mutual undertakings to produce doctors’ files.

The court found that the respondent had relied on the applicant’s repeated statements that the therapist would testify and that the file would be produced.

Drawing on principles from R. v. Jolivet regarding fairness when litigation strategy changes mid‑trial, the court concluded that withholding the file would create unfairness.

The applicant was ordered to obtain and produce the therapist’s file so the respondent could determine whether to call the therapist as a witness.