C. McCollum

This decision addresses the costs of motions brought by the respondent seeking specific parenting time, and a cross-motion by the applicant regarding access.

The applicant successfully argued that the motions were not urgent and should be adjourned pending a case conference.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding that the respondent's motion was premature and that the applicant's offer for an early case conference was rejected.

Costs were fixed at $2,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the respondent within 30 days.

This decision addresses two motions in a family law matter concerning parenting time and access for three children.

The respondent sought specific parenting time, while the applicant sought access according to the children's wishes and, as a preliminary matter, an adjournment of both motions until a case conference.

The court considered the urgency of the motions, noting the respondent had not seen the children for six weeks due to the applicant's unilateral suspension of access.

However, the court found that neither motion met the threshold for urgency under sub-rule 14(4.1) of the Family Law Rules to be heard prior to a case conference, as a conference could have been scheduled earlier.

Consequently, both motions were adjourned without a date, and the parties were directed to secure an early case conference.