Courtney Thompson

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the respondent father was granted primary residence and decision-making responsibility, he sought costs of $21,441.52 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother, who was self-represented on the motion, argued she was impecunious and unable to pay.

The court considered the mother's unreasonable behaviour, her failure to accept reasonable offers to settle, and the principle that impecuniosity does not grant immunity from costs.

The court awarded the respondent father $18,000 in costs, enforceable against any child support arrears.

The Respondent father (JHS) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking final orders regarding decision-making, child residence, and parenting time for the parties' eight-year-old child.

The Applicant mother (JLD) opposed the motion and was self-represented.

The court applied Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the Hryniak v. Mauldin test, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court thoroughly considered the child's best interests under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, including the history of family violence, the child's needs for stability and education, the nature of parental relationships, and each parent's willingness to support the child's relationship with the other parent.

The court found that JLD was unable to meet the child's educational and physical needs and was unwilling to support the child's relationship with JHS.

Consequently, JHS's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing JLD's application, and awarding JHS sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the child, along with a detailed parenting schedule.