4 total
The court awarded costs personally against a parent's counsel for bringing and withdrawing a patently unmeritorious Charter motion in a child protection proceeding.
This is a costs decision in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.
Following a trial held in January and March 2016, the court granted sole custody of the children to the mother and sole discretion regarding access to the father.
The Children's Aid Society and the mother sought costs against the father and his counsel.
The court declined to award costs against the father but awarded costs of $500 each against counsel for bringing and withdrawing a patently unmeritorious Charter motion that was admittedly irrelevant to the proceedings.
Personal costs ordered against counsel for frivolous and withdrawn Charter motion.
Following a child protection trial resulting in custody being granted to the mother, the applicant society and the mother sought costs against the father and his counsel.
The court reiterated that costs are rarely awarded in child protection proceedings because parents are entitled to require the state to prove its case.
While the father pursued an unrealistic litigation strategy, the court declined to order costs against him.
However, the father’s counsel was found to have wasted costs by bringing a frivolous Charter application that was later withdrawn as irrelevant to the disposition phase of the proceeding.
Applying the test for personal costs against counsel, the court concluded the motion was patently unmeritorious and ordered counsel personally to pay modest costs to the society and the mother.
Sole custody was granted to the mother after the authoritarian father voluntarily abandoned his children.
A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society following the apprehension of three young boys.
The parents consented to a finding that the children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of emotional harm.
The father's authoritarian parenting style, combined with his voluntary withdrawal from the children's lives for nearly two years following a high-conflict marital separation, resulted in significant emotional harm to the children.
The court granted full custody to the mother with sole discretion over access, finding that the father's intransigence and refusal to cooperate with the Society made supervised access futile and potentially harmful to the children.
Appeal of summary judgment in child protection matter dismissed; no procedural unfairness found.
The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment to the Children's Aid Society in a child protection matter.
The appellant argued procedural unfairness and sought to introduce fresh evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as adequate notice was provided, no error in the summary judgment order, and that the proposed fresh evidence would not affect the conclusion.
