Dawn Marie Bourque

Following the dismissal of the father's motion for leave to appeal a temporary joint custody order, the self-represented mother sought her costs.

The court found the father's motion was unreasonable and should not have been brought.

The court awarded the mother costs on a substantial indemnity scale, valuing her time at $200 per hour, recognizing that self-represented litigants who perform work normally done by a lawyer are entitled to be compensated fairly.

The father was ordered to pay costs of $12,091.85.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for leave to appeal a temporary custody order, the self-represented applicant sought costs.

The court found the respondent's motion was unreasonable and should not have been brought, warranting costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court held that the applicant, though self-represented, performed the work of a lawyer efficiently and was entitled to be compensated for her time at a rate of $200 per hour.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $12,091.85.

In a family law proceeding, the court addressed costs following a motion in which a child protection agency sought intervener status regarding a custody and access determination.

The court had previously concluded that the agency lacked a bona fide interest in the matter and had lost its objectivity and professionalism, displaying bias against the mother.

The mother successfully opposed the agency’s request and was entirely successful on the motion.

The court determined that a self‑represented litigant may recover modest compensation for time spent but declined to award an hourly rate equivalent to that of a lawyer.

Costs were fixed based on the mother’s previous hourly earnings plus disbursements.

The court determined costs following a prior family law motion in which the applicant mother was substantially successful.

The self-represented applicant sought compensation for time spent preparing and arguing the motion.

The court found that she conducted herself professionally and efficiently despite facing a represented party.

In light of the significant preparation required and the unfounded allegations made against her, the court awarded modest costs compensating her time at her previous hourly wage plus disbursements.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision setting aside a final order based on Minutes of Settlement in a family law dispute.

The parties had negotiated a settlement, but there was a dispute over whether a binding agreement had been reached before the respondent entered a residential treatment program.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the parties were not ad idem and that the June Minutes of Settlement were no longer open for acceptance when the appellant signed them in October.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement fixing costs in favour of the successful respondent in the amount of $11,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The parties entered into a separation agreement in 1994.

The respondent's income increased dramatically starting in 1996, but he did not disclose this to the appellant.

The appellant sought retroactive child support.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no implicit duty to disclose in the agreement and no blameworthy conduct.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the trial judge erred under the new D.B.S. framework in finding no blameworthy conduct, her holistic consideration of all factors—including the children's needs being met, the appellant's delay, and the potential hardship to the respondent—justified denying the retroactive award.

The appeal was dismissed.