Deborah E. Bennett

Following a five-day trial on parenting time and child support, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis for all steps, including issues settled just prior to trial.

The court held that costs could be awarded for the settled issues because the applicant was clearly successful on primary residence and decision-making.

Although the applicant's offers to settle did not trigger full indemnity costs because they contained terms the court could not order, the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to comply with disclosure orders, justified an elevated partial recovery costs award of 70%.

The applicant sought costs following a motion concerning interest on a judgment order and a variation of spousal support based on the respondent's post-separation income increase.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was substantially successful in obtaining interest, full payment of the judgment order, and a substantial increase in spousal support.

The court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $10,000.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order, seeking increased spousal support based on the respondent's significant post-separation income increase, as well as enforcement of a prior judgment for $21,600.00.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's increased income and determined the applicant had a compensatory claim entitling her to share in that increase.

The court ordered increased spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and directed the respondent to pay the outstanding judgment balance with interest.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for partial summary judgment on the eve of trial, seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and should be placed in extended care, leaving the issue of the mother's access for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment would not shorten the trial significantly, risked inconsistent findings of fact, and raised fairness concerns given the mother's recent retention of new counsel and evidentiary issues.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a full trial on all issues.

In a child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought orders restraining the father from contacting the mother and suspending his access to the child due to domestic violence, substance abuse concerns, and threatening conduct.

Evidence included numerous police incidents involving domestic violence and a forensic psychiatric assessment indicating a high risk of future spousal assault.

The mother had separated from the father and relocated to an undisclosed location for safety.

The court held that the child’s best interests required placement with the mother under the society’s supervision and suspension of the father’s access until specified conditions were met.

The decision emphasized the relevance of domestic violence and parental conduct toward a partner when assessing child protection risks and access.