Deborah L. Severs

Following an 18-day trial on parenting issues, the applicant sought costs of $418,795.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, noting the applicant obtained a result more favourable than her final offer, entitling her to elevated costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the respondent's behaviour and settlement positions unreasonable.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $315,300 plus HST, inclusive of costs for several interim motions.

The parties separated and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over parenting time and decision-making responsibility for their two young children.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making, while the respondent father sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court found that the parties had a complete inability to communicate and cooperate, largely due to the respondent's disrespectful and antagonistic behaviour.

The court ordered that the children have their primary residence with the applicant, with the respondent having parenting time on alternating weekends and one evening per week.

The court also ordered a parallel parenting arrangement, granting the applicant decision-making responsibility for education, health, and extracurricular activities, and the respondent decision-making responsibility for spiritual upbringing.

This decision concerns a reconsideration of an urgency determination in a family law matter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion regarding parenting time and school issues for his two children.

Initially, the court found no urgency.

Upon clarification from respondent's counsel regarding a significant number of missed parenting days for one child (Ella), the court reconsidered its decision.

The court found the issue of Ella's parenting time to be urgent, allowing a motion on this specific issue to proceed, but maintained that the school and other child's parenting time issues were not urgent.

The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion concerning parenting time for the children and confirmation of their school in light of the applicant mother's relocation.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, determined that none of the issues raised met the criteria for urgency.

The court dismissed the urgent motion but ordered a case conference and provided guidance on parental obligations regarding children's attendance for parenting time.