E. Quinto

This decision addresses the issue of costs between parents in a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The father, J.N., sought partial indemnity costs from the mother, J.M., arguing that he was successful and that J.M. acted unreasonably and prolonged the matter.

The court reviewed the high threshold required for awarding costs between parents in protection cases, emphasizing that costs should only be awarded for extreme unreasonable conduct or bad faith.

The court found that although J.M. initially resisted conceding primary residence, she acted reasonably in later efforts to resolve the matter, and no findings of fact or breach of court orders were made against her.

The protection application was withdrawn on consent, and the court declined to order costs, highlighting the importance of good faith and proportionality in such proceedings.

This trial addressed parenting time arrangements and child support obligations for the parties' child, Kyler, including a retroactive child support claim.

The applicant sought primary care and full guideline child support with retroactivity to May 2021, while the respondent sought a shared parenting schedule and set-off child support.

The court found that despite a mediation memorandum, a shared parenting arrangement was not consistently in place, and the child primarily resided with the applicant.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for shared parenting, granting the applicant primary care with liberal and generous parenting time for the respondent.

Retroactive child support was awarded to the applicant, but only from September 1, 2023, as effective notice for an earlier period was not established.