Susan Peacey

A costs endorsement in a high-conflict custody and relocation case.

The respondent father sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $24,786.07 following a comprehensive settlement reached by the parties.

The applicant mother opposed the costs claim, arguing that no costs should be awarded where parties have settled and that the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, including unlawful withholding of the child, disentitled him to costs.

The court found no compelling reasons to award costs to either party, noting that the parties had compromised to reach settlement, the respondent had behaved unreasonably throughout the proceedings, and a substantial costs award would create financial hardship for the custodial parent and jeopardize child support payments.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support and access arrangements.

The applicant mother was substantially successful at trial, obtaining an order requiring the respondent father to continue paying $188.00 per month in child support with arrears fixed at $7,841.65.

The father's position on child support was unreasonable, and he rejected a reasonable settlement offer that matched the final court order.

The court awarded costs of $10,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $150.00 per month, recognizing the father's limited financial resources while sanctioning his unreasonable litigation conduct.

A motion to change a child support order brought by the biological father seeking to reduce his child support obligation retroactively based on his actual income, and to obtain access to his daughter.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to terminate the relationship between the child and father.

The court found that there had been a change in circumstances justifying modification of the original order.

The father's child support obligation was maintained at $188 per month based on imputed income of $23,500, as the court found he was intentionally underemployed.

The court rejected the father's request to reduce or rescind arrears.

Access was granted on a supervised basis with a detailed schedule for gradual expansion over one year, subject to multiple conditions including counselling, drug and alcohol testing, and restrictions on smoking and substance use.

A costs decision following a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The respondent sought to change the primary residence of the child and restrict the third party's unsupervised access.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion.

The parties settled on the basis of recommendations from the Children's Lawyer's investigation.

The court found that success was divided: the respondent was unsuccessful in changing custody and primary residence but successful in reinstating and significantly expanding his access to the child and refuting serious allegations of abuse.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a divided success basis.