Frédéric Huard

The applicant father was successful on an urgent motion regarding the choice of school for the parties' daughter.

He sought full recovery costs of $9,519.12, while the respondent mother argued for minimal or no costs, submitting a bill of costs for $4,265.75.

The court found the father was the successful party and entitled to costs, but noted the mother's position was reasonable and she had made a formal offer to settle.

Considering the single issue, the time spent, and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the father costs of $3,000 inclusive of HST.

The parties brought an urgent motion to determine the choice of school for their 12-year-old daughter entering Grade 7.

The moving party mother sought to enroll the child in a French Immersion program, while the responding party father sought enrollment in a homogeneous French school.

The child had attended a homogeneous French school for the past five years.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court considered factors including the benefits of French-only education, the child's academic success in her previous French school, and the importance of maintaining the status quo.

The court ordered that the child attend the homogeneous French school.

Following a motion where the respondent was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $8,772.10 based on an offer to settle, while the applicant argued for a reduced award of $2,500 payable at the end of the proceedings.

The court found the respondent was entitled to costs and that his offer to settle was reasonable, but reduced the quantum to $6,000 plus HST for proportionality.

The costs were ordered payable following the trial or comprehensive resolution of the matter.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to reduce the applicant father's parenting time to supervised access, alleging the father failed to follow COVID-19 public health guidelines and that their child was at higher risk due to a cardiac condition.

The court found the child's cardiac condition did not place him at a higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, relying on a recent cardiologist report.

However, the court found the father had breached some agreed-upon COVID-19 protocols.

The court dismissed the request for supervised access but ordered strict COVID-19 safety terms the father must follow to maintain his parenting time.

Following a trial where the maternal grandmother was awarded sole custody of the child, the respondents sought costs.

The applicant father argued each party should bear their own costs due to his limited means and the grandmother's alleged bad faith.

The court found the father's behaviour unreasonable during the litigation, which lengthened the process, but did not find bad faith.

Considering the father's ability to pay and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $15,000 to the grandmother and $3,000 to the mother, payable in monthly instalments.