Georgette Makhoul

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 costs order following a motion where the parties reached a consent order on all issues except costs.

The respondent father sought full indemnification costs, alleging the applicant mother's conduct was vexatious and in bad faith due to her non-acquiescence to access requests based on unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.

The applicant mother argued that the allegations were untested and that a last-minute settlement offer should not result in a costs award.

The court found that it could not make findings of bad faith without tested evidence and that awarding costs after a last-minute amended offer acceptance would undermine settlement negotiations.

Consequently, the costs of the resolved motion were reserved to the trial judge.

The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion for access to his two children, whom he had not seen for several months, amidst a high-conflict separation.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, considered the definition of urgency.

While acknowledging the importance of the issues, the court declined to rule on the urgency of the motion directly.

Instead, it directed that an urgent case conference be scheduled to address the children's residence and access, with the possibility of ruling on urgency if a motion remained necessary after the conference.