Grace Sun

The appellant mother appealed an order denying her access to her two children, who were made Crown wards without access.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred in applying the test for access under s. 59(2.1) of the repealed Child and Family Services Act.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly concluded that the appellant's relationship with the children was not 'significantly advantageous' to reach the threshold of 'beneficial and meaningful.' Although the motions judge erred in her analysis of whether access would impair future adoption, the court found that a court-mandated access order would indeed impair the children's opportunity for adoption.

The court assessed costs following motions heard on March 13, 2017.

Both parties filed costs submissions, with Mr. Hill seeking substantial indemnity and Ms. Hill seeking partial or substantial indemnity.

The court applied the fundamental objectives of costs rules from Fong v. Chan and the fairness principle from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council.

Considering Family Law Rule 18 regarding offers to settle, the court found Mr. Hill to be the successful party, despite his offer not fully meeting the criteria for full recovery under Rule 18(14).

Costs were fixed at $6,500, all-inclusive, payable by Ms. Hill from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

In this family law dispute, the court addressed cross-motions for temporary orders and summary judgment.

The respondent, Ms. Hill, sought temporary sole custody, child/spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, Mr. Hill, sought summary judgment for shared custody and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed Mr. Hill's summary judgment motion for custody and access, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, and also dismissed Ms. Hill's motion for exclusive possession, as the alleged conduct did not meet the threshold for "violence" under the Family Law Act.

The court granted temporary orders for primary residence of the child with Ms. Hill, generous access for Mr. Hill, and specific child and spousal support payments.

Crucially, the matrimonial home was ordered to be listed for sale, as Ms. Hill could not afford to retain it and no malicious or oppressive motive for sale was found.

The respondent sought costs following a successful motion regarding child support for a child taking a gap year.

The respondent had served an offer to settle that was more advantageous to the applicant than the final order.

The court accepted the respondent's submissions, applied the costs consequences of Rule 49.10, and awarded the respondent costs fixed at $12,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following earlier proceedings between the parties in a family law matter, the court was asked to determine costs.

The respondent submitted that success in the proceeding was divided between the parties.

The court agreed that neither party achieved clear success.

Applying the principle that costs generally follow the event unless justice requires otherwise, the court held that no party should receive costs.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside portions of a consent final order regarding shared custody, arguing her consent was obtained under duress.

The applicant claimed she was coerced into signing the agreement after the motions judge indicated in open court that he would otherwise grant primary residence to the respondent and restrict the applicant to supervised access.

The court found that the motions judge's comments placed illegitimate pressure on the applicant, vitiating her consent.

The motion was granted, the shared custody provisions were set aside, and the prior temporary arrangement was reinstated pending a case conference.