Grant E. Rayner

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for various relief, including security for costs and interim expenses.

The applicant sought over $9,000 in costs, arguing success on financial disclosure, while the respondent sought $5,000, citing overall success and the applicant's unreasonable conduct.

The court found the respondent to be the more successful party on the motion.

While the applicant's initial request for disclosure was reasonable, continuing to pursue the motion after disclosure was provided and the disorganized presentation of her case led to wasted court time.

Despite the respondent's significant child support arrears, he provided timely disclosure.

Balancing the reasonable and unreasonable conduct of both parties, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $1,000 in costs for wasted court appearances, with each party bearing the remainder of their own costs.

The applicant, Katarzyna Krzewina, brought a motion seeking security for costs and advance payment of interim expenses from the respondent, Chad Beaumont, in the context of his motion to change child support.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the respondent's financial disclosure was entangled, his claim was not "so devoid of merit" as to be a nuisance or waste of time.

The court also dismissed the motion for advance payment of expenses, as the applicant failed to provide evidence on the necessity or reasonableness of the fees and disbursements, or that she was unable to fund the litigation without the order.

The applicant (mother) and respondent (father) brought competing urgent motions regarding custody and access to their two young children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent sought interim custody and primary residence, while the applicant sought to maintain the interim custody order granted in her favour on January 6, 2020.

The court found that while the respondent had been the primary caregiver prior to December 23, 2019, his physically aggressive and threatening behaviour on that date—including threatening to cut the applicant's car tires with a kitchen knife—provided compelling grounds to maintain the children in the applicant's temporary care.

The court granted interim sole custody to the applicant with liberal and unsupervised access to the respondent, subject to specific terms governing parental conduct, alcohol consumption, and communication.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that COVID-19 concerns created urgency, finding that both parents had demonstrated appropriate safety precautions.

A costs decision following a five-day trial in a custody and access proceeding.

The applicant sought to vary an existing order placing her son in the care of his paternal grandparents, seeking primary custody.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and primary care of the child, with access to the respondents.

The applicant sought costs of $12,000 inclusive, arguing the grandparents acted in bad faith.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful but declined to find bad faith, instead finding the grandparents' positions were unreasonable and reflected poor judgment.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $7,500 inclusive, considering the applicant's own unreasonable conduct in failing to attend court on multiple occasions and her shared responsibility for communication issues.

A motion to change custody and access arrangements for a child born in 2010.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with primary residence after having addressed historic substance abuse issues.

The respondents (paternal grandparents and father) opposed the motion, arguing that the current joint custody arrangement with the grandparents as primary caregivers should be maintained.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's worsening behavioral and emotional difficulties, the lack of concerted efforts to address his needs, and the acrimony between caregivers.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with structured access to the father and grandparents, finding that the hostility between the grandparents and mother was harmful to the child and that the mother had successfully addressed her historic concerns.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended in November 2015 and placed in the care of her maternal great-grandmother.

The applicant Society initially sought a six-month supervision order with the child remaining in the great-grandmother's care.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, while the great-grandmother sought a custody order.

The court found the child continues to be in need of protection but determined that the child's best interests are served by a joint custody order with primary residence remaining with the great-grandmother, supported by liberal access to the mother.

The court emphasized the importance of continuity of care and attachment, particularly given the child's young age and the length of time spent in the great-grandmother's care.

A custody and access dispute concerning a child born in April 2012 to parents who separated in June 2015.

The mother sought sole custody with alternate weekend access to the father, child and spousal support, supervised exchanges, and a restraining order.

The father sought sole custody and primary residence.

The court granted sole custody to the mother with liberal access to the father on a structured schedule.

The court found the father engaged in persistent harassment and malicious communications designed to undermine the mother's parenting role, while the mother had attempted to establish appropriate boundaries.

The court awarded child support and limited spousal support, and declined to grant a restraining order, instead imposing specific communication restrictions under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the child with no access to the father and a restraining order.

The respondent father sought joint/shared custody, restrictions on the child's movement, and a police enforcement clause.

The court found that the parents had no history of cooperative parenting or effective communication.

The mother was awarded sole custody.

The father was granted regular unsupervised access on alternate weekends and specified holiday periods, with access exchanges to occur at a supervised facility.

The father was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $50,000 per annum and to contribute to daycare and other section 7 expenses.