H. Caron

The mother brought a motion seeking various interim parenting orders, including joint decision-making and an order compelling the 14-year-old daughter to attend reconciliation counselling.

The father sought primary care of both children in accordance with their views and preferences.

The court dismissed the mother's request for interim decision-making and reconciliation counselling, finding no evidence of parental alienation and respecting the mature minor daughter's capacity to refuse treatment.

The court ordered that the daughter's parenting time with the mother be at the daughter's discretion, and established a specified parenting schedule for the son with primary residence to the father.

This is a costs decision following three separate motions heard on January 25, 2018, in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The applicant (father) was substantially successful on the issues of access, appointment of an Office of the Children's Lawyer, leave to amend, production of documents, removal of the child from Canada, and unsupervised access in Germany.

The respondent (mother) was unsuccessful on most contested issues, though the parties reached consent resolutions on access and child support.

The court awarded costs to the successful party on a partial indemnity basis, considering divided success, the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and proportionality.

The court determined the costs arising from family law motions argued on May 16, 2013 concerning issues including the matrimonial home, return of personal belongings, and related financial matters.

The judge concluded that the motions produced predictable outcomes and largely reflected positions that had already been proposed in settlement correspondence.

Although neither party clearly succeeded overall, the court considered the parties’ settlement conduct under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party’s counsel had previously proposed settlement and mediation, while the responding party did not respond.

As a balanced result, the court ordered partial indemnity costs in favour of the applicant.