Henry Edward Szpiech

In a family law dispute following separation, the parties disagreed about which school their two young children should attend for grade one.

The mother, who had primary weekday residence of the children under an interim order, sought to enroll them in a school near her residence in Grimsby, while the father sought to keep them in their previous school in Hamilton.

The court considered the best interests of the children, including the existing parenting schedule, the children’s primary weekday residence, and the practical impact of daily travel.

The judge found that maintaining attendance at the Hamilton school would require an onerous daily commute and disrupt the children’s routine.

The court concluded that it was preferable for the children to attend school near their weekday residence.

In a costs-only decision following a successful summary judgment and possession order under a mortgage, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs based on contractual entitlement and a Rule 49 offer, while also alleging bad faith and unreasonable delay under Rule 20.06.

The court rejected findings of bad faith or unreasonable conduct, but held the contract and Rule 49 consequences supported substantial indemnity costs.

After applying Rule 57.01 factors and proportionality, the court reduced the amount claimed and fixed fair and reasonable costs at $10,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable forthwith.