3 total
Mother awarded $4,719.14 in costs after largely succeeding on decision-making and parenting time claims.
Following a trial regarding decision-making responsibility and parenting time under the Children's Law Reform Act, the applicant mother sought costs.
The court found the mother was largely successful in her claims, obtaining sole decision-making responsibility and limiting the father's parenting time.
The court declined to award costs for steps taken before the trial judge's involvement, as they were not reserved.
Considering the mother's reasonable position, her informal offer to settle, and the father's failure to reassess his claims, the court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs of $4,719.14.
The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility and child support based on actual income.
This family law trial concerned decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for the parties' 6-year-old son.
The mother sought sole decision-making and a specific parenting schedule, along with child support arrears and prospective support.
The father sought shared decision-making and equal parenting time, and a lower arrears amount.
The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, established a parenting time schedule that maintained the child's primary residence with the mother while increasing the father's time, and calculated child support arrears and prospective support based on the father's actual income, declining to impute additional income.
The father's claims for a restraining order and a mutual non-disparagement order were dismissed, as was the mother's claim for the father's employer income record.
The court dismissed a mother's appeal of a custody order restricting the child's relocation.
Karly Boudreau appealed a decision that ordered Claude Morneault to have primary residence of their child if Ms. Boudreau relocated to Pembroke from Kirkland Lake.
Ms. Boudreau alleged errors in credibility findings, ineffective counsel, over-reliance on the OCL report, and misapplication of the best interests of the child and mobility tests.
The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal or factual errors by the trial judge, and affirmed the trial judge's thoughtful analysis of the child's best interests and mobility factors under the Children's Law Reform Act and Gordon v. Goertz.