Jane Thomson

Following a family law motion concerning custody and access issues, the successful moving party sought costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The motion resulted in an updated custody and access assessment, a variation of the weekend parenting schedule, and counselling arrangements for the child, although a request for joint custody was refused.

The responding party argued there was no jurisdiction to award costs and that success on the motion was divided, emphasizing good‑faith litigation and limited financial resources.

The court held it retained jurisdiction to determine costs and found the moving party was largely successful.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $4,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within six months.

Following a family law motion concerning imputed income, child support, spousal expenses, and access terms, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after being substantially successful.

The court considered the parties’ offers to settle, noting that the result was nearly identical to the respondent’s offers except for a lower imputed income amount.

Because the result did not equal or exceed the offers, the court declined substantial indemnity costs and instead awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court also considered proportionality and the similarity between the parties’ legal bills.

Costs were ordered payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent breached an access order by failing to facilitate the children’s counselling and access visits.

The court found the respondent deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order and held her in contempt, emphasizing that a primary residential parent must actively facilitate court‑ordered access.

On a second motion concerning parenting arrangements, the court considered allegations of parental alienation and the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act.

The court ordered joint interim custody and significantly increased the father’s parenting time with one child through a week‑on, week‑off schedule, while maintaining the existing access framework for the other child with some modifications.

Interim child support was ordered to continue.