Jennifer M. Wood

Following an 11‑day family law trial concerning parenting arrangements, child support, equalization, and related financial claims, the court addressed costs.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that the successful party is entitled to costs and assessed the parties’ success across each issue.

The applicant was found to be the more successful party overall, particularly on custody, decision‑making authority, primary residence of the child, and equalization, while the respondent was more successful on child support.

Allegations of bad faith were rejected, though both parties were found to have behaved somewhat unreasonably in aspects of the litigation.

Considering offers to settle and the factors under Rule 24(11), the court ordered the respondent to pay partial recovery costs.

The parties separated after a short marriage characterized by conflict.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of their four-year-old daughter, while the respondent father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The father also claimed damages for malicious prosecution, alleging the mother made false assault allegations leading to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court ordered joint custody with a parallel parenting regime, finding it in the child's best interests to foster a relationship with both parents despite their communication difficulties.

The court implemented a shared parenting schedule but declined to order a 50/50 split.

The father's claims for malicious prosecution and unequal division of net family property were dismissed.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment and set-off child support.