J. Fraser Bushell

Following dismissal of a grandparent access application on summary judgment, the court determined costs.

The successful respondents had served an offer to settle inviting the applicant to withdraw the application and agree to mutual non‑disparagement with each party bearing their own costs.

The offer was not accepted and the application was dismissed in its entirety.

Applying the usual Rule 49 cost consequences, the court held the respondents were entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court fixed all-inclusive costs at $7,500 payable by the applicant.

The respondents brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a grandmother’s application for access to her grandchildren under s. 21(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 24 of the Act, including the nature of the historical relationship between the grandmother and the children, the present circumstances of the family, and the status quo after several years without contact.

Even accepting the applicant’s characterization of the prior relationship, the court found it to be an ordinary grandparent relationship and not one warranting court‑ordered access.

Given the intense conflict between the adults and the children’s stable and thriving circumstances, ordering access would place the children in the middle of ongoing hostility.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment dismissing the application.

Following a multi-day family trial concerning custody of a child, the court had awarded custody to the father.

The father sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $25,000 for the trial.

The court considered the importance of the custody issue, the parties’ financial disparity, the conduct of the litigation, and a technically non‑compliant offer to settle under the Family Law Rules.

While the offer did not strictly comply with Rule 18(14), it could still be considered under Rule 18(16) in determining costs.

The court concluded that the father had been mostly successful and was entitled to recover his trial costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to transfer the primary residence of the parties' 10-year-old child to him.

The motion was prompted by the child expressing a strong desire to live with the applicant due to ongoing conflict and turmoil in the respondent mother's home, which included involvement by the Children's Aid Society and police related to the respondent's abusive partner.

The court found a material change in circumstances and applied the best interests of the child factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Relying on the child's views and preferences, the instability in the respondent's home, and the applicant's stable plan, the court granted the motion and ordered that the child's primary residence be changed to the applicant.