J. Nicoll

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an order under subrule 4(7) of the Family Law Rules to authorize independent legal representation for the parties' two children.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary and would delay the upcoming trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the children's views and preferences would be adequately ascertained through existing assessments and that adding another layer of professional intervention was not in their best interests.

At a case conference, the applicant father sought a substantive order for extended overnight summer parenting time with his two daughters at a resort.

The respondent mother opposed the request, proposing a more limited schedule.

The court found that limited and exceptional circumstances existed to make a substantive order at a case conference.

Considering the strained relationship between the father and the children, and the recommendations of the experts, the court ordered daily parenting time from 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. between August 13 and August 27, without overnights.

The court also ordered the parties to proceed with family counselling.

Following a lengthy family law trial, the respondent's counsel improperly relied on a three-year-old temporary order to freeze the applicant's business accounts.

The court held that temporary orders do not survive a final judgment unless specifically continued.

On the issue of trial costs, the respondent was the successful party but his costs were significantly reduced due to unreasonable conduct, bad faith (including surreptitiously recording the applicant), and disproportionate legal fees claimed by his counsel.

The applicant was ordered to pay $70,000 in costs to the respondent.