3 total
A motion for access directions during COVID-19 was denied for failing to meet urgency requirements.
The respondent father brought a motion seeking directions from the court regarding access to his eight-year-old son during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The father alleged that the mother had denied him access for extensive periods, with the most recent denial occurring since January 2, 2020.
The father sought either a motion or urgent case conference to address the matter.
The court found that while the matter was important, it did not meet the urgency threshold established by the Chief Justice's directive limiting court operations to urgent and emergency matters during the health crisis.
The court emphasized that the denial of access predated the pandemic and that there was no existing court order or agreement in place.
The motion was denied, and the matter was scheduled to proceed as a case conference in June or July 2020.
No costs awarded due to divided success on the parties' respective motions.
Following an endorsement where both parties were successful on their respective motions regarding child access and travel to Egypt, the parties submitted costs submissions.
The court found that success was divided and ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.
Court fixes reduced costs despite applicant’s success on motions.
Following the applicant’s success on her motion for interim disbursements and on the respondent’s travel motion, the court determined the appropriate costs award.
The applicant sought full indemnity costs relying on Offers to Settle served shortly before the hearing.
The respondent argued the fees claimed were excessive and should be limited to the legal aid tariff.
The court rejected that argument but accepted that deficiencies in the applicant’s motion record increased the time required for the hearing.
The court fixed costs for the interim disbursement motion at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, and confirmed $3,770 for the travel motion.
