Catrina Braid

The father sought costs following a contempt motion and competing motions regarding parenting time.

Although the court declined to find the mother in contempt, it found she had breached prior orders and reinstituted the status quo of week-about parenting time.

The court determined the father was the more successful party and awarded him costs fixed at $15,000, noting the mother's failure to comply with court orders and the father's reasonable offer to settle.

The father brought a motion for contempt, alleging the mother intentionally withheld their 11-year-old child and unilaterally enrolled her in private school, contrary to a 2017 consent final order for week-about shared parenting.

The mother argued the child did not want to visit the father.

The court found the mother breached the orders by failing to apply normal parental authority to encourage the child's compliance and by making unilateral decisions.

However, the court declined to find the mother in contempt, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

The court reaffirmed the week-about parenting schedule and deferred issues of primary residence and decision-making to trial.

The young person, charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application for directions regarding jury selection procedures.

The case had attracted significant pretrial publicity.

The court established a comprehensive jury selection protocol, including liberal pre-screening, specific anti-bias instructions, and a focused challenge for cause process to address potential partiality from media exposure.

The trial judge determined she would ask the challenge questions and adjudicate the challenges individually with other prospective jurors excluded.

The Crown brought an application for an order permitting court security officers to place soft, silent shackles on the young person during his trial for second-degree murder.

The young person opposed the use of shackles, arguing that enhanced procedural protections under the Youth Criminal Justice Act required the least restrictive measures.

The court granted the application, finding that silent shackles balanced the need for courtroom security and the prevention of escape with the young person's dignity and the presumption of innocence, as the shackles would not be visible to the jury.

Following a successful motion for an interim parenting schedule, the applicant father sought partial indemnity costs of $7,771.87.

The respondent mother argued for a significant reduction or no costs due to her limited financial means.

The court considered the father's unaccepted offer to settle, the mother's financial situation, and the principles of fair and reasonable costs.

The mother was ordered to pay costs of $4,000, payable in monthly installments of $40.