Justice B. C. Oldham

This is a costs decision following three separate motions heard on January 25, 2018, in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The applicant (father) was substantially successful on the issues of access, appointment of an Office of the Children's Lawyer, leave to amend, production of documents, removal of the child from Canada, and unsupervised access in Germany.

The respondent (mother) was unsuccessful on most contested issues, though the parties reached consent resolutions on access and child support.

The court awarded costs to the successful party on a partial indemnity basis, considering divided success, the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and proportionality.

Motion for interim temporary access to a child following an emergency motion.

The applicant mother sought to maintain primary residence and modify the respondent father's access schedule from two overnight midweek visits to evening visits only.

The respondent father sought to set aside the interim order and establish a shared parenting arrangement with significantly expanded access.

The court confirmed the established status quo of the mother as primary caregiver with the father having alternate weekend access and one midweek overnight visit, finding no compelling reasons to change the arrangement and noting the father's conduct in withholding the child created concerns about his willingness to respect the mother's relationship with the child.

The maternal grandmother (M.T.) brought a motion seeking to maintain access to the child (L.T.) at two hours per week, or alternatively at least eight hours per month, following reductions in access ordered by the Children's Aid Society.

The child had been placed in extended society care following a summary judgment motion.

M.T. argued the Society had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances justifying the access reduction.

The Society maintained it had discretion to reduce access based on behavioural issues observed in the child and the need to normalize the child's life.

The court granted the motion in part, finding that while the Society had not acted contrary to the child's best interests in reducing access frequency, a temporary access order should be made allowing access in the community or at M.T.'s home rather than at the supervised family center.