Katherine A. Cooligan

A costs endorsement following an eight-day family law trial in which the respondent husband was successful on essentially all issues and had previously made a settlement offer more favourable than the ultimate result.

The husband sought $42,500 in costs.

The court reduced certain amounts related to settlement conferences and considered the applicant’s financial circumstances, including ongoing responsibility for the matrimonial home, support of the parties’ university‑attending child, and spousal support obligations due to the respondent’s illness.

Balancing these factors, the court fixed costs in favour of the respondent at a reduced amount payable from the applicant’s share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The appellant father appealed an order changing the custodial arrangement of his child.

The motions judge found a material change in circumstance based on the father's adverse relationship with the school, the child's high number of absences and lateness, impaired academic performance, and the father's breaches of a prior consent custody order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's focus on the best interests of the child and her conclusion that a change in custody was necessary.

The appellant father appealed a Superior Court order dismissing his application to change the primary residence of the child.

The application judge found no material change in circumstances, noting that the existing joint custody and primary residence arrangement agreed to by the parties had benefited the child.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the application judge's decision, observing that the child was doing well and the parents had successfully adjusted the parenting schedule to accommodate the child's school routine.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The mother obtained a full-time teaching job in Cornwall and sought to relocate the three children from Ottawa.

The application judge granted the move.

The father appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge failed to conduct a full and sensitive inquiry into the best interests of the children, misapprehended the joint custody arrangement, and ignored an independent psychological assessment.

A new hearing was ordered.