Katherine L. Shadbolt

The moving party sought leave to appeal, which was denied.

The court initially awarded $2,000 in costs, penalizing the responding party for failing to file costs submissions five days prior to the hearing.

The responding party subsequently clarified that costs submissions were withheld because of the existence of offers to settle, in accordance with counsel's interpretation of a practice direction.

The court rescinded its initial endorsement, finding that the responding party had complied with the practice direction.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and awarded the responding party costs fixed at $5,000.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully opposing the respondent's motion regarding a jointly retained expert.

The applicant had made three offers to settle the motion, which the respondent rejected.

The court declined to evaluate the fairness of the proposed terms for a joint retainer, noting that such terms must be acceptable to both parties and cannot be imposed by the court.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs fixed at $16,380.

In a family property motion, the respondent sought an order requiring a jointly retained business valuator to expand his mandate to calculate notional income tax liabilities and provide alternative valuation opinions, and alternatively sought to use another expert retained by the applicant.

The court held that the Family Law Rules concerning expert duties and court-appointed experts did not authorize the court to enlarge a joint retainer without both parties' consent or compel an expert to act in a conflict position.

The court also rejected the argument that the expert-duty provisions altered the traditional role of experts, relying on appellate authority confirming those rules merely restated existing common law duties.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal permitting the appellant mother to relocate to Oakville with the child, the respondent father also relocated to Oakville part-time.

The parties agreed to vary the father's parenting time and submitted a consent order.

Because the consent order differed from the court's original decision, the Registrar could not issue it.

The Court of Appeal directed the Registrar to accept and issue the consent order.

The appellant mother previously succeeded in an appeal permitting her to move from Ottawa to Oakville with her daughter and granting her sole legal custody.

The respondent father subsequently requested the court amend the judgment regarding custody, arguing it had not been contested.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its previous order granting sole custody to the mother, finding that joint custody requires a high degree of cooperation which was not present on the record.

The court also awarded costs to the appellant, fixed at $20,000 plus disbursements, taking into account the additional access costs the respondent would incur due to the move.

The appellant mother appealed a motions judge's decision denying her request to relocate from Ottawa to Oakville with her five-year-old daughter.

The Court of Appeal found the motions judge erred by refusing to admit fresh evidence regarding the mother's pregnancy and changed family circumstances, refusing to permit cross-examination of the court-appointed assessor, and delegating the mobility determination to the assessor without independently applying the Gordon v. Goertz factors.

The appeal was allowed, permitting the mother to relocate with the child.