Kathleen Anne Laverick

The father brought an urgent motion for an order that the children live with him in the matrimonial home in Mississauga and attend the local school, after the mother unilaterally moved with the children to Maple and enrolled them in school there.

The court found the mother's move was a unilateral action designed to alter the status quo and was not a reasonable step required by the best interests of the children.

The father's motion was granted, ordering the children to be returned to Mississauga and enrolled in the local school.

A costs decision following a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The respondent sought to change the primary residence of the child and restrict the third party's unsupervised access.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion.

The parties settled on the basis of recommendations from the Children's Lawyer's investigation.

The court found that success was divided: the respondent was unsuccessful in changing custody and primary residence but successful in reinstating and significantly expanding his access to the child and refuting serious allegations of abuse.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a divided success basis.

Following an extensive family law trial involving property division, business ownership, support, and tort claims between former spouses, the court considered competing claims for costs.

The respondent argued he was substantially successful and relied on a prior offer to settle, while the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs alleging misconduct, fraud, and disclosure failures during litigation.

The court found the respondent was largely successful on major issues but had behaved unreasonably during the proceedings, contributing to mistrust and prolonged litigation.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court held that the respondent should be deprived of costs but that the conduct did not amount to bad faith warranting an award of costs against him.

Given the conduct of both parties and the overall circumstances, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant, the respondent brought a motion to re-open the appeal based on fresh evidence.

The court declined to re-open the appeal.

The appellant sought costs of $7,500 for preparing responding materials and costs submissions.

The court awarded the appellant costs fixed at $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.