Kathryn L. Smithen

The applicant mother sought full recovery of legal costs ($26,559.53) for a motion concerning the child's enrollment in French Immersion, which settled before a hearing.

The respondent father opposed costs, arguing the matter settled early and the mother's litigation tactics were unreasonable, or sought costs himself.

The court found the mother was successful on the main issue but both parties acted unreasonably in their approach to the dispute and costs.

The court significantly reduced the mother's claimed costs due to disproportionality and unreasonableness of time claimed, ultimately ordering the father to pay $5,000.00.

The respondent father brought a motion to change the location and supervisors for his supervised parenting time.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking various procedural and substantive relief, including an adjournment and striking parts of the father's affidavit.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion and granted the father's motion, finding that moving the supervised parenting time away from the maternal grandparents' home to the father's new residence, supervised by the paternal grandparents and a professional agency, would reduce conflict and was in the best interests of the children.

The Father brought a motion for summary judgment to declare a child support settlement binding and enforceable.

The Mother opposed, denying a binding settlement, and cross-moved for summary judgment to set aside any agreement, alleging it undervalued support and improperly waived support for one child.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate as it would not be proportionate, expeditious, or less expensive, and could lead to inconsistent findings, especially concerning child support which is the right of the child and cannot be bartered away.

The court ordered further disclosure from both parties.

The court addressed costs for a prior motion where the respondent father sought parenting relief.

The applicant mother was largely successful in resisting the father's requests regarding the children's access and communication, though the father obtained some relief regarding the location of access and the continuation of a prior consent order.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs, while the father argued for no costs or a substantial reduction.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, found the mother to be the more successful party overall, but noted her offer to settle lacked a "true element of compromise" and her unreasonable behaviour in failing to commence recommended counselling.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 for the mother, payable by the father upon specific future events.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $20,361.76 following a motion where she obtained a preservation order and financial disclosure after the respondent breached a prior court order by surreptitiously refinancing a property.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by intentionally breaching the order to conceal information.

However, because success on the motion was divided and the applicant also acted somewhat unreasonably, the court awarded costs of $15,000 to the applicant, payable upon delayed terms due to the respondent's unemployment.

The applicant sought various urgent relief, including a certificate of pending litigation and a Mareva injunction, after the respondent breached a court order by refinancing a property without consent, increasing its debt load.

The court dismissed the certificate of pending litigation and Mareva injunction requests, finding the applicant failed to meet the high thresholds.

However, the court granted a preservation order against the property and certain funds, ordered specific disclosure, and allowed the applicant to inspect the property, emphasizing the importance of obeying court orders and protecting potential support and property claims.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary access order to increase his parenting time with the parties' two children, aged 16 and 11.

The mother opposed the motion, citing a history of domestic violence and the children's expressed fears.

Relying on Voice of the Child reports, the court declined to force the 16-year-old to attend access against her will, noting her age and right to withdraw from parental control.

The court also dismissed the father's request to increase access to the 11-year-old, finding that the maximum contact principle was outweighed by the child's best interests and need for security.

This is a costs decision following a three-day family law trial.

The court granted the respondent (mother) sole custody of two children and made a no-access order against the applicant (father).

The father was ordered to pay child support of $345 per month based on minimum wage income.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $29,153.45, while the father argued for no costs due to divided success on the support issues.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the dominant issue (access) and awarded costs in her favour, but reduced the amount significantly to account for the father's limited financial means and the reasonableness of his decision to proceed to trial on the access issue.

Following a family law motion concerning custody and parenting arrangements, the court addressed costs after dismissing the mother’s motion for sole custody and ordering joint custody with a parenting schedule proposed by the father.

The court found the motion was ill‑advised and unsupported by evidence that a change to the parties’ existing parenting arrangement was in the children’s best interests.

The father sought more than $30,000 in costs, reduced by $5,000 for limited success on minor issues.

The court accepted that the fees were incurred but declined to award full recovery, instead granting two‑thirds of the claimed costs.

The court also criticized the responding party’s costs submissions for improperly repeating arguments rejected on the motion.

The father applied for access to his two children, whom he had not seen since 2009 following domestic violence charges.

The mother opposed access and sought sole custody, citing a history of severe physical and emotional abuse, controlling behaviour, and the children's fear of the father.

A psychological assessment indicated the older child exhibited anxiety and fear towards the father, while the younger child had no memory of him.

The court found the mother's evidence credible and the father's evidence evasive and lacking insight.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the mother sole custody and denied the father access, concluding that the children's need for safety and stability outweighed the benefits of contact with the father.

A family law trial concerning custody and access of two children following a separation marked by domestic violence allegations.

The father sought supervised access followed by unsupervised access to his children, whom he had not seen since June 2009.

The mother opposed any access and sought sole custody, the ability to obtain government documentation for the children, and permission to travel outside Canada with them without the father's consent.

The court found the father had engaged in a pattern of abuse, control, and violence against the mother and children.

The court granted the mother sole custody and made a no-access order, finding that the children's safety, stability, and security outweighed any benefit of contact with the father.

The court also granted the mother's requests regarding documentation and travel.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an order requiring the applicant father to contribute to nanny expenses retroactive to August 2011, to pay for a financial expert to evaluate his income, and to pay child support arrears.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion for questioning to take place in Oakville with each party bearing their own costs.

The court found that the nanny expense was necessary and reasonable given the mother's unpredictable nursing schedule involving evening and overnight shifts.

The court ordered the father to contribute $1,536.00 per month toward nanny expenses commencing August 1, 2012, with arrears of $16,896.00 payable immediately.

The court also ordered the father to advance $10,000.00 for the mother to retain a financial expert.

Questioning was ordered to take place in Oakville with each party bearing their own costs.