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 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.

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.

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.