Kathryn R. Hendrikx

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an ex parte no-contact and no-communication order, seeking joint custody, supervised access, and regular contact with his children.

The court reviewed the respondent's history of criminal harassment, probation breaches, and continued unauthorized communication with the applicant mother and children.

While acknowledging the respondent's efforts in counselling, the court found it in the children's best interests to reinstate only limited, supervised communication via text message, subject to strict conditions and ongoing counselling.

The respondent's requests for joint custody and supervised access were denied.

The applicant mother was awarded $25,000 in costs due to the respondent's conduct necessitating the proceedings.

A costs decision in a family law application involving custody, access, and child support.

The application was resolved through three case conferences resulting in a final settlement.

Both parents claimed costs, but the court found the mother was the more successful party.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs in the amount of $10,000 all-inclusive, representing a fair and reasonable amount proportionate to the issues involved.

Following a family law motion, the respondent mother sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 18 and the general costs principles under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court compared the parties’ positions and the offer and found that the mother had been successful and that her offer justified full indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $11,000.

Due to the father’s financial circumstances and ongoing support obligations, the costs were ordered to be secured against his interest in the matrimonial home, with additional restrictions preventing him from depleting assets disclosed in his financial statement.

Interim family law motion addressing parenting schedule and child support following separation.

The father sought maximum contact with the parties’ three children, but the court found equal parenting time unrealistic due to the children’s ages, school locations, and the distance between the parents’ residences after the father relocated.

A temporary parenting schedule was ordered providing the father alternating weekends, mid‑week access, and additional overnight time with the youngest child.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and ordered the father to pay table child support while both parties shared certain section 7 expenses.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change a consent custody order.

The mother sought supervised access for the father and other modifications, while the father sought joint custody.

The litigation was acrimonious and protracted over approximately sixteen months, with both parents making unreasonable claims.

The mother was partially successful, the father was partially successful, and the matter ultimately settled.

The court awarded costs to the mother despite divided success, based on the father's unreasonable conduct, his failure to make a timely settlement offer, and his pursuit of an unjustifiable claim for joint custody.

The court rejected the father's argument that inability to pay should shield him from a costs award.

Both parties brought motions to change child and spousal support provisions from a December 18, 2007 order.

The father sought to terminate spousal support and child support for his adult daughter Veronica, while the mother sought increased child support retroactive to January 1, 2008, and an accounting of special expenses.

The court found that Veronica remained eligible for support until August 31, 2013, as she was completing her undergraduate degree.

The court recalculated child support retroactively, finding the father owed $22,500 in arrears due to his failure to adjust support in accordance with his increased income.

The court ordered the father to pay $20,000 directly to Veronica for her student loans and $2,500 to the mother.

Spousal support was continued until June 30, 2014, with a reduction of $50 per month as a set-off for unpaid costs.