Katrina Madelaine Anders

The respondent father sought full indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an order for the return of the parties' child, whom the applicant mother had unilaterally relocated.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, though not in bad faith, warranting an elevated costs award.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' conduct, the non-complexity of the motion, and the father's counsel's reasonable billings, the court awarded the father $4,500 in fixed costs, payable in three instalments over one year.

The respondent father brought a motion for the return of the parties' nine-year-old child to Ottawa after the applicant mother unilaterally relocated to Tillsonburg.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the permanent relocation.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child starting school, the father's full-time employment, and the mother's unilateral move.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court determined that the relocation was not in the child's best interests, noting the mother's failure to provide proper notice and her thwarting of the father's parenting time.

The court ordered the child's return to Ottawa and implemented a temporary week-on/week-off shared parenting schedule.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $15,735.25 for a motion regarding interim support, alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The respondent sought costs of $2,500, arguing the applicant's requests were excessive.

The court found the applicant was the successful party as she received higher interim support, but noted her relief sought was excessive and she failed to serve an offer to settle.

The respondent was criticized for delaying financial disclosure.

The court denied full indemnity costs, finding no bad faith, and awarded the applicant fixed costs of $4,000.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a nine-year marriage.

The mother sought sole decision-making authority, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority due to the father's coercive and controlling behaviour and the parties' inability to communicate.

The father was granted parenting time on alternating weekends and specified weekdays.

The court dismissed the father's claim to impute income to the mother, ordering child and spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes.

The father was ordered to pay spousal support for 10 years at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, an equalization payment of $213,870.11, and post-separation adjustments.

This endorsement determines costs following a motion to change parenting terms.

Both the applicant and respondent sought costs, each claiming greater success.

The court found that success was divided, as neither party achieved all the relief they sought.

The respondent's offers to settle did not entitle her to costs under Rule 18(14) because the outcome was not more favourable than her offers, and the offers included unassessed child support issues.

The court also found that neither party's conduct was unreasonable enough to warrant a sanction of costs.

Consequently, no order for costs was made for the motion.

The parties sought to vary an existing parenting order concerning their ten-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's age, special needs, and preferences, as well as changes in transfer logistics.

The court adjusted the regular access schedule to remove school-night overnights and replace them with a Friday afternoon visit, and modified the summer access to three four-day periods plus one weekend.

Prescribed telephone call times were removed, replaced by child-initiated communication, with the respondent responsible for facilitating communication during long access gaps.

Transfer locations were changed from police stations to a neutral public location, with school pick-ups for Friday access.

The applicant was ordered to sign passport applications and both parties to use "Our Family Wizard" for communication.

Child support issues were adjourned pending financial disclosure.

The respondent's requests for a further life insurance order and a restraining order were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Applicant sought to vary a 2013 Final Order regarding parenting and child support, primarily due to a change to an equal timesharing arrangement for their child.

The motion also addressed life insurance to secure child support and minor adjustments to parenting provisions.

The court granted the motion with modifications, adjusting child support based on a set-off amount reflecting current incomes and equal timesharing, and imposing mutual life insurance obligations on both parties, with specific coverage amounts and annual reductions.

Minor parenting provisions were also updated to reflect the current living arrangement.

The applicant brought a motion for various relief, with the court addressing only the issue of counselling for the children.

On consent, the parties agreed to terms for the children's attendance at counselling to address separation and reunification issues.

The order detailed cooperation with the intake process, communication with professionals, confidentiality, participation duties, after-care plans, and cost-sharing for counselling services.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought a declaration that he was the sole owner of bank accounts by right of survivorship, or alternatively, directions from the court.

The accounts were solely in the deceased's name at death, despite a "Declaration of Intention" to make them joint.

The court found significant procedural and substantive deficiencies, including conflicts of interest for the applicant and his counsel, inadequate evidence regarding the deceased's capacity and instructions, unclear consents from beneficiaries, and improper service on respondents.

The application was adjourned to allow the applicant to address these issues, obtain independent legal advice, and properly serve revised materials.

The applicant sought entitlement to $70,118.32 in surplus proceeds from a municipal tax sale of five lots it previously owned and transferred to the respondent.

The applicant claimed priority over the respondent owner based on an unregistered vendor take-back mortgage and equitable principles of vendor's lien and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the parties intended to secure the unpaid purchase price with a mortgage, which was not a demand mortgage but contingent on the sale of the lots, meaning the limitation period had not expired.

The court also found the applicant had a valid vendor's lien and that the respondent would be unjustly enriched if allowed to keep the proceeds.

The surplus funds were ordered paid to the applicant.