Kellie Stewart

The applicant father successfully opposed the respondent mother's motion to temporarily relocate their child to Kapuskasing for her employment.

Following the dismissal of the relocation motion, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $11,245.65.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party but noted the respondent had some success regarding parenting time.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $8,500, noting the respondent should be sanctioned with substantial indemnity costs for a portion of the proceedings due to seeking orders post-hearing without a notice of motion or supporting evidence.

The mother, a general surgeon, brought a motion to temporarily relocate the parties' five-year-old child to Kapuskasing for alternating months while she completed a one-year employment contract.

The parents previously shared joint decision-making and equal residential parenting in Renfrew.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the extensive travel and disruption of attending two different schools would not be in the child's best interests.

The child was ordered to remain in the father's primary care in Renfrew for the duration of the contract, with generous parenting time for the mother.

The paternal grandmother and uncle brought an interim motion for access to their 13-year-old grandson and nephew following the death of the child's father.

The mother opposed the motion, citing the child's lack of interest in access.

The court applied the Chapman test, noting that deference should generally be given to the custodial parent's decision unless the parent is acting arbitrarily to imperil a positive relationship.

Finding that the mother was not acting arbitrarily and giving significant weight to the 13-year-old child's wishes, the court dismissed the motion for interim access.

The respondent father brought a motion to change, seeking to terminate child support for his 18-year-old daughter on the basis that she had rejected any relationship with him.

The court applied the Farden factors and found that the daughter's decision to terminate the relationship was not without justification, given the long and complex history of high conflict between the parents.

The court concluded the daughter remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act and was entitled to ongoing support for her university education.

However, the court found the standard Guidelines approach inappropriate under section 3(2)(b) and ordered specific monthly amounts and shared expenses, requiring the daughter to contribute to her own education costs.

The parties settled a motion to change child and spousal support but could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought full recovery costs of over $60,000, arguing he was successful and the applicant's behaviour was unreasonable.

The applicant argued success was divided and a costs award would hinder her ability to provide for the children.

The court found the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs as the final order was more favourable than his offer to settle.

However, applying the Family Law Rules, the court limited the costs to steps where costs were reserved or not previously dealt with, and awarded the respondent $8,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Ottawa Police Services Board and two unnamed officers for trespass, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and misfeasance in public office after police entered her townhouse to execute an arrest warrant for her former boyfriend.

During the entry, the police shot and killed the plaintiff's two pit bulls and caused significant property damage.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the police entered under a valid warrant and authorization, and were protected from liability by section 25 of the Criminal Code because they acted on reasonable grounds and used no more force than necessary in a high-risk situation.