K. Junger

This costs endorsement followed an urgent family law motion to change concerning school placement for a child with special needs.

The court held that the mother was entirely successful on the underlying one-issue motion and that the father had taken an unreasonable position, but not one meeting the high threshold for bad faith under the Family Law Rules.

Applying the principles of success, reasonableness, proportionality, settlement encouragement, and the parties' modest financial circumstances, the court declined to order full recovery of the legal bill.

Costs were fixed at $5,300 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The mother brought an urgent motion to permit the parties' six-year-old child to attend a specialized speech and language program at a different school for grade one.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the child's primary issue was hearing, not speech, and that changing schools would be disruptive.

The court found the mother's proposal was logical, child-focused, and supported by professional recommendations.

The court granted the motion, noting that the father's opposition reflected an unfortunate competitiveness that undermined the spirit of their shared parenting arrangement.

The children's aid society sought a temporary care order for three children following an incident where the 10-year-old child was found in a vehicle with illegal drugs, weapons, and two adults who had been residing in the mother's home.

The mother sought the return of all three children.

The court found that the mother and the father of the two younger children shared 'charge' of those children prior to the intervention.

The court concluded there was a reasonable basis to believe the children would likely suffer actual harm if returned to the mother due to her poor judgment and exposure of the children to the drug trade.

The court ordered the oldest child to remain in the society's care and the two younger children to remain in the care of their father, subject to society supervision.

The respondent requested a five-month adjournment of the trial due to medical issues, despite previously agreeing to a peremptory trial date.

The applicant opposed the adjournment but requested the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home if the trial was delayed.

The court removed the trial from the current sittings and adjourned the matter to be spoken to, noting the unfairness of the repeated delays to the applicant.

To balance the prejudice, the court ordered the immediate release of the applicant's 50% share of the home proceeds, plus a $15,000 advance from the respondent's share to account for costs thrown away and ongoing needs.

The applicant sought Crown wardship for five children who had been apprehended due to domestic violence and physical discipline.

The mother, a victim of domestic violence, consented to Crown wardship with access, recognizing her limitations in caring for the children.

The father sought the return of the children to his care.

The court found that the father had not sufficiently addressed his emotionally and physically abusive parenting style and posed a risk of harm to the children.

The court ordered that the four youngest children be made Crown wards with access, while the oldest child remain in the father's care subject to supervision.