L. Burgess

Following a motion in family proceedings in which the applicant obtained a temporary restraining order under s. 46 of the Family Law Act but not to the full extent sought, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs, the court considered proportionality, the parties’ conduct, the absence of settlement offers, and the financial circumstances of the respondent.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $4,415.79, while the respondent argued for $2,500 with a payment plan.

The court found the claimed disbursements reasonable but the time spent slightly excessive.

Costs were fixed at $3,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable in monthly instalments.

In a family law motion arising from minutes of settlement concerning custody and access, the applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to sign a parenting coordination agreement with a named parenting coordinator.

The court found the evidentiary record deficient because the proposed agreement was not filed and there was insufficient evidence that the respondent was in default of any obligation to execute it.

The court also held that an earlier order already implicitly required the parties to complete the documentation necessary to retain the parenting coordinator.

Rather than duplicating the order, enforcement remedies under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules were available if non-compliance occurred.

The motion was therefore dismissed.