Lorene Helen McDougall

Following a contested family law motion concerning access and temporary child support, both parties sought costs.

The court considered the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that costs follow the event and evaluated which party achieved substantial success.

The respondent on the underlying motion was found to have achieved success on the primary issues, including the amount of temporary child support and the terms of supervised access.

Although unsuccessful on several minor issues, those matters were considered insignificant relative to the central disputes.

The court therefore awarded the successful party partial indemnity costs of $4,500, rejecting a claim for full indemnity costs as excessive and unsupported.

In a family law motion arising after separation and criminal charges against the father, the court addressed temporary access, child support, evidentiary issues, and ancillary relief.

Portions of the mother’s affidavit referring to settlement offers and statements from case conferences were struck as inadmissible under the Family Law Rules.

The court held that supervised access at an institutional centre should only be ordered where necessary for safety and that, on the evidence, supervision by the father’s family members was sufficient.

Temporary child support was set based on the father’s disability income rather than his prior employment income, as the evidence did not support intentional unemployment or imputation of income.

Additional issues concerning credit for prior payments, insurance benefits, and return of a motor vehicle were also determined.