Louis Townsend

Following a family law motion determining a child's primary residence and access schedule, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs relying on an offer to settle that mirrored the outcome of the motion, invoking Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The opposing party argued the offer was non‑compliant, that costs should be denied due to alleged misconduct, and that financial hardship justified either no costs or a nominal award.

The court held the offer complied with Rule 18(14) and supported full recovery costs from the date of the offer, but exercised discretion to reduce the amount due to the respondent’s limited financial means.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order granting interim custody of the parties' seven-year-old child to the applicant mother, and sought to have the child placed in his full-time care in Pontypool.

The father had unilaterally removed the child from his school in Cambridge and enrolled him in a school near Pontypool.

The court found no material non-disclosure by the mother on the ex parte motion.

Applying the principles for interim mobility, the court held there was no compelling reason to upset the status quo and relocate the child from his ordinary residence in Cambridge.

The father's motion was dismissed, and he was granted alternate weekend and mid-week access.