Mark S. Borden

The parties, who share joint custody of their 10-year-old daughter, brought competing motions regarding her school attendance for the 2020-2021 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant father sought an order for online learning due to his own autoimmune disease and concerns the child might be genetically predisposed to it.

The respondent mother sought in-person learning, citing the child's learning difficulties and Individual Education Plan.

The court ordered in-person learning, finding it in the child's best interests given her educational needs and the lack of evidence that she was at increased medical risk.

The applicant mother sought costs following the dismissal of the respondent father's motion to change a final consent order regarding access, child support, and spousal support.

The court determined that the costs order was enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as support payments.

While the applicant was largely successful, her offer to settle did not comply with Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules, and a partial settlement on access was reached.

The court declined to award costs on a full recovery basis and dismissed the respondent's allegations of the applicant's bad faith.

The court awarded the applicant $8,000 in costs, payable at $500 per month.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final consent order to expand his access, reduce child support, and terminate spousal support early because the applicant mother had repartnered.

The court found that the spousal support was primarily compensatory in nature and that the mother's cohabitation did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court also dismissed the father's request for increased access to reach the 40% threshold for shared custody child support, finding no material change in the needs or circumstances of the children.

The motion to change was dismissed.

Costs decision following a family law motion to change regarding a child’s school placement.

The moving party sought costs after the dispute was ultimately resolved through a consent order following the involvement of a court‑directed parenting facilitator.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, recognizing that both parties achieved partial success but finding that the motion to change was a necessary catalyst to advance resolution of the dispute.

The court also considered the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct and the limited complexity of the matter.

Costs were awarded to the moving party in a reduced amount.