Mason Harvey Derek Morningstar

Following a motion on parenting time in which the respondent father was granted an increase on a graduated basis — less than he sought but more than the applicant mother preferred — the court addressed costs.

The father sought $2,000 all-inclusive, acknowledging the mother's modest annual income of approximately $45,000.

The mother sought $3,500, arguing she was the more successful party.

The court found the father prevailed on the motion, but reduced his costs award to $1,500 all-inclusive, payable within 30 days, to account for the mother's financial situation and the ongoing need for cooperative co-parenting in the child's best interests.

On a father's motion to change a final parenting order, the court held that no material change in circumstances had been established under s. 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Allegations that the mother neglected the child's medical, educational, therapeutic, and extracurricular needs, and failed to consult properly, were rejected on the evidence.

The court further held that, even if the threshold had been met, joint decision-making and expanded parenting time would not be in the child's best interests given the father's unilateral conduct, poor communication, the child's anxiety, and the child's stated preference to maintain the existing schedule.

The motion to change was dismissed, communication was restricted to Our Family Wizard, and the moving party was required to obtain leave before bringing any further motion to change.

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $340,000 based on multiple offers to settle.

The applicant failed to file responding costs submissions despite court reminders.

The court found the applicant took unreasonable positions and failed to comply with financial disclosure obligations.

However, considering negative findings regarding the respondent's historical income and the high rates charged by counsel, the court fixed costs at $250,000 payable by the applicant, enforceable as a support order.

The parties, who cohabited for 15 months and had one child, separated in January 2021.

The applicant sought sole decision-making, relocation, and significant child and spousal support, alleging the respondent earned $900,000 annually from drug dealing.

The court ordered joint decision-making and denied the relocation, imposing a 10km geographic restriction.

The court imputed a high income to the respondent for 2021 based on lavish spending but declined to impute illegal income prospectively, setting his 2022/2023 income at minimum wage.

The applicant's income was imputed significantly higher for 2022/2023 based on bank deposits.

Spousal support was awarded for 2021 only.

After crediting the respondent for condo carrying costs and support overpayments, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $54,472.88.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000.

The applicant children's aid society sought costs of $10,094.86 following its successful defence of a motion brought by the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The parents argued that no costs should be awarded against them to avoid deterring parents from defending against state intervention.

The court found this to be a rare and exceptional circumstance warranting a costs award against the parents, as they had brought an ill-conceived motion with no reasonable prospect of success following their own breach of a court order.

The court ordered the parents to pay costs of $2,500.

The parents in an active child protection proceeding brought a motion to vary a temporary supervision order to permit the mother and children to relocate to Alberta to reside with the father, or alternatively, to transfer the proceeding to an Alberta court.

The father had moved to Alberta for employment after being charged with serious sexual offences involving a former foster child, which had prompted the initial supervision order requiring him to be supervised around the children.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father's voluntary move did not constitute a compelling change in circumstances justifying relocation prior to trial, and that the parents failed to provide evidence that the Alberta child welfare agency had been served or consented to a transfer.

The Applicant Mother brought a motion to strike the Respondent Father's pleadings and prohibit future filings due to his failure to pay child support arrears, non-payment of costs, and abusive behaviour, including vile text messages and breach of a restraining order.

The Respondent Father had also relocated to Tanzania while seeking primary residency of the child.

The court struck the Father's Notice of Motion due to his exceptional conduct of relocating to another continent while seeking residency.

The court also ordered that the Father may only file responding pleadings upon bringing his child support arrears and outstanding costs awards into good standing.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the Mother.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 28, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased interim parenting time with his six-year-old child, seeking additional overnights, earlier pick-up times, and extended summer access.

The respondent mother opposed any changes, arguing the status quo should be maintained until trial and that the father's proposed schedule would require a 45-minute commute to school.

The court rejected the mother's argument that changes must be deferred to trial, finding no need to prove urgency or a material change in circumstances for an interim order.

The court granted the father a Tuesday overnight, earlier pick-up times, extended time for PA days and statutory holidays, and additional summer weeks, but denied a Sunday overnight to avoid excessive commuting for the child.

The applicant paternal grandmother brought a motion for access to her nine-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's father.

The respondent mother consented to virtual access for the grandmother but opposed the participation of the child's paternal aunt, citing concerns about being undermined.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court found that the aunt had a positive relationship with the child, the mother's decision to terminate access was arbitrary and stemmed from estate litigation rather than parenting concerns, and the mother's actions imperiled the relationship.

The court granted the motion, allowing the aunt to participate in the virtual access visits.

The Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged settlement agreement reached during a settlement meeting.

The Applicant, who was self-represented at the meeting, denied a binding agreement was formed, asserting discussions were for settlement purposes only.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding no binding agreement due to a lack of consensus on essential terms, vagueness regarding equalization and spousal support, and the Applicant's lack of independent legal advice, which prevented informed consent.