2 total
Costs significantly reduced to $2,500 due to unreasonable behaviour and lack of proportionality by both parties.
The respondent sought costs of $31,975.26 on a full recovery basis after successfully obtaining a declaration that the applicant breached a court order regarding their child's travel, and successfully dismissing the applicant's cross-motion.
The applicant argued that success was divided and proposed each party bear their own costs.
The court found that while the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party, both parties had behaved unreasonably, escalating a minor travel issue into costly litigation.
Emphasizing the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court exercised its discretion to significantly reduce the costs award, ordering the applicant to pay $2,500.
The court declared the applicant breached a parenting order by unilaterally taking their child on an international trip, but declined to order a punitive costs payment.
The parties, divorced nine years ago, continue to experience significant conflict over parenting arrangements, particularly regarding their son's international travel.
The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that the applicant breached a 2015 court order by taking their son to New York without his consent, causing him to miss school.
The applicant brought a cross-motion for the passport's return and to restrict the respondent from bringing further motions without leave.
The court found the applicant breached the order by removing the child from school without the respondent's prior consent.
However, the court dismissed the respondent's request for a $2500 payment, clarifying that "costs" under Rule 1(8)(a) of the Family Law Rules refers to legal fees and disbursements, not a penalty.
The applicant's cross-motion was also dismissed, as there was no material change in circumstances to vary the passport custody order and restricting the respondent's access to court was deemed an exceptional remedy not warranted here.
