M. Freeze

The applicant father sought to enforce a costs order made on March 20, 2013, in the amount of $2,000.00 against the respondent mother.

The mother sought to change the costs order pursuant to Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules, arguing she had inadequate notice and was unable to present evidence regarding her ability to pay.

The court found that the mother was properly represented by counsel at the time the costs order was made, that counsel failed to file submissions and attend court without proper notice to the court, and that the mother could not now claim lack of knowledge or notice.

The court declined to change the order and confirmed the mother must pay $2,000.00 to the father's counsel within 30 days.

In a family law proceeding, the parties were unable to agree on the appointment of a counsellor for their child.

The court reconsidered a prior endorsement after discovering that the respondent’s written submissions had not been included due to a clerical error.

Upon reviewing both parties’ submissions and the qualifications and availability of proposed counsellors, the court revoked the earlier endorsement and issued a new order appointing a counsellor for the child.

The court appointed the applicant’s proposed counsellor as the primary choice and designated an alternate if the first counsellor declined.

The order also addressed parental cooperation with counselling and allocated responsibility for payment of counselling costs, including coordination with the mother’s benefit plan.

A costs decision following a motion regarding parental travel with a child.

The respondent mother sought permission to travel to England with the subject child during the holiday period.

The applicant father brought a counter-motion opposing the travel, citing concerns about the child's return.

The court granted the travel with restrictive conditions, including a cash security deposit.

The applicant sought costs of $2,000 on a partial recovery basis, citing the respondent's failure to disclose material facts including her marriage to a British citizen and her work visa.

The court awarded costs as requested, finding the respondent's selective disclosure of information unreasonable and contrary to the principle of coming to court with clean hands.