Michael D. Wonham

This endorsement determines costs following a motion heard on April 23, 2019.

The respondent, Joseph Patrick McAuley, was the successful party on the underlying motion and sought costs fixed at $9,221.95.

The applicant, Stephanie Melanie Caresse McAuley (also referred to as Ms. Kieffer-Wolf), opposed the requested amount, arguing the fees were excessive and that the respondent acted unreasonably.

The court found the respondent's legal fees reasonable and proportional, and that his offer to settle was as favourable or more favourable than the motion's outcome.

The court also found the applicant's conduct on the motion unreasonable, particularly her insistence on a parenting schedule that did not reflect the status quo and her failure to be forthcoming about medical issues.

Costs were fixed at $8,300 in favour of the respondent, reflecting 60% of pre-offer costs and 100% of post-offer costs, plus disbursements and tax.

The applicant sought to revert to a 2016 primary residence schedule for the children after a period of hospitalization, while the respondent sought an interim interim equal timesharing arrangement and Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement.

The court found that the pre-hospitalization status quo involved a more flexible schedule with significant time spent with the father.

The court ordered an interim interim timesharing arrangement where the children are with the mother Monday to Thursday and with the father Thursday to Monday, reflecting the pre-hospitalization flexible schedule more closely than the 2016 order.

The court also ordered a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and vacated a previous temporary order.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time, including equal parenting or extended overnight access, and joint custody of their seven-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed this, seeking interim sole custody, Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement, and retroactive child support.

The court declined to make an interim sole custody order, finding the parents could communicate on important decisions.

The court granted the father extended overnight access, finding it in the child's best interests, and dismissed the mother's concerns about the father's parenting abilities and mental health.

Retroactive child support claims were dismissed, but an adjustment for 2018 child support was ordered, and the father agreed to pay his proportionate share of certain Section 7 expenses.

This decision addresses costs following a motion in a family law matter.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs, arguing success on spousal support.

The respondent contended for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the applicant successful on spousal support but noted her unreasonable conduct regarding child-related issues.

Applying the principles of costs, including reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $1,200, acknowledging her partial success while accounting for her conduct.

The Respondent moved to suspend or terminate interim spousal support, review spousal support, and change the primary residence of the youngest child for school purposes.

The Applicant cross-moved regarding the children's school and parenting schedule.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion to suspend or terminate spousal support, maintaining the existing order.

The review of spousal support was adjourned due to lack of updated financial information.

The court ordered a return to the alternating week-on week-off parenting schedule as proposed by the Applicant and directed both parties to apply for a cross-boundary transfer for the youngest child to attend Trillium Public School, aligning with the older child's school, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

Following competing interim family law motions concerning parenting arrangements, schooling, extracurricular activities, and related issues, the court determined costs.

The parties achieved mixed success on the underlying motions, though the respondent father was found to have been more successful overall.

The court considered the presumptive entitlement to costs under the Family Law Rules, the absence of an offer to settle by the applicant mother, and the conduct of both parties during the litigation.

While both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct, the court concluded that partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The father was awarded fixed costs payable by the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking primary residence of the parties’ two children, school changes, and enrollment of the son in a different hockey association.

The respondent father brought a cross‑motion seeking to maintain shared parenting arrangements, different school placements, and access orders consistent with a custody evaluation report.

The court found that both parents contributed to escalating conflict and that the mother had attempted to undermine the father’s relationship with the son, including encouraging school and extracurricular changes aligned with her new residence and partner.

Relying heavily on the custody evaluation report, the court maintained shared parenting for the daughter, ordered counselling to address the damaged father‑son relationship, and rejected the requested relocation of the son’s school and hockey program.

Multiple interim parenting directions were imposed, including restrictions on parental communications and prohibitions on criticizing the other parent in the children’s presence.