Michael George Cochrane

The applicant father sought shared parenting time with his four-year-old daughter after separating from the respondent mother.

The mother resisted, citing concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and proposing a phased-in contact schedule with initial visits in the matrimonial home and a 14-day self-isolation period for the father.

The court granted the applicant's request for a shared and equal parenting plan, finding the mother's COVID-19 concerns unsubstantiated and not in the child's best interests, especially given her own conduct regarding safety protocols.

The court also waived the case conference requirement due to the urgency of establishing in-person parenting time.

The appellant law firm charged a "results achieved fee" in a family law matter in addition to hourly rates and daily counsel fees.

The respondent client was awarded sole custody of his child, half the proceeds of the matrimonial home, and costs.

The law firm unilaterally deducted the results achieved fee from trust funds.

The respondent objected, and the application judge found the fee constituted a prohibited contingency fee agreement under the Solicitors Act.

The law firm appealed, arguing the fee was a permissible bonus because the client remained liable for fees regardless of outcome and the fee was tied to success at trial rather than a specific monetary result.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that any part of a lawyer's compensation dependent on successful disposition of a matter constitutes a contingency fee agreement prohibited in family law matters.

Following a successful motion setting aside an ex parte custody order, the applicant sought costs totalling $46,772.33.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including success, complexity, reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, proportionality, and expectations of the parties.

The court found the respondent had acted in bad faith by misleading the court in obtaining the earlier ex parte order, including failing to disclose prior custody proceedings and a pending criminal assault charge, and by mischaracterizing the applicant’s mental health and circumstances.

The court also held that costs associated with a mandatory case conference preceding the motion could properly be included in the motion’s costs.

Given the respondent’s bad faith and the applicant’s complete success, the court ordered full indemnity costs.