Michael Kenneth Harold Conroy

A costs decision following a family law trial concerning access to a two-year-old child.

The respondent was largely successful on the primary issue and made a formal Offer to Settle eight days before trial that mirrored the final judgment.

The applicant refused to settle and took an intransigent position throughout the litigation.

The court awarded costs at 50% of the respondent's claimed amount, reducing the award due to the respondent's poor conduct and behaviour in the early stages of the litigation, despite his ultimate success and the applicant's failure to negotiate.

A trial concerning access to a two-year-old child, Aleene Bradley, born in December 2016.

The applicant, Janelle Burley, sought to maintain limited access for the respondent, Christopher Bradley, with overnight visits deferred until July 2021 when the child would be approximately 4.5 years old.

The respondent sought substantially increased access, including overnight visits beginning within four months.

The court found that while Bradley had demonstrated past conduct issues including anger management problems and violence toward intimate partners, he posed no threat to the child and was a capable parent.

The court rejected Burley's restrictive access proposal and ordered a graduated access schedule beginning with weekly Saturday and Wednesday visits, progressing to overnight access by June 2020.

The court emphasized the importance of maximizing contact between the child and both parents consistent with the child's best interests.

This costs endorsement followed a temporary motion heard on August 29, 2018.

The motion addressed the respondent's request to adjust mid-week access and for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, and the applicant's issue regarding child care expenses.

The court found the applicant's refusal to accommodate access changes unreasonable, but also deemed the respondent's request for a section 30 assessment unreasonable given the recent final settlement.

The child care costs issue was resolved in the respondent's favour.

Both parties sought costs.

Considering the factors outlined in the Family Law Rules, the specific sequence of events, the parties' positions, and the outcome of the motion, the court determined that there should be no order respecting costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order regarding parenting time for their son and sought a needs assessment under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant mother opposed these requests and sought sole custody, reduced parenting time for the father, or permission to relocate to Florida.

The court granted the father's request to alter mid-week access due to a material change in his work schedule, replacing two daytime visits with a weekly overnight visit.

The request for a section 30 assessment was dismissed as the parenting regime was recently agreed upon and the situation was not materially different.

The court also clarified daycare expense sharing, finding the applicant was not entitled to a credit for the respondent's delay in applying for a subsidy, and ordered the respondent to pay a small outstanding amount.

The main proceeding was scheduled for trial.