Michael Murray

Following a family law decision concerning where a child would reside during the school year, the successful party sought costs.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and concluded that the respondent in the main proceeding had been substantially successful on the primary issue.

The court reviewed the parties’ settlement offers and conduct during the litigation and found neither party acted in bad faith, although one offer approached the result obtained at trial.

Considering the parties’ comparable legal fees and financial circumstances, the court determined that fairness required an award of partial costs to the successful party.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 inclusive of HST.

The applicant father brought a motion to change an existing joint custody order after relocating from Ottawa to Halifax for employment and health reasons.

He sought to have the parties' 8-year-old daughter reside with him in Halifax during the school year.

The respondent mother opposed the move, seeking to maintain the child's primary residence in Ottawa.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court found that while the father's move constituted a material change in circumstances, relocating the child to Halifax would be highly disruptive to her established routines, schooling, and relationships in Ottawa.

The court ordered that joint custody continue, with the child's primary residence remaining with the mother in Ottawa, and granted the father generous holiday parenting time.