Michael R. Nyhof

The applicant sought $25,000 in costs for temporary proceedings, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court found divided success in the interlocutory motions and unreasonable conduct by both parties, though the respondent received harsher criticism from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Considering these factors and relevant rules, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant sought to implement Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommendations for equal parenting time, while the respondent moved for interim child support.

The court addressed the applicant's motion, increasing her parenting time and ordering a week-about schedule for summer, while adjourning the respondent's motion.

The decision considered the existing status quo, the respondent's detrimental conduct in denigrating the applicant and her new partner to the children, and the appropriate weight to be given to an OCL report on an interim motion.

Conditions were imposed on both parents regarding substance use during parenting time.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking frequent overnight access to the parties' two-year-old child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and should await the completion of the Office of the Children's Lawyer report.

The court found that both parties were loving parents and that many of the mother's concerns were unwarranted or based on speculation.

The court granted the father interim overnight access every second weekend, finding that overnight visits were in the child's best interests and long overdue, pending the release of the report.

The applicant sought approval of minutes of settlement providing for joint custody and unsupervised access through a consent order submitted by basket motion.

The court refused to approve the proposed order due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the respondent qualified as a “parent” under Rule 35.1 of the Family Law Rules and because required police record checks and Children’s Aid Society reports had not been filed as required by ss. 21.1 and 21.2 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The record disclosed prior criminal and child protection concerns involving the respondent, including a sexual assault conviction and CAS involvement with another child.

The court held that adequate disclosure is required before approving consent custody orders, even where parties agree.

The motion was stayed pending the filing of further affidavits, police record checks, CAS reports, and additional explanations regarding criminal history and child protection involvement.

In a family law motion involving separated spouses with two young children, the court addressed interim issues concerning the children’s contact with farm animals, the potential sale of the matrimonial home, interim child support, and police enforcement of custody and access.

The court ordered that goats and sheep kept at the property be secured in an enclosure preventing unsupervised contact with the children and requiring adult supervision for any interaction.

The motion regarding the sale of the matrimonial home was adjourned to permit the applicant an opportunity to submit a formal purchase offer capable of completion on the same terms as a third‑party purchaser.

Pending full financial disclosure, the court ordered interim interim child support based on estimated incomes under a shared custody set‑off.

The request for interim police enforcement of custody and access was adjourned absent evidence that either party had failed to comply with the recent custody order.

A costs decision following interim custody motions in family proceedings.

The respondent to the motion sought costs after being the successful party on the substantive issue concerning a rotating 48‑hour parenting schedule.

The court found the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs but considered partial success by the other party on daycare arrangements, the absence of formal offers to settle, and unreasonable unilateral conduct relating to parenting time.

Balancing these factors, the court reduced the amount sought and ordered partial costs payable.