Michal Harel

A costs endorsement following a successful motion by a stepmother for temporary access to a nine-year-old child.

The stepmother sought costs of $4,571 after obtaining one weekend per month access, which the parents had opposed entirely.

The court awarded costs of $2,400 total, with the father paying $1,600 and the mother paying $800, payable in monthly installments.

The decision addresses the principles governing costs awards for self-represented litigants and the application of Family Law Rules cost factors.

Biological parents appealed a child protection order making the child a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appeal alleged errors in findings of medical neglect, improper assessment of best interests under the Child and Family Services Act, and reasonable apprehension of judicial bias.

The court applied the appellate standards of review from Housen v. Nikolaisen and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s factual findings or best‑interests analysis.

Most proposed fresh evidence was rejected except updated caseworker notes relating to the child’s circumstances.

The court held the trial judge properly considered the statutory factors and the ongoing protection concerns, including medical neglect, criminal conduct, and the parents’ abduction of the child.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship order with no access was upheld.