M. Kowalsky

The parties reached a settlement on the second day of a family law trial, leaving the issues of costs and minor chattel disputes to the court.

The respondent sought $1,000 in damages for damaged or missing chattels, which the court largely dismissed as petty, save for $150 for a missing video game.

On costs, the court applied Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, finding the applicant unreasonably delayed accepting the respondent's reasonable settlement offer made months prior.

The respondent was awarded full recovery costs from the date of the offer, fixed at $17,500.

Following a prior finding that the respondent was in contempt of a family court order, the court considered sentencing and costs.

The respondent had wilfully breached multiple provisions of a final parenting order, including failing to return the parties’ adult but developmentally delayed child after access and attempting to involve a previously retained lawyer contrary to the order’s process.

The court emphasized deterrence and the need to uphold the authority of court orders in family proceedings.

A suspended custodial sentence, financial penalties, strict behavioural restraints, and enforcement mechanisms were imposed.

The respondent was also ordered to pay full indemnity costs.

The applicant brought motions for contempt against the respondent for failing to return their developmentally delayed daughter after an access visit and for having the daughter interviewed by a lawyer, in breach of a final order.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to appoint a representative for the daughter.

The court found the respondent deliberately and willfully breached the order, noting her history of contemptuous behaviour.

The respondent's cross-motion was dismissed as not being in the daughter's best interests.

The respondent was found in contempt, with sentencing and costs to be determined at a later date.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion in a family law proceeding alleging multiple breaches of prior court orders by the respondent mother.

The court had previously found the respondent in contempt for failing to produce counselling records, failing to comply with a parenting schedule requiring attendance at children’s baseball activities, and failing to transfer ownership of equipment as ordered.

At sentencing, the court determined that some contempt had been belatedly purged while other breaches remained incapable of remedy.

The court imposed financial penalties totalling $800 for the contempts and awarded substantial full recovery costs to the applicant due to the respondent’s bad faith delay and repeated failure to comply with disclosure obligations.

Additional costs were ordered against the respondent and partially against her counsel for adjournments and procedural delays.