Modupe Ehinlaiye

The court determined costs following an urgent family law motion brought by the applicant.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs totalling $3,475.25, arguing the motion lacked urgency and was pursued unreasonably.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered success on the issues, proportionality, the conduct of the parties, and the applicant’s limited financial means.

The respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs, but the court reduced the requested amount.

Partial indemnity costs of $1,780.25 were awarded.

The father brought an urgent motion to vary an interim custody order granting joint custody, seeking sole custody due to allegations of the mother's alcohol relapse and concerns about the children's safety.

The mother opposed the motion and sought continuation of joint custody with primary residence, alleging the father had wrongfully withheld the children.

The court held that conflicting affidavit evidence prevented a finding of a material change in circumstances as required under the governing custody variation test.

The interim order was largely maintained pending a case conference, though the requirement for monthly hair follicle testing was removed.

The children were ordered returned to the mother and the existing parenting regime reinstated.