M. Trenholme

Following a two‑day trial concerning custody, parenting time, and child support, the mother sought sole custody and continuation of an existing parenting schedule while the father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act and considered factors under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Evidence showed both parents had a positive relationship with the child and were able to communicate effectively about parenting decisions.

While the father sought equal parenting time, the court found the status quo arrangement provided stability and should continue.

Joint custody was ordered, the child’s primary residence remained with the mother, and the father was ordered to pay guideline child support based on imputed income.

Following a multi-day family trial addressing custody, access, equalization, child support, spousal support, retroactive support, and related financial issues, the court determined costs after written submissions.

The applicant was found to be the successful party under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the parties’ settlement offers and litigation conduct, finding the respondent’s settlement positions on child and spousal support unreasonable and noting delays in financial disclosure.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant, subject to excluding time related to a prior interim motion, and the respondent was ordered to pay fixed costs totaling $29,692.61.

Following an endorsement where both parties were successful on their respective motions regarding child access and travel to Egypt, the parties submitted costs submissions.

The court found that success was divided and ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondent to pay outstanding costs and to post security for costs pursuant to rr. 24(13), 1(8), and 14(23) of the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to order security for costs, finding insufficient basis to conclude that the proceeding was a nuisance or waste of time, despite concerns about the respondent’s ability to satisfy future costs awards.

However, the court found the respondent failed to justify non‑payment of an existing costs order in favour of the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding $1,000 costs order by a specified date, failing which his Answer would be struck and the applicant permitted to proceed by uncontested trial.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.