Nathalie G. Fortier

The Respondent father successfully brought a motion to prevent the Applicant mother from moving the children outside St. Catharines.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Respondent father, finding that while the Applicant mother's resistance to deferring the interim move was ill-advised, her conduct did not rise to the level of "egregious or reprehensible" to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $1,500, considering proportionality and reasonableness, and noting that the Respondent father's offer to settle did not meet the strict requirements for full recovery costs under the Family Law Rules.

The Respondent father brought an emergency motion to prevent the Applicant mother from moving their two children (aged six and five) outside of St. Catharines, Ontario.

The mother had filed an application seeking leave to move with the children to Watertown, New York, and intended to make an interim move to Kingston, Ontario.

The court, confirming the urgency previously determined by a Triage Judge, found that while the existing custody order did not explicitly preclude the move, it would significantly impact the father's access.

The court granted the father's emergency motion, issuing a temporary order prohibiting the mother from moving the children's residence outside St. Catharines without the father's prior written consent or further court order, pending the final determination of the mobility application.

The court determined costs following a four-day family law trial concerning parenting schedules and school location for the parties' son.

Victoria (Respondent) was deemed substantially successful on the key trial issues, including the parenting schedule and the location of the child's school, despite some mixed success on specific aspects.

Applying the presumption of costs in favour of the successful party under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded Victoria $35,000 in costs, payable by Keith (Applicant) within 60 days, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness in fixing the amount.

The parties, Keith Bradley Stouffer and Elizabeth Victoria Stouffer, separated after two and a half years of marriage, with one surviving child, Myles.

The trial addressed key unresolved issues including Myles's parenting schedule, school location, and child support.

The Applicant (father) sought to maintain Myles's current school in St. Catharines and a near-equal parenting schedule.

The Respondent (mother) proposed changing Myles's school to Smithville, near her new residence, and a parenting schedule with more school-day time for her.

The court ruled in favor of the Respondent, permitting Myles to attend school in Smithville from September 2019, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

A new four-week revolving parenting schedule was adopted, which reduced the father's parenting time but was deemed consistent with the maximum contact principle.

Child support was ordered from the father to the mother based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, with section 7 expenses shared equally, considering the mother's upcoming maternity leave.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful summary judgment motion in a family law proceeding.

The court applied Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, as articulated in Beaver v. Hill.

It considered the conduct of both parties, including the applicant's drug relapse, departure from the province, and non-cooperation with disclosure, as well as the respondent's impaired driving conviction which prolonged litigation.

The court awarded the respondent $18,000 in all-inclusive costs, with $3,000 designated as enforceable child support.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the two children and child support.

The applicant father, who had a history of substance abuse and had recently relapsed, also sought sole custody.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the father had not seen the children in over a year, failed to exercise previously ordered supervised access, and provided insufficient evidence of drug treatment.

Summary judgment was granted, awarding sole custody to the mother, supervised access to the father, and ordering the father to pay child support.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region sought to continue a temporary care and custody order for the child L.H. due to ongoing concerns regarding parental drug abuse, the mother's untreated mental health issues, and inadequate care.

The respondent parents opposed this, requesting the child be placed in the father's care subject to Society supervision.

The court found compelling evidence of drug abuse by both parents, the father's interference with the mother's mental health treatment, and a lack of full disclosure by the parents regarding their living situation.

Applying the two-part test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court concluded that the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The Society's motion was granted, continuing the temporary care and custody order.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order for custody of the parties' two children, proposing limited access for the respondent father.

The mother raised concerns regarding the father's mental health and parenting style.

The court found the father's mental health was well-managed and the mother's parenting concerns were minor.

The court ordered a temporary parenting schedule that provided the father with significant overnight parenting time, noting that it was in the children's best interests to maximize time with both parents.

The Children's Aid Society moved for temporary care and custody of a newborn child pending its appeal of a motion judge's order that placed the child with the parents under supervision.

The Society argued the motion judge erred by omitting a statement of the plans of care and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the mother's mental health and the paternal grandfather's history of allowing a sex offender to reside in his home.

Applying a modified test for a stay pending appeal, the court found a serious issue to be tried based on the fresh evidence and concluded that the risk of irreparable harm to the child outweighed the harm of temporary separation from the parents.

The motion was granted, and the child was placed in the Society's care pending the appeal.

The respondent, having successfully stayed a custody application due to lack of jurisdiction and secured the child's return, sought costs.

The applicant opposed, citing inability to pay and challenging the Family Responsibility Office's enforcement jurisdiction.

The court denied FRO enforcement for custody-related costs but awarded $100,000 in costs to the respondent, citing the applicant's egregious conduct, bad faith, and unreasonableness, and the importance of the issues, while considering the applicant's ability to pay.