Noel N. da Silva

Following a successful defence of a motion brought by the father seeking to prevent the mother from relocating with the children, the mother sought recovery of her legal costs.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that the successful party is entitled to costs, while considering the factors in Rule 24(11), including complexity, the parties’ conduct, and reasonableness of the fees.

Although the father’s motion was unsuccessful, the court found both parties acted in good faith and rejected the request for full recovery costs.

Applying the overarching principle of reasonableness and access to justice, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable by the father.

The moving party brought an urgent motion to change a prior consent order to prevent the primary residential parent from relocating with the parties’ children from Brampton to Barrie and sought appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The responding party had provided the 60‑day written notice of relocation required by the consent order and argued that no consent or court approval was required under its terms.

The court held that the order only required notice and imposed no geographic restriction on relocation.

On the evidentiary record, the proposed move would not materially alter the existing parenting schedule or constitute a sufficient basis for urgent relief.

The motion was dismissed, the request for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was refused, and child support was temporarily reduced to reflect increased transportation costs.