Following a mid-trial settlement of a protracted custody and access dispute, the applicant and respondent each sought costs of $15,000 against the other, and the applicant also sought costs against the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).
The court dismissed all claims for costs.
The court found that the applicant's unreasonable pursuit of primary residence for three years rebutted the presumption of costs in his favour, while the respondent acted unreasonably by proceeding to trial instead of settling based on her long-held position.
The court also declined to award costs against the OCL, finding no bad faith or patently unreasonable conduct that would justify such an exceptional order.
