3 total
Unreasonable conduct justified costs, but not full recovery for bad faith.
This costs endorsement followed an urgent family law motion to change concerning school placement for a child with special needs.
The court held that the mother was entirely successful on the underlying one-issue motion and that the father had taken an unreasonable position, but not one meeting the high threshold for bad faith under the Family Law Rules.
Applying the principles of success, reasonableness, proportionality, settlement encouragement, and the parties' modest financial circumstances, the court declined to order full recovery of the legal bill.
Costs were fixed at $5,300 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
Urgent motion granted allowing child to attend specialized speech program over father's objections in shared parenting dispute.
The mother brought an urgent motion to permit the parties' six-year-old child to attend a specialized speech and language program at a different school for grade one.
The father opposed the motion, arguing the child's primary issue was hearing, not speech, and that changing schools would be disruptive.
The court found the mother's proposal was logical, child-focused, and supported by professional recommendations.
The court granted the motion, noting that the father's opposition reflected an unfortunate competitiveness that undermined the spirit of their shared parenting arrangement.
The court granted leave to amend pleadings but denied a Certificate of Pending Litigation.
The defendants brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of defence to include a counterclaim and to obtain a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property.
The plaintiff opposed both requests, arguing the counterclaim lacked merit and the CPL was unwarranted.
The court granted leave to amend the pleading, finding no uncompensable prejudice to the plaintiff.
However, the court dismissed the request for a CPL, concluding that the balance of convenience did not favor its issuance, particularly given that prior cost awards against the plaintiff had been paid and other procedural tools were available to the defendants.
