Rachel Healey

The parties brought motions regarding parenting time for their two children.

The applicant father sought equal parenting time, while the respondent mother sought primary residence, alleging a history of emotional and verbal abuse.

A key issue was the admissibility of a surreptitious audio recording of the applicant berating the respondent.

The court admitted the recording, finding its probative value regarding the applicant's conduct and credibility outweighed the policy against secret recordings.

The court ordered that the children reside primarily with the respondent, with specified parenting time for the applicant, finding that equal parenting time was not in the children's best interests due to the applicant's anger and denigration of the respondent's family.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's order awarding sole custody of the parties' daughter to the respondent in Nova Scotia and adjusting the respondent's contribution to certain section 7 expenses.

The trial judge had heard evidence over three phases spanning more than two years.

While the respondent sought custody of both children, the trial judge found it was in the daughter's best interests to reside with the respondent in Nova Scotia, considering factors including the presence of both sets of grandparents in Nova Scotia, the daughter's wishes, the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation, and the appellant's greater engagement with the son's hockey career.

The appellant also sought to admit fresh evidence regarding post-judgment access problems and non-payment of support.

The respondent mother sought full recovery of costs totalling $130,120.03 for five court appearances in a family law matter involving parenting arrangements and access to a child.

The applicant father opposed the costs claim, arguing the amounts were excessive and disproportionate to the relatively routine issues involved.

The court awarded partial costs only for two of the five appearances: $8,000 for the ex parte motion on January 12, 2015, and $8,000 for the motion on June 24, 2015, for a total award of $16,000.

The court disallowed costs for the case conferences and the settlement conference, finding that costs had not been reserved at those proceedings and that no clear winner or loser could be determined where parties settled their disputes.

The respondent father sought costs against both the mother and her counsel, Rocco Achampong, following the stay of his Ontario Court of Justice custody application when the mother commenced divorce proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice.

The father claimed $6,135 in full indemnity costs.

The court found that while the mother was entitled to proceed in the Superior Court of Justice, her counsel's conduct in bringing a motion without notice in that court while actively corresponding with the father's counsel about an imminent motion in the Ontario Court of Justice constituted a breach of professional obligations.

The court awarded costs against the counsel personally but dismissed the claim against the mother.