Ritika Kumar

The father brought a motion for the reinstatement of parenting time, which the mother had unilaterally suspended.

The mother also filed affidavits from the children, which were later withdrawn.

The court found that the mother's unilateral suspension of the court-ordered parenting schedule was unacceptable and that any changes to a court order must be sought through a formal Motion to Change.

The court ordered the immediate reinstatement of the parenting schedule from a 2013 order and dismissed the father's request for make-up time.

The mother was ordered to pay costs to the father due to her unreasonable conduct, including her failure to follow a court order and the improper filing of children's affidavits.

This is a costs decision following a trial regarding parental access to a child.

The respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $8,976.38 after obtaining unsupervised access and increased holiday access contrary to the applicant's position.

The court considered the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, but balanced this against the applicant's limited financial circumstances and the impact on the child's welfare.

The court found the applicant's litigation position was not taken in bad faith, though it was not supported by the facts.

The court awarded reduced costs of $4,500.00, structured as a deferred credit to be applied toward future section 7 expenses for the child.