This costs endorsement arose from a child protection status review application in which a child remained in need of protection and was placed with maternal grandparents, with the remaining issue of access proceeding to trial.
After the access issue resolved on consent, the father and the maternal grandparents each sought costs against the other.
The court held that Rule 24(2) continued to apply because the access dispute remained within the child protection proceeding, notwithstanding the earlier s. 57.1 custody order.
Applying the child protection costs jurisprudence, the court found both sides acted in good faith and that neither side's conduct was so unreasonable, disproportionate, or exceptional as to justify a costs sanction between co-respondents.
Both costs claims were dismissed.
