Robert D. Hammond

The respondent father moved to set aside a default final order obtained by the applicant mother, which granted her sole custody, supervised access to the father, and ordered child and spousal support.

The father argued he was unable to attend the hearing due to language barriers, delays in obtaining inter-provincial legal aid, and his assigned lawyer's non-attendance.

The court applied Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules, finding the father's reasons satisfactory.

The final order was set aside, and the issues of jurisdiction, custody, and access were adjourned for a full hearing.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim asserting a compensable interest in property owned by the defendant, the court determined the defendant’s entitlement to costs.

The defendant relied on two offers to settle, including one that remained open until trial and was more favourable than the final result, entitling her to enhanced cost recovery.

The court considered the Rules of Civil Procedure factors, the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate, and the lack of clear separation between partial and substantial indemnity claims.

Balancing these considerations, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount from what was sought.