Robie S. Loomer

Following a successful motion for child support and special expenses in a family law proceeding, the mother sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the father had refused to pay support after the child returned to reside with her and the maternal grandparents.

The father argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court rejected that submission, holding that costs should generally be fixed after each step under the Family Law Rules.

While the father’s refusal to pay support justified an award of costs, his position was not sufficiently unreasonable to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking unsupervised access to his infant son, while the respondent mother argued that supervised access should continue due to allegations of abuse, concerns about the child’s distress during visits, and fears of international abduction.

The court reviewed evidence from supervised access program notes and found the father cooperative, capable, and receptive to guidance in caring for the child.

The court found no objective evidence supporting allegations that the father posed a risk of harm or that he intended to abduct the child.

The respondent’s concerns were not supported by admissible evidence, and her conduct had contributed to the termination of supervised access services.

The court concluded that continued supervised access was not in the child’s best interests and ordered a structured transition to unsupervised access, with incremental increases in parenting time.

The father brought a motion seeking an order compelling the Attorney General to provide state-funded counsel for a child custody trial arising in the context of child protection proceedings.

Applying the test from New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), the court considered whether a refusal of counsel would infringe the applicant’s section 7 Charter rights, whether counsel was necessary for a fair hearing, whether legal aid had been refused after exhaustion of appeals, and whether the applicant lacked the financial means to retain counsel.

The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate complexity requiring counsel, had previously lost his legal aid certificate due to nondisclosure of assets, and had not provided credible evidence of financial hardship.

The court further found the applicant capable of representing himself and not an indigent litigant.

The request for state-funded counsel was dismissed.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection authority sought an interim supervision order placing the child with the mother subject to conditions and supervised access for the father.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking interim custody.

The court reviewed prior findings of significant parental conflict, allegations of violence, and a Family Court Clinic Assessment identifying personality difficulties and concerns about the father’s inability to shield the child from parental conflict.

Although concerns remained about both parents, the evidence indicated the child was presently doing well in the mother’s care and that a transfer of custody to the father posed a risk of emotional harm.

The court granted an interim supervision order placing the child with the mother under supervision and dismissed the father’s request for custody.

Following a two-day trial concerning child support in a shared parenting arrangement, the respondent sought full recovery costs of over $32,000.

The trial result imputed modest additional income to the respondent and resulted in minimal net support adjustments.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and that the applicant had advanced serious allegations without supporting evidence and had engaged in litigation misconduct by strategically listing public officials as witnesses to pressure settlement.

However, the respondent had also failed to fully comply with disclosure obligations and attempted to tender previously undisclosed documents at trial.

Treating the parties’ litigation conduct as offsetting factors, the court awarded partial recovery costs to the successful party.

In a family law motion to change child support, the applicant sought leave on the eve of trial to amend pleadings, conduct questioning of the respondent before trial, and obtain additional disclosure.

The proceeding had already been set down for trial following a settlement conference.

Applying Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted through the Family Court Rules, the court held that motions or discovery after a matter is placed on the trial list require leave and will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

The court found no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances justifying procedural discovery and concluded that the proposed amendment would significantly expand the issues and delay the trial.

Leave was refused and the motion dismissed.