Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: KELLY JADE BOND, Applicant
AND:
MATTHEW RYAN BOND, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice D.A. Broad
COUNSEL:
Kristen Morris, for the Applicant
Timothy J. Bucci, for the Respondent
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1]
Overview
The parties were unable to settle the issue of costs between them and accordingly have now delivered their submissions on costs as directed in my handwritten endorsement of December 20, 2013. The following is my disposition with respect to the costs of the motion.
[2]
Background and Positions of the Parties
The respondent father brought the motion for unsupervised access to the youngest child of the marriage Kailyn, born July 2, 2012. He had been exercising access to the two older children for some time. He also sought an order that the transportation for his access visits to the children be shared. He also sought an order for police enforcement for his exercise of access.
3The applicant mother was supportive of the respondent's request for access to Kailyn but sought restrictions on the access in that it be exercised in her community of Simcoe, or alternatively at the maternal mother's home, or in the further alternative, at the applicant's home, and importantly, that the access should occur in the presence of a person familiar with the child. The applicant put forward her mother as the person to fulfill this role.
4Although the respondent was successful on the issue of whether the access must be in the presence of the maternal grandmother, his entire position with respect to the arrangements for access was not fully upheld. Moreover, his requests that the transportation for access visits to be shared and that there be police enforcement were not upheld.
5Both parties were motivated by legitimate concern for the child's best interests but took opposing views on how best to realize her best interests in relation to the initiation of access to Kailyn by the respondent.
[6]
Analysis and Disposition
Although the question of whether the maternal grandmother should be present on the access visits dominated the argument to some degree, the respondent's request for the sharing of transportation was argued at some length. In all the circumstances, including the divided result on the motion, it is appropriate that no costs be awarded for the motion. Although generally an ability or inability to pay goes to the amount of costs and not the liability for costs, I am mindful of the applicant's limited means in making this disposition.
7There shall be no order as to the costs of the motion.
D.A. Broad, J.
Date: January 23, 2014