Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-16-2497 Date: 2019-03-28 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Jane Elizabeth ALLISON, Applicant -and- Adrian SENN, Respondent

Before: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

Counsel: Stephen Pender, for the Applicant John E. Summers, for the Respondent

Heard: In writing

Costs Endorsement

[1] The Respondent father brought a motion for increased interim access. He also sought an order that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) be appointed to conduct an investigation and provide recommendations with respect to custody and access.

[2] I ordered an increase in access, but not on the same terms sought by the Respondent. I ordered a more gradual approach. I declined the request for the appointment of the OCL as that relief was sought too late in these proceedings. There have been two settlement conferences, and this matter should be set down for trial. The appointment of the OCL would only delay matters, and the value of such a report is doubtful given the facts of this case.

[3] The Applicant mother had her own motion regarding interim custody and interim custody on the issues of education and child care. The Respondent consented to the latter issue on the day of the motion.

[4] The Respondent father now claims success and seeks costs in the amount of $3000. He relies on his offer to settle the interim access on terms which he claims are very close to those ordered by me.

[5] The Applicant mother submits that success was divided and that no costs should be payable by either party. The Applicant mother disputes the Respondent’s claim that he obtained a better result than that contained in his Offer to Settle.

[6] The only substantive issue on this motion was the Respondent father’s request for increased access. The Applicant mother agreed to increased access, but at a slower rate. My decision was a bridge between the two positions presented to me. Little time was devoted to the appointment of the OCL. The Respondent father offered a last minute agreement to the education and child care proposals. He did not file the required Factum despite confirming that the estimated time for the motion was to be 50 minutes per counsel.

[7] In these circumstances, I agree that success was divided, and I decline to make any order as to costs.

Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin Date: March 28, 2019