S. Gordon

This decision addresses the issue of costs between parents in a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The father, J.N., sought partial indemnity costs from the mother, J.M., arguing that he was successful and that J.M. acted unreasonably and prolonged the matter.

The court reviewed the high threshold required for awarding costs between parents in protection cases, emphasizing that costs should only be awarded for extreme unreasonable conduct or bad faith.

The court found that although J.M. initially resisted conceding primary residence, she acted reasonably in later efforts to resolve the matter, and no findings of fact or breach of court orders were made against her.

The protection application was withdrawn on consent, and the court declined to order costs, highlighting the importance of good faith and proportionality in such proceedings.

This motion concerned an application by Capo Sgro LLP, former lawyers for the plaintiff Haven Property Services Corp., for a charging order over settlement proceeds to secure unpaid legal fees and disbursements.

Haven opposed the motion, arguing that Capo Sgro LLP was not instrumental in achieving the settlement and that Haven was able and willing to pay its fees, subject to a pending assessment under the Solicitors Act.

The court found that while Capo Sgro LLP's efforts were instrumental in the settlement, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Haven was unable or unwilling to pay its outstanding legal fees.

The court emphasized that non-payment alone or commencing a fee assessment does not constitute unwillingness to pay.

The motion for a charging order was dismissed, and Haven was awarded costs.

This endorsement addresses two openness applications brought by siblings under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The applications sought to formalize access between four siblings, two of whom were in extended society care and on adoption probation, and two others who were also in extended society care but not yet legally free for adoption due to an outstanding appeal.

The court outlined the statutory pathway for openness orders, particularly concerning the impact of the sequence of extended care orders on children's legal rights and access.

The applications proceeded on consent, with the potential adoptive parents agreeing to the proposed openness order.

The court found it was in the children's best interests to make the final openness order, ensuring the continuation of beneficial sibling relationships.