Shawn Campbell

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the applicant's (Wendy Crane) application.

The respondents, Lesly Metzger and Nigel Cason, sought costs.

The court fixed costs at $30,059.67 to be paid by the applicant to Mr. Cason within 30 days.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the respondents' complete success, the applicant's unreasonable conduct, and the complexity and importance of the litigation.

The applicant, Wendy Crane, sought an order declaring her mother, Lesly Metzger, incapable of managing her property and person, and appointing Ms. Crane as sole permanent guardian.

Ms. Crane also sought the removal of Nigel Cason, Mrs. Metzger's uncle, as attorney for personal care and property management.

The court found that Ms. Crane failed to provide strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect by Mr. Cason, or that his removal was in Mrs. Metzger's best interests.

The court noted Ms. Crane's untrustworthy actions, including taking her incapable mother to Seattle under false pretenses and facilitating unauthorized bank withdrawals.

The application was dismissed, and Mr. Cason's powers of attorney remained in effect.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of a loaded firearm, two counts of possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unlawful, and one count of possession of a firearm obtained by crime, following a RIDE check that revealed two loaded firearms in a vehicle.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds in a reverse onus bail hearing.

The court found that the accused had discharged his onus on both grounds and granted bail with strict conditions including house arrest, residence with his mother as surety, and a substantial pledge from a co-surety.

The applicant father sought a final or temporary order for sole custody of two young children, retroactive to April 11, 2014, when the Children's Aid Society placed them in his care following an investigation into alleged abuse by the mother.

The father also sought to restrict the mother's access.

The mother opposed the custody motion and sought to maintain joint custody pending trial, arguing she had cooperated fully with investigations and had taken steps to address concerns.

The court found that while a de facto sole custody arrangement had developed, there was insufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances to warrant changing the joint custody status quo on an interim basis.

The court dismissed the father's motion for custody but maintained primary residence with the father while preserving joint custody and ordering the parties to craft a meaningful access schedule.

Following competing family law motions addressing custody, access, assessment, and child support, the court determined the issue of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered success, proportionality, the parties’ conduct, and the limited financial means of the litigants.

The respondent had brought an earlier motion that was found not urgent and obtained no relief, entitling the applicant to costs of that motion.

For the later motions, the court found divided success between the parties and ordered each to bear their own costs.