Sheila L. Bruce

This case involved a bifurcated, high-conflict six-day trial concerning the custody and access of three children.

The applicant mother and respondent father each claimed custody, with the children having resided with the mother since separation in 2012.

The primary dispute revolved around the re-establishment of the children's relationship with the father, with the mother proposing preconditions for reunification therapy (e.g., father undertaking anger management) and the father advocating for unconditional reunification therapy, aligning with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court ordered reunification therapy for the two younger children, rejecting the mother's preconditions and establishing a detailed framework for the therapy process, including therapist selection, shared payment, and the therapist's authority over access timelines.

The children were to continue residing with the mother, and no immediate access order was made, pending the therapist's recommendations.

Following a six-day family law trial where the applicant was largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant had submitted two offers to settle and achieved a trial result greater than proposed in her offers.

The court found the respondent's conduct during the proceedings to be unreasonable, noting his failure to abide by pre-trial orders and his presentation of unreliable evidence.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs up to the date of her first offer and full recovery of fees thereafter, totaling $65,881.35, to be partially satisfied from trust funds.

This ruling addresses costs following a four-day trial in a family law matter.

The mother sought costs and pre-judgment interest, while the father claimed to be the more successful party.

The court found the mother was overall more successful, particularly on child support income and property issues.

The father's conduct was deemed unreasonable, including lack of credibility, failure to provide disclosure, dishonest reporting, and disobeying a court order.

Applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, the court awarded the mother $30,000 in fees and $2,000 in disbursements.

Pre-judgment interest of $2,500 was also awarded, considering the father's unreasonable conduct and retention of properties.

The final award was $34,500 plus HST, with a portion enforceable as a support order.

The unmarried parties, who cohabited and had two children, disputed the division of family realty and other issues after agreeing on custody and spousal support.

The court applied the joint family venture concept from Kerr v. Baranow to assess contributions to accumulated wealth, primarily two properties registered in the applicant father's name.

The court found the father's credibility lacking regarding financial contributions and income reporting.

A monetary award was deemed appropriate, with the mother receiving a 35% share of the net equity, adjusted for advances and a promissory note.

The court also determined child support arrears, ongoing child support, special expenses, and specific parenting schedule details for holidays and transfers.

The father sought leave to appeal a decision that dismissed his motion to change an access schedule and granted temporary sole custody to the mother.

The original decision required a "material change in circumstances" to vary a "temporary, without prejudice" consent order.

The court granted leave to appeal on the access issue, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of applying the material change test to such orders, and that this issue was of public importance due to conflicting judicial opinions.

Leave to appeal on the custody issue was denied as it was fact-specific and did not raise questions of public importance.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.