S. Kalra

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for contempt regarding parenting time, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $13,327 on a full indemnity basis, while the respondent proposed $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, noting her success and the respondent's misguided contempt motion.

The moving party father brought a motion to find the responding party mother in contempt of a court order regarding supervised and virtual parenting time.

The father alleged the mother was alienating the children against him.

The court reviewed evidence from the children's school, doctor, and supervised access workers, which showed the children experienced severe distress and refused to engage with the father despite the mother's encouragement.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the mother had not deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the order, as she had taken all reasonable steps to facilitate the visits.

The applicant father brought a motion alleging the respondent mother breached a final parenting order and seeking make-up time and reunification therapy.

The court found the mother breached the order by withholding the child for a weekend in September based on an unreasonable interpretation of the summer schedule.

The court ordered four days of make-up time for the father but declined to order reunification therapy due to a lack of expert evidence demonstrating its benefit.

The applicant brought two motions following the respondent's failure to comply with a consent order.

The first motion sought costs for an urgent motion required to compel the respondent to transfer a vehicle, which he did on the eve of the hearing.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith and awarded full recovery costs of $4,500.

The second motion sought to strike the respondent's pleadings for failing to provide ordered financial disclosure.

The court declined to strike the pleadings as a remedy of last resort, instead setting a final deadline for compliance and awarding $3,000 in partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support, disclosure of the respondent's medical records, and a restraining order following a nine-year marriage.

The court dismissed the claim for spousal support, finding the applicant was economically self-sufficient and not disadvantaged by the marriage.

The request for 20 years of the respondent's medical records to prove he transmitted Herpes II was dismissed as overly invasive, lacking expert evidentiary foundation, and moot since the divorce claim was severed.

The request for a restraining order was also dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.