Steven Benmore

The applicant withdrew his family law application against the respondent's family members (the Gandhis) prior to trial.

The Gandhis and the respondent moved for costs of the withdrawn proceeding under Rule 12(3) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant argued that only the trial judge had jurisdiction to award costs.

The court held that a motion judge has jurisdiction to award costs when an application is withdrawn against co-parties.

Finding that the applicant had a bona fide claim but acted unreasonably by persisting with it long after receiving disclosure, the court awarded costs to the Gandhis and the respondent.

A long-running family law dispute concerned custody, mobility, and child support relating to a child whose mother sought to relocate from Ontario to Kitimat, British Columbia.

The court applied the mobility framework from Gordon v. Goertz and considered the child’s views, parental relationships, stability, educational needs, and the feasibility of maximizing contact with the non-moving parent.

Although the child expressed a preference to relocate with the mother, the court found the father’s household offered greater stability and that the move posed significant risks due to distance, logistics, and the child’s past difficulty with transitions.

The court concluded the mother had not established that relocation was in the child’s best interests and ordered that the child remain primarily with the father in Ontario.

The court also recalculated retroactive child support, finding the father had underpaid based on undisclosed income and fixing arrears accordingly.