Susan Bruce

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The protection application was withdrawn on consent, and the court declined to order costs, highlighting the importance of good faith and proportionality in such proceedings.

The accused, C. L., was charged with sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving multiple complainants.

The Crown conceded one count, and the remaining six counts were dismissed after trial.

The court considered a similar fact evidence application, finding some evidence tainted by discussions between complainants, while other similar fact evidence was admissible.

Ultimately, due to significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainants' evidence, the court was left with a reasonable doubt on all remaining charges, leading to an acquittal.