Tamara K. Stomp

This is a costs decision arising from a mid-trial motion in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought interim orders regarding parenting time and fall school enrolment for two children.

The applicant was successful on the school enrolment issue but the parenting time award was a compromise between the parties' positions.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, considering the applicant's success on one of two issues, the reasonableness of both parties' conduct, the disparity in incomes, and the time spent by counsel.

The respondent father, a nurse practitioner, brought an emergency motion to enforce a shared parenting order after the applicant mother unilaterally suspended his in-person access due to COVID-19 concerns.

The mother argued the father's employment and recent travel recklessly exposed the children to the virus.

The court granted the father's motion and dismissed the mother's cross-motion, finding no evidence that the father failed to adhere to appropriate safety protocols.

The court emphasized that COVID-19 and a parent's status as an essential healthcare worker must not be weaponized in parenting conflicts.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion for access to his daughter, Sophie, alleging the respondent mother was not adhering to a prior consent order for shared parenting.

The motion was brought under the COVID-19 emergency protocol, requiring a determination of urgency.

The court declined to rule on urgency immediately, instead directing a case conference to be scheduled to discuss the access issues, with a ruling on urgency to follow if the motion remained necessary after the conference.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking compliance with existing parenting orders after the applicant mother began withholding the children.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, assessed the motion's urgency.

It determined that the matter met the criteria for urgency, relating to the children's well-being and alleged wrongful retention, and allowed the motion to proceed, setting a schedule for materials and a hearing date.

The applicant father sought interim relief after the respondent mother refused to return one of the children following a weekend visit.

The court applied subsection 20(4) of the Children's Law Reform Act and held that the mother’s unilateral retention of the child constituted improper “self-help,” as the children had been residing with the father since separation.

Emphasizing the importance of stability for children and discouraging unilateral changes to residence, the court ordered the immediate restoration of the status quo pending further proceedings.

The court also criticized both parents for exposing the children to the parental conflict and rejected affidavits obtained directly from the children as having no evidentiary value.

An interim order was made requiring the child’s return to the father, setting a structured access schedule for the mother, and authorizing police enforcement under s. 36 of the Children's Law Reform Act.