Tanya Davies

The court determined costs following a series of motions and cross-motions regarding the father's parenting time.

The father was largely successful in increasing his parenting time, while the mother was successful on an evidentiary motion excluding surreptitious recordings.

After offsetting the costs awards for the various appearances and sanctioning both parties for unreasonable conduct and non-compliance with court orders, the mother was ordered to pay the father $9,070 in costs.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the children to Pembroke, Ontario, enrollment in in-person schooling, and primary parenting time.

The respondent mother conceded to returning to Pembroke and enrolling the children in in-person schooling.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for primary parenting time, finding insufficient evidence to justify altering the long-standing status quo of week-about shared parenting on an interim basis.

Following a successful motion by the applicant mother to temporarily relocate to New Brunswick with the child, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The mother sought $36,377.24 on a full recovery basis, while the father argued each party should bear their own costs due to his offer to settle and financial strain.

The court found the mother's legal fees excessive and disproportionate.

Considering the father's severable offer to settle made two days before the hearing, the court awarded the mother $5,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' child attend school online due to COVID-19 concerns and a finding of contempt against the father for unilaterally registering the child for in-person attendance.

The father brought a cross-motion for the child to attend in-person and take the school bus.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend school in-person and take the bus, as there was no evidence of unacceptable risk to the child or family members.

However, the court found the father breached the joint custody order by acting unilaterally and ordered him to pay the mother's costs for the contempt motion.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for a temporary order allowing her to relocate from Ottawa to New Brunswick with the parties' 8-year-old child and for sole interim custody.

The mother, who had been the child's sole caregiver since separation, sought to move to be closer to her extended family for support while working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father opposed the motion, alleging alienation.

The court applied the mobility framework and found it was in the child's best interests to permit the temporary relocation, noting the mother's historical role as primary caregiver, the father's minimal involvement, and the benefits of family support and lower COVID-19 risks in New Brunswick.

The parties separated and shared parenting of their child on a week-about basis.

The father relocated to the east end of the city and sought to enroll the child in a school near his new residence, while the mother remained in the west end and proposed a school near her home.

The court applied the principles for determining a child's choice of school, focusing on the child's best interests.

The court ordered that the child attend the school in the mother's catchment area, finding it would minimize the child's time in traffic and before/after school daycare given the parents' respective work schedules.

The moving party father brought a motion for a temporary order to increase parenting time with the parties' youngest child, to have the child in his daytime care during his parental leave, and to change the older children's school.

The responding party mother brought a cross-motion for the children to remain at their current school, for retroactive child support, and for reimbursement of expenses.

The court dismissed the father's motion regarding parenting time and daytime care, finding it was not in the youngest child's best interests to disrupt her routine.

The court ordered the older children to attend the French Catholic school they were accustomed to.

The mother's request for retroactive child support was deferred to trial, but the father was ordered to reimburse her for outstanding summer camp and daycare expenses.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant mother sought costs of $20,811.79 following a motion for temporary relief in which she was largely successful.

The respondent father argued the amount was excessive and proposed $10,000.

The court found the mother was presumptively entitled to partial indemnity costs, and full indemnity costs for parenting issues from the date of her offer to settle.

However, the court excluded costs for mandatory case conferences and a failed questioning attempt that had already been compensated.

The court agreed with the father's suggestion and fixed costs at $10,000.

The moving party father brought a motion to change to terminate child support for two adult children.

The responding party mother resided in Serbia and was personally served there, but did not respond.

The court declined to grant the final order, finding that the father failed to prove he made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain the mother's address, meaning the Hague Service Convention applied.

The father was ordered to serve the mother in accordance with the Convention.

The applicant father brought an interim motion for access to his two children, seeking a gradually increasing schedule.

The respondent mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the father's undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues, his failure to comply with a prior order to disclose psychiatric records, and the children's strong views against seeing him.

The court found that the father had not complied with the prior disclosure order and that access was not in the children's best interests at this time.

The motion was dismissed, with leave to renew upon compliance with the disclosure order.

In a family law proceeding involving the equalization of net family property, the applicant challenged the qualifications of the respondent's proposed expert witness on business valuation.

The court conducted a voir dire and applied the Mohan and White Burgess tests.

The court found that the proposed expert, an accountant without a Chartered Business Valuator designation, lacked the necessary specialized training and experience.

Furthermore, the court exercised its gatekeeping function to exclude the evidence, noting significant frailties in the expert's report, including its failure to state its purpose as a valuation, lack of a clear valuation date, and the expert's failure to sign the required acknowledgement of expert's duty.

The proposed expert's evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The parties brought competing motions regarding the selection of an assessor and the scope of a court-ordered views of the child report for their 15-year-old daughter.

The applicant father sought a more expansive hybrid assessment, while the respondent mother had inappropriately contacted her preferred nominee directly.

Given the complications, controversy, and expense generated by the initial order, the court dismissed both motions and amended its previous order to delete the requirement for a court-ordered report, leaving it to the parties to obtain one on a mutually agreeable basis if they choose.

The applicant mother brought an emergency motion to immediately implement a clinical assessor's recommendation to change the primary residence of the child.

The motion was dismissed, and the respondent father sought costs.

The court found the applicant's litigation conduct to be reprehensible, noting she escalated attacks against the respondent and filed unreliable, inflammatory affidavits.

Applying the costs consequences of Rule 18 due to the respondent's reasonable offers to settle, the court awarded the respondent costs approaching full recovery, fixed at $20,000.

Following a motion regarding spousal support where the applicant sought termination and the respondent sought an increase, the court reduced but did not terminate support.

The applicant sought costs of $8,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the Family Law Rules and the fundamental purposes of costs.

Finding that neither party was entirely successful, the court ordered no costs due to divided success.

The mother brought a motion to suspend the father's access to their child after the father was charged with assaulting the mother in the child's presence.

The father brought a cross-motion to reinstate his access, proposing to parent the child at a friend's home.

The court reviewed the history of high conflict litigation and the father's failure to exercise his previously ordered access.

Finding that the child required protection from the conflict, the court suspended the father's previous access rights and ordered supervised access at a professional centre.

In a high‑conflict parenting dispute concerning a six‑year‑old child who had lived in a shared parenting arrangement since separation, the applicant sought sole custody and reduced access while the respondent sought equal shared parenting or sole custody.

Evidence showed both parents were capable caregivers but had severe communication conflict and repeated disputes involving police and child protection authorities.

The court rejected sole custody for either parent, finding that granting exclusive decision‑making could marginalize the other parent.

Instead, the court implemented a structured parallel‑style parenting regime with equal week‑on/week‑off parenting time and divided decision‑making authority across domains.

Child support was set using the set‑off method for shared parenting and retroactive support was partially adjusted.

The applicant father brought an interim motion seeking custody, shared parenting, property equalization, spousal support terms, and various ancillary orders shortly before trial.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking interim support.

The court declined to alter the existing de facto custody arrangement with the mother, holding that credibility disputes and parenting determinations should be resolved at trial.

However, the court granted limited procedural relief including production of CAS records and increased access as proposed by the mother.

On the cross-motion, the court ordered interim spousal support and increased child support based on the father’s income and the mother’s financial hardship.