Tanya Parker Wallace

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an interim order regarding child access and spousal support.

The applicant mother sought $5,000 in costs, arguing substantial success on spousal support and parenting arrangements.

The respondent father argued for no costs or a reduced amount, citing mixed success and the mother's alleged unreasonableness.

Applying Family Law Rule 24, the court found the mother successful on spousal support and that the parenting outcome was more aligned with her proposal.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother $2,500 in costs.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions for interim parenting orders and spousal support.

The father sought joint custody and equal time, while the mother sought a specific parenting schedule and $2,000 monthly spousal support.

The court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interests given his sensitivity to change.

The court also found the mother entitled to interim spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, awarding her $2,000 per month, recognizing the relationship as one of "some permanence" under the Family Law Act despite its short duration.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to find the applicant mother in contempt of a final order regarding a parenting schedule.

The father alleged the mother failed to revert to the original two-week rotation after a temporary four-week schedule, which he claimed was time-limited.

The court found no evidence that the agreed-upon change to the four-week rotation was time-limited and determined that once a change is agreed, it remains in effect until a further agreement or court order.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The court also provided guidance on parental cooperation regarding children's activities, emphasizing joint decision-making and ensuring children's attendance at activities.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of her three special needs children and permission to relocate them from Ottawa to London, Ontario.

The Children's Aid Society and the father opposed the motion, arguing that there had been no material change in circumstances since a previous order placed the children in the father's care.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that she failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances requiring an interim change in the children's placement.

Many of the allegations raised by the mother were found to have been previously considered.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of a father's motion for summary judgment and a change in parenting arrangements, where the court ordered him to pay child support.

The respondent mother was deemed the successful party on the major issues of joint custody and parenting, and secured a higher child support amount than she had offered.

However, the applicant father succeeded on a minor issue regarding the reimbursement of Dr. Smyth's report costs.

Applying Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' conduct, counsel's rates, time spent, and the father's financial capacity.

The court awarded the mother $4,000 in costs, noting that her legal aid status does not diminish the costs award.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding custody and access, or alternatively, for an interim order granting him sole custody based on a custody assessment.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she did not accept the offer and that the status quo of shared parenting should remain pending trial.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding the mother's response was a counter-offer and there was no meeting of the minds.

The court also dismissed the request to change the interim parenting arrangement, finding no exceptional circumstances to alter the status quo.

The father was ordered to pay set-off child support of $809 per month, and the mother was ordered to pay half the cost of the custody assessment.

After the parties settled all substantive family law issues by Minutes of Settlement, the court was required to determine entitlement to and quantum of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that where litigation resolves by settlement, the “divided success” approach is generally appropriate rather than a strict winner‑loser analysis.

Reviewing the pleadings, offers to settle, and final settlement terms, the court found divided success on most issues but concluded the applicant was more successful regarding the central property dispute involving the matrimonial home.

The court also found the respondent’s delays in disclosure and negotiations contributed to prolonging the litigation.

Partial costs of $17,500 were awarded to the applicant.