Thomas J. MacLennan

The mother sought $7,000 in partial recovery costs after successfully resisting the father's motion for reunification therapy and achieving substantial success on her request for life insurance.

The father argued no costs should be awarded or they should be limited to $1,500, citing divided success and the mother's unreasonable conduct.

The court found the mother was the successful party but discounted her costs due to findings of poor behaviour by both parties.

The father was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the mother.

The respondent father brought a motion to compel his 15-year-old child to attend reunification therapy and sought a determination on the quantum of life insurance to secure child support.

The applicant mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) opposed the reunification therapy, citing the child's strong and consistent refusal and the potential for harm.

The court found both parents contributed to the family dysfunction, acknowledging the mother's inappropriate involvement of the child in parental conflict and the father's history of family violence.

The court dismissed the motion for reunification therapy, prioritizing the child's autonomy and well-being.

Regarding life insurance, the court ordered the father to maintain a policy of $165,950.00, securing child support and a portion of future post-secondary education costs, with annual reductions.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the 13-year-old child after the applicant mother unilaterally withheld the child following a visit.

The mother had exercised minimal parenting time over the previous six years.

The court initialized the names in the decision to protect the child's privacy.

Finding a material change in circumstances due to the mother's actions and lack of involvement, the court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and ordered the immediate return of the child with police enforcement.

The mother's parenting time was suspended pending the completion of joint family counselling.

The plaintiffs, comprising the estate of Tai-Kiu Mak and three of her sons, brought a motion for summary judgment against the fourth son, Kenny Chi-Keung Mak.

The plaintiffs sought an accounting for various assets, including a security account, term deposits, a joint account, and gold, which Kenny claimed were gifts from his mother.

Kenny asserted his mother intended to benefit him due to his lesser financial standing compared to his brothers.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the voluminous evidence (over 30 affidavits and hundreds of documents) and serious credibility issues between the parties made it impossible to reach a fair and just determination on the merits without a full trial.

The judge emphasized that such complex cases, particularly those involving family disputes and intentions of a deceased person, are unsuitable for summary judgment.