W.H. Abbott

Following a family law motion determining which parent the parties’ child would reside with for school purposes, the successful party sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court considered the principles governing family law costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and guidance from the Court of Appeal regarding the purposes of costs.

Although the successful party sought approximately $11,920 including costs from a prior case conference, the court held that conference costs should not be included because they had not been reserved to the motions judge.

Taking into account the circumstances and submissions of both parties, the court awarded reduced costs payable from trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.

Separated parents brought competing motions seeking a determination of which parent the child should primarily reside with for purposes of school attendance.

The dispute arose in the context of a shared parenting arrangement on a rotating three‑day schedule and the impending commencement of kindergarten.

The court considered the recommendations of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and evaluated each parent’s proposed parenting plan, living arrangements, work schedules, health considerations, and the child’s stability.

Greater weight was given to the father’s ability to provide consistent school attendance, proximity to school, and flexible work hours.

The court ordered that the child primarily reside with the father during the school week, imposed restrictions on exposure to second‑hand smoke, and structured parenting time and exchanges between the parties.

Separated parents brought competing motions seeking a determination of which parent the child should primarily reside with for purposes of school attendance.

The dispute arose in the context of a shared parenting arrangement on a rotating three‑day schedule and the impending commencement of kindergarten.

The court considered the recommendations of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and evaluated each parent’s proposed parenting plan, living arrangements, work schedules, health considerations, and the child’s stability.

Greater weight was given to the father’s ability to provide consistent school attendance, proximity to school, and flexible work hours.

The court ordered that the child primarily reside with the father during the school week, imposed restrictions on exposure to second‑hand smoke, and structured parenting time and exchanges between the parties.

In a family law motion concerning parenting issues, the applicant sought a s. 30 assessment under the Children’s Law Reform Act and an order permitting questioning of the respondent.

The court approved the assessment and apportioned its anticipated cost of $6,000 according to the parties’ relative incomes, requiring the applicant to pay 80% and the respondent 20%, with any excess payable by the applicant.

The motion for questioning was dismissed because the statutory criteria under the Family Law Rules were not met and the proposed questioning would not advance the determination of the children’s best interests.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and awarded substantial costs against the applicant after considering settlement offers and litigation conduct.