Winifred Stow-Wilson

Following an interim parenting motion where neither party's proposed schedule was adopted, the court was required to determine costs.

The respondent sought $1,899.04 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought $4,500 on a partial indemnity basis or no costs.

The court found that success was divided, as the applicant was forced to bring the motion due to the respondent's unilateral behaviour, but the applicant's proposed schedule was rejected due to family violence concerns.

Given the divided success and the conduct of both parties, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This is a costs decision following an interim parenting order motion.

The court previously granted an interim parenting arrangement providing the applicant father with weekend and mid-week parenting time.

The respondent mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought no costs or alternatively costs in his favour.

The court found that neither party was successful on the motion, as neither proposed parenting schedule was adopted.

The court determined that success was divided due to the respondent's unreasonable and vacillating positions throughout the motion and the applicant's unsuccessful position stemming from family violence concerns involving his parents.

Accordingly, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The decision addresses an interim parenting motion involving allegations of family violence, including by the applicant’s parents against the respondent.

The court considers the impact of family violence by non-litigants and the best interests of the child, ultimately granting the applicant father parenting time every weekend and Wednesday evening.

The court condemns coercive control and family violence by extended family members and emphasizes the need for a child-focused, fact-specific approach to parenting orders.