C.L.P. v. J.E.P., 2015 SKQB 13

• Judge: Goebel, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 13, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKQB 13;(2015), 468 Sask.R. 9 (QB)

C.L.P. v. J.E.P. (2015), 468 Sask.R. 9 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.008

C.L.P. (petitioner) v. J.E.P. (respondent)

(2006 DIV No. 323; 2015 SKQB 13)

Indexed As: C.L.P. v. J.E.P.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Goebel, J.

January 13, 2015.

Summary:

Under a final consent order, the parties shared parenting of their youngest child on a week on/week off basis. Thirteen days after the order was granted, the father refused to return the child to the mother's house. He asserted that this was the child's choice. The mother brought an ex parte application seeking the child's return. The court directed the child's return and ordered that all other issues raised by the motion proceed in chambers two days later. On that date, the parties confirmed that the child had been returned. The mother sought solicitor and client costs, not exceeding $3,000, relating to the application.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered the father to pay $2,500 in costs to the mother.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 2189

Custody and access - Practice - Costs (incl. suit money or interim costs) - Under a final consent order, the parties shared parenting of their youngest child on a week on/week off basis - Thirteen days after the order was granted, the father refused to return the child to the mother's house - He asserted that this was the child's choice - The mother brought an ex parte application seeking the child's return - The court directed the child's return and ordered that all other issues raised by the motion proceed in chambers two days later - On that date, the parties confirmed that the child had been returned - The mother sought solicitor and client costs, not exceeding $3,000, relating to the application - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered the father to pay $2,500 in costs to the mother - This was an exceptional case where "one party to a final judgment ignored that judgment in the face of reasonable requests to adhere to same requiring the other party to bring a costly chambers motion to obtain the result that they were clearly entitled to" - A significant order for costs was warranted.

Practice - Topic 7364

Costs - Party and party costs - Costs of interlocutory proceedings - Costs of motions or applications - [See Family Law - Topic 2189 ].

Practice - Topic 7454

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to solicitor and client costs - Improper, irresponsible or unconscionable conduct - [See Family Law - Topic 2189 ].

Cases Noticed:

Johns v. Hinkson (1996), 151 Sask.R. 168 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Wiegers v. Gray (2008), 307 Sask.R. 117; 417 W.A.C. 117; 2008 SKCA 7, refd to. [para. 17].

Wiegers v. Wiegers - see Wiegers v. Gray.

Siemens et al. v. Bawolin et al., [2002] 11 W.W.R. 246; 219 Sask.R. 282; 272 W.A.C. 282; 2002 SKCA 84, refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Dennis J. Fisher, for the petitioner;

Penny-Lynn Tallis, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Goebel, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on January 13, 2015.