Digest: B.S.P. v C.M., 2018 SKQB 125

• Date: April 26, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 125

Docket Number: FLD 169/17 JCS , QB17514

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-04-26

Judges:

• Dufour

Subjects:

• Family Law � Custody and Access � Hague Convention - Costs

Digest: The petitioner applied for costs in respect of his application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to have four children returned to his home in North Dakota (see: 2017 SKQB 179). He filed an affidavit setting out his legal fees in the amount of $7,500 and travel costs in the amount of $260. The court found that both of these expenses were reasonable and that the applicant had incurred necessary expenses as defined in Article 26 of the Hague Convention in the amount of $7,420. The issue was whether the applicant should be awarded some or none of the costs. The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed because she barely had the financial capability to support herself and the one child who continued to reside with her. HELD: The application was granted. The court fixed costs in the amount of $2,000 to be paid by the respondent in monthly installments of $100. The court took into consideration that there was a presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs of a family law proceeding and one of the purposes of the Hague Convention is to deter parents from taking children out of the jurisdiction of the courts in their place of habitual residence. The applicant had been almost completely successful. However, an award of costs should not be so high as to deprive a parent of resources to care for a child at issue in the litigation. The court found it was not an appropriate case in which to award costs on a solicitor-client basis.

Statutes Considered:

• International Child Abduction Act, 1996, SS 1996, c I-10.11

Other Statutes Considered:

• Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Can. T.S. 1983, No. 35, Art. 26

Rules Considered:

• QB Rule 11-1
• QB Rule 15-25

Cases Considered:

• B.S.P. v C.M., 2017 SKQB 179, 95 RFL (7th) 345
• Hope v Gourlay, 2015 SKCA 27, 384 DLR (4th) 235, [2015] 6 WWR 317, 35 MPLR (5th) 1
• Lawrence v Lawrence, 2017 ONCJ 431, 96 RFL (7th) 456
• Solem v Solem, 2013 ONSC 4318, 33 RFL (7th) 120
• Werbicki v Werbicki, 2009 SKQB 373, 342 Sask R 140