Moran v. Moran, 2017 NSSC 363

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Moran v. Moran , 2017 NSSC 363 Date: 2017-02-22 Docket: 1201-066155; SFH-D 080841 Registry: Halifax Between: Timothy Moran Petitioner v. Jennifer Moran Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore

Summary: Variation application resolved by consent. Costs denied where responding party was swift to respond to requests for changes to orders and moved the matter to hearing, rather than the applicant. Key words: Family, Costs Legislation: Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, Rules 77.02(1), 77.03(3) THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOESN’T FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET . SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Moran v. Moran , 2017 NSSC 363 ENDORSEMENT Timothy Moran v.

Jennifer Moran 1201-066155; SFH-D 080841 February 22, 2017 Peter Crowther on behalf of Timothy Moran Richard Bureau on behalf of Jennifer Moran Claim : Following resolution of a variation application, Mr. Moran seeks costs (including solicitor and client costs) of $13,000.00 plus disbursements of $790.27. Decision: There shall be no costs. Reasons:

1 . In October 2015, Mr. Moran applied to vary the parenting terms of the parties’ Corollary Relief Order of March 2014. He amended his application in December 2015 to seek a variation of child support. 2 . After Mr. Moran filed his variation application in October 2015, there were four separate consent orders which varied the Corollary Relief on an “interim” basis, changing the terms of custody, access and child support. These orders dated between November 2015 and January 2016. 3 . On October 21, 2015, the parties appeared in court and consented to an order that Ms. Moran would consume no alcohol. 4 .

On November 2, 2015, the parties consented to an order providing the children would be in Mr. Moran’s primary care and have supervised access with Ms. Moran. 5 . By December 17, 2015, the parties had consented to a more detailed order relating to the children’s access to Ms. Moran. 6 . In January 2016, within one month of Mr. Moran claiming child support, the parties consented to an order providing for Ms. Moran to pay child support. 7 . In January 2016, Ms. Moran consented to an order for production of police records about her. 8 .

The various interim orders, consented to by the parties, show they were quick to respond to Mr. Moran’s application. 9 . In July 2016, Ms. Moran sought to have the application scheduled for hearing. The motion was heard in late October 2016. When the motion was heard, I was told that the parties were having ongoing negotiations, issues had been narrowed and the parties might be able to resolve the application on their on. A half-day hearing was scheduled for early February 2017 and filing deadlines were fixed for December 2016 and January 2017. 10 .

The parties were sufficiently satisfied with the status of their settlement discussions that neither filed any materials for the hearing nor did they seek extensions to their filing deadlines. 11 . Civil Procedure Rule 77.03(3) provides that “Costs of a proceeding follow the result”. Costs are in my discretion. A decision not to award costs must be principled. 12 . Civil Procedure Rule 77.02(1) states that I “may, at any time, make any order about costs as [I am] satisfied will do justice between the parties.” 13 .

I have no evidentiary record upon which to assess the information contained in counsels’ submissions. Assertions about “false” and “misleading” affidavits filed by Ms. Moran and a “false” affidavit by her father, and assertions about communications between counsel are disputed. I lack the evidence to assess them. 14 . The interim variation orders demonstrate that the parties moved quickly to respond to Mr. Moran’s application to vary parenting and, then, his application to vary child support. After this initial activity, it was Ms.

Moran who sought to move the matter forward to a hearing, by filing a Motion for Directions. It was Ms. Moran who moved the matter to resolution by seeking a hearing date. 15 . From the materials filed, I cannot conclude that it was possible to resolve matters “much earlier in the process”, or that the affidavits filed by Ms. Moran and her father “forced” the application to continue. 16 . I decline to award costs. _____________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.)