C.M.L.S. v. F.C.M.S.

C.M.L.S. v. F.C.M.S.

Although the mother succeeded on the principal parenting issue, her deliberate failure to disclose positive drug tests and her willful lies to the court warrant denial of costs; because the father's conduct also attracted criticism and several interlocutory applications were provoked by him, no separate award for those interlocutory costs is ordered; result: no order for costs to either party.

Citation
2017 BCSC 225
Parties
Claimant: C.M.L.S.; Respondent: F.C.M.S.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law Custody and Parenting / Post Trial — Costs Decision (supplementary Reasons)
Outcome
No order for costs to either party.
Legal Topics
Parenting Schedule, Costs Award, Offer to Settle, False Evidence/perjury, Child's Best Interests, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
English
Family Law Costs Evidence Parenting Schedule Costs Award Offer to Settle False Evidence/perjury Child's Best Interests +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.M.L.S.

Claimant

F.C.M.S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Custody and Parenting / Post Trial — Costs Decision (supplementary Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the successful party is entitled to costs under Rule 16-1(7)
  2. 2 Whether the mother's knowing reliance on false evidence disentitles her to costs
  3. 3 Whether the trial result exceeded the terms of the mother's offer to settle

Ratio Decidendi

Although the mother succeeded on the principal parenting issue, her deliberate failure to disclose positive drug tests and her willful lies to the court warrant denial of costs; because the father's conduct also attracted criticism and several interlocutory applications were provoked by him, no separate award for those interlocutory costs is ordered; result: no order for costs to either party.

Court Disposition

No order for costs to either party.

Orders

  • No order for costs to either party.
  • No further order respecting the costs of the interlocutory applications.