TOOHEY & EGBERT

Toohey & Egbert involved an appeal against a family law decision regarding the custody and visitation arrangements for children. The appellant, the father, sought to challenge the trial judge's orders about where the children should live, and the time they should spend with each parent. The court of appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had properly considered the father's proposals for the children's time and communication arrangements. The appeal also encompassed a request for costs by the respondent, the mother, who argued that the father's appeal was unjustified and had caused her unnecessary expense.

The primary legal issue before the court of appeal was whether the trial judge had adequately considered the father's proposals for the children's visitation and communication schedule. The father argued that the trial judge did not give sufficient weight to his proposed alternative visitation plan. However, the court noted that no alternative substantial and significant visitation proposal was presented by the father either in his submissions or evidence at trial. Furthermore, the trial judge was aware that the father had sought a block period of time for the children, either each alternate week or a lesser period. The court found no merit in the father's ground of appeal as the trial judge had considered the father's proposals in the context of the evidence and submissions presented.

The court of appeal dismissed the father's appeal and ruled that the trial judge's orders were appropriate. Additionally, the court addressed the mother's request for costs, finding that her lack of success in defending the appeal justified an order for costs. The court held that the father's appeal was not without merit, but the mother had still been put to unwarranted expense in meeting the appeal. Consequently, the father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed on a party/party basis if the parties could not agree on the amount.