This decision addressed an Application by a father ("Father") to relocate his child ("Child"), decision-making and parenting for the Child, and Costs. The Child's mother ("Mother") opposed the relocation Application.

The Court began by addressing several evidentiary issues. The Mother asserted that evidence provided by an appointed court expert ("Expert") should not be admitted. Justice Marion disagreed for several reasons, one being that the Expert was an independent court expert under Rule 6.40 and thus his expert reports were admissible in evidence pursuant to Rule 6.41(3)(c).

The Father sought to exclude evidence the Mother had relied on at the Hearing which was not raised until after the Father’s evidence. While Rule 5.16 prohibits reliance on records at trial not previously disclosed in accordance with the Rules, Justice Marion exercised discretion to allow the late-filed documents. Use of the records would not prejudice the Father and the Father had already had an adequate opportunity to address the issues raised in the documents.

The Father raised concerns that the Mother had used her undertaking responses provided in questioning under Rule 6.7 to enter unsworn evidence. The Court stated that records produced as part of undertaking answers should be filed as part of the transcript where they form an integral part of a substantive factual answer to the question asked. However, records that are only produced in response to an undertaking request to produce records do not need to be filed. Since the records in the Mother's undertaking responses were responsive to questions asking for documentation, they were part of the Mother's questioning transcript. This did not prejudice the Father as he could have questioned on them or raised evidentiary concerns about them, but did not.

In assessing Costs, the Court had to determine how to apportion the costs of the Expert's evidence. Under Rule 6.43, these Costs were subject to a presumption of equal sharing by the parties unless the Court ordered otherwise, in its discretion. In reviewing the relevant case law, Justice Marion listed various non-exhaustive factors for consideration.

The Court ordered equal sharing of the Expert’s report, including an update to reflect the relocation. Despite the Father being the reason for the update, the Mother was required to pay 50% of the update costs given her excessive communications and threats to the Expert. Justice Marion exercised discretion to require the Father to bear a greater proportion of the Expert’s preparation and testimony costs at Hearing since these related to his relocation.