The underlying Action involved a dispute between a mother and father regarding the mother's Application to relocate their two children to Munich, Germany. The mother was granted permission to relocate by the Court, in reasons reported as TL v RAC, 2024 ABKB 366 (the “Relocation Decision”). This Decision addresses Costs and parenting matters ancillary to the Relocation Decision, including summer parenting, decision-making, post-relocation parenting time, and cost apportionment related to the father’s parenting time.

In the Relocation Decision, Marion J. provided that if the parties could not agree on Costs, they could make additional Submissions on that issue. Neither party provided Costs Submissions as required by the Relocation Decision. Based on the fact neither party had sought Costs, and in view of the factors set out in Rule 10.33, Justice Marion found it appropriate to order that each party bear their own Costs.

As noted in the Relocation Decision, Marion J. was concerned about the mother’s historical approach to the father’s parenting time, and her support of the father’s relationship with the children. In light of this finding, the Court retained jurisdiction to hear future Applications for a penalty under Rule 10.49, or for a finding of contempt under Rules 10.52 and 10.53, in the event the parties did not follow Marion J.’s directions.