If the "usual rule" applies, does the Mother have to pay the costs of the other side of the trial?

As note above, counsel argues in the alternative that even if the “usual rule” applies, the Mother is not entitled to costs as she was not, in any event, substantially successful. Counsel relies on the reasoning of the court in Fotheringham v. Fotheringham, 2001 BCSC 1321, where the court sets out a four-part test in determining costs in a family trial, as follows (at para. 46): (a) First, by focusing on the "matters in dispute" at trial. These may or may not include "issues" explicitly mentioned in the pleadings. (b) Second, by assessing the weight or importance of those "matters" to the parties. (c) Third, by doing a global determination with respect to all the matters in dispute and determining which party "substantially succeeded," overall and therefore won the event. (d) Fourth, where one party "substantially succeeded," a consideration of whether there are reasons to "otherwise order" that the winning party be deprived of his or her costs and each side then bear their own costs.