What is the effect of having to pay costs in a mobility case?

The respondent relies as well on the decision of Mr. Justice Cole in Aubin v. Aubin, 2010 BCSC 1425 [Aubin], where he ordered that the parties bear their own costs in a relocation case. There, the claimant had been largely successful at trial and obtained an order permitting to relocate with the children to Salt Lake City, Utah. In making his costs order, Mr. Justice Cole was concerned about the impact of a costs award on the ability of the respondent father to maintain a relationship with his children. Mr. Justice Cole said at paras. 8-9: Here, both the parents were good parents and had the best interests of the children at heart. In my view mobility cases are the most difficult not only for the parents but for judges to decide. Experience and common sense tells us that if a non-custodial parent cannot have frequent contact with his or her child, then that inevitably will result in the non-custodial parent not having a meaningful relationship with his or her children. Naturally, the further away the children move the more likelihood that the relationship between parent and child will not be meaningful. Consequently, we are seeing more and more mobility cases because of the fear of a non-custodial parent losing that special relationship with his or her children. In my view, non-custodial parents should not be discouraged from contesting mobility cases unless there are unusual circumstances such as the non-custodial parent does not have a meaningful relationship with the children at the time of the application. Here an order for costs in favour of the claimant would, in my view, negatively impact on the respondent’s financial ability to have regular physical access with his children. Furthermore, ordering costs would not promote cooperation between the parties and would not minimize conflict. I therefore order that each party bear their own costs.