“As this trial was pursuant to the Hague Convection, the convention also has rules with respect to costs.
Article 26 of the Hague Convention provides that the court can order the person who removed or retained the child “to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the applicant [move away parent] including travel expenses, any costs incurred or payments made for locating the child, the costs of legal representation of the applicant [left behind parent], and those of returning the child”.
The court has a broad discretion pursuant to Article 26. It allows the court to order costs for the following:
-
-
-
-
- to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the applicant;
- to pay travel expenses,
- to pay any costs incurred or payments made for locating the child;
- to pay the costs of legal representation of the applicant; and,
- to pay those of returning the child.
-
-
-
Article 26 of the Hague Convention has three objectives:
a) to compensate the left behind parent for costs incurred in locating and recovering the abducted child;
b) to punish an abducting parent; and
c) to deter other parents from attempting to abduct their children.
See Beatty v. Schatz, 2009 CarswellBC 1555, 2009 BCSC 769 (CanLII), [2009] (B.S.C.), para 16.
The Hague Convention anticipates that all necessary expenses incurred to secure the child’s return will be shifted to the abductor, both to restore the father to the financial position he would have been in had there been no removal or retention, as well as to deter such conduct from happening in the first place. See Dalmasso v. Dalmasso, 9 P.3d 551 (U.S. Kan. S.C. 2000); Beatty v. Schatz, 2009, B.C.S.C., supra, para 17; Solem v. Solem, 2013 ONSC at para. 10.
Article 26 gives the Court authority to order legal costs beyond those ordinarily provided for in family law cases by the rules of court. The legal costs provided for in the rules are generally only a portion of the actual legal costs incurred: Beatty v. Schatz, 2009, B.C.S.C., supra, para 20.”