Amy A Priestley

Following a successful motion to strike the opposing party’s pleadings, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the applicant had acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The court found the conduct approached but did not cross the threshold of bad faith, particularly considering the party was self‑represented.

The court also considered the losing party’s financial circumstances and the potential impact of a large costs award on the ability to meet support obligations.

Applying principles recognizing the relevance of a party’s ability to pay, the court reduced the requested amount and ordered a modest costs award.

The court further declined to permit enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office because the motion primarily concerned issues other than child support.

The respondent brought a motion under Rules 1(8) and 14(23) of the Family Law Rules seeking to strike the applicant’s pleadings for failure to comply with prior court orders requiring payment of costs.

The applicant had repeatedly brought unsuccessful motions and was ordered to pay costs, but made no payments and continued to pursue litigation.

The court reviewed the governing three-step analysis for sanctions arising from non-compliance with court orders and held that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying relief from the consequences of non-compliance.

The court rejected arguments that the costs orders had been satisfied, that payment should await the outcome of an unjust enrichment claim, and that inability to pay excused compliance.

Given the applicant’s litigation conduct and continued non-compliance, the court struck the application and permitted the respondent to proceed on an uncontested basis.