Andrea B. Scharf

This is a costs decision arising from a motion brought by the father seeking to stay or suspend enforcement of child support provisions in a separation agreement and to have the Director of the Family Responsibility Office hold collected funds pending resolution of his application to change child support.

The mother opposed the motion and sought immediate release of held funds.

The court found divided success on the motion, with the father obtaining an order that most funds be held pending further court order, but the mother obtaining immediate release of $10,400 and ongoing support of $800 per month.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 payable in the cause, finding that neither party was more successful than the other and that the time claimed by the father was excessive relative to the issues at stake.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to stay or suspend enforcement of child support provisions in a separation agreement filed with the court, to stay enforcement of a support deduction order, and to direct the Director of the Family Responsibility Office to hold collected monies pending resolution of his application to change child support.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought immediate release of collected funds to satisfy arrears.

The central dispute concerned whether the family had continued to reside together after the separation agreement was signed in 2007, which would affect the father's support obligations.

The court found a genuine entitlement issue requiring trial and ordered a partial release of funds to the mother with the balance held pending final determination.

The respondent brought a motion to change the child support order of February 15, 2006, seeking retroactive variation to 2007 and rescission of arrears based on changed financial circumstances due to medical conditions.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to terminate the respondent's access and sought a restraining order.

The court found that the respondent established a material change in circumstances due to documented medical conditions limiting his earning capacity.

The court granted a retroactive variation of child support from 2010 onwards, fixed arrears at $10,728 payable at $100 per month, and set ongoing support at $288 per month based on anticipated 2015 income of $33,600.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to terminate access, finding insufficient evidence of material change in circumstances warranting termination.

The court declined to grant a restraining order but imposed restrictions on the respondent's contact with the applicant and child through an order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

In a family law proceeding concerning spousal support, equalization of net family property, and related relief, the applicant brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the pleadings of the primary respondent due to repeated non‑compliance with court orders and procedural rules.

The court reviewed extensive procedural history showing persistent failures to comply with disclosure orders, costs orders, and directions regarding trial management preparation.

Applying the Rule 1(8) framework, the court found multiple triggering events, declined to exercise discretion in favour of the non‑complying respondent, and concluded that continued indulgence would undermine the fair and efficient administration of justice.

The respondent’s Answer and Claim were struck and she was barred from further participation in the proceeding, while the applicant was permitted to proceed toward an uncontested trial.

Claims against the adult children respondents were unaffected as their pleadings had previously been deemed noted in default.

In a family law trial proceeding on an uncontested basis, the applicant father sought final sole custody of the parties’ young child after the respondent mother removed the child from Canada and relocated to the United States.

The child was eventually located and returned to Canada following court orders and enforcement assistance.

Evidence included an Office of the Children’s Lawyer s.112 report, testimony from CAS workers, and other witnesses regarding parenting capacity and family history.

The court found the father was presently able to provide a stable home environment while the mother had demonstrated instability and decision‑making inconsistent with the child’s best interests.

Sole custody was granted to the father with the mother limited to supervised in‑person access and structured electronic contact.