Anthony Di Battista

The appellant appealed a costs award made by an arbitrator, arguing that the arbitrator erred in law by limiting the assessment of costs to only the mediation/arbitration period, thereby excluding general steps taken in the proceedings prior to that phase.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the issue raised a question of law.

The court determined that the arbitrator misapplied Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, which, as interpreted by case law, does not prevent a decision-maker from considering costs related to general litigation steps not requiring specific judicial intervention.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the arbitrator for further consideration of costs, specifically those related to general steps and a misapprehended reserved costs order.

The applicant brought a family law motion to strike one respondent's Answer and Counterpetition based on persistent non-compliance with court orders, longstanding child support arrears, failure to pay prior costs, and incomplete financial disclosure.

The court held that striking pleadings in a family case is reserved for exceptional circumstances where no other remedy would suffice, and found that threshold met.

The responding party was given a fair opportunity to respond but failed to provide admissible evidence explaining his conduct.

The court struck the pleadings, imposed the consequences under Rule 1(8.4), and awarded the applicant $8,000 in full indemnity costs.

Following a 16‑year marriage, the applicant sought divorce, custody arrangements, sale of the matrimonial home, and equalization of property.

The respondent sought sole custody, spousal support, exclusive possession of the home, and unequal division of net family property.

The court determined the parties separated in July 2009 and ordered the sale of the heavily mortgaged matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

Joint custody of the twins was ordered with a staged parenting schedule based on a s.30 assessment under the Children’s Law Reform Act, while the eldest child could arrange her own schedule.

The court attributed income of $536,000 to the applicant for support purposes, ordered child support of $5,000 monthly (interim pending review), and spousal support of $10,016 monthly.

The respondent was also granted an unequal equalization adjustment due to dissipation of assets.