assisted by S. Siddiqui

The applicant brought a motion to stay the respondent's actions and strike his pleadings due to his failure to pay over $150,000 in outstanding costs awards and a $10,000 fine.

The respondent argued he should not have to pay the applicant directly due to alleged fraud and claimed impecuniosity.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments, finding no evidence of impecuniosity and holding that allegations of fraud do not excuse non-compliance with court orders.

The court gave the respondent a final 14-day period to pay the outstanding costs and fine, failing which his pleadings in all related actions would be struck.

The case management judge issued directions regarding multiple related actions.

The court ordered the sale of two vehicles held by a bailiff, with proceeds to be paid into court.

The court also set a timetable for a motion under Rule 60.12 to determine whether the respondent should be permitted to continue participating in the proceedings due to his failure to pay previous costs awards.

Other requests for relief by the respondent were deferred pending the outcome of the Rule 60.12 motion.

The applicant sought an equalization payment, spousal support, and other relief in an undefended family law trial after the respondent's pleadings were struck for contempt due to his failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The court imputed an income of $500,000 to the respondent based on his exotic car business and ordered an equalization payment of $1,226,522.00.

The court also awarded compensatory spousal support of $5,000 per month ongoing and $308,000 in retroactive support.

The court ordered the removal of a certificate of pending litigation on the applicant's property and placed a preservation order on a property beneficially owned by the respondent but legally held by his mother.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondent's bad faith and procedural delays.