Belinda Rossi

Following a spousal support variation proceeding, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The moving party sought substantial costs relying on an offer to settle under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, while the responding party sought partial costs based on disclosure delays and litigation conduct.

The court held that the moving party could not rely on the offer to settle because it was not properly signed under Rule 18(4) and the result obtained was not as favourable as the offer.

Considering divided success, disclosure issues, litigation conduct, and the responding party’s financial disadvantage, the court nevertheless awarded the moving party partial costs.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings and permitting the respondent to proceed with an uncontested trial, as well as a costs order of $63,032.92.

The motion judge struck the pleadings on an ex parte basis after the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with financial disclosure orders regarding bank accounts established in the children's names.

The Court of Appeal held that while striking pleadings ex parte when a party purports to comply is not endorsed, the motion judge committed no error given his familiarity with the case and the appellant's ongoing non-compliance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $15,000 awarded to the respondent.