Beverly Johnston

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim due to persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure, child support payments, and supervised access arrangements.

The court reviewed the respondent's history of non-compliance, including delays in providing financial statements, tax returns, business records, and medical reports, as well as arrears in child support and unpaid costs awards.

While acknowledging the respondent's significant delays, the court ultimately dismissed the motion to strike, deeming it an exceptional remedy.

Instead, the court granted alternative relief under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, imposing specific deadlines for outstanding disclosure, precluding the respondent from filing further evidence on certain items, and restricting his ability to seek further court orders until compliance.

The court emphasized the children's best interests in allowing the matter to proceed to trial.

Lily Klassen brought a motion in her family law application seeking occupation rent, consolidation of her family law proceeding with a civil action brought by Kyle's parents (Henry and Beverley Klassen) for loan repayment, striking the jury notice in the civil action, and applying the Family Law Rules to the combined case.

The court dismissed the request for occupation rent without prejudice, finding the issue better suited for trial.

However, the court granted the consolidation of the two proceedings to be tried together in Family Court, struck the jury notice in the civil action, and ordered that the Family Law Rules apply to the trial, citing the risk of inconsistent findings and the efficient use of judicial resources, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on court operations.

The Applicant mother sought costs following a successful motion where the court ordered the children to attend her proposed school.

The Respondent father opposed, arguing his school proposal was reasonable and the mother's claimed costs were excessive for a single-issue motion.

The court awarded the mother $3,000 in costs, finding her to be the successful party and her offer to settle reasonable, while noting the father's failure to respond to a draft order and assessing the proportionality of the amount claimed.

This urgent motion addressed a dispute between separated parents with joint custody regarding the school placement for their two children, Sophia (11) and Osker (almost 9), for the upcoming academic year.

Neither parent resided within the catchment area of the children's current school.

The mother proposed Sophia attend Emily Carr Middle School and Osker attend Good Shepherd Catholic School, while the father proposed both children attend Chapel Hill Catholic School.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, sided with the mother's proposal, emphasizing Sophia's anxiety and need for stability, the minimization of parental conflict through neutral pick-up/drop-off locations, and the mother's proactive role in addressing the children's special needs.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer and claim for failing to pay a prior costs award of $34,968.42, and sought security for costs.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss.

The court noted that striking pleadings in family law cases involving children should only be done in exceptional circumstances.

The court adjourned the motion to strike to allow the respondent time to pay the costs award, warning that failure to comply would result in pleadings being struck.

The request for security for costs was dismissed, but improper references to settlement offers in the respondent's affidavit were struck.

The court addressed the parties' inability to agree on an expert to prepare a Voice of the Child (VOC) Report for their 14-year-old son, Kent, as previously ordered.

After considering submissions from both the applicant mother and respondent father, the court appointed Janet Claridge, a neutral third-party expert, to prepare the VOC report.

The decision emphasized the importance of expert neutrality, rejecting candidates with prior involvement in the family's case due to potential bias.

The parties were ordered to equally share the costs of the report.