B. Tseitlin

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with previous court orders regarding financial disclosure and support payments, and to add third parties to the proceeding.

The respondent argued that his mental health challenges prevented him from complying with the orders.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, noting inconsistencies between his claimed incapacity and his actions, such as international travel.

However, as striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court declined to strike the pleadings at this time, giving the respondent one final 30-day opportunity to comply.

The motion to add parties was adjourned.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion requesting the respondent father submit to drug testing and that his access be suspended pending a negative result, citing erratic behaviour and allegations of cocaine use.

The father denied the allegations and provided a rapid drug screen, which the mother argued was insufficient.

The court ordered the father to undergo a panel urine and hair follicle test through a certified facility to ensure reliability.

The court also ordered that the father's access continue but be strictly supervised pending negative test results, finding the concerns about drug use constituted a material change in circumstances.

This costs endorsement followed a prior family law ruling concerning support issues.

Although the underlying motion resulted in mixed success, the court found the respondent was largely successful on the principal issue relating to income determination for support purposes.

The court held that the applicant should reasonably have accepted the respondent’s offer to settle, which would have provided greater overall financial benefit and avoided further litigation costs.

Considering the Family Law Rules and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to award costs approaching substantial indemnity but reduced the amount because the respondent was not wholly successful.

Costs of $21,893.84, including partial reimbursement of an expert report, were ordered payable within 30 days.

On competing family law motions, the parties sought orders concerning income imputation, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and financial restraints.

The court considered evidence regarding the respondent’s business income, rental income, and debt levels, including an expert financial analysis report, and rejected the applicant’s argument that significant undisclosed cash income should be attributed.

The court accepted the expert analysis and imputed annual income to the respondent of $26,000 for child support purposes, while declining to impute income to the applicant due to her primary caregiving responsibilities for a child with significant developmental needs, though noting she retained some earning capacity.

Child support was fixed at the Guideline table amount based on the respondent’s income, modest spousal support was ordered, and the respondent was required to temporarily continue vehicle-related payments.

Additional orders addressed section 7 expense sharing, release of trust funds to the respondent, and a non‑dissipation order restraining the applicant from further encumbering equity in her property pending resolution of equalization.

The plaintiffs, creditors of the bankrupt defendant, brought an action to set aside the conveyances of multiple real properties as fraudulent.

The defendant had transferred the properties to related individuals and shell corporations for nominal consideration shortly after defaulting on a business loan.

The court found that the defendant engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct, including forging documents and manipulating trust declarations, to shield her assets from creditors.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the court held that the conveyances were fraudulent and void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The properties were ordered to be sold with proceeds distributed to the plaintiffs and the bankruptcy trustee.

In a family law motion, the moving party sought reinstatement of an existing parenting arrangement after the other parent unilaterally retained the child and refused to follow the court-ordered residential schedule.

Evidence indicated escalating conflict, the child’s refusal to return to the moving party’s residence, and concerning conduct by the responding parent, including hostility toward the moving party and disregard for court authority.

The court found that the responding parent’s behaviour undermined the child’s welfare and demonstrated an inability to participate in joint decision‑making.

Exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court varied the prior joint custody order to grant the moving party interim sole custody while maintaining the existing residential schedule.

The matter was urgently referred to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to investigate and provide recommendations.