D. Bernstein

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary access to the parties’ four‑year‑old child pending completion of a s. 30 parenting assessment.

The respondent mother sought supervised access relying in part on a pediatrician’s letter suggesting the child may have experienced trauma during prior visits.

The court found the purported expert opinion unreliable because it was based largely on the mother’s subjective account and incomplete information without input from the father.

Finding no credible evidence of safety concerns and noting previous orders granting unsupervised access, the court ordered a structured temporary access schedule including weekday visits and gradually expanding overnight access, while directing that questioning on affidavits be completed.

Following a motion to strike pleadings for failure to pay spousal and child support arrears, the court determined costs of the motion.

The applicant argued entitlement to full indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and alleged bad faith conduct by the respondent.

The court held that the offer to settle did not trigger mandatory full indemnity costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because the result was not as favourable as the offer.

However, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith by deliberately breaching court orders, refusing to pay support despite having the means to do so, and advancing previously decided arguments.

Pursuant to Rule 24(8), the respondent was ordered to pay full indemnity costs of the motion, reduced slightly to reflect unnecessary duplication of counsel attendance.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to pay spousal and child support arrears totaling over $140,000, as well as private school fees.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to characterize prior payments as tax-deductible spousal support.

The court applied the three-part test for striking pleadings and found the respondent in continuous breach of court orders without exceptional circumstances to excuse the default.

The court ordered the respondent's pleadings struck unless all arrears are paid within 20 days.

The court also ordered the parties to equally share ongoing private school and assessor fees, and dismissed the respondent's motion regarding tax characterization, reserving that issue for trial.

The applicant brought a motion under Rules 1(8) and 14(23) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent’s pleadings for failure to comply with interim support and school expense orders.

The respondent was in arrears but had a pending motion for leave to appeal the interim support order and intended to seek a stay.

The court found the respondent was in breach of the order and emphasized the seriousness of non‑compliance with court orders.

However, striking the pleadings would effectively render the pending leave to appeal meaningless.

In the exceptional circumstances created by the imminent leave to appeal and potential stay application, the motion to strike was adjourned pending determination of the appeal-related motions, and the request for a preservation of property order was dismissed.

Following dismissal of a motion for interim injunctive relief, the court addressed costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs and the applicant did not challenge the amounts claimed or the reasonableness of the time spent and hourly rates.

The applicant argued that costs should be in the cause, determined by the judge hearing the ultimate application, or that no costs should be ordered.

Applying Rule 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs of the motion should be fixed absent a more just order and found no basis to defer or decline a costs award.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each respondent.

The applicant sought an interim injunction and relief from forfeiture arising from the cancellation of billboard licence agreements on railway lands.

The respondents terminated the licences and demanded removal of approximately 240 billboard structures and payment of alleged rental arrears.

The court applied the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions and found that although a serious issue existed regarding the parties’ conduct and contractual interpretation, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm because any loss could be compensated by damages.

The balance of convenience did not favour either party.

Interim equitable relief was therefore inappropriate in what was fundamentally a monetary dispute.