D. Bourque

At the commencement of a continued trial on parenting time, the applicant father brought a motion to strike the respondent mother's pleadings due to her continuous and willful breach of numerous court orders.

The court found that the mother had engaged in severe parental alienation, refused to participate in court-ordered reunification therapy, and repeatedly breached supervised parenting orders, including an incident requiring police enforcement.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the mother's answer and trial affidavit.

The court ordered that the mother's parenting time be at the sole discretion of the father, finding that a step-up parenting plan was not in the child's best interests given the mother's lack of insight and ongoing alienating behaviours.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict parenting dispute over their 9-year-old child.

The court found that the respondent mother had engaged in severe parental alienation, resulting in the child having no contact with the applicant for over two years and exhibiting a resist-refuse dynamic.

Finding that the mother lacked insight and had sabotaged reunification efforts, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to reverse primary residence and award sole decision-making authority to the applicant father.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.