Giselia De Fatima Bettencourt

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order turning selected provisions of the respondent’s offer to settle into a court order after purporting to accept only the portions relating to property issues.

The respondent argued that the offer was a global offer and that partial acceptance constituted a counter-offer rather than a valid acceptance.

The court held that Rule 18(13)(a) of the Family Law Rules does not alter the common law principle that acceptance of an offer must be unconditional and complete.

Because the applicant attempted to accept only portions of the offer without evidence of severability, there was no valid acceptance and therefore no enforceable settlement.

The motion for judgment enforcing the purported acceptance was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking increased parenting time with the child pending trial.

The respondent mother opposed any change to the existing interim consent order, arguing the current arrangement should remain until trial.

The court considered whether a change in circumstances was required before varying the interim order and distinguished prior authority because the consent order was made on a without prejudice basis pending further order of the court.

While the court declined to alter the child’s primary residence or grant the full access sought, it held that increased contact with the father was in the child’s best interests.

The court therefore ordered additional alternating weekend access and summer parenting time pending trial.