Helen Anthony Fernandes

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a final family law order, seeking to set aside prior support-related endorsements, terminate spousal support retroactively, rescind support arrears, and direct the Family Responsibility Office to cease enforcement.

The wife cross-moved to consolidate a related civil action with the family proceedings and to require the husband to post security for costs.

The court found that the husband's discharge from bankruptcy extinguished the equalization payment and pre-bankruptcy cost awards but not the spousal support obligation.

Having regard to the husband's persistent non-compliance with court orders, his failure to provide required disclosure, and his pattern of delay and obstruction, the court dismissed the husband's motion to change support-related relief, consolidated the civil action, and ordered the husband to post $10,000 security for costs.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a purported full and final settlement, which had been incorporated into a consent order, concerning spousal support, equalization, and the return of a vehicle.

The respondent opposed the proposed distribution of funds and sought transfer of the vehicle to her.

The court dismissed the motion to enforce, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

Key issues included whether all essential terms were agreed upon (specifically regarding the vehicle) and whether the settlement was a result of unilateral or mutual mistake, particularly concerning a significant unilateral withdrawal from a joint line of credit by the applicant.

The court emphasized that the failure of parties to define the basis for relief requested was a sufficient ground for dismissal.

The father moved to vary child support orders and for the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The mother brought a cross-motion to strike the father's pleadings due to his failure to pay outstanding costs orders and significant child support arrears.

The court found the father lacked credibility regarding his financial affairs, citing inconsistent income declarations and social media postings.

Applying the three-pronged test for striking pleadings, the court found a triggering event in the father's wilful non-compliance.

As a remedy, the court granted the OCL appointment and ordered the father to pay all outstanding costs and arrears by a specific date.

If he complied, he could renew his motion to vary support; otherwise, his pleadings on non-parenting issues would be struck, allowing the mother to proceed with an uncontested trial on those matters.