Jamie Ahn

The mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking massive increases to fixed section 7 expenses and table child support, as well as financial compensation for the father's alleged failure to exercise parenting time.

She also sought interim disbursements and extensive financial disclosure, including from the father's new partner and his parents.

The court dismissed nearly all of the mother's claims, finding her disclosure requests to be a fishing expedition and her financial demands unsupported by evidence.

The court found the mother had unilaterally enrolled the child in expensive activities and used child support to fund her own lifestyle.

The father's cross-motion for overpayment of child support and section 7 expenses was granted, and the parenting schedule was varied on consent.

The mother was ordered to obtain leave before bringing further motions.

The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's Answer under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to his persistent breaches of a prior consent order (the "Horkins Order") regarding child support payments and income disclosure.

The husband failed to appear at the motion or file responding materials, and had previously failed to attend a Settlement Conference and a Trial Management Conference.

The court applied a three-step analysis, finding a clear triggering event of non-compliance.

The court determined that the husband had not met the onus to show why discretion should be exercised in his favour, given his willful disobedience and abandonment of the proceedings.

Despite the general caution against striking pleadings in custody/access matters, the court found it appropriate given the husband's complete disengagement from the children's lives and the litigation.

The motion was granted, striking the husband's Answer and allowing the wife to proceed on an uncontested basis, and costs were awarded to the wife.