J. Kelvin Ford

Following competing family law motions regarding property division, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and child and spousal support, the applicant mother was entirely successful in defeating the respondent father’s motion and largely successful on her own motion.

The court determined that she was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

In assessing quantum, the court considered settlement offers under Rule 18(16), the reasonableness of the parties’ litigation conduct, the moderate complexity of the issues, and the respondent’s financial circumstances.

Although the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $27,000, the court discounted the claimed legal fees by one‑third.

The respondent was ordered to pay $19,000 in all‑inclusive costs payable in instalments.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant’s pleadings due to persistent non‑compliance with court orders and disclosure obligations.

The court found the applicant had repeatedly failed to pay court‑ordered interim child and spousal support, accumulated significant arrears, and provided incomplete or late financial disclosure despite multiple orders.

The applicant also improperly cashed a registered education savings plan intended for the parties’ children and failed to fully reimburse the funds.

The court concluded that the applicant’s conduct demonstrated ongoing disregard for court orders and the integrity of the process.

As a result, the applicant’s pleadings were struck and the matter permitted to proceed as an undefended trial.

The parties separated after a 22-year marriage.

They have a 28-year-old cognitively impaired daughter who remained living with the respondent father.

The father engaged in a severe campaign of parental alienation, completely severing the daughter's relationship with the applicant mother.

The mother sought custody and access, as well as spousal support.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to make custody orders for adult disabled children.

Despite the father's alienating conduct, the court ordered that the daughter's primary residence remain with the father to respect her expressed wishes, but mandated regular access for the mother.

The court also imputed income to the father, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay $1,500 per month in retroactive and ongoing spousal support.