Joel Skapinker

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings for failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and support.

The father brought a cross-motion to vary the interim support orders and eliminate his arrears, claiming he was unemployed and could not afford to pay.

The court found the father had not met the heavy onus to show a substantial change in circumstances to vary the temporary orders.

Due to the father's egregious and ongoing failure to provide financial disclosure, the court struck his application pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, allowing him only to file a reply limited to the issue of access.

In post‑separation family litigation, the moving party sought a finding that the opposing party was in contempt of several court orders relating to disclosure and spousal support, alleging multiple grounds including failure to disclose, breach of court orders, perjury, abuse of process, and misrepresentations in financial statements.

The court reviewed the strict three‑part test for civil contempt requiring a clear order, deliberate breach, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It concluded the evidence did not establish a wilful breach of any clear order and noted that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family proceedings where alternative remedies exist under the Family Law Rules.

Allegations such as perjury, abuse of process, or non‑compliance with procedural rules were not proper grounds for contempt in this context, and the Charter did not apply to disputes between private litigants.

Additional relief mentioned only in the supporting affidavit could not be considered because it was not specified in the notice of motion.

Following a family law motion involving child support, investment accounting, and financial disclosure, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Both parties argued they were successful: the respondent emphasized obtaining retroactive child support, entitlement to the Child Tax Benefit, and accounting for investment funds, while the applicant emphasized the court’s refusal to impute the higher income alleged by the respondent.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court concluded that neither party achieved complete success and that the motion produced divided results.

In the absence of formal offers to settle and considering the mixed outcomes on the substantive issues, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking retroactive child support, imputation of income, section 7 expenses, and financial disclosure relating to investment income.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the father under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines where he had been unemployed for several years and relied partly on investment income and alleged parental gifts.

Applying the framework in Drygala v. Pauli, the court found insufficient evidence on the motion record to determine intentional underemployment or to impute significant additional income beyond acknowledged investment income.

An interim income of $29,000 was imputed pending trial, resulting in guideline child support of $423 per month for two children retroactive to November 1, 2012.

The court also ordered disclosure of investment records, repayment of withheld investment interest to the mother, contribution to section 7 expenses, and preservation of family property.