Kimberly Wilmot

The mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to stay the father's motion to change until he satisfied over $84,000 in outstanding costs and equalization orders.

The court applied the three-stage test for Rule 1(8) and found that the father's failure to pay the orders was a triggering event, and there were no exceptional circumstances to exercise discretion in his favour.

The court held that allowing the father to proceed while in breach of the orders would condone an ongoing abuse of process.

The father's motion to change was stayed pending full payment of the outstanding orders.

The respondent husband moved for an order to have his Canadian passport and other travel documents returned, or alternatively, for a declaration that he had complied with a previous support order by serving 90 days incarceration for non-payment.

The court found the husband's financial evidence to be riddled with inconsistencies and not credible, noting a significant discrepancy between his representations to a lending institution in 2014 and his current financial statements to the court.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, concluding that his true objective was to retrieve his passport and flee the jurisdiction, which would irreparably prejudice the applicant wife's support and equalization rights.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, appealed a family law judgment granting sole custody of the parties' child to the respondent.

The appellant argued that the trial judge improperly restricted his examination of the respondent, that the Minutes of Settlement were coerced, that joint custody should have been ordered, and that the trial was improperly adjourned.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was generous and provided appropriate assistance to the self-represented appellant, the coercion issue was not before the trial judge, the record overwhelmingly supported the custody disposition, and the adjournment was a proper exercise of discretion.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the respondent.