The applicant father moved under Rule 1(8) for a punitive order based on the respondent mother's failure to pay a consent costs order arising from an earlier jurisdiction motion in a family relocation dispute.
Applying the three-step framework for Rule 1(8) relief, the court found a triggering event because the costs order remained unpaid beyond the agreed deadline, but accepted the respondent's evidence that her non-payment was caused by temporary loss of income, efforts to obtain financing, and concrete steps to satisfy the award.
The court held that the respondent's conduct was not egregious, that there was no substantial history of non-compliance with court orders, and that a daily fine would be disproportionate, particularly given the child's circumstances.
The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renewal if the costs order remained outstanding, with post-judgment interest left as the adequate present remedy.
