Mark S. LaFrance

Following a bifurcated family law trial concerning custody, residency, and child support, the trial judge issued a decision changing the child’s primary residence from the father to the mother.

After the trial judge passed away before addressing costs, another judge was assigned to determine costs based on written submissions.

The successful parent sought substantial indemnity costs relying in part on an offer to settle that matched the trial outcome on the residential issue.

The court found that the offer justified substantial recovery costs for the portion of the litigation concerning the residence issue after the offer was served, while the remaining amounts were assessed on a partial recovery basis.

Costs were fixed at $28,983.38, including an amount attributable to support issues enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in contempt for failing to comply with interim child support, spousal support, and financial disclosure orders in a divorce proceeding.

The motions judge had ordered a warrant of committal for seven days and struck his pleadings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while payment orders cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings under the Family Law Rules, the committal was properly based on the appellant's flagrant failure to comply with production orders.

The Court also found no error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion to strike the pleadings given the history of non-compliance.