Michael Weisbrot

The applicant father brought a motion for increased access to the parties' child pending the completion of a section 30 assessment.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, relying on a previous consent order that maintained the current schedule until the assessment was completed, and citing concerns about the father's past alcohol use.

The court found that while the father had addressed the alcohol concerns, a significant change to the schedule was not warranted before the assessment.

However, the court partially granted the motion by modifying the access schedule to reduce the number of transitions, which was deemed to be in the child's best interests.

The applicant mother sought costs following a successful temporary motion regarding custody, access, and child support.

The court found the mother was the successful party and had acted reasonably, while the respondent father had acted unreasonably by serving voluminous materials late and failing to accept reasonable offers to settle.

The court rejected the mother's claim for full indemnity costs, noting the Family Law Rules do not presume full recovery, and fixed costs at $7,050.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and the deposit of rental income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's willful non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, particularly in the context of strict family law financial disclosure obligations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's decision to allow the respondent to amend her application to include a claim for constructive trust, noting no prejudice to the appellant.