Nilufa Husein

The applicant sought costs of $15,848 following a focused trial where she successfully obtained no-contact and communication orders under the Children's Law Reform Act, though her claim for a restraining order under the Family Law Act was dismissed.

The respondent did not make costs submissions.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules, found the applicant to be the overall successful party.

Despite the applicant's offers not meeting the technical requirements for enhanced costs, and no finding of bad faith against the respondent at trial, the court awarded the applicant $4,500 in costs, finding the claimed amount excessive and disproportionate for the focused hearing, and declining to award costs for prior case management steps.

The applicant sought a restraining order under section 46 of the Family Law Act or, alternatively, orders restricting the respondent's contact and communication with her and their children under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent sought dismissal of the claims.

The court found that the respondent had perpetrated family violence against the applicant and that the applicant had a reasonable fear.

However, the court dismissed the request for a restraining order, finding that suitable protection could be achieved through orders under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act, which were granted.

These orders restrict the respondent's contact with the applicant and children to specific terms.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a final settlement in a family law matter where both the mother (applicant) and father (respondent) sought costs.

The court found the father's claims for decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and spousal support to be unrealistic and meritless, unnecessarily extending the litigation.

Despite the settlement, the court found a compelling reason to award costs to the mother due to the father's unreasonable behaviour.

The mother was deemed the successful party for costs purposes, and the father was ordered to pay $6,000 in costs.

The applicant (mother) brought a motion to strike the respondent's (father's) Answer/Claim due to his failure to pay child support as per a temporary court order.

The father sought an extension of time to comply and opposed the striking of his Answer/Claim.

The court dismissed the father's request for an extension and struck his Answer/Claim regarding financial issues, citing his abysmal payment history, unreasonable conduct, and preference of his own interests over the children's.

The court also set out the father's limited participation in the upcoming support hearing and adjourned the determination of costs for the motion to the support hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his failure to comply with five previous court orders requiring him to provide financial disclosure.

The respondent, who was self-represented, had repeatedly failed to produce necessary banking and corporate records, particularly concerning assets in the Middle East.

The court found that the respondent's non-compliance was deliberate and willful, severely prejudicing the applicant's ability to advance her claims for support and property division.

Applying the principles for striking pleadings, the court concluded that this was an extreme case warranting the drastic remedy.

The respondent's pleadings were struck, the applicant was permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with four court orders for financial disclosure.

The court reviewed the procedural history, the respondent's inconsistent financial statements, and the materiality of the undisclosed information.

While acknowledging the respondent's efforts were piecemeal and his non-compliance was not entirely wilful, the court found the undisclosed information crucial for advancing the applicant's claims.

Instead of immediately striking pleadings, the court imposed strict disclosure requirements, ordered the respondent to obtain expert valuations for his corporate interests and Iranian land, produce specific corporate and international bank documentation, and pay outstanding costs.

The respondent was also precluded from taking further steps without leave and his claims were stayed until compliance.

Following a motion where the mother successfully obtained an order conditionally striking the father's pleadings for failure to pay child support, the mother sought costs of $7,561.65.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, noting that none met the strict technical requirements of Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules because they were unsigned by the parties.

However, considering the offers under Rule 24(12), the mother's success, and the father's unreasonable conduct in failing to pay support while purchasing a $60,000 vehicle, the court awarded the mother fixed costs of $4,000.

The respondent father sought an adjournment of a scheduled one-day trial on spousal support, claiming he was unable to attend due to mental incapacity.

The applicant mother opposed the adjournment.

The father failed to appear at trial and had not contacted his counsel since January 22, 2015.

The court denied the adjournment request, finding no evidentiary basis for the claimed incapacity and noting the speculative nature of the father's counsel's arguments.

The father's spousal support claim was dismissed, the mother's custody claim was granted, and a costs order of $6,500 was imposed, to be enforced as child support.