Patricia Rodriguez-McNeill

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's Answer under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules for his failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders and child support obligations.

The respondent, who had moved to Dubai and ceased communicating with the children, did not appear or file responding materials.

The court found the outstanding disclosure was extensive and the respondent's true financial circumstances were unknown.

Applying the test from Mullin v. Sherlock, the court concluded no other remedy would suffice, struck the Answer, and permitted the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

Following a motion to change that resulted in a shared parenting schedule, the parties sought clarification on the terms of the draft order regarding child support and arrears, and made submissions on costs.

The court ordered that child support be payable by both parties rather than set off, to preserve tax benefits, and calculated childcare arrears on an after-tax basis.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, alleging bad faith and relying on offers to settle.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith, and noted the offers did not meet the strict requirements of the rules.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $37,000, payable in installments.

The applicant brought a motion to change a previous order, seeking implementation of an equal parenting schedule and a review of spousal support.

The respondent opposed, arguing the existing schedule was already equal and no material change had occurred.

The court found that the previous order explicitly contemplated a move to equal parenting time and a spousal support review, thus no material change was required.

The respondent was heavily criticized for persistent failures to provide full financial disclosure and for obstructive behavior regarding children's documents and activities.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering an alternating week equal parenting schedule, terminating spousal support, imputing income to the respondent due to disclosure failures, and adjusting child support retroactively.

The appellant appealed a trial order regarding custody, parenting time, spousal support, and equalization.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings on custody and the valuation of a shareholder loan for equalization purposes.

However, the court set aside the trial judge's award of $1 per year in spousal support, noting it was unnecessary and unrequested at trial.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of deleting the spousal support order.

Following a family law motion concerning preservation of equalization and support claims due to the applicant husband's serious illness, the court determined costs arising from several urgent motion attendances.

The respondent wife had obtained all substantive relief sought, including orders preserving assets and securing child and spousal support claims.

The court found the applicant's conduct amounted to bad faith, including concealing his medical condition and taking steps to place assets beyond the respondent’s reach.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the discretionary authority under the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that full recovery costs were justified.

After adjustments for reasonableness, the court fixed total costs payable immediately to the respondent.