Rick Peticca

The applicant sought spousal support, a divorce, and corollary relief in an uncontested trial after the respondent's pleadings were struck for egregious non-disclosure.

The court found the applicant entitled to indefinite spousal support of $12,314.50 per month based on the respondent's imputed income.

The court also awarded retroactive spousal support back to the date of separation in 2013, citing the respondent's bad faith and attempt to conceal assets.

The respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds held in trust was ordered released to the applicant to partially satisfy the retroactive support arrears.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders for spousal support, striking the respondent's Answer, and permission to proceed to an uncontested trial with affidavit evidence.

The respondent had consistently failed to provide financial disclosure and comply with multiple court orders since the parties' separation in 2012.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, accepting the applicant's detailed evidence as fact due to the respondent's inadequate response.

The motion was allowed, with the court imputing income to the respondent for spousal support calculation and striking his Answer, allowing the applicant to proceed to an undefended trial.

The applicant brought a contempt motion to enforce a final order regarding the return of household possessions.

The applicant had hired private investigators to surreptitiously enter the respondent's home under false pretenses to take photographs and videos of the items.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, holding that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law and should not be used as a first step for enforcement.

The court also noted it would have declined to exercise its discretion to grant contempt due to the applicant's unacceptable conduct in using private investigators.

Furthermore, the court criticized the applicant's counsel for failing to comply with principles of civility and professionalism by unilaterally scheduling the motion and refusing reasonable adjournment requests.

The respondent husband was successful on a motion for disclosure against the applicant wife and sought costs of up to $11,208.57.

Neither party had delivered an offer to settle the motion itself, though both had made comprehensive offers to settle the broader issues.

The court found the wife had not acted reasonably regarding disclosure, but noted the husband's claimed hourly rates were somewhat excessive and some clerical tasks were not properly recoverable.

The court fixed costs payable by the wife to the husband at $6,000, noting a higher award would likely have been made had the husband served an offer to settle the motion.

Following a lengthy family law trial, the successful party sought over $234,000 in costs.

The court applied Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered settlement offers, trial success, litigation conduct, and the reasonableness of the bill of costs.

Although the successful party beat her offer to settle and was entitled to substantial recovery, the court reduced the claimed amount, including reducing junior counsel trial time by 50% for fairness.

The court ultimately fixed costs at $185,000 all-inclusive and ordered that the award be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office as a lump sum spousal support order due to the opposing party’s history of non‑compliance with court orders.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a prior final order seeking guideline child support from the mother based on an alleged material change in circumstances and a significant increase in the mother's income.

The court found no material change in the parenting arrangement since the 2002 order, concluding the children continued to spend approximately equal time with each parent.

The father's request for child support was therefore dismissed, and the mother's counterclaim for retroactive child support during a temporary period of reduced access was also dismissed for lack of pleadings and absence of a material change.

However, the court allowed the mother's claim in part for arrears of section 7 extraordinary expenses under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, ordering the father to pay his proportionate share for certain necessary and reasonable expenses dating back to the original order.