Robert A. Otto

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order regarding spousal and child support, and sought various adjustments to his accumulated support arrears with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

He also sought a declaration that a mortgage he granted to his parents was valid and took priority over the FRO's lien.

The court terminated spousal support and adjusted child support on consent due to the applicant mother's remarriage.

However, the court dismissed the respondent's requests to reduce his support arrears, finding he could not benefit from his deliberate failure to pay support.

The court also found the mortgage granted to the respondent's parents was a fraudulent conveyance designed to avoid his court-ordered obligations, and ordered the proceeds of the sale of his condominium to be paid to the applicant.

The respondent sought costs in the amount of $16,712.50 for motions heard on March 2, 2012, relating to child access and support.

The respondent was substantially successful on the motions, with the applicant's contempt motion and taxi expense reimbursement motion dismissed, while the respondent's motion to strike was also dismissed.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis rather than substantial indemnity, finding that while the applicant exhibited problematic litigation behaviour, this had been addressed separately through a security for costs order.

The court fixed costs at $3,500.00, payable within 30 days or at $250.00 per month commencing October 1, 2012.

The respondent mother sought an order for security for costs in the amount of $25,000 and financial disclosure from the applicant father in a family law proceeding involving custody, access, and child support of a young child.

The applicant had filed numerous motions, engaged in vexatious conduct, failed to pay previous cost awards and child support, and made threats against court officers and the Children's Lawyer's social worker.

The court found that security for costs was appropriate despite the custody context, as the applicant's claim for joint custody lacked merit given the parties' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court ordered security for costs of $25,000 if the applicant proceeded with the joint custody claim, or $10,000 if he abandoned that claim and pursued only expanded access.

The applicant brought multiple motions including one for contempt of access provisions, seeking compliance with court orders and reimbursement of taxi expenses.

The respondent brought motions for temporary child support based on imputed income, to strike the applicant's pleadings, to prohibit further motions without leave, and to change the access venue.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding legitimate reasons for missed access visits.

The court imputed income of $30,000 to the applicant for child support purposes based on inadequate financial disclosure and evidence of capacity to earn.

The court dismissed the motion to strike pleadings but prohibited the applicant from bringing further motions without leave of court, finding him close to vexatious litigant status.

The access venue was changed from Burlington to Oakville.