Robert Montague

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings for allegedly failing to answer undertakings, and the subsequent trial judgment made in his absence.

The Court of Appeal found that the order striking pleadings was made without sworn evidence and without full disclosure by the respondent's counsel regarding the appellant's efforts to answer the undertakings.

The Court set aside the order striking the pleadings and the trial judgment, noting that striking pleadings is an order of last resort.

The appellant wife appealed a child support order, seeking to increase the monthly award to reflect the respondent husband's substantial income from exercising stock options.

The trial judge had excluded the stock option income from the husband's annual income under s. 17(1)(c) of the Child Support Guidelines and awarded vacation expenses under s. 7.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in excluding the non-recurring stock option income from the annual income calculation.

However, the court found that vacation expenses could not be awarded under s. 7 as they are not extracurricular activities.

Instead, the court exercised its discretion under s. 3(2) of the Guidelines, considering the husband's increased financial ability from the stock options, and awarded an additional $1,000 per month in child support.