R. Switzer

The applicant sought costs of over $147,000 following a family law trial where the respondent's pleadings were struck due to his failure to provide disclosure and his egregious litigation conduct.

The court found that the applicant beat her final offer to settle, entitling her to full recovery costs from that date.

Furthermore, the court found the respondent's conduct throughout the litigation, including failing to adhere to court orders and acting to inflict financial harm, constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the applicant full recovery costs fixed at $110,000, payable forthwith from the respondent's assets.

In an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings for failure to disclose, the court imputed an income of $300,000 to the respondent based on his past earnings and unexplained luxurious lifestyle.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

Additionally, the court awarded retroactive support and an equalization payment of $717,393 to the applicant.

The court also ordered that the respondent's previous advances to the applicant be set off against his prospective periodic support obligations to secure payment, given his history of non-compliance with court orders.

At the commencement of a family law trial, the applicant moved to strike the respondent's pleadings for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure.

Despite being given a final opportunity by a previous judge to obtain his income tax returns, the respondent failed to request the necessary funds until the morning of the trial.

The court found the respondent's breaches to be intentional and wilful, and struck his pleadings pursuant to Rule 1(8)(c) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant mother sought child support from the respondent, who had donated his sperm through sexual intercourse to help her conceive.

The respondent brought a motion for a declaration of non-parentage, arguing they had a pre-conception oral agreement that he would only be a sperm donor and not a legal parent.

Although the parties signed a written contract confirming this agreement after the child's birth, it did not meet the strict requirement of section 7(4) of the amended Children's Law Reform Act, which requires a written agreement prior to conception.

However, the court utilized section 13 of the Act to grant the declaration of non-parentage, finding that the parties' clear pre-conception intention was for the respondent to be a sperm donor only, and that the child's best interests did not override this intention.