Rui Joaquim Macedo Alves

The applicant brought a motion to strike several paragraphs of the respondent's Answer in a family law proceeding, arguing they were inflammatory, pleaded evidence, or relied on surreptitiously obtained communications.

The court struck certain paragraphs referencing a notorious murder and extra-marital affairs as inflammatory or a waste of time, but upheld paragraphs relating to family violence, objectification of women, and parenting capacity as relevant to custody.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim of intrusion upon seclusion regarding text messages synced to a family iPad, finding a low expectation of privacy.

The court also granted the applicant's request to anonymize the proceeding to protect the children.

The respondent, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), brought a motion to set aside the corollary relief of a default divorce order obtained by the applicant.

The PGT argued that the respondent, who has a history of mental illness, lacked the capacity to instruct counsel or understand the implications of not responding to the original application.

The court considered the respondent's fluctuating mental health, the applicant's knowledge of her condition, and the need for procedural and substantive fairness under the Family Law Rules.

The court granted the motion to set aside the corollary relief, ordered the production of counselling records to determine the correct valuation date, but dismissed requests for a non-depletion order and an immediate increase in spousal support.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for increased retroactive and prospective spousal support, arguing the motion judge provided insufficient reasons and failed to apply the correct legal principles regarding post-separation income increases and her medical inability to work full-time.

The respondent cross-appealed the motion judge's refusal to award him costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge's reasons, while brief, were sufficient for appellate review and that there was no error in principle or material misapprehension of evidence in denying the support increase or in the exercise of discretion regarding costs.

The parties settled a motion for contempt and a cross-motion, leaving the issue of costs to be determined by the court.

Both parties sought costs of approximately $40,000.

The court found that the respondent's original motion was necessary to enforce compliance with a final order regarding travel consent and life insurance, whereas the applicant's cross-motion was unnecessary.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, noting the applicant's unreasonable behaviour, including advancing a significant bill of costs for services rendered by his fiancée, who was not his solicitor of record.

The applicant was ordered to pay $27,454 in costs.

Following the dismissal of the appellant mother's stay motion in a child protection proceeding, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the appellant's unreasonable behaviour, including her delay in perfecting the appeal and her failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer.

Applying the principles from Boucher and the factors in Family Law Rule 24(11), the court fixed the respondent's costs at $16,500 plus HST and disbursements, payable forthwith.

The mother appealed a trial decision that transferred sole custody of her two children to the father due to her relentless campaign of parental alienation.

The trial judge had severely restricted the mother's access, making it conditional on her engaging with a specified expert for counselling and assessment, and ordered a review of access after six months.

The mother also appealed a $160,000 costs award made against her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had jurisdiction to order a review, did not impermissibly delegate access determination, and properly exercised her discretion in awarding costs given the mother's bad faith conduct.

The mother appealed a motion judge's order finding her in contempt for failing to encourage the child's relationship with the father and taking active steps to discourage it.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by proceeding despite dispute resolution clauses and her request for a stay due to the father's financial non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in proceeding with the urgent matter involving high conflict and alleged parental alienation.

The Court also upheld the contempt finding, noting there was ample evidence, including the mother's own admissions, to support it.