Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS-23-38155-000 Date: 2026-03-18 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Rexford Agamlor, Applicant And: Sarah Fosu, Respondent
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice M.D. Faieta
Counsel: Supriya Joshi, for the Applicant Julie Amourgis, for the Respondent
Heard: March 17, 2026
Endorsement
[1] The respondent mother brings this motion for an order that the applicant father's Application be struck or alternatively stayed pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 ("FLR") for failure to comply with orders for the payment of child support and costs.
Analysis
[2] Rule 1(8) of the FLR states:
If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including,
(a) an order for costs;
(a.1) an order to pay an amount to a party or into court as a penalty or fine;
(b) an order dismissing a claim;
(c) an order striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, response to motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party;
(d) an order that all or part of a document that was required to be provided but was not, may not be used in the case;
(e) if the failure to obey was by a party, an order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise;
(f) an order postponing the trial or any other step in the case; and
(g) a contempt order, if sought under rule 31. [Emphasis added].
[3] If an Application is struck, then under Rule 1(8.4) the following consequences apply unless a court orders otherwise:
The party is not entitled to any further notice of steps in the case, except as provided by subrule 25 (13) (service of order).
The party is not entitled to participate in the case in any way.
The court may deal with the case in the party's absence.
A date may be set for an uncontested trial of the case.
[4] In Van v. Palombi, 2017 ONSC 2492, at para. 30, the Ontario Divisional Court stated the following three-part test applies when deciding whether to strike a party's pleadings under Rule 1(8):
(1) Is there a triggering event justifying the striking of pleadings?;
(2) Is it appropriate to strike the pleadings in the circumstances of the case?;
(3) Are there other remedies in lieu of striking pleadings that might suffice?
[5] The parties separated following a short marriage. They are the parents of a five-year-old child who resides primarily with the respondent mother. In March 2024, the applicant was ordered to pay temporary child support of $999 per month. The only child support payments that have been made have come from FRO garnishing the applicant's income tax refunds. There is no dispute that the applicant has arrears of child support in the amount of $21,506.50 as of March 15, 2026 and that he has not paid an order for the payment of costs issued by Justice Vella on November 25, 2025 in the amount of $600, an order for the payment of costs in the amount of $7,500 issued by Justice Rhinelander on August 13, 2024, or an order for the payment of costs in the amount of $2,000 issued by Justice Nakonechny on October 24, 2025. The amounts owed under these outstanding orders amounts to $31,606.50. Accordingly, I find that there have been several triggering events that justify the striking of the application.
[6] In respect of the second part of the test, in Chiaramonte v. Chiaramonte, 2013 ONCA 641, 370 D.L.R. (4th) 328, Tulloch, J.A., as he then was, stated at para. 31:
In family law cases, pleadings should only be struck, and trial participation denied, in exceptional circumstances and where no other remedy would suffice: Purcaru v. Purcaru, 2010 ONCA 92, 75 R.F.L (6th) 33, at para. 47. The exceptional nature of this remedy is rooted in the significance of the adversarial system, as this court recognized in Purcaru, at para. 49:
The adversarial system, through cross-examination and argument, functions to safeguard against injustice. For this reason, the adversarial structure of a proceeding should be maintained whenever possible. Accordingly, the objective of a sanction ought not to be the elimination of the adversary, but rather one that will persuade the adversary to comply with the orders of the court.
[7] The applicant has worked several months each year in the oil and drilling industry in Alberta. The applicant states that his employment with a drilling company in Alberta ended in August 2023 and that he has worked sporadically since that time. There is no dispute that the applicant has recently financially supported the immigration of his brother and nephew to Canada and that the applicant travelled to Ghana after Justice Nakonechny's Order was issued.
[8] The applicant has not made a single voluntary payment of child support. He chosen to spend money on travel rather than on complying with court orders for the payment of money to the respondent. I am satisfied that it would be appropriate to strike the application in these circumstances.
[9] In respect of the third part of the test, I am mindful that the objective of a sanction ought not to be the elimination of the adversary, but rather one that will persuade the adversary to comply with the orders of the court: Purcaru v. Purcaru, 2010 ONCA 92, 265 O.A.C. 121, at para. 49.
[10] The respondent has identified various alternatives, and I find that one would suffice. Specifically, the respondent proposes that the Court may direct that this application proceed to trial but require that the outstanding orders be satisfied within a specified period of time prior to the trial date and that if those costs are paid, then the trial may proceed in the ordinary course. If they are not paid, then the Court may direct that the trial proceed on a restricted or uncontested basis.
[11] Further, pleadings should not be struck if such a remedy leaves the court with insufficient information to make parenting decisions: King v. Mongrain, 2009 ONCA 486, 252 O.A.C. 54, at para. 36; Purcaru, at paras. 48-49.
[12] Rather than strike the application immediately, the applicant shall be ordered to pay the sum of $31,606.50, plus costs of today to the respondent by June 1, 2026. If such payment is not made, the application shall be struck. A Trial Management Conference shall be held on July 3, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. A trial date, whether a date for an uncontested trial or otherwise, will be scheduled at that time. If this case proceeds to an uncontested trial, the trial judge will have the discretion to determine whether the participation of the applicant is required in respect of determining the parenting issues.
Conclusion
[13] Order to go as follows:
(a) The application shall be struck unless the applicant pays $35,106.50, which includes $3,500 in respect of costs of this motion, to the respondent by June 1, 2026;
(b) If this application is struck, the applicant is not entitled to any further notice of steps in the case, except as provided by subrule 25(13), and is not entitled to participate in the case in any way, including attending the Trial Management Conference, unless the trial judge otherwise orders.
(c) A Trial Management Conference shall be held on July 3, 2026, at 3:30 p.m., in person.
(d) This Order is effective immediately without the issuance and entry of a formal order.
Costs
[14] The respondent seeks costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $7,514.50. This amount is excessive as the materials are largely what were before Justice Nakonechny. I find that is fair and reasonable to order that the applicant pay costs of $3,500.00 within 30 days to the respondent.
The Honourable Mr. Justice M.D. Faieta
Date: March 18, 2026