S. Codas

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders regarding child access, alleging the respondent father had an alcohol dependency, an addiction to pornography, and had placed her under surveillance.

The respondent sought equal parenting time, arguing his alcohol issues were under control.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the father, starting with supervised daytime visits and expanding to unsupervised overnight access, strictly conditional upon his compliance with random and scheduled alcohol testing (RAMP) and a section 30 assessment.

Following a family law motion in which the respondent’s pleadings were struck for failure to provide financial disclosure, the court determined the costs consequences.

The applicant sought $15,539 on a full recovery basis, arguing that the result exceeded her Offer to Settle.

The court held that the offer was reasonable and that the respondent’s persistent failure to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders warranted substantial indemnity costs as a sanction.

After reviewing the bill of costs and considering the complexity of the motion, counsel rates, and time spent, the court reduced certain items including travel time and some junior lawyer hours.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $10,000 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's Answer in a family law proceeding.

The custody and access issues had already been resolved, leaving only financial issues.

The husband had repeatedly failed to provide required financial disclosure, breaching multiple consent orders and the Family Law Rules over a period of more than two years.

The court found the husband's breaches to be deliberate, flagrant, and prejudicial to the wife.

Concluding that this was an exceptional case where the husband's conduct prevented the case from being dealt with justly, the court granted the motion and struck the husband's Answer.

A custody and access motion concerning two children following the parties’ separation.

The respondent sought joint custody in order to participate in decision‑making, while the applicant sought sole custody due to ongoing conflict and inability to cooperate.

The court considered the children’s views and wishes through submissions from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and assessed the parents’ ability to communicate and make joint decisions.

Finding that the parties could not cooperate sufficiently to support joint custody, the court granted sole custody to the applicant with consultation rights to the respondent.

A structured access regime was ordered, including midweek access, with the older child permitted discretion regarding time spent with the respondent.