3 total
The court ordered a father to pay $10,000 in costs as a sanction under Rule 1(8) for repeatedly and unjustifiably denying the mother's court-ordered access.
The respondent mother brought a motion pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules seeking a costs order of $10,000 against the father for repeatedly failing to comply with a court-ordered access schedule.
The father admitted to breaching the June 6, 2017 order on five specified occasions but claimed his breaches were justified.
The court found that the father's failures to obey the access order were unjustified, willful, and intentional, and that no exceptional circumstances warranted exercising discretion in his favour.
The court imposed a costs sanction of $10,000, structured to balance the competing interests of deterrence, fairness, and the child's welfare.
The court granted the mother's motion for overnight access subject to comprehensive child protection conditions.
The mother brought a motion to change her existing Monday access visits to include overnight access.
The Children's Aid Society and the father consented to the general outline of expanded access but proposed 24 conditions.
The court granted the mother's motion to change, permitting unsupervised overnight access visits each Monday from 3:20 p.m. until Tuesday at 9:00 a.m., subject to comprehensive terms and conditions addressing home maintenance, Society supervision, child safety, parental conduct, and restrictions on third-party involvement.
The court dismissed one proposed condition regarding evidence of stability without prejudice.
The court ordered expansive financial disclosure from a self-represented lawyer who repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure obligations in a child support matter.
The applicant brought a motion for financial disclosure from the respondent in a child support matter.
The respondent, a family law lawyer representing himself, had failed to comply with disclosure obligations under a prior consent order, the Family Law Rules, and the Child Support Guidelines.
The court found the respondent had not complied with his disclosure obligations, had behaved unreasonably, and had repeatedly failed to follow court orders and timelines.
The court granted an expansive disclosure order with specific deadlines and granted the applicant leave to bring a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings if he failed to comply.
