The respondent mother brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant father.
The court denied the motion for security for costs, finding that the mother had not met the onus to demonstrate that the father's claims were a waste of time or a nuisance, and that such orders are a blunt instrument to be used sparingly.
However, the court, troubled by the father's admitted non-compliance with previous temporary child support and costs orders, conditionally struck the father's child support claims pursuant to Family Law Rule 1(8).
The striking order would be stayed if the father brought himself into full compliance with all outstanding financial obligations by the next court date.
