A poster recently came onto this forum recommending that a motion to strike pleadings might be a good "push" to get things moving. I called that a "nuclear" option, and the poster (a self-described lawyer) took some issue with my phrasing.
A recently posted case:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...7onsc1679.html
The case also has the usual family fun stuff where interim child support can be decided immediately but access is something better left for trial. I would be appalled if I didn't read this regularly.
Anyhow, that wasn't the point. The point is that a motion to strike pleadings is unlikely to get far in family law, and will likely saddle you with costs. Father tried to cross motion here which cost him his costs, but otherwise he would have had them.
A recently posted case:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...7onsc1679.html
Having pleadings struck is an extreme remedy which should be “limited to serious cases of deliberate, persistent non-compliance, disregard for the court process and failure to either comply or adequately explain non-compliance”,
I should note, moreover, that where the issues of custody of and access to children are also at stake, a party’s right to participate in a hearing regarding them cannot be lightly removed.
Anyhow, that wasn't the point. The point is that a motion to strike pleadings is unlikely to get far in family law, and will likely saddle you with costs. Father tried to cross motion here which cost him his costs, but otherwise he would have had them.
Comment