A. Abramian

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with previous court orders regarding financial disclosure and support payments, and to add third parties to the proceeding.

The respondent argued that his mental health challenges prevented him from complying with the orders.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, noting inconsistencies between his claimed incapacity and his actions, such as international travel.

However, as striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court declined to strike the pleadings at this time, giving the respondent one final 30-day opportunity to comply.

The motion to add parties was adjourned.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion requesting the respondent father submit to drug testing and that his access be suspended pending a negative result, citing erratic behaviour and allegations of cocaine use.

The father denied the allegations and provided a rapid drug screen, which the mother argued was insufficient.

The court ordered the father to undergo a panel urine and hair follicle test through a certified facility to ensure reliability.

The court also ordered that the father's access continue but be strictly supervised pending negative test results, finding the concerns about drug use constituted a material change in circumstances.

The parties separated after a long marriage involving multiple relocations between Latvia and Canada.

The husband sought equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The wife argued that a marriage contract signed in Latvia excluded her property from equalization.

The court found that while a marriage contract existed, its language did not explicitly or implicitly exclude the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act.

The court valued the parties' foreign and domestic assets, ordering the wife to pay an equalization payment of $71,633.50 in installments.

The wife was granted sole custody of the youngest child, and the husband was ordered to pay $174 monthly in child support based on an imputed minimum wage income.

The moving parties brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that froze their bank accounts and required them to pay funds into court.

The court found that the responding parties failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts when obtaining the ex parte order, specifically by providing misleading evidence regarding the urgency of the matter and the connection to a related action.

The court set aside the ex parte order, granting leave to bring the motion again on proper notice.

The plaintiffs, creditors of the bankrupt defendant, brought an action to set aside the conveyances of multiple real properties as fraudulent.

The defendant had transferred the properties to related individuals and shell corporations for nominal consideration shortly after defaulting on a business loan.

The court found that the defendant engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct, including forging documents and manipulating trust declarations, to shield her assets from creditors.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the court held that the conveyances were fraudulent and void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The properties were ordered to be sold with proceeds distributed to the plaintiffs and the bankruptcy trustee.