Alison L. Pengelley

The respondent brought a motion seeking relief for alleged breaches of court orders and non-compliance with disclosure rules under the Family Law Rules, and an unopposed order for non-party disclosure.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing compliance.

The court granted the unopposed non-party disclosure order for TD Waterhouse records, finding it relevant and proportional to equalization issues.

However, the court dismissed the balance of the respondent's motion, finding the additional disclosure requests excessive, unnecessary, irrelevant, and/or disproportionate, particularly those concerning the applicant's prior divorce, which were deemed a "fishing expedition." The court emphasized proportionality and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules in balancing full disclosure with efficiency.

Costs were reserved, with submissions to follow.

The applicant sought a declaration that a prior court order, which directed the respondent's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds be held in trust as security for spousal support claims, made her a secured creditor under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The court held that the prior order was merely a preservation order and did not create a secured creditor interest.

Consequently, the respondent's share of the proceeds vested in the Trustee in Bankruptcy, and a previous costs award paid to the applicant from those proceeds was set aside.

The applicant wife sought an advance of $150,000 for interim costs and disbursements under r. 24(18) of the Family Law Rules to fund a bifurcated trial regarding the validity of an amending agreement to a marriage contract.

The amending agreement, signed weeks prior to separation, left the applicant with no property or support after nine years of cohabitation.

The court found the applicant's claim to set aside the agreement meritorious and ordered the respondent husband to advance $40,000 to fund the first part of the bifurcated trial.