Alyssa Weinerman

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's order requiring her to make an equalization payment to the husband.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by ordering such a payment in an uncontested trial where the respondent husband provided no financial disclosure and never requested equalization.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by ordering an equalization payment without an adequate factual basis due to the respondent's complete failure to disclose financial information.

The court emphasized the fundamental duty of financial disclosure in family law proceedings and set aside the equalization order, directing that no equalization payment was owing and the appellant was entitled to the full proceeds of the matrimonial home sale.

The applicant brought a motion to proceed to an uncontested trial and to sell the matrimonial home after the respondent failed to file an Answer for over three months.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file his responding materials.

The court dismissed the respondent's request, finding the delay inordinate and unexplained.

The court granted the applicant's motion, allowing her to proceed uncontested and ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, with net proceeds to be held in trust.

The applicant, A.B., brought a motion seeking orders for substitute service of her application materials on the respondent, C.D., by email, and for the anonymization of the names of the parties and their children in the court file.

A.B. alleged C.D. was involved in a multi-million-dollar fraud, leading to threats against her and the children, and C.D.'s whereabouts were unknown.

The court granted both requests, finding substitute service appropriate given C.D.'s evasion and anonymization necessary to protect the family from physical and psychological harm, balancing it against the open court principle.

Costs were awarded to the applicant for the substitute service portion of the motion.