D.A. Jarvis

In a motion to change a final spousal support order, both parties brought competing motions seeking further financial disclosure.

The court reiterated the fundamental family law principle of full and ongoing financial disclosure and emphasized proportionality in assessing relevance.

Several disclosure requests concerning employment records, banking transactions, credit card statements, and alleged interests in assets held with a parent were considered.

The court partially granted each party’s requests, ordering additional targeted disclosure including authorizations for financial records and an affidavit regarding ownership of a cottage property, while dismissing other requests as irrelevant or disproportionate.

The applicant wife brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the respondent husband regarding their family law dispute.

Following a settlement meeting, counsel exchanged emails confirming an agreement on all issues, subject only to a formal appraisal of the matrimonial home.

After the appraisal resulted in a lower equalization payment to the husband than he anticipated, and following his subsequent loss of employment, he refused to sign the revised Minutes of Settlement.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached and that the husband's job loss did not vitiate the agreement, granting the motion to enforce the settlement.