David Pomer

The applicant moved for an order compelling the respondent to provide financial disclosure.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that the parties' last common habitual residence was the United Arab Emirates, arguing that UAE law does not provide for equalization of net family properties and therefore the requested disclosure was irrelevant.

The court declined to determine the issue of common habitual residence on an interlocutory motion due to conflicting affidavit evidence, finding that a trial was necessary.

Both parties were ordered to provide specific items of financial disclosure.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of over $1 million for unpaid fuel deliveries.

The court set aside the judgment against one personal defendant because it was irregularly obtained during the COVID-19 suspension of procedural time limits.

The court also set aside the judgment against the second personal defendant, finding she raised an arguable defence regarding her personal liability under the credit agreement, on the condition she pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away.

The motion to set aside the judgment against the corporate defendant was dismissed as no arguable defence was raised.

The applicants sought court approval for the sale of two properties pursuant to a previous order under the Partition Act.

The court approved the sale of the first property to an arm's length purchaser for $550,000.

For the second property, the court approved a sale to a non-arm's length purchaser for $825,000, which was higher than a competing arm's length offer, subject to the arm's length purchaser's right to match the higher price within five days.

On a motion concerning parenting time for a young child following separation, the court was required to establish an interim access regime pending further proceedings.

Both parents sought differing schedules for the father’s parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act and considering the principle of maximum contact consistent with the child’s interests, the court structured a detailed schedule including alternate weekend access and midweek evening access for the father.

The court also imposed strict transportation and communication protocols to minimize parental conflict.

Costs were reserved due to mixed success.

At a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered whether the plaintiff had shown cause why its action should not be dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff attributed the delay primarily to misconduct and inaction by an associate lawyer who had carriage of the file.

The court held that internal law firm disorganization, lack of supervision, and unanswered correspondence from opposing counsel did not constitute a reasonable explanation for prolonged inactivity.

Although no specific prejudice to the defendants was proven, the presumption of prejudice from delay was not displaced.

The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the action for delay.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking rescission or variation of an interim support order and requesting that child and spousal support arrears be fixed at zero and paid from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant opposed and brought a cross‑motion seeking to prevent the motion from being heard due to the moving party’s failure to comply with prior costs orders and requesting payment of legal, accounting, and dental expenses from the trust funds.

The court exercised discretion to hear the motion despite non‑compliance with prior cost orders but declined to rescind the interim order entirely.

The court found insufficient evidence to eliminate support arrears and expressed serious concerns regarding the moving party’s financial disclosure and credibility.

Support obligations were varied based on declared income, arrears were not extinguished, and certain legal, accounting, and dental expenses were ordered paid from trust funds.

In a family law proceeding following the breakdown of an 18‑year relationship, the applicant sought custody, child and spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and an unequal division of net family property.

At a case conference, the court addressed extensive disclosure issues between the parties concerning finances, property transactions, corporate interests, and other assets.

The court ordered both parties to produce comprehensive financial disclosure, including bank statements, tax returns, corporate records, litigation documents, and records relating to real property and business interests.

Directions were also given requiring requests to be made to several non‑parties for production of documents and permitting further motions for compliance where necessary.

The matter was scheduled to return for a settlement conference after completion of disclosure and any compliance motions.

The moving party sought to vary a prior order requiring payment of child and spousal support, arguing a material change in circumstances due to loss of employment, reduced income, depression, and loss of a driver’s licence.

The court held that the moving party failed to establish a significant and sustained change in circumstances or demonstrate that his reduced income reflected his true earning capacity.

The medical evidence relied upon was inadequate to establish unemployability and did not meet the standards for expert opinion evidence.

The court maintained the previously imputed income under s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines and declined to vary the support order or cancel arrears.

The motion to vary was dismissed, while the Ministry’s assignment of support arrears relating to social assistance payments was confirmed.