Dheeraj Sindhwani

Following the striking of the applicant’s pleadings for persistent failure to comply with disclosure orders, the matter proceeded on an uncontested basis primarily addressing relief claimed in the respondent’s Answer.

The court addressed issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a lengthy marriage and separation in 2008.

The respondent alleged disability following a motor vehicle accident, but the medical evidence was insufficient to establish an inability to work, leading the court to maintain an imputed income of $100,000 for support purposes.

Child support was ordered for one remaining dependent child and terminated for the older child upon completion of post-secondary education.

Spousal support payable to the applicant was terminated after the applicant’s pleadings were struck, and the court ordered an equalization payment from the applicant to the respondent.

Following a family law motion concerning increased child and spousal support and disclosure, the court determined costs after written submissions.

The moving party had abandoned part of the motion after receiving late disclosure but remained partially successful given the necessity of the proceeding amid ongoing financial disarray between the parties.

The court considered earlier procedural steps and the parties’ conduct, noting that cooperation on some issues reduced litigation costs while delayed disclosure impeded settlement and adjudication.

Applying the general principles governing costs, the court found the moving party to be the successful litigant.

Costs were fixed in favour of the moving party in the amount claimed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for increased child support, spousal support, and disclosure.

After receiving late financial disclosure shortly before the hearing, the disclosure issue was abandoned, but the timing and adequacy of financial information complicated income determination.

The court found the respondent father underemployed and unable to provide reliable financial analysis from his construction business records.

On an interim basis, the court imputed income of approximately $80,000 and ordered increased interim spousal and child support, including additional support for the applicant’s medical expenses.

The decision emphasized the inadequacy of the financial record and the necessity of temporary orders pending fuller analysis.

The applicant brought a motion seeking relief against the respondent law firm after funds were paid to the firm by the applicant’s former spouse following notice of a pending non‑dissipation order and after the order was granted.

The applicant argued that the payments of legal fees were part of a deliberate effort to dissipate assets and frustrate her ability to recover a substantial costs award in ongoing family litigation.

The court found that the acceptance of payments by the law firm in the context of the husband’s rapid depletion of assets constituted an abuse of process, particularly given the firm’s knowledge of the pending motion and subsequent court orders.

The court ordered the firm to pay into court the amount of funds received after notice of the non‑dissipation motion and required a limited accounting of legal fees.

Additional costs relating to the earlier motion were also ordered payable by the firm.