E. Birnboim

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the affidavit evidence from both parties to be highly contradictory on fundamental issues, including the children's primary residence, payment of expenses, and the parties' respective roles in the family business.

Given the irreconcilable evidence, the need for credibility findings, and an imminent trial scheduled in three months, the court dismissed the motion and reserved costs to the trial judge.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a timetable in a collection action after the defendants failed to respond to a proposed discovery plan.

The motion was ultimately resolved on consent, but the plaintiff sought costs due to the defendants' unresponsiveness.

The court found that the defendants' failure to respond in a timely manner unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $2,700.

During a case conference in a joint venture dispute, the parties agreed that the plaintiff's counsel was in a conflict of interest and should be removed as solicitor of record for a jointly-owned corporation in a related solicitor's negligence action.

The court granted the order removing counsel and directed that the corporation would have 30 days to retain new counsel or seek leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The court deferred the defendants' request for immediate production of the complete solicitor's file until new counsel is retained.

The applicant brought a motion under Family Law Rule 11(3) seeking leave to amend her application to include a claim under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The proposed amendment alleged that following separation the respondent transferred substantial funds from a corporation owned directly or indirectly by the applicant to a corporation owned by the respondent.

The respondent opposed the amendment on the basis that the corporations involved should be added as parties to the proceeding.

The court held that amendments should be permitted unless the responding party would suffer non-compensable prejudice, and found that the s. 5(6) claim could be adjudicated without adding the corporations.

The motion to amend was therefore granted.

The moving party sought to set aside default family law orders for spousal support, child support, and equalization that were issued after his pleadings were struck for repeated disclosure failures and non‑compliance with court orders.

He argued the orders were based on incorrect assumptions about his income and relied on a later forensic accounting report indicating significantly lower earnings.

The court applied the principles governing motions to set aside default judgments, including timeliness, explanation for default, arguable merits, prejudice, and the interests of justice.

The court found the moving party had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for years of delay and persistent non‑compliance with disclosure and support orders.

Considering the prejudice to the responding party and the integrity of the administration of justice, the motion was dismissed.