David Holmes

The applicant sought an order lifting the automatic stay of proceedings imposed by the respondent's bankruptcy, along with orders to add the bankruptcy trustee as a co-respondent, amend the application, try certain matters, and compel disclosure.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was brought in the wrong forum and should be brought in bankruptcy court.

The court found that the motion to lift the stay must be brought in bankruptcy court, not family court, as property claims are stayed by bankruptcy and must be addressed where the stay was imposed.

However, the court granted the applicant's request for disclosure as it relates to both property and support claims, with support claims not being stayed by bankruptcy.

The respondent wife brought a motion to strike the applicant husband's application due to his repeated failure to comply with multiple disclosure orders in their divorce proceedings concerning financial matters, spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

While the court found the applicant's non-compliance wilful, it declined to strike the pleadings immediately due to recent, albeit late, disclosure.

Instead, the court ordered the applicant to provide specific outstanding financial disclosure within strict timelines, including a business valuation, updated financial statements, and tax returns.

Failure to comply with certain orders would result in the abandonment of related claims, and the respondent was granted leave to bring a further urgent motion to strike if the applicant failed to meet the new deadlines.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a prior order by reducing child support, while the applicant sought an increase based on reassessment of the respondent’s income.

The court addressed admissibility of expert accounting reports, struck a portion of the applicant’s affidavit lacking a proper source of information, and interpreted a prior order providing for “without prejudice differential” support pending determination of actual incomes.

After reviewing competing expert reports, the court accepted the respondent’s expert evidence regarding corporate losses and determined the respondent’s guideline incomes for 2012, 2013, and 2014.

The court also found the applicant intentionally underemployed and imputed income to her.

Child support was recalculated on a set‑off basis due to the shared parenting arrangement.

The parties separated after a lengthy marriage.

The husband worked in an unregistered firewood business with his father and lived rent-free in a home titled to his parents.

The court found the husband's income was $100,000, accounting for unreported cash and personal benefits.

The court also found the husband had a 50% partnership interest in the business and a $100,000 beneficial interest in the home via constructive trust, both of which were included in his net family property.

The wife was awarded an equalization payment of $285,862.24, ongoing spousal support, and child support for their daughter's post-secondary education.