5 total
The court ordered strict timelines for the respondent's financial disclosure, warning that non-compliance could result in struck pleadings.
The applicant brought two motions: one to strike the respondent's pleadings regarding non-parenting claims and for other relief, and another for a finding of contempt due to the respondent's failure to comply with disclosure orders.
The respondent did not file a response but appeared in court.
The court declined to make a contempt finding, noting the applicant did not make submissions on the test for contempt.
Instead, the court issued a further disclosure order with strict timelines for financial documents, warning that failure to comply could result in striking the respondent's pleadings on financial issues.
The court also declined further orders on parenting issues and awarded costs to the applicant.
Summary judgment was denied due to genuine issues regarding insolvency and asset valuation.
The defendants, McCarney Group LLP et al., sought summary judgment to set aside transactions restructuring an accounting firm ("Oldco") under various insolvency and fraudulent conveyance statutes.
The plaintiffs, former partners and an affiliate of Oldco, alleged the restructuring was a transfer at undervalue designed to defeat their claims.
The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding Oldco's insolvency at the time of the restructuring and whether the assets (accounts receivable, work-in-process, and goodwill) were transferred at an undervalue.
The court emphasized that expert reports are not strictly required to establish an undervalue, and that oral testimony and cross-examination were necessary to resolve factual disputes regarding asset valuation and the existence of goodwill.
Motion for temporary spousal support granted at $387 per month; further financial disclosure largely denied.
The applicant brought a motion for financial disclosure, temporary spousal support, and costs in a family law proceeding.
The court dismissed the applicant's requests for formal pension and asset valuations, finding the respondent's existing disclosure sufficient, but ordered the respondent to provide an Equifax report.
The court awarded temporary spousal support of $387 per month, adopting the mid-range amount based on the parties' 2019 incomes.
No costs were awarded due to divided success and the respondent's unreasonable conduct regarding disclosure.
Mixed success at family trial justified no costs award.
Following a nine‑day family law trial concerning child support income, arrears, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and distribution of trust funds, both parties sought substantial costs awards against the other.
The court considered the Family Law Rules, particularly Rule 24, and the principles governing costs including proportionality, success at trial, reasonableness of conduct, and the parties’ financial circumstances.
The court found that success at trial was divided, with each party prevailing on different issues.
Certain claimed fees and disbursements were disallowed because costs for earlier steps had not been reserved to the trial judge.
After weighing the relevant factors, the court concluded that fairness required each party to bear their own costs.
Adverse inference for disclosure failure leads to higher imputed income and increased support.
In a family law motion addressing support and disclosure issues, the respondent sought an order striking the applicant's pleadings for repeated failure to comply with court‑ordered financial disclosure and payment obligations.
The court found significant non‑compliance with disclosure orders and drew adverse inferences about the applicant’s income, particularly concerning unreported cash business revenue and personal expenses paid through the business.
While the court declined to strike pleadings due to access‑to‑justice concerns, it relied heavily on the respondent’s evidence and expert accounting analysis to determine income.
The applicant’s income was fixed at $125,000 for interim purposes and the respondent’s at $17,362.
The court ordered increased child support, interim spousal support, and contribution to section 7 expenses, while leaving costs submissions to follow.
