Linda Brent

The applicant brought a motion to compel compliance with outstanding orders, for contempt, and to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim following chronic non-compliance with financial disclosure obligations.

The court found that the respondent had failed to purge his previous contempt and imposed a $300,000 penalty.

Due to the respondent's ongoing failure to comply with court orders and the Family Law Rules, the court struck his Answer and Claim, limiting his future participation in the proceedings, and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, and other relief, seeking to set aside the spousal support waiver in the parties' marriage contract.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the respondent husband's net worth grew to approximately $500 million.

The court found the marriage contract's support waiver to be unconscionable and severed it from the agreement.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $175,000 per month, retroactive to the date of separation, and to maintain life insurance and health benefits for the applicant.

The claim for interim child support was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking child support arrears, arguing that the respondent's 'excess' housing costs incurred while working in the U.K. should not be deducted from his income.

The applicant alleged that the respondent concealed the true amount of these costs during the negotiation of a 2008 consent order.

The court found that the respondent had disclosed the nature of the housing arrangement and that the applicant failed to inquire further about the specific amounts.

Applying the factors for setting aside an agreement for non-disclosure, the court held that there was no concealment or misrepresentation.

The court declined to set aside the 2008 consent order and allowed the housing cost deductions.

The court also declined to rule prematurely on the deductibility of the respondent's ongoing wrongful dismissal legal fees.

The husband appealed a trial judgment setting aside a pre-nuptial marriage contract and ordering an equalization payment of $5.3 million, plus spousal and child support.

The trial judge set aside the contract under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act because the husband deliberately failed to disclose the value of his significant business assets, misrepresented his financial position, and interfered with the wife's independent legal advice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the husband's conduct warranted setting aside the contract.

The Court also held that a post-separation, market-driven decline in the value of the husband's shares did not justify an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(h) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.