The applicant sought a divorce and damages for missing chattels, while the respondent sought spousal support.
At the outset of the trial, the court dismissed the respondent's motion to withdraw deemed admissions, finding no reasonable excuse for her failure to respond to a request to admit.
The court dismissed the applicant's claim for $20,000 in missing chattels due to lack of proof.
The court found the respondent entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, noting her unpaid work in the applicant's businesses and her post-separation decline in standard of living.
Due to the applicant's deliberate obfuscation of his corporate finances, the court imputed an annual income of $80,000 to him.
Applying the 'Rule of 65', the court awarded the respondent indefinite spousal support of $971 per month, plus retroactive support.
