Gida Deti

A comprehensive family law trial decision addressing parenting, property division, and oppression claims arising from a marriage breakdown.

The applicant mother sought to vary a consent parenting order, enforce section 7 expenses, obtain equalization of family property, and pursue oppression remedies against a numbered company.

The respondent father resisted variation of the parenting order and disputed property valuations.

The court found the respondent in breach of the consent order regarding parenting coordination, awarded sole decision-making responsibility to the applicant, ordered equalization payment of $56,011.23, found oppressive conduct by the respondent and the numbered company, and ordered the winding up of the numbered company.

Claims for loss of opportunity damages and punitive/aggravated damages were dismissed.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant wife brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from third-party corporate respondents, alleging her husband had an undisclosed ownership interest in them and used them to fund their lifestyle.

The corporate respondents argued they were not bound by a prior disclosure order and that the husband was merely an employee or bare trustee.

The court found the corporate respondents were not in breach of the prior order, as it only applied to the husband.

However, the court ordered the corporate respondents to produce the requested financial and corporate records, finding them highly relevant and necessary to determine the husband's true income and potential ownership interests, subject to the wife signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside the child support provisions of the parties' Minutes of Settlement, or alternatively the entire agreement, alleging the applicant father failed to disclose significant assets and income.

The father consented to setting aside the child support and section 7 expenses provisions.

The court declined to set aside the entire agreement on a motion, finding genuine issues of fact regarding financial disclosure that require a trial.

The court ordered temporary child support based on the father's agreed income, leaving the issue of imputing income and retroactive support for trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim relief seeking increased access to the children, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the return of belongings.

The respondent father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court granted the mother's request for increased access, finding it in the children's best interests to spend roughly equal time with both parents.

The court also ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home to allow the mother to secure appropriate housing.

The mother was ordered to pay interim child support, including arrears, given her employment and shared custody arrangement.