Glenn Ridler

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking disclosure from the respondent husband regarding their landscaping business and for support.

The parties had a temporary consent order for winding up the business and selling the matrimonial home.

The wife alleged the husband failed to comply with disclosure obligations and continued to operate a business in his own name, potentially diverting cash income.

The court found the husband failed to provide adequate disclosure and ordered specific disclosure with a daily penalty for non-compliance.

The court also ordered the husband to pay interim spousal support and contribute to matrimonial home expenses, noting the absence of updated financial statements.

The applicant wife brought a motion for leave to bring an urgent motion to enforce a prior court order regarding support, expenses, disclosure, and the sale of the matrimonial home, alleging the respondent husband had depleted business funds.

The respondent argued against the urgency of the request.

The court found that the unexplained depletion of business account funds by the husband created a dire financial circumstance, satisfying the urgency test under the Chief Justice's Notice regarding COVID-19 court operations.

Leave was granted, and specific directions were provided for the urgent motion, with costs awarded to the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking spousal support from the respondent mother.

The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking dismissal of the motion, child support and s. 7 expenses, and to impute additional income to the applicant.

The court found the applicant established both compensatory and non‑compensatory entitlement to spousal support under the Divorce Act, noting the significant income disparity and his contributions to the respondent’s education and career development.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered interim spousal support in the mid‑range.

The court reduced the applicant’s contribution to s. 7 expenses to $300 monthly, finding the respondent’s claimed private school and extensive extracurricular costs unreasonable relative to the applicant’s means, and declined to impute income due to insufficient evidence.