Gordon F. Allan

The applicant husband brought a motion for the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The respondent wife agreed to the sale but sought a deferral until the husband's income was determined for spousal support purposes.

The court imputed the husband's income at $34,321 by adding back several personal and non-cash business expenses.

The court ordered the husband to pay temporary spousal support of $278 per month and ordered the matrimonial home to be listed and sold forthwith.

On an interim family law motion, the applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim spousal support, and an advance for expert valuation expenses relating to equalization.

The parties continued living in the matrimonial home in intolerable circumstances after separation, while the respondent possessed significantly greater financial resources and alternative accommodation.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession, finding it reasonable that the respondent vacate given the applicant’s limited means and the presence of extended family members in the home.

Due to incomplete financial disclosure and evidence of substantial assets, the court imputed income of $100,000 to the respondent and ordered interim spousal support of $2,000 per month.

The court also ordered the respondent to advance $60,500 on equalization to permit the applicant to retain experts and ensure trial fairness.

The responding spouse brought a long motion seeking temporary spousal support, an extension of time to advance an equalization claim, and financial disclosure, arising from an interim separation agreement executed without legal advice or financial disclosure.

The court held that the agreement expressly contemplated future determination of equalization and spousal support and therefore did not bar the claims.

Applying s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, the court extended the limitation period to permit the equalization claim to proceed, finding prima facie entitlement, delay incurred in good faith, and no substantial prejudice.

The court also ordered extensive financial disclosure and interim spousal support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines using the best available income evidence.