Heather Cassells

The case involved two motions concerning financial disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife (B.M.) sought an order compelling the applicant husband (P.M.) to provide answers to undertakings, advisements, and refusals from his examination.

The applicant husband (P.M.) sought unredacted credit card statements from the respondent wife (B.M.).

The court granted B.M.'s motion in part, ordering P.M. to provide various financial disclosures, including paystubs, lawyer's file on share sale, credit card statements, pension plan details, updated financial statement, T1 returns, CIBC customer profile, and holding company financial statements.

The court dismissed P.M.'s motion for unredacted statements, allowing B.M. to redact location information due to serious domestic violence allegations and P.M.'s criminal history, while clarifying that only location data could be redacted.

The applicant sought to terminate child support for three adult children.

The court found that one child (Sommer) was no longer a child of the marriage as of June 2019, and another (Dawson) was no longer a child of the marriage as of when he started full-time work in 2021 (date to be determined).

However, the third child (Hailie) remained a child of the marriage due to health issues and a temporary hiatus from studies.

The court varied the interim support order accordingly, but stayed the order regarding Dawson until the applicant complied with a previous financial disclosure order.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The Applicant sought a temporary order for the children of the marriage to be placed in his care for 90 days, with no contact with the Respondent except as directed by a therapist, alleging parental alienation.

The Respondent opposed the motion.

The court considered whether the "material change in circumstances" test applied to a variation of a temporary, without prejudice order, ultimately accepting for the motion's purpose that the Applicant only needed to demonstrate the order was in the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Applicant had not provided sufficient clear evidence, particularly noting issues with the admissibility and weight of the counsellor's reports as expert evidence without proper voir dire and cross-examination.