Heather Hansen

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order compelling the respondent to deliver a sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement and additional financial disclosure requested by the applicant’s expert.

The underlying application sought to set aside a separation agreement on the basis of duress and inadequate financial disclosure, while the respondent had brought a pending motion for summary judgment.

The court held that the Family Law Rules impose a mandatory obligation to provide a sworn financial statement and full and frank disclosure.

Given the complexity of the respondent’s corporate interests and the dispute over the adequacy of disclosure at the time the agreement was executed, further disclosure was necessary.

The respondent was ordered to deliver a properly executed financial statement and produce the requested corporate and financial records.

The father appealed from urgent temporary orders granting the mother temporary custody, support, and preservation of assets, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the real and substantial connection test for the Family Law Act claims and the statutory criteria under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act for the custody claims.

The court affirmed that jurisdiction can be assumed on a prima facie basis for urgent temporary orders while adjourning the final determination of forum conveniens.

The appellant mother sought to vary a final custody order to allow her to relocate with the parties' two children from Peterborough to Cobden.

The application judge dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances since the original order, as the mother's new relationship and job opportunity were foreseeable at that time.

The application judge also found the move would not be in the children's best interests due to the disruption of their stability and their close relationship with the respondent father.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision and dismissed the appeal.

The father appealed a trial judge's decision granting sole custody of the child to the mother, and the mother cross-appealed the dismissal of her motion to vary spousal support.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by varying the existing joint custody order without first establishing a material change in circumstances as required by section 17 of the Divorce Act.

The court noted that the parties' high-conflict relationship was foreseeable and did not constitute a material change.

The mother's cross-appeal regarding support and section 7 expenses was dismissed.