Jack M. Straitman

The respondent husband brought a motion to change to terminate his spousal support obligation due to retirement, confirm his 18-year-old son remained a child of the marriage, and reduce security for support.

The court found the husband's retirement at age 59 was voluntary, not medically necessary.

Spousal support was reduced from $1,640 to $867 per month and time-limited to terminate on September 31, 2025, based on the "without child" Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines formula.

The son was found to no longer be a child of the marriage as of July 1, 2023, due to enrolling in the army, terminating child support.

Security for spousal support was maintained until its termination date, while security for child support was terminated.

Costs were awarded to the husband on a full-recovery basis due to the applicant wife's non-response to the motion.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, interim disbursements, preservation orders, and to add the husband's father and his new company as parties.

The wife alleged the husband was hiding assets and intentionally bankrupting their previously successful business to avoid support obligations.

The husband claimed he and his business were insolvent.

The court found the husband's financial evidence suspicious and his conduct concerning, noting he paid creditors instead of supporting his family.

The court ordered $7,500 monthly in unallocated support, granted leave to add the father and his company as parties, and ordered various financial disclosures and preservation measures, but declined to impute an $800,000 income or order interim disbursements at this stage.

In a motion to change a final spousal support order, both parties brought competing motions seeking further financial disclosure.

The court reiterated the fundamental family law principle of full and ongoing financial disclosure and emphasized proportionality in assessing relevance.

Several disclosure requests concerning employment records, banking transactions, credit card statements, and alleged interests in assets held with a parent were considered.

The court partially granted each party’s requests, ordering additional targeted disclosure including authorizations for financial records and an affidavit regarding ownership of a cottage property, while dismissing other requests as irrelevant or disproportionate.

Both parties brought cross-motions for contempt alleging breaches of a 2008 divorce order.

The respondent alleged the applicant failed to provide income disclosure, post-dated cheques, life insurance proof, and endorse reimbursement cheques for their child's health expenses.

The applicant alleged the respondent breached the parenting plan and failed to provide income disclosure.

The court found the applicant in contempt for failing to provide financial statements for his business and failing to endorse reimbursement cheques.

The applicant's motion for contempt against the respondent was dismissed as no breaches were established.

The applicant was given 30 days to purge his contempt.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought an adjournment of the respondent’s motion to reduce a temporary spousal support order of $12,000 per month.

The respondent also sought relief including recharacterizing prior payments for tax purposes, disclosure orders, and access to the matrimonial home for appraisal.

The court determined that the issues, particularly the respondent’s income and competing expert evidence, required a longer motion and that questioning and expert review should occur first.

The motion was adjourned and procedural directions were ordered regarding disclosure, expert meetings, and questioning timelines.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support, disclosure, interim disbursements, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a restraining order.

The respondent conceded entitlement to temporary spousal support but disputed the amount and brought a cross‑motion seeking sale of the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and production of the applicant’s medical records.

The principal issue concerned the respondent’s income, which the applicant alleged was significantly higher than reported due to employment and trust income connected to a family business.

The court held that the respondent bore the onus of providing adequate disclosure regarding business performance, bonus calculations, and potential trust distributions.

Pending proper disclosure, the court ordered temporary spousal support of $12,000 per month based on the respondent’s last disclosed gross income of $431,693 and adjourned the motion for further evidence.