James Edney

The applicant sought an urgent case conference or motion date at TBST Court to remove the respondent from his home, claiming they were only together for four months and were not spouses.

The respondent's brief revealed they had lived together since 2013, were engaged, and the applicant was currently living with his daughter as a surety after being charged with assaulting the respondent.

The court found the matter was not urgent, noting the applicant's brief was selective to the point of being misleading and misused the TBST Court process.

The request was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs to the respondent.

The respondent brought a motion to vary an interim child and spousal support order, arguing that his business income had significantly declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had 'better information' as contemplated by the original order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the financial information provided by the respondent was incomplete, lacked independent expert corroboration, and did not constitute the 'better information' required to justify varying an interim support order.

The court also declined to adjust section 7 expenses, leaving that issue for the trial judge.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought disclosure of various corporate and financial records relating to businesses owned by the respondent and his family.

The court ordered disclosure of corporate financial records back to 2014 for business valuation purposes, as well as post-March 2020 records relevant to a pending motion to reduce support due to the pandemic.

The court also ordered the respondents to request accounting records from their accountants and to produce commercial leases subject to a confidentiality agreement and notice to landlords.