Kaitlyn Zarcone-Beam

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement on grounds of duress, alleging blackmail by the Respondent and his girlfriend.

The court conducted a bifurcated trial on this issue.

The court found that while the Applicant felt pressured and vulnerable, her vulnerabilities were compensated by her lawyer's professional assistance, and the alleged blackmail by the girlfriend occurred after the agreement was signed.

The application to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress was dismissed.

The Applicant sought to set aside a 2006 separation agreement and requested interim spousal support.

The Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court dismissed the Respondent's summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of fact requiring a trial regarding non-disclosure, unconscionability, duress, and undue influence concerning the separation agreement.

The Applicant's motion for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice due to significant delay and lack of assets to repay if the agreement is upheld.

The court ordered a joint settlement/trial management conference to expedite a trial date.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings for alleged non-compliance with multiple financial disclosure orders spanning over four years.

The father argued substantial compliance and provided explanations for outstanding documents.

The court reviewed the father's history of non-compliance, including missed deadlines and delayed submissions, which was deemed "unreasonable litigation behaviour." Despite the father's significant delays and partial non-compliance, the court declined to strike his pleadings, emphasizing the high threshold for such a remedy and the need to consider the materiality of missing disclosure.

Instead, the court ordered the father to provide specific outstanding disclosure by a new deadline, stipulated that the trial judge would determine the extent of his participation if he failed to comply, and prohibited him from initiating any further steps in the proceeding pending trial.

The court awarded the mother $15,000 in all-inclusive costs due to the father's litigation conduct.

The plaintiff set the action down for trial.

The defendant subsequently brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from discovery.

The plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the defendant required leave under Rule 48.04(1) because defense counsel had completed a Certification Form, allegedly consenting to the action being placed on the trial list.

The Master dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that completing the Certification Form did not constitute consent under Rule 48.06(1), and therefore the defendant did not require leave to bring the motion.