Kenneth Bickley

The parties cohabited for 15 years in a joint family venture, during which the applicant contributed significant funds and labour to the respondent's real estate business.

Following separation, the applicant sought compensation for unjust enrichment and spousal support.

The court found the respondent had unjustly retained a disproportionate share of the accumulated wealth and awarded the applicant $548,880 for unjust enrichment.

The court also imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent and awarded lump sum spousal support of $72,600.

Due to the respondent's history of non-compliance with court orders, the court granted vesting orders over three properties and a pension annuity to secure payment.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt of court and an order striking the respondent’s pleadings for repeated breaches of family court orders and failures of financial disclosure in a property dispute following a lengthy common-law relationship.

The alleged breaches included failure to pay proceeds from a condominium sale into court, the unauthorized sale of an aircraft despite a non‑dissipation order, and inadequate accounting for the disposition of several properties.

The court declined to make a contempt finding, emphasizing that contempt is reserved for the clearest cases and that remedial alternatives should be preferred in family proceedings.

Instead, the court found the respondent had failed to make good faith efforts to comply with court orders and provide proper disclosure.

As a remedial measure, the respondent was ordered to pay $80,000 into court and pay costs, failing which his pleadings would be struck and his participation at trial restricted.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking further financial disclosure relating to the respondent’s real estate transactions and financial dealings.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to vary an earlier interim order by relaxing a non-dissipation order, ordering the immediate sale of all property, and reducing interim spousal support based on a lower asserted income.

The court found substantial evidence that the respondent had previously underreported income and exercised significant control over assets, justifying strict disclosure and asset preservation measures.

The court ordered the respondent to provide a detailed accounting tracing proceeds from several property sales and rejected the requested variation to the interim support and asset restrictions.

The respondent’s cross-motion was dismissed and the disclosure order granted.