Ken Younie

In the context of a motion to change spousal support, both parties brought cross-motions seeking to compel the other to provide answers to outstanding undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The respondent claimed a catastrophic change in financial circumstances, including bankruptcy and the sale of his business, while alleging the applicant had undisclosed wealth.

The court reviewed the extensive lists of requested financial and corporate documents, applying the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Family Law Rules.

The court granted divided success, ordering both parties to produce certain relevant documents while dismissing requests that were overly broad, irrelevant, or already sufficiently answered.

The applicant wife sought interim child and spousal support, and imputation of income to the respondent husband.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for income imputation to the applicant and disclosure, and a separate motion for costs.

The court imputed an annual income of $375,000 to the respondent due to his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and attend questioning, despite court orders.

The court found the applicant's income for support purposes to be $200,000.

Interim child support was ordered at $4,577 per month, and interim spousal support at $456 per month, both retroactive to July 29, 2016.

Section 7 expenses were to be shared proportionately.

The respondent's motion for costs was dismissed, and other motions were adjourned.