Kerry Lynne Thomason

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding involving custody, child support, and constructive trust claims.

Despite multiple court orders and extensions, the respondent provided incomplete disclosure.

The court reviewed the history of non-compliance but found that, by the time of the motion, the respondent had substantially satisfied his disclosure obligations.

Applying the principle that striking pleadings is a serious remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances, especially where child issues are involved, the court dismissed the applicant's motion, noting that the remaining non-disclosure primarily disadvantaged the respondent.

Costs were to be addressed separately.

The applicant brought a motion seeking numerous forms of interim relief including increased child support, spousal support, a forensic income analysis of the respondent, and a preservation order over assets.

The court assessed the respondent’s income based on evidence of current salary and limited additional earnings, rejecting the applicant’s request to impute a substantially higher historical income.

The court found no evidentiary basis for a forensic accounting investigation or for a preservation order under s. 12 of the Family Law Act.

Ongoing child support was recalculated based on an income of $312,000 and spousal support was set at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Remaining issues including retroactive support were left for future determination.