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.