Kristy A. Maurina

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after a 29-year marriage.

The trial addressed the equalization of net family properties, numerous exclusion claims primarily by the husband, unequal division, income determination, and spousal support.

The court found the husband's evidence regarding his financial affairs and exclusion claims to be largely unreliable, noting his failure to provide adequate disclosure and his history of non-compliance with court orders.

The court allowed some of the husband's exclusion claims where supported by documentary evidence but denied others due to commingling and lack of tracing.

The wife's claim for an unequal division of net family properties was dismissed.

The court imputed an annual income of $232,500 to the husband due to his inadequate disclosure and ordered him to pay $5,500 per month in spousal support, along with an equalization payment of $353,752.

The applicant husband brought a motion to strike the respondent wife's pleadings, dispense with her consent to the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home, and obtain temporary exclusive possession.

The wife had repeatedly failed to comply with a prior consent order requiring her to cooperate in listing the home for sale and to provide financial disclosure, and she did not attend the motion.

The court declined to strike the wife's pleadings at this stage but granted the husband sole carriage of the sale and temporary exclusive possession of the home to facilitate its sale, along with costs.

Following a successful motion for child and spousal support where income was imputed to the respondent husband, the applicant wife sought costs.

The court applied the Family Law Rules costs framework, noting the husband's unreasonable delay in disclosure and his failure to make a reasonable settlement offer.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $7,500 against the husband and $500 against the husband's brother, who had intervened unnecessarily.

The applicant sought interim orders permitting relocation of the child from Richmond Hill to Guelph, along with custody, schooling, and support orders.

The court applied the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the framework from Gordon v. Goertz.

Finding compelling interim circumstances, including housing instability and financial advantages of the move, the court permitted the relocation and determined the disruption to the child and the respondent’s parenting time would be minimal.

Requests for interim child support and section 7 contributions were adjourned due to incomplete financial disclosure.

The court emphasized that interim mobility orders require compelling circumstances but may be granted where the child’s best interests clearly favour the move.