K.S. Kieller

The applicant brought a motion seeking disclosure orders and interim payment for legal costs and an income valuation report.

The court found the applicant's claim of urgency unfounded, noting that delays were partly attributable to the respondent's complex financial holdings and the need to obtain records from third parties.

While acknowledging some outstanding disclosure, the court observed the respondent's cooperation.

The court ordered specific disclosure, including a corporate structure chart, and an interim payment of $35,000 to the applicant for accounting/valuation costs, applying the criteria from Stuart v. Stuart.

All other relief sought by the applicant was dismissed.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to mixed success and the precipitous nature of the motion.

The applicant wife proceeded to an uncontested trial after the respondent husband's pleadings were struck for persistent financial non-disclosure.

The court granted joint custody of the two youngest children, with primary residence to the mother, and modified the youngest child's access schedule.

The court imputed the husband's income at $215,768 due to intentional underemployment and diversion of income.

The husband was ordered to pay retroactive child and spousal support, ongoing support, and an equalization payment of over $2.4 million based on the best evidence of the sale of his business interests.

To enforce the judgment, the court ordered the husband's property transferred to the wife and awarded full recovery costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a prior child support order seeking retroactive child support and contribution toward the parties’ adult child’s post-secondary education expenses.

The court declined to order retroactive child support, finding the payor parent had complied with the existing order and the delay in seeking variation was not adequately explained, applying the principles in DBS v. SRG.

However, the court held the father should contribute to post-secondary education expenses despite the absence of a relationship with the child, noting a parent cannot rely on a lack of relationship they did not attempt to foster.

Child support was ordered during summer months when the child would reside at home, and the father was ordered to contribute 75% of the net post-secondary expenses for a two‑year college program.

A monthly payment schedule was set to satisfy the father’s total obligation after credit for ongoing payments.