Larry M. Belowus

The parties separated in 2015, and the appellant commenced an application seeking an equalization payment.

After nine years and multiple court orders, the appellant failed to provide complete financial disclosure regarding his bank accounts and alleged business interests.

The motion judge found the non-compliance egregious and struck the appellant's application under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge failed to consider the relevance of the undisclosed documents, the disclosure already made, and alternative remedies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly applied the framework for assessing non-disclosure and reasonably concluded that the appellant's failure to disclose made it fundamentally unfair to expect the respondent to defend the equalization claim.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleading for failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The motion was successful and the applicant's claim for an equalization payment was struck.

This endorsement addresses the costs award following the successful motion.

The respondent sought costs in the range of $80,000 to $105,000, while the applicant argued for no costs or only nominal costs.

The court found the applicant's behaviour unreasonable but not in bad faith.

The applicant failed to provide current financial disclosure to support claims of inability to pay.

The respondent had served a settlement offer on December 12, 2023, which the applicant failed to meet or exceed.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis prior to the offer date and full recovery thereafter.

On a family law motion arising from an equalization dispute, the respondent sought to strike the applicant's pleadings for longstanding non-compliance with multiple disclosure orders.

The court reviewed years of missing bank statements, credit applications, business records, insurance documents, and inconsistent evidence about business ownership and financing.

Applying the three-step framework for striking pleadings and emphasizing the centrality of full financial disclosure in family litigation, the court held that the applicant's failures constituted a triggering event, made the remedy appropriate, and left no adequate lesser alternative.

The applicant's claim was struck, with costs to be addressed separately if not agreed.

The applicant sought the immediate return of the parties' four youngest children to Windsor, Ontario, after the respondent relocated them to Calgary, Alberta.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking an interim order to permit the relocation and for sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion and granted the respondent's requests, finding it in the children's best interests to remain in Calgary due to a documented history of family violence by the applicant.

Following a successful motion by the respondent husband to vary and reduce his spousal support obligations, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found the respondent husband was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

However, the court reduced his costs award because he engaged in unreasonable 'self-help' behaviour by unilaterally terminating all spousal support payments while his motion was pending.

The court awarded the respondent husband costs of $11,653.69 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent husband brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required him to pay $11,000 per month.

He argued that his forced retirement, resulting from the closure of his tool and die business, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found the retirement was reasonable and not voluntary, as the business lost its major client.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at the interim stage and determined the husband's income based on the corporate income available to him.

The interim spousal support was reduced to $2,400 per month.

The respondent obtained a judgment against the appellant in the New Jersey Superior Court on January 24, 2013.

An appeal from that judgment was dismissed on July 17, 2014.

On May 1, 2015, the respondent brought an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to recover damages based on the New Jersey judgment.

The appellant argued the proceeding was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The application judge rejected this argument and granted judgment in favour of the respondent.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the two-year limitation period began to run from the date of the first-instance New Jersey judgment, not from the date the appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the two-year limitation period applies to proceedings on foreign judgments and begins to run when the time to appeal the foreign judgment has expired or, if an appeal is taken, on the date of the appeal decision.

The applicant sustained a permanent knee injury in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits and funding for university retraining as an engineer.

The insurer terminated benefits based on a vocational assessment identifying alternative employment.

The arbitrator found the insurer's job recommendations unsuitable due to the applicant's physical limitations and pre-accident earnings, and drew an adverse inference against the insurer for failing to arrange a required Designated Assessment Centre evaluation.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, but his claim for engineering retraining was dismissed as it was not similar to his pre-accident employment as a roofing supervisor.