Samuel R. Bachinski

The applicant spouse brought an interlocutory motion in an uncontested family proceeding after the respondent failed to file an answer.

The court considered entitlement to interim spousal support, pension valuation, and the sale of jointly owned real properties pending trial.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the parties’ lengthy marriage, the respondent’s income, and the applicant’s medical inability to work, the court ordered interim spousal support.

The court also authorized the applicant to obtain the family law value of the respondent’s pension without his consent and ordered that jointly owned real properties be listed for sale under the Partition Act.

On a motion arising from a motion to change a final family order, the applicant sought broad financial disclosure from the respondent and from a non-party alleged to be the respondent’s common law spouse.

The court granted, on consent, production of verification for certain categories of the respondent’s expenses, but refused to compel the non-party to disclose additional personal, corporate, and tax documents.

Applying the non-party production factors and emphasizing proportionality, privacy, and the availability of other evidence through questioning, the court held the applicant had not shown it would be unfair to proceed without the requested disclosure.

The balance of the motion was dismissed.