Mr. Mamo

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking 23 heads of relief, primarily alleging that the applicant father breached the parenting time and therapy provisions of their Minutes of Settlement regarding their two adult children with disabilities.

The father brought a cross-motion to strike the mother's affidavit evidence under Rule 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules, arguing it was inflammatory and irrelevant.

The court found that the father had not done enough to facilitate the parenting schedule for the younger child and ordered him to take specific affirmative steps to ensure compliance and support reunification therapy.

The father's motion to strike was dismissed as moot, as the impugned forms are presumptively inadmissible at trial.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for disclosure and a preservation order in a family law matter, with a trial imminent.

The applicant mother sought extensive disclosure from various third parties (police, CAS, banks, lawyers, accountant) and the respondent father, along with a preservation order for the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent father sought disclosure of communications between the mother and children, and the mother's position on support and section 7 expenses.

The court granted the mother's requests for police, CAS, bank, and corporate records, and a modified preservation order including an advance payment to both parties.

The court denied disclosure from the father's employment lawyer and accountant due to privilege and lack of specificity.

The father's motion for disclosure of mother-child communications was granted, limited to communications from the mother to the children, and the mother was ordered to provide her position on support and section 7 expenses.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.