Michael G. Emery

In a family law proceeding involving claims for equalization and financial disclosure, the respondent husband brought a motion seeking to remove his parents and brother‑in‑law as additional respondents.

The applicant alleged that these individuals participated in arrangements to conceal the husband’s income and assets, including property purchases and financial transfers through various accounts.

The court held that there was sufficient evidence suggesting co‑mingling of funds and potential trust arrangements to justify their continued participation as parties.

The court also noted that the motion was improperly brought by the husband rather than the additional respondents themselves and that no authority under the Family Law Rules permitted their removal on the basis argued.

The motion to remove the additional respondents was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 105(4) of the Courts of Justice Act seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a psychologist for a psycho‑vocational assessment shortly before trial.

The defendant argued the examination was necessary to respond to the plaintiff’s psychological expert report asserting that the plaintiff was totally disabled from employment following a motor vehicle accident.

The court held that the defendant had not demonstrated that the further examination was necessary to ensure a fair trial, noting the plaintiff had already undergone several defence examinations and that the defendant could obtain opinion evidence through a records review.

The court further found the motion was brought too late, only weeks before trial, and would likely prejudice the plaintiff by delaying the scheduled trial.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a family law motion concerning unanswered undertakings and further questioning, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The respondent husband sought full recovery costs, alleging the applicant’s failure to comply with disclosure timelines and undertakings required by a prior case management order.

The court found the motion was necessary to compel compliance with several undertakings and that the respondent was more successful, but rejected allegations of bad faith sufficient to justify full recovery costs under the Family Law Rules.

Applying principles of fairness and reasonableness in assessing costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent.