Michele Susan Balz

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings and permitting an uncontested trial.

The appellant had repeatedly failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure, payment of support arrears, and payment of costs over an extended period.

Despite numerous opportunities and extensions granted by various judges, the appellant continued to be non-compliant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's decision to strike the pleadings given the appellant's persistent and egregious pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to set aside a final order that struck his pleadings and directed an uncontested trial.

The respondent argued that his responding materials were not before the judge who made the order due to a clerical error, and that he was substantially in compliance with prior orders.

The court found that even if the materials had been considered, they did not demonstrate compliance with the prior orders regarding support arrears and expert income reports.

The court concluded that the respondent's non-compliance was willful and deliberate, and dismissed the motion to set aside the order.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following the breakdown of a marriage.

The court considered claims for spousal support, valuation of a closely held HVAC corporation, alleged debts incurred through promissory notes, and alleged concealed income.

Spousal support was denied as the claimant failed to establish economic disadvantage or need.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence with the mother and a structured access schedule for the father.

Child support was recalculated based on imputed income including undeclared cash income, and an equalization payment was ordered.

The applicant sought to lift a stay of proceedings contained in a receivership order to permit her to bring a bankruptcy application against the respondent arising from an unpaid divorce judgment exceeding $4 million.

The receivership had been established to enforce the judgment, and the receiver had commenced related recovery litigation alleging fraudulent transfers and dissipation of assets but declined to continue the action after failing to obtain a protective costs order.

The court held that when deciding whether to lift a stay in an insolvency context, the interests of all affected parties must be balanced.

The court found that denying relief would significantly prejudice the applicant by preventing continuation of the recovery action and potentially exposing claims to limitation defences, while the respondent and other defendants would suffer no meaningful prejudice.

Leave was therefore granted to bring a bankruptcy application and, if a bankruptcy order were made, to seek assignment of the recovery action under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

A court-appointed receiver brought a motion seeking approval of settlements reached in efforts to enforce a substantial family law judgment and recover assets allegedly concealed by the respondent.

The receiver also sought approval of significant professional fees incurred during forensic investigations and asset recovery.

The court approved certain settlements and ordered an immediate distribution to the judgment creditor but adjourned the determination of professional fees and related matters to future hearings.

The court emphasized concerns that professional fees could significantly reduce the creditor’s ultimate recovery and directed that no further fee payments be made pending further consideration.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The request was filed more than six months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day limit set by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Because the applicant did not request an extension of time or provide an explanation for the delay, the Tribunal denied the Request for Reconsideration.