Natacha Leite

In a family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the applicant father to calculate his income for child support purposes.

The father, who had recently started his own law firm, argued the requests were disproportionate and premature.

The court emphasized the importance of timely income disclosure but agreed that some of the mother's requests were overreaching.

The court granted a temporary order requiring the father to provide a narrowed scope of disclosure, balancing the need for financial transparency with the principle of proportionality.

The parties brought urgent motions regarding their four-year-old child's school attendance and parenting schedule during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother sought an order for in-person attendance at a private school, while the father sought homeschooling or online learning, citing health risks.

The court ordered in-person attendance, finding no medical evidence of an unacceptable risk of harm to the child or the father.

The court also rejected the father's request for an equal time-sharing arrangement due to the high conflict between the parties, but ordered a graduated increase in his parenting time, including overnights.

Following a family law motion concerning exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, custody, access, and support, the court determined costs of the motion.

The responding party had made a settlement offer before the case conference that was more favourable on key issues than the final order.

Although the offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because it did not address support and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the court considered the offer under Rule 18(16) when fixing costs.

The court also found aspects of the applicant’s conduct unreasonable under Rule 24.

Substantial indemnity costs of the motion were awarded to the successful party in the amount of $9,000 payable within 60 days.