Robert Ainslie McNeely

The wife renewed a motion to strike the husband's pleadings for financial non-disclosure, specifically regarding the valuation of his business interests.

The court reviewed the husband's compliance with previous disclosure orders and found his explanation for non-compliance unsatisfactory, particularly his failure to value his business interests.

While the motion to strike was dismissed, the court ordered the husband to retain a Chartered Business Valuator within 30 days and ensure a report is delivered within five months.

The court also noted the husband's financial ability to meet these obligations and declined to award him costs.

The applicant wife moved to strike the respondent husband's pleadings for failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The husband brought a cross-motion for leave to file his Answer late, claiming a cognitive disability caused his delay, though he provided no credible medical evidence.

The court found the husband had made significant but incomplete disclosure.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the caution against striking pleadings in family law cases involving continuing obligations, the court granted the husband's motion for leave to file his Answer on strict terms and adjourned the wife's motion to strike.

In an uncontested family trial, the applicant sought retroactive and ongoing child support, spousal support, equalization of property, and a vesting order for the matrimonial home.

The court adopted a prior finding imputing the respondent’s income at $100,000 annually.

Retroactive and ongoing support obligations were determined, including child support arrears, spousal support, and s.7 expenses for childcare and extracurricular costs.

The court also valued the respondent’s publishing business at $100,000 for equalization purposes due to the respondent’s failure to provide financial disclosure.

Given substantial support arrears and the respondent’s non-compliance, the court granted a vesting order transferring the matrimonial home to the applicant and ordered additional equalization and costs.

The appellant appealed an order removing him as estate trustee and appointing the deceased's daughter in his place.

The motion judge found the appellant demonstrated indifference towards the beneficiaries, was incompetent in his administration, and failed to protect the estate's principal asset.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly applied the relevant principles and his findings were supported by the record.

Costs were awarded against the appellant personally.

The appellant challenged both the trial judgment and the costs award arising from a dispute concerning consideration for shares and obligations under minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal rejected the attack on the trial judge’s factual findings, holding there was evidence to support the impugned findings.

However, it held the trial judge erred in principle in awarding solicitor-client costs because the pleadings, while strongly worded, did not amount to fraud or dishonest conduct warranting elevated costs and were not pursued unreasonably.

Leave to appeal costs was granted, the appeal on costs was allowed, and party-party costs were substituted, with the respondent recovering 90 percent of the costs of the appeal.