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.
