Samuel Raymond Bachinski

The applicant brought a contempt motion and sought to have the respondent's Answer struck pursuant to r. 1(8)(c) of the Family Law Rules for persistent failure to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The proceedings had been ongoing since 2019, with orders from 2019, 2020, and 2021 remaining outstanding, and the respondent had twice received further opportunities to comply in early 2025.

Despite repeated court orders, the respondent refused to produce business records and corporate financial documents material to unresolved issues of spousal support and equalization.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful and egregious, and held that it would be futile to issue yet another disclosure order.

The respondent's Answer was struck, and the matter was directed to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The respondent, Frank Lopez, brought a motion to terminate a temporary spousal support order of $11,000 per month, arguing a significant change in his income due to the involuntary termination of his professional corporation's partnership with a national accounting firm.

The applicant, Sandra Lopez, opposed, asserting Frank was intentionally underemployed and seeking income imputation.

The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate a need for temporary spousal support and that the respondent was not intentionally underemployed, accepting his explanation that the partnership termination was involuntary.

The motion to terminate spousal support was granted, effective October 1, 2023, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

In this family law motion, the Applicant sought to impute income to the Respondent for alleged underemployment and requested contributions to daycare costs.

The Respondent sought child and spousal support, maintenance of health benefits for herself and the child, and designation as a life insurance beneficiary.

The court found the Applicant failed to establish deliberate underemployment, calculating support based on the Respondent's actual current income.

Interim, interim orders were made for child and spousal support, retroactive to March 1, 2016.

The court also ordered both parties to maintain health benefits for the child and addressed life insurance beneficiaries.