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.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home almost two years after separation.

The parties disputed the length of cohabitation and the wife's ability to earn income.

The court awarded interim spousal support of $3,100 per month, partially retroactive to January 1, 2017, noting the delay in bringing the motion.

The court also ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale, finding no vexatious or oppressive reason to deny the partition, and directed the husband to maintain the wife as a beneficiary on his pension and benefits.

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.

The applicant spouse brought an interlocutory motion in an uncontested family proceeding after the respondent failed to file an answer.

The court considered entitlement to interim spousal support, pension valuation, and the sale of jointly owned real properties pending trial.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the parties’ lengthy marriage, the respondent’s income, and the applicant’s medical inability to work, the court ordered interim spousal support.

The court also authorized the applicant to obtain the family law value of the respondent’s pension without his consent and ordered that jointly owned real properties be listed for sale under the Partition Act.

On a motion arising from a motion to change a final family order, the applicant sought broad financial disclosure from the respondent and from a non-party alleged to be the respondent’s common law spouse.

The court granted, on consent, production of verification for certain categories of the respondent’s expenses, but refused to compel the non-party to disclose additional personal, corporate, and tax documents.

Applying the non-party production factors and emphasizing proportionality, privacy, and the availability of other evidence through questioning, the court held the applicant had not shown it would be unfair to proceed without the requested disclosure.

The balance of the motion was dismissed.