S. Grant

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory arbitration endorsement award that denied some of her expert's requests for financial disclosure.

The respondent argued the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that the arbitral award was procedural and interlocutory in nature.

Relying on established case law, the court held that it has no jurisdiction to intervene in interlocutory arbitration awards and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion for interim disbursements, a preservation order, and to lift a stay of enforcement of a temporary support order.

The court found that the respondent had been reticent in providing financial disclosure, necessitating the applicant to incur significant expert and legal fees to determine his true income.

To level the playing field, the court ordered the respondent to pay $60,000 as an interim disbursement under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to make a preservation order and ordered that the stay of enforcement remain in place, provided the interim disbursement is paid.

Following earlier findings of contempt for breaching a non‑communication order in a matrimonial proceeding, the court considered whether the respondent had purged his contempt and what sanctions should follow.

The respondent admitted to repeated breaches of orders prohibiting communication with his spouse, including indirect communication through a child and threatening text messages after the contempt finding.

Evidence also showed he had failed to keep the matrimonial home mortgage in good standing while continuing significant discretionary spending.

The court accepted, with hesitation, that the respondent acknowledged responsibility and intended to comply with future orders.

The court found the contempt purged but imposed remedial conditions including a written apology, ongoing disclosure regarding a business venture, continued mortgage compliance, and substantial indemnity costs.