3 total
The court adjourned disclosure enforcement motions on consent, emphasizing proportionality and the need for discovery plans.
The parties, a mother on disability and a father whose income is disputed, are engaged in protracted litigation over financial disclosure.
The Respondent sought to strike the Applicant's pleadings for alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders, including a demand for a business valuation the Applicant claimed she could not afford.
The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in disclosure, the importance of a discovery plan, and the need for counsel to exhaust reasonable efforts before seeking drastic enforcement measures.
The parties ultimately agreed to defer costs and adjourn the disclosure motions, with the court providing guidance on future disclosure requests and the need for a trial scheduling form.
The court expunged the payor's child support arrears after recalculating his obligations based on actual income, while imputing minimum wage for a period of unjustified unemployment.
The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order dated April 7, 2010, which required him to pay $823.00 monthly based on an imputed income of $54,720.00.
The respondent sought to expunge all arrears and have child support recalculated based on his actual income.
The applicant opposed the motion and sought to maintain the arrears with only a $15,000.00 reduction.
The court found that the respondent had overpaid child support in prior years and imputed minimum wage income for 2014 when the respondent was unemployed.
The court determined there were no arrears as of September 8, 2016, and suspended the child support order pending determination of the respondent's 2016 income.
Court rejects income imputation and orders equalization, spousal support, and child support.
Family law trial addressing the date of separation, equalization of net family property, and entitlement to child and spousal support.
The court found the parties separated in February 2009 when the respondent informed the applicant the marriage was over while she was in Tanzania with the children.
Based on incomplete financial disclosure, the court calculated the parties’ net family properties and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.
The court declined to impute income to the applicant under s.19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, finding she was not intentionally under‑employed due to caregiving responsibilities and serious health issues.
Spousal support and set‑off child support were ordered, along with payment for extraordinary expenses.
