Tanya Cianfarani

The applicant father sought an equal time parenting order for the parties' three children.

The respondent mother opposed overnight parenting time, citing concerns about the father's mental health and a history of family violence.

The court declined to order a week-on/week-off schedule, finding it not in the children's best interests given the lack of recent overnight time and the young age of one child.

Instead, the court ordered a step-up parenting schedule, delaying overnight time until both parties provided medical letters addressing mental health and substance use.

At a settlement conference, the court addressed the Applicant's repeated failure to comply with disclosure orders.

Earlier that day, another judge had struck the Applicant's pleadings due to his non-attendance at a motion.

The court set aside the order striking the pleadings under Rule 25(19)(e), noting the Applicant's attempt to attend virtually and the Respondent's need for his financial disclosure to proceed.

The court made temporary consent orders regarding parenting time and ordered the Applicant to provide specific financial disclosure and pay costs.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleadings due to his repeated failure to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure.

The applicant, who was self-employed, had failed to provide income tax returns, bank statements, and other financial documents necessary to determine child support and equalization.

The court found the applicant's non-compliance to be wilful and significant.

The court ordered the applicant's pleadings struck, permitting the respondent to proceed by uncontested trial, but stayed the order for 30 days to allow the applicant a final opportunity to provide the outstanding disclosure and bring a motion to reinstate his pleadings.

The appellant mother appealed an order reducing her spousal support from $2,200 to $1,150 per month.

The motion judge had imputed income to the appellant after finding she unreasonably failed to complete her nursing program, rejecting her evidence that childcare responsibilities prevented her completion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the competing affidavits raised significant credibility issues that could not be resolved without a trial.

The court directed a trial on the issue of spousal support and reinstated the original support amount in the interim.