In a family law motion to change a prior support order, the applicant sought extensive financial disclosure from three corporations in which the respondent held shares to determine the respondent’s true income for child support purposes.
The court considered the criteria under rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules governing disclosure from non-parties.
It held that broader disclosure was warranted from the corporation wholly owned by the respondent because its assets were directly relevant to assessing his means.
However, disclosure requests concerning asset details from corporations in which the respondent held only minority interests were denied on proportionality grounds.
Partial production of corporate tax summaries and related documents was ordered with redactions.
