Tracy Engelking

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings for non-compliance with a disclosure order and requested costs.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the applicant's motion and for temporary access to the children.

The court found that the respondent had substantially complied with the disclosure order and that striking pleadings was an extreme remedy not warranted by the facts.

The applicant's motion was dismissed.

The respondent's cross-motion for temporary access was also dismissed, as the issue of access had previously been ordered to be determined at trial.

No costs were awarded, as neither party was entirely successful on their respective motions.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support under the Family Law Act following an eight-year marriage.

The applicant was primarily a stay-at-home mother, while the respondent worked full-time and earned additional compensation through travel agencies.

The court imputed an additional $10,000 to the respondent's income for his travel agency work and ordered him to pay $1,100 per month in interim spousal support based on the parties' respective incomes and needs.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking to vary a child support order to reflect the applicant father's actual income retroactively, for spousal support retroactive to June 1, 2015, to vary daycare expense sharing retroactively, for disclosure of rental property leases, and for costs.

The court granted the variations for child support and daycare expenses based on the father's actual income, ordered retroactive spousal support, and ordered the father to provide further disclosure regarding his rental properties.

The court found the respondent had made a prima facie case for interim spousal support and rejected the applicant's hardship argument given his property acquisitions.

The applicant father sought to clarify joint custody and specify access for the child, Gunner, and alternatively, sole custody.

The respondent mother sought sole custody, permission to relocate with Gunner to British Columbia, minimal access for the father, retroactive child and spousal support, Section 7 expenses adjustments, a restraining order, and a police enforcement clause.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the father's inability to exercise joint custody and the mother's new relationship and relocation plan.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, emphasizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximizing contact with both parents and extended family.

Joint custody was maintained, with clarified access provisions for the father.

The court also ordered retroactive child support for a specific period and denied the mother's requests for a restraining order and police enforcement clause.

The applicant wife sought an unequal division of net family property or compensatory spousal support, while the respondent husband sought to exclude his share of a lawsuit settlement from his net family property calculation.

The court found that the husband successfully rebutted the presumption of joint ownership regarding the settlement funds deposited into a joint investment account, allowing him to exclude the majority of the funds on a pro rata basis.

The court dismissed the wife's claims for an unequal division of net family property and spousal support, finding no unconscionability or economic disadvantage.