Tyler Teichert

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute involving parenting, child support, equalization, and restraining orders.

The court found that the children’s best interests are served by residing primarily with the father, who is granted sole decision-making responsibility.

The mother is ordered to pay child support and a significant equalization payment, and is restrained from communicating with the father or his employer except as necessary for parenting.

The court declined to order police enforcement or spousal support, and provided detailed reasons for each aspect of the relief granted.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with a prior financial disclosure order and to compel the respondent to obtain an expert valuation of his jewelry business.

The court found the respondent in breach of the disclosure order but declined to strike his pleadings immediately, instead granting him 21 days to comply.

The court also ordered the respondent to obtain an expert business valuation at his own expense due to his inconsistent evidence regarding the business's value.

No costs were awarded due to divided success on the broader motion and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order compelling the respondent to buy her interest in the matrimonial home, arguing they had reached a binding agreement.

In the alternative, she sought to vary a previous order to dispense with the respondent's consent to sell the home and to hold 50 percent of the sale proceeds in trust.

The court found that the parties had not reached an agreement on all essential terms and that specific performance would not be appropriate even if they had.

The court declined to dispense with the respondent's consent but imposed strict conditions to prevent him from frustrating the sale.

The court also varied the previous order, directing that 50 percent of the sale proceeds be held in trust pending trial to preserve the applicant's potential claim for damages.

The applicant sought a divorce, a declaration of no equalization payments, and costs following an uncontested trial.

The respondent failed to participate or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the divorce and declared no equalization payments were due, finding it unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act to award the respondent an equalization payment.

This decision was based on the short marriage, the applicant's sole ownership and maintenance of the matrimonial home (purchased before marriage with a gift), loans provided by the applicant to the respondent, and the respondent's deliberate failure to disclose financial information.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis.