Valois P. Ambrosino

The applicant sought temporary child support and contribution to section 7 expenses, while the respondent sought parenting-related relief including a 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the respondent, who reported no current income while serving as CEO of a biotechnology company without salary.

Applying s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that despite the absence of reported income, the respondent maintained a high standard of living and income should therefore be imputed based on his expenses.

Income was imputed at $123,000 annually and guideline child support was ordered accordingly.

The court declined to order contribution to section 7 expenses due to insufficient evidence and maintained the existing parenting schedule pending further discussion at a settlement conference.

In a family law proceeding involving equalization and support issues, the responding spouse sought an advance on the equalization payment or interim disbursements for legal and expert fees.

The parties had previously consented to an order requiring disclosure, retaining a joint income analysis expert, and permitting the respondent to encumber the matrimonial home for certain legal and accounting costs.

The court reviewed the existing consent order and a subsequent disclosure order and concluded that the issues of interim disbursements and advances had already been adequately addressed.

No additional relief was granted, and the matter was left to proceed with completion of expert reports and continued case management.

Following multiple attendances in a family law proceeding concerning support and property division after a long marriage, the court addressed costs arising from motions primarily related to financial disclosure.

The applicant spouse had brought motions seeking disclosure, spousal support, and advances on equalization, arguing that the respondent had delayed providing necessary financial information, including business valuations and income analysis relating to corporate interests.

The court found the respondent had failed to provide timely and adequate disclosure, causing unnecessary delay and requiring the applicant to bring motions to compel compliance.

Although the applicant did not obtain the exact relief requested in earlier motions, the court concluded the motions were necessary and that the applicant was more successful overall.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the applicant payable forthwith.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking an increase in child support under an existing divorce order.

The respondent opposed the increase and brought a cross‑motion seeking termination of a nominal $1 per year spousal support order.

The court found the respondent’s guideline income to be approximately $191,500 after adjusting professional expense deductions and concluded the guideline table amount was less than the $2,600 monthly support already being paid.

The court ordered no change to the existing child support but directed that verified section 7 expenses be shared proportionately based on the parties’ respective incomes.

The respondent’s request to terminate the nominal spousal support order was also refused due to insufficient evidentiary basis.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings and permitting the respondent to proceed with an uncontested trial, as well as a costs order of $63,032.92.

The motion judge struck the pleadings on an ex parte basis after the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with financial disclosure orders regarding bank accounts established in the children's names.

The Court of Appeal held that while striking pleadings ex parte when a party purports to comply is not endorsed, the motion judge committed no error given his familiarity with the case and the appellant's ongoing non-compliance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $15,000 awarded to the respondent.

The parties indicated confidence that the entire litigation, including the appeal, had settled.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal and directed counsel to notify the court by March 31, 2007, whether the appeal was abandoned or should be rescheduled, noting a serious jurisdictional issue.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application for failure to post security for costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's decision, noting that because the required security was not provided, the lower court had no choice but to dismiss the application.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.