V. Sehdev

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

The parties lived separate and apart under the same roof.

The respondent father, a medical doctor, failed to provide a court-ordered business and income valuation report and claimed he could not afford spousal support based on an imputed income of $190,000.

Due to the father's non-compliance with financial disclosure, the court imputed his income at a conservative $250,000 and ordered him to pay temporary spousal support based on the high range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, while continuing to pay household and section 7 expenses.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the matrimonial home, which was solely owned by the applicant and facing foreclosure due to unpaid mortgage arrears.

The respondent sought exclusive possession and a preservation order, while the applicant sought an order for the sale of the home.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for exclusive possession, finding no compelling evidence that the children's best interests required them to stay or that suitable alternative accommodation was unavailable.

The court ordered the sale of the home, directing that the respondent receive an advance on equalization of up to $400,000 from the proceeds, and issued a limited preservation order preventing the applicant from further encumbering his rental property.