In engaging in my own assessment of the financial disclosure ultimately made by the petitioner respecting his business operations, and in considering those quantum increases, I have chosen to depart somewhat from one aspect of Diamond, J.’s analysis by recognizing that a progressively larger proportion of the annual income earned by the petitioner’s wife since trial ought not to be considered as “sprinkle(d) income”. (see: Coady v. Coady, 2014 MBQB 182, at para 92 and 94)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.