APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT I FAilED to provide fulsome disclosure to demonstrate a material change has occurred, alleging it is not required at this stage in the face of clear case law demonstrating otherwise- This claim is also indefensible .SHE AGAIN RELIES ON BRETA ON PARA 10-WE SHOULD GO TO PARA 10-11 PAGE 3-- TO THE CONTRARY in D’AMICO CASE THE QUESTION FOR THE COURT WAS HOW MUCH DISCLOSURE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ONE SUPPORT ADJUSTING IN INTERIM SUBJECT TO REVIEW IN ONLY HOUR MOTION.
FACTUM PG 18, Kimmel J. in Roberts v. D’Amico, 2021 ONSC 707 at para 38-40 articulates:49 It is sufficient for purposes of this motion that the ranges of the respondent’s income reduction post-March 2020 are estimated to be more than 20% when compared to his benchmark income of $300,000.00. AFTER FINISHING THIS PART GO TO FACTUM PAGE 6 FACTUM TO COMPARE THE INCOME BASED ON EXHIBIT 14 PAGE 126 AND HOSPITAL LETTER PG 60-61 - THESE DISCLOSURES PROVIDED LONG BEFORE THE COURT YET AW DECIDED WILLFULLY IGNORE.
I PROVIDED NUMEROUS EXHIBITS TO SHOW INVOLUNTERLY INCOME REDUCTION, MPC,PERSONLA FINANCIALS, BILLING AGNET HUOSTON MED BILLING LOG AND MY PERSONAL WITH THE LEVEL OF DEBTS ARE REFLECTED - LINE OF CREDIT DELINQUENCY AND INCURRING DEBTS AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO SHOW THE MERIT OF MY CASE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION ON THE MTC TRIAL AS PER AS PER D,AMICO CASE -THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT OF DISCLOSURE VOLUME IS IRRELEVANT -