“There are a number of recent cases that have considered bifurcation. In each of Simioni, 2009 CanLII 934 (ON SC), Baudanza v. Nicoletti, 2011 ONSC 352, Dillon v. Dillon, 2013 CarswellOnt 17537 (Ont. S.C.J.), Balsmeier v. Balsmeier, 2014 ONSC 5305 and Grossman v. Grossman, 2014 ONSC 2090Schulman v. Ganz, 2015 ONSC 3254 the Court found significant benefits to the separation of triable issues. In cases in which the issues were not so easily separated, bifurcation was prejudicial to a party, or a two-step process offered no overall economies, bifurcation was not ordered: G. (C.M.) v. G.(R.), 2013 ONSC 961 (CanLII), Hall v. Sabri, 2011 ONSC 5495 (CanLII), and Lakhoo v. Lakhoo, 2014 CarswellAlta 348 (Alta. C.A.).
The latter cases carry another common thread. All were cases in which the issue of spousal or child support had to be determined irrespective of whether the separation agreement was set aside.
In the Alberta Court of Appeal decision of Lakhoo, a lower court’s decision to bifurcate the validity of a prenuptial agreement was set aside despite counsel’s argument that bifurcation would obviate the need for the disclosure of certain financial records. The Court observed:
If only it was that easy. Unfortunately, there remains the matter of spousal support and unless the parties agree on the quantum and duration of the spousal support Mr. Lakhoo should pay Mrs. Lakhoo, (who has not worked since the marriage), it seems that disclosure of this financial information will be required in any event. In other words, there would be no saving of time or resources if the trial were split as the chambers judge has directed. This court has previously said that trials should not be split unless the savings are clear or at least probable (See: Gallant v. Farries, 2012 ABCA 98, 522 AR 13; Edmonton Flying Club v. Edmonton Regional Airports Authority, 2013 ABCA 91 at paras 15-16, 544 AR 6).”