What are the factors that a judge should consider in determining whether or not a party has complied with a financial disclosure motion?

I agree with Justice Faieta, at paragraph 12 of the decision in Pasquali v. Cox, 2017 ONSC 7654, that the following are some of the factors that should be considered by a judge who is confronted with a financial disclosure motion such as this one: (i) past compliance with other disclosure orders on the part of the responding party, (ii) the cost of producing the requested items, (iii) whether the outstanding items are essential to the issue of the respondent’s income for support purposes, (iv) whether the court would be able to fairly and justly adjudicate the support issues absent the requested items, (v) how reasonable the requesting party has/will be on the timeline for providing the requested items, (vi) whether the requested items can be fairly characterized as over-reaching, (vii) whether the requesting party has been vigilant in repeatedly asking for the items, (viii) whether a lesser remedy would suffice, and (ix) whether the requesting party has discharged the burden of proof.