Angela Pagano

In a family law matter involving equalization of net family property, spousal support, child support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders and to determine the amount of penalty owing under a prior endorsement.

The respondent, who relocated to Florida and failed to provide complete financial disclosure despite numerous opportunities and court orders, was found to be in continued breach of disclosure obligations.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings, finding a consistent pattern of non-compliance and disregard for court process, and ordered the respondent to pay a penalty of $399,000 for non-compliance with the disclosure order.

The matter will proceed to an uncontested trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion to quash an appeal in a family law matter concerning a motion for a sealing order and publication ban to protect a child’s privacy.

The court held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, and thus any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The decision reviews the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, emphasizing that privacy and sealing orders are generally collateral to the main issues in family law proceedings and do not determine substantive rights.

The court also declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court.

The applicant wife sought costs arising from her successful motion to strike the husband's pleadings due to his ongoing breaches of court orders.

The court found the husband's conduct unreasonable and awarded the wife $50,000 in costs.

Additionally, the court awarded Grandhill Capital Inc., a non-party, $10,000 in costs, payable by the husband, due to the wife's withdrawn relief against Grandhill, which was necessitated by the husband's conduct.

The court emphasized proportionality and reasonableness in costs awards, reducing the wife's claimed costs from $120,000 as excessive despite the husband's unreasonable behavior.

The Appellant (L) appealed a family law decision that found her guilty of parental alienation and implemented a custody reversal.

L raised several grounds of appeal, including the trial judge's refusal to conduct a judicial interview of the child, refusal to re-open the trial for fresh evidence regarding sexual abuse allegations (which were later disproven), alleged judicial bias, and an incomprehensible order.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's discretionary decisions, finding no error in the fresh evidence application denial (due to lack of credibility and due diligence), no apprehension of bias, and that the reasons for the custody reversal were adequately provided and the order was functional.

The applicant, Galit Altman, brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent, Yoel Altman's, pleadings due to his persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and asset preservation.

The court found Yoel in breach of his rolling disclosure obligations, failure to provide corporate financial records, and improper accounting of funds under a preservation order, including undisclosed accounts and transactions.

While not immediately striking the pleadings, the court imposed a daily fine of $3,000 for continued non-compliance and set a 45-day deadline, after which the applicant could move ex parte to strike the pleadings, emphasizing that financial non-disclosure is "the cancer of family law" and that full compliance is the expectation.

The court provided clarification regarding the operative priorities of payments from the respondent's frozen Canaccord accounts, as requested by Justice Diamond.

The endorsement clarified that a January 5, 2024 order, which required the liquidation of assets up to $7,975,007.60 to be paid to the applicant's barristers in trust, takes precedence.

Consequently, no further funds are to be paid out of these specific Canaccord accounts for the children's tuition or any other reason under earlier orders (October 5, 2021, or November 12, 2021) until the specified amount has been fully paid to the barristers.

The court also dismissed the respondent's procedural objections regarding the motion.

The applicant mother sought an advance on equalization of $10,505,000 to address significant income tax liabilities related to corporate assets managed by the respondent father in her name.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary existing preservation orders, arguing financial transparency and hardship.

The court granted the applicant an advance on equalization of $7,975,007.60, finding a clear need for the funds to discharge tax liabilities created by the respondent and that the advance would not exceed the likely final equalization payment.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, finding his financial disclosure lacked transparency and his claims of hardship were unsubstantiated.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary sealing orders, publication bans, exclusion of the public from proceedings, and initialization of names.

The primary purpose of these orders was to prevent the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from becoming aware of a multi-million dollar tax liability, thereby preserving the applicant's ability to apply to the CRA's Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP).

The tax liability allegedly arose from the respondent father's financial actions during the marriage, including failing to file tax returns for a company in which the applicant was a shareholder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that preventing financial harm to children by hiding tax liability from the CRA was not an "important public interest" sufficient to override the open court principle under the *Sherman Estate* test.

The applicant mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent father's pleadings and impose a daily penalty of $3,500 for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent in breach of numerous obligations, including the failure to deliver an income and business valuation report.

The court ordered that the respondent's pleadings (except regarding parenting) would be struck if he failed to deliver the required reports by a final deadline.

However, the court dismissed the request for a daily monetary penalty, holding that such a penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 1(8) absent a formal finding of civil contempt under Rule 31.