J. Cox

This motion concerned the consolidation and case management of three interconnected legal proceedings: a family law matter and two civil actions.

The family law proceeding involved claims for child support, equalization, and setting aside a separation agreement due to alleged undisclosed commissions received by the former spouse.

The two civil actions, brought by Halton and Solution, alleged fraudulent diversion of commissions by the former spouse and his common-law partner's company.

The court granted the motion for consolidation and case management, finding significant factual overlap, a high likelihood of inconsistent findings if tried separately, and that consolidation would lead to a more just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution.

The respondent wife brought a motion to annul the applicant husband's assignment in bankruptcy or consolidate the bankruptcy proceedings with their family law proceedings.

Following a teleconference where the husband did not participate, the court issued procedural directions setting a timetable for the delivery of responding materials by the Trustee, the Department of Justice, and the husband, and ordered the motion to proceed in writing.

The respondent wife brought an urgent motion to annul the husband's bankruptcy and prevent asset distribution, citing the husband's history of misrepresenting financial circumstances and concealing offshore assets.

The court, acknowledging the urgency related to non-depletion of assets during the COVID-19 suspension of regular operations, ordered the Trustee in Bankruptcy to halt asset distribution and provide a detailed accounting.

Other relief sought was deferred until court re-opening.

The court also addressed the wife's non-compliance with an urgent motion practice direction, overlooking it due to the urgency of asset preservation.

This ruling addresses the appropriate sanction for contempt of court by the applicant (husband) and associated costs.

The husband was previously found in contempt of six court orders concerning financial disclosure.

The court ordered the husband to be imprisoned for 30 days, to be served on weekends, and to pay the respondent (wife) $119,260 in costs, with half enforceable as a support order.

The court found the husband acted in bad faith by deliberately suppressing financial disclosure and misleading the court.

A request for a sealing order by the wife was declined due to lack of proper notice and non-compliance with practice directions.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking the incarceration of the applicant husband for his contempt of six financial disclosure orders.

The husband had repeatedly failed to disclose offshore bank accounts and income, misled the court, and instructed his offshore bank to disobey a court direction.

The court found the husband's conduct to be a deliberate and flagrant disobedience of court orders.

However, rather than immediately incarcerating the husband, the court deferred sentencing to allow him a final opportunity to purge his contempt by providing the required disclosure, warning that a period of incarceration would be imposed regardless.

The court determined costs for consolidated matrimonial and civil proceedings.

Barbara Ann Blatherwick sought full indemnity costs from Brian Earl Blatherwick and joint and several costs from Seasons (H.K.) Limited.

The court found Brian Earl Blatherwick acted in bad faith throughout the litigation, engaged in deliberate non-disclosure, and complicated the proceedings, warranting full indemnity costs.

Barbara Ann Blatherwick was awarded $1,401,031.31 against him.

Seasons (H.K.) Limited was also found to have acted in bad faith and engaged in reprehensible conduct by presenting false documents and evasive evidence, leading to an award of full indemnity costs of $147,877.41 against it.

This amount was included in the award against Brian Earl Blatherwick and made joint and several to that extent only.

The court rejected a broader joint and several liability for Seasons (H.K.) due to lack of notice and policy concerns regarding consolidation.

During a lengthy matrimonial trial, the applicant alleged that the respondent's former counsel, SimpsonWigle LLP, breached a Mareva injunction by receiving payments from frozen offshore companies.

The parties agreed to defer the contempt hearing against the law firm until after the trial judgment.

At the commencement of the contempt hearing, the law firm brought a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the Mareva order was no longer live and operative.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no requirement in law that an order must be live and operative when a contempt motion is brought or a finding is made, particularly where the purpose is to address a deliberate breach rather than to coerce compliance.

In the context of a family law dispute, the applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent's former lawyers for allegedly receiving funds in breach of a Mareva injunction.

Both the applicant and the alleged contemnors brought motions for documentary production.

The court held that because contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding, the alleged contemnors are not subject to the automatic disclosure obligations of the Rules of Civil Procedure and have a right against self-incrimination.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for an affidavit of documents but granted a preservation order against the lawyers.

The court also ordered the applicant to produce relevant communications to the alleged contemnors to allow them to make full answer and defence.

The applicant brought an ex parte motion to enforce a family law judgment, seeking to pierce the corporate veil of an offshore company, issue garnishments, and obtain a vesting order for the respondent's shares.

The court granted leave to proceed ex parte due to the respondent's history of contempt and asset depletion.

However, the court adjourned the requests to pierce the corporate veil and issue garnishments to allow notice to affected third parties.

The court dismissed the request for a vesting order, finding it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, Family Law Rules, or Rules of Civil Procedure to grant new substantive relief after the final judgment had been entered.

This decision concerns the sentencing of the respondent, Brian Earl Blatherwick, for civil contempt of court.

He was found in contempt for deliberately and flagrantly breaching two terms of a prior judgment: failing to cash in a life insurance policy and pay the value to the applicant, and transferring control of a business.

Despite having 50 days to purge his contempt, the respondent failed to do so.

The court considered mitigating and aggravating factors, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the respondent's extensive history of ignoring court orders, lying, and financial non-disclosure.

The court imposed a sentence of 180 days incarceration without electronic monitoring and awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $30,000, finding the respondent's actions to be in bad faith with intent to inflict financial harm and deceive the court.

In a high-net-worth matrimonial dispute, the court addressed equalization, spousal support, a related corporate application, and a bankruptcy annulment.

The husband, who founded a highly successful international Halloween products business, engaged in extensive efforts to hide his income and assets in offshore companies, breached a Mareva injunction, and made a strategic assignment into bankruptcy to defeat his wife's claims.

The court imputed the husband's income at $1,400,000 per year, ordered an equalization payment of over $3.5 million, and awarded lump sum spousal support of nearly $6 million due to his history of non-compliance.

The court also annulled the husband's bankruptcy as an abuse of process and dismissed a related application by one of his offshore companies claiming beneficial ownership of an Ontario property.