John Cox

This supplementary judgment addresses the penalty for the husband's contempt of court, including the violation of a mareva injunction and preservation order, the issue of a stay pending appeal, costs, mathematical corrections, and further procedural matters.

The court imposes a 90-day custodial sentence, finds the husband acted in bad faith, and awards costs to the wife.

The judgment also addresses the husband's request for a stay, the process for varying the sentence if the husband purges his contempt, and the next steps in related proceedings.

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction to hear a family law application involving parties with significant international connections, including property in the Bahamas and Spain, and a prior divorce proceeding commenced in Spain.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction over all claims, including divorce, support, decision-making responsibility, and property/equalization, due to the real and substantial connection between the parties and Ontario, particularly as the applicant and one child were ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The respondent's motion to stay or dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis of forum non conveniens was dismissed.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated in 2009 after a 10-year marriage marked by family violence.

The husband initiated the proceeding in 2010 but subsequently engaged in a 14-year pattern of chronic non-disclosure, hiding assets in offshore accounts, and breaching numerous court orders, resulting in his pleadings being struck.

Following an uncontested trial, the court drew adverse inferences against the husband and imputed his income at $300,000 for 2010-2017 and $200,828 thereafter.

The court ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment of $2,670,870.32, plus prejudgment interest of $791,455.71, and a lump sum of $1,231,355.39 for retroactive and prospective child and spousal support.

The court also found the husband in contempt for breaching a 2019 Mareva injunction, pierced the corporate veil of his companies to enforce the judgment, and granted the wife leave to bring a contempt motion against the husband's former counsel.

The applicant father sought unsupervised parenting time, while the respondent mother sought a forensic psychiatric assessment of the father, supervised parenting time, and a restraining order.

The father's motion was adjourned due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.

The mother's request for a restraining order was dismissed as the court found no reasonable grounds to fear for her safety or the children's safety, noting the dated nature of the allegations and lack of recent concerning conduct.

The applicant sought an order to release a transcript of statements made by the respondent during a settlement conference, alleging contradictions with the respondent's sworn statements regarding employment and income.

The respondent opposed, asserting the confidentiality of settlement conferences.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that settlement conferences are confidential to foster open discussion and resolution, as per Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that unsworn statements from a settlement conference are not equivalent to sworn testimony and that the applicant had alternative means to introduce contradictory evidence.

The court reiterated its role as a gatekeeper against disclosure, reserving exceptions for extraordinary circumstances like safety risks, which were not present.

In a divorce application involving complex corporate structures, the applicant husband brought an interim motion seeking to compel the respondent wife to transfer her shares in several closely held corporations to him, or alternatively, to wind up the companies.

He also sought a restraining order.

The wife sought a sealing order for a video exhibit, and the husband sought to consolidate the wife's wrongful dismissal action with the family proceeding.

The court dismissed the husband's requests for share transfers and winding up, finding no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act prior to equalization and no oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The restraining order was also dismissed.

The court granted the wife's request for a sealing order and the husband's request to transfer and hear the wrongful dismissal action together with the family proceeding.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification and section 96 unfair labour practice complaints against the employer and the incumbent union.

At the outset of the hearing, the incumbent union and the employer brought motions to dismiss the applications.

The Board granted the motions, finding that the allegations of improper conduct during the representation vote campaign, even if true, would not support a finding of a breach of the Act or undermine the vote results.

The Board also noted the applicant failed to raise its concerns prior to the counting of the ballots.

The applications and complaints were dismissed.