John Phillips

In a family law proceeding involving child and spousal support, the court addressed the extent of participation permitted to a respondent whose Answer had been struck for repeated non‑compliance with disclosure orders.

The respondent had failed for an extended period to provide adequate financial disclosure despite multiple court orders and opportunities to comply.

The court balanced the Family Law Rules objective of dealing with cases justly against the need to deter parties from ignoring court orders and imposing unnecessary costs on the opposing party.

The court limited the respondent’s role at the upcoming uncontested hearing, permitting only written submissions and limited documentary disclosure from third parties, while prohibiting other forms of participation such as cross‑examination.

The applicant was permitted to call the respondent for cross‑examination if she chose.

The applicant brought motions in a family law proceeding seeking to have the respondent found in contempt for failing to comply with prior court orders and to strike the respondent’s Answer for persistent disclosure failures.

The court reviewed a lengthy history of non-compliance with disclosure obligations, unpaid support, and failure to provide proof of compliance with prior orders regarding debts and financial disclosure.

While declining to immediately strike the Answer or make a contempt finding, the court granted an adjournment on strict conditions requiring proof of discharged loans, production of personal and corporate tax returns, updated financial disclosure, and payment toward support arrears.

The court warned that failure to comply with any of the terms could permit the applicant to move without notice to strike the respondent’s Answer.