John T. Syrtash

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders against the respondent for consistent and significant non-disclosure, including a monetary penalty and striking pleadings.

The court found the respondent in breach of a consent order and prior disclosure obligations, which had been outstanding for approximately four years.

The court held that it has jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules, specifically Rule 1(8), to impose a monetary penalty for non-compliance with disclosure orders, even without a finding of contempt, in exceptional and egregious circumstances to enforce its process and deter future breaches.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with outstanding obligations by a specified date, failing which a daily monetary penalty of $500 would accrue to the applicant.

The applicant was also granted liberty to renew the motion to strike the respondent's pleadings if non-compliance continued.

A costs endorsement following a trial regarding child support obligations between the parties.

The father sought retroactive child support adjustments and termination of his support obligations, while the mother sought retroactive support.

The court found divided success on the original claims but determined the father was the more successful party overall, particularly based on his reasonable offer to settle that the mother rejected.

The court awarded costs to the father in the amount of $12,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.