J. Ormston

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.

In a wrongful dismissal and oppression action, the defendants brought a motion seeking (1) answers to refusals and undertakings arising from the plaintiff’s discovery, and (2) leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim.

The refusals related to questions about mitigation efforts following termination.

The court held the questions were relevant and protected by the deemed undertaking rule, and the plaintiff’s confidentiality concerns did not justify refusal in the absence of a confidentiality order or evidentiary basis.

Applying the principles governing amendments under Rule 26.01, the court held the proposed amendments raised tenable causes of action and would not cause non-compensable prejudice.

The plaintiff was ordered to answer the discovery refusals and the defendants were granted leave to amend their counterclaim.

The moving defendants sought dismissal of an action after the plaintiff failed to diligently pursue litigation that had been struck from the trial list.

The court considered whether the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action should be dismissed due to delay under the test articulated in prior jurisprudence.

The court found a total delay of approximately 4.5 years, including failure to follow up with the court, failure to comply with prior court orders regarding undertakings, and prolonged inaction following cross-examinations.

The delay was found to be intentional and contumelious, and also inordinate and inexcusable, giving rise to a presumption of prejudice which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

The motion to restore the action and the action itself were dismissed.