Julie K. Hannaford

In a family law matter involving equalization of net family property, spousal support, child support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders and to determine the amount of penalty owing under a prior endorsement.

The respondent, who relocated to Florida and failed to provide complete financial disclosure despite numerous opportunities and court orders, was found to be in continued breach of disclosure obligations.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings, finding a consistent pattern of non-compliance and disregard for court process, and ordered the respondent to pay a penalty of $399,000 for non-compliance with the disclosure order.

The matter will proceed to an uncontested trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion to quash an appeal in a family law matter concerning a motion for a sealing order and publication ban to protect a child’s privacy.

The court held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, and thus any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The decision reviews the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, emphasizing that privacy and sealing orders are generally collateral to the main issues in family law proceedings and do not determine substantive rights.

The court also declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court.

The applicant wife sought costs arising from her successful motion to strike the husband's pleadings due to his ongoing breaches of court orders.

The court found the husband's conduct unreasonable and awarded the wife $50,000 in costs.

Additionally, the court awarded Grandhill Capital Inc., a non-party, $10,000 in costs, payable by the husband, due to the wife's withdrawn relief against Grandhill, which was necessitated by the husband's conduct.

The court emphasized proportionality and reasonableness in costs awards, reducing the wife's claimed costs from $120,000 as excessive despite the husband's unreasonable behavior.

The Appellant (L) appealed a family law decision that found her guilty of parental alienation and implemented a custody reversal.

L raised several grounds of appeal, including the trial judge's refusal to conduct a judicial interview of the child, refusal to re-open the trial for fresh evidence regarding sexual abuse allegations (which were later disproven), alleged judicial bias, and an incomprehensible order.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's discretionary decisions, finding no error in the fresh evidence application denial (due to lack of credibility and due diligence), no apprehension of bias, and that the reasons for the custody reversal were adequately provided and the order was functional.

The applicant, Galit Altman, brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent, Yoel Altman's, pleadings due to his persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and asset preservation.

The court found Yoel in breach of his rolling disclosure obligations, failure to provide corporate financial records, and improper accounting of funds under a preservation order, including undisclosed accounts and transactions.

While not immediately striking the pleadings, the court imposed a daily fine of $3,000 for continued non-compliance and set a 45-day deadline, after which the applicant could move ex parte to strike the pleadings, emphasizing that financial non-disclosure is "the cancer of family law" and that full compliance is the expectation.

The court provided clarification regarding the operative priorities of payments from the respondent's frozen Canaccord accounts, as requested by Justice Diamond.

The endorsement clarified that a January 5, 2024 order, which required the liquidation of assets up to $7,975,007.60 to be paid to the applicant's barristers in trust, takes precedence.

Consequently, no further funds are to be paid out of these specific Canaccord accounts for the children's tuition or any other reason under earlier orders (October 5, 2021, or November 12, 2021) until the specified amount has been fully paid to the barristers.

The court also dismissed the respondent's procedural objections regarding the motion.

The applicant mother sought an advance on equalization of $10,505,000 to address significant income tax liabilities related to corporate assets managed by the respondent father in her name.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary existing preservation orders, arguing financial transparency and hardship.

The court granted the applicant an advance on equalization of $7,975,007.60, finding a clear need for the funds to discharge tax liabilities created by the respondent and that the advance would not exceed the likely final equalization payment.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, finding his financial disclosure lacked transparency and his claims of hardship were unsubstantiated.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary sealing orders, publication bans, exclusion of the public from proceedings, and initialization of names.

The primary purpose of these orders was to prevent the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from becoming aware of a multi-million dollar tax liability, thereby preserving the applicant's ability to apply to the CRA's Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP).

The tax liability allegedly arose from the respondent father's financial actions during the marriage, including failing to file tax returns for a company in which the applicant was a shareholder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that preventing financial harm to children by hiding tax liability from the CRA was not an "important public interest" sufficient to override the open court principle under the *Sherman Estate* test.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant succeeded in part.

The appellant sought costs of $213,626.59 for the proceedings below, including prior reserved motions and expert fees.

The respondent argued for a reduction to $91,280, challenging the inclusion of prior motion costs, expert fees, and claims of duplication/excessive time.

The Court of Appeal found the prior motion costs and expert fees were reasonably included.

A modest reduction was justified due to some relief obtained by the respondent at the motion judge level (reduction of post-judgment interest).

The court awarded the appellant $180,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes for costs of the motion below.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal concerning a motion to change a divorce judgment.

The original judgment included a provision for increased spousal support upon default.

The motion judge had found no material change in circumstances but nevertheless varied the judgment by declaring the default provision an unenforceable penalty and reducing the interest on arrears.

The Court of Appeal held that a judge cannot vary a spousal support order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act without a material change in circumstances, as the common law rule against penalty clauses applies to contracts, not to court orders that have been consented to and incorporated into a judgment.

However, the court affirmed the motion judge's power to vary the post-judgment interest rate under the Courts of Justice Act, as this power is distinct from varying support provisions under the Divorce Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, reinstating the default support provision but upholding the revised interest rate.

The applicant brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking a temporary order to restrain the respondent from depleting his assets.

The parties had previously agreed to submit all issues to mediation-arbitration.

The applicant discovered the respondent had unilaterally withdrawn $1.25 million from an account that required dual signatures.

The court granted the temporary preservation order under the Arbitration Act, noting that an arbitration award would likely not be enforced by financial institutions without a court order, and scheduled a return date for the motion.

The applicant mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent father's pleadings and impose a daily penalty of $3,500 for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent in breach of numerous obligations, including the failure to deliver an income and business valuation report.

The court ordered that the respondent's pleadings (except regarding parenting) would be struck if he failed to deliver the required reports by a final deadline.

However, the court dismissed the request for a daily monetary penalty, holding that such a penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 1(8) absent a formal finding of civil contempt under Rule 31.

The moving party in a family law proceeding brought a Form 14B motion seeking financial disclosure from the responding party to support a claim for a reduction in spousal support based on a material change in circumstances.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that a Form 14B motion was inappropriate for this request.

The court held that the motion was procedural and appropriate for a Form 14B motion, and ordered the responding party to provide the requested financial disclosure, including bank statements and property documentation.

No costs were awarded as the motion might have been avoided with better communication between counsel.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order that the parties' three-year-old child be enrolled in public school for September 2022, rather than the private Jewish day school he currently attended.

The respondent mother argued the court should order the parties to attend a family dispute resolution process before deciding the issue.

The court declined to make a determination on school placement at this time, finding no urgency.

Instead, applying the new provisions of the Divorce Act, the court ordered the parties to attend a family dispute resolution process pursuant to s. 16.1(6) to attempt to design a comprehensive parenting plan.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders in a high-net-worth family law proceeding.

The parties separated after a traditional marriage where the applicant was the primary caregiver and the respondent was an entrepreneur with complex, international business interests.

The respondent failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure, claiming his finances were complex and he had lost everything, despite evidence of lavish spending.

The court ordered the respondent to provide comprehensive financial disclosure and serve expert valuation reports within 20 days.

The court also appointed an independent supervising solicitor to review quarantined documents found in the matrimonial home for relevance and privilege.

Given the respondent's lack of disclosure and unilateral financial actions, the court granted a preservation order restraining him from depleting his assets, subject to ordinary business exceptions.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the children, noting the respondent's frequent travel and lack of day-to-day involvement.

Finally, the court imputed an income of $1,200,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum of $1,700,000 for interim child and spousal support, citing the real risk of non-payment of periodic support.

The moving party sought to vary a 1999 divorce judgment that ordered him to pay $388,000 in spousal support, of which he had paid only $160,000 before defaulting in 2001.

He argued that the failure of his business, his health issues, and his new family constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion to change the support amount, finding that the business failure was foreseeable and his health issues did not impact his earning capacity.

However, the court granted his request to strike a default provision in the judgment that doubled the outstanding support plus $50,000, finding it to be an unenforceable penalty clause.

The applicant sought the release of $2,750,000 from her share of the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent brought a cross-motion, agreeing to release $500,000 to the applicant and $100,000 to himself, but sought to impose a condition that a further $2,000,000 be released to the applicant only upon her entering into an agreement to purchase a home in Toronto, citing concerns about her financial management and the children's future housing.

The court found no legal basis to impose such conditions on the applicant's share of property proceeds, distinguishing it from child support cases where such interference is rare and only in exceptional circumstances.

The court granted the applicant's motion for the release of funds without preconditions and denied the respondent's cross-motion.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision enforcing a Separation Agreement dated October 30, 2012, between the parties.

The appellant sought to set aside the agreement, alleging non-disclosure of assets by the respondent and arguing he did not understand the nature or consequences of the agreement.

The motion judge found no basis to set aside the agreement under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the motion judge properly applied the legal test, made findings open to him, and that the parties were sophisticated individuals who had received independent legal advice.

The court noted that both parties had failed to fully disclose assets, making the appellant's claim disingenuous, and that the agreement itself contained acknowledgments of sufficient disclosure.

The appellant appealed from a contempt order under which he was ordered jailed.

On the eve of the expedited appeal hearing, the appellant accepted an offer to settle under which he agreed to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on a full indemnity scale.

The court found the costs claimed to be wholly disproportionate and far beyond the range of anything that could be considered reasonable, even on a full indemnity basis.

The court fixed costs of the appeal at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes on a full indemnity basis.

Additionally, the appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the order underlying the contempt finding and several other orders, but was largely unsuccessful.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

No order was made as to costs in relation to the respondent's motion to deny audience to the appellant.

The plaintiff brought a refusals motion seeking answers to numerous questions refused on examinations conducted in connection with a pending motion for particulars in a professional negligence and breach of contract action against former lawyers.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants’ affidavit asserting lack of knowledge regarding certain particulars waived solicitor-client privilege over the defendants’ files and related information.

The court held that any waiver of privilege was limited to the knowledge addressed in the affidavit at the time it was sworn and did not extend to the entirety of counsel’s files.

The requested questions and document production exceeded the scope of the limited waiver and intruded upon solicitor-client privilege.

The court dismissed the refusals motion and confirmed the propriety of the defendants’ redactions and document production.