Lalande v. Lalande, 2023 ONCA 68

Case Summary

This appeal concerned an order striking the appellant's pleadings in a family law application due to repeated non-compliance with financial disclosure orders. The appellant argued the motion judge misinterpreted his position, failed to consider alternative remedies, and did not account for his personal circumstances. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the fundamental duty of financial disclosure in family law and finding that, given the appellant's persistent failure to comply, striking the pleadings was an appropriate and necessary remedy under the Family Law Rules.

Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20230127 DOCKET: C70504

MacPherson, Brown and Coroza JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Rene Alexander Lalande Applicant (Appellant)

and

Deborah Katherine Lalande Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel: Steven M. Fehrle, for the appellant Carol Allen, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: January 26, 2023

On appeal from the order of Justice Renu J. Mandhane of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 9, 2022.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This appeal arises out of an order striking the appellant’s pleadings in an underlying application initiated by him for equalization, spousal support, trust claims and various other relief.

[2] There were four previous orders made by judges directing the appellant to provide financial disclosure. Following non-compliance with the orders, the respondent brought a motion to strike the appellant’s pleadings and to proceed to an uncontested trial.

[3] The appellant did not file responding materials on the motion, but appeared for the hearing. The respondent provided the motion judge with a detailed chart of all of the outstanding disclosure items that were missing. The motion judge then provided the appellant an opportunity to be heard at the hearing, at which point he indicated that he had “no defence” and that he had provided all disclosure. The motion judge interpreted this to mean that the appellant was not taking a position on the motion and accordingly struck his pleadings.

[4] On this appeal, the appellant argues that the motion judge misinterpreted the appellant in finding that he was not taking a position on the motion. Further, he submits that the motion judge ought to have considered other possible remedies before striking the pleadings, and that she ought to have considered the appellant’s personal circumstances before ordering such remedy. Ultimately, the appellant seeks an additional 60 days to fully comply with the orders.

[5] We do not accept any of these arguments. The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information. This requirement is immediate and ongoing: Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6, at para. 11.

[6] The appellant was given several opportunities to comply with the disclosure orders. He did not do so. Given that repeated failure, the record discloses there was no viable alternative remedy available to the motion judge that would fairly balance both parties’ interests. In those circumstances, we see no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s decision to strike the appellant’s pleadings pursuant to r. 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, for failure to obey the previous orders.

[7] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to her costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $7,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements. These costs shall be deducted from any equalization payment owed by the respondent to the appellant after resolution of the matter or after trial.

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”

“S. Coroza J.A.”