SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-489
DATE: 20150702
RE: Hugh Hutchinson, Applicant/Moving Party
AND
Leslie Ann Hutchinson, Respondent/Responding Party
BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J.
COUNSEL:
Diana Carr, Counsel, for the Applicant
Beverley Johnston, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: by written submissions
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal from the temporary order of Justice Maranger, dated February 4, 2015, requiring him to produce his bank statements and credit card statements from January, 2011 forward to the date of trial. In so doing, the Respondent relies upon Rules of Civil Procedure 62.02(4)(b), namely that there is good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that the proposed appeal involves matters of such importance that leave to appeal should be granted. In particular, the Applicant says the disclosure ordered is not relevant to any issue in the case, and that the judge exceeded his discretion in making what was a contested disclosure order at a settlement conference.
[2] For reasons that follow, leave to appeal is denied and the motion is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
[3] There is no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order. The disclosure required is sufficiently relevant to issues in the case to warrant the productions ordered. The Respondent seeks retroactive child support in the sum of $262,525. The trial court will be concerned as to the Applicant’s ability to pay such an amount without hardship. The Respondent also alleges blameworthy conduct by the Applicant in his personal spending habits over the years, also potentially relevant to the retroactive claim. The Applicant seeks a determination that child support in the table amount is inappropriate and that the court should order another amount under s. 4(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to their support. Whether and to what extent the Applicant has contributed directly to the children’s expenses may be relevant to a finding that the table amount of support is or is not inappropriate. I disagree with the Applicant that only his income, not how he has spent it, is relevant to trial issues.
[4] Three days’ notice was given that this disclosure order would be sought at the settlement conference. Submissions were heard from both counsel. There is authority in Family Law Rules rule 17(5) and (8) for the disclosure order to have been made at the settlement conference. While the notice may have been somewhat short, and while the Applicant may have preferred to have the issue determined on a motion, the judge had the authority to make the order when and as he did.
[5] For these reasons I am not of the view that making this contested disclosure order at the settlement conference gives rise to a matter of public importance, extending beyond the interests of these parties.
[6] The Respondent seeks costs fixed at $3,000 all inclusive. Should the Applicant wish to make submissions as to costs, he may do so, in writing, on or before July 20, 2015, failing which my order shall issue, dismissing this motion with costs to the Respondent fixed at $3,000, payable forthwith.
J. Mackinnon J.
Date: July 2, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-489
DATE: 20150702
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Hugh Hutchinson, Applicant/Moving Party
AND
Leslie Ann Hutchinson, Respondent
BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J.
COUNSEL: Diana Carr, Counsel, for the Applicant
Leslie Ann Hutchinson, Respondent/Responding Party
ENDORSEMENT
J. Mackinnon J.
Released: July 2, 2015