Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 708/12 DATE: 2017/03/20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Beverly Anne McKee Self-represented Applicant
- and -
James Alexander McKee Self-represented Respondent
HEARD: March 16, 2017
The Honourable Justice J. R. Henderson
Endorsement
[1] This is my decision on a motion brought by the applicant (hereinafter called “the wife”) for disclosure from the respondent (hereinafter called “the husband”). For reasons set out in this endorsement I am of the view that some further disclosure is warranted.
[2] However, the wife’s motion is complicated by the fact that on March 14, 2017 the wife failed to attend at a scheduled settlement conference. As a result of the wife’s default, her Answer was struck and the court scheduled an uncontested hearing.
[3] Further complicating matters is the fact that both parties are self-represented, and both have filed a large amount of material, much of which is irrelevant and/or incomprehensible. With this Endorsement I hope to provide some direction as to how this action should proceed.
[4] By way of background, I note that the parties separated in 2012 and almost immediately were engaged in a litigious battle. After multiple motions and court appearances, the case was tried before Justice MacPherson over the course of approximately three weeks between February and July 2015. The issues at the trial included the net family properties of each party, the wife’s entitlement to a share of the family business, and the wife’s claim for spousal support. Justice MacPherson released her Reasons for Judgment on January 28, 2016. In summary, Justice MacPherson ordered the husband to pay spousal support in the amount of $380 per month commencing March 1, 2016, and fixed arrears of spousal support at $3,954.86.
[5] Thereafter, in August 2016 the husband commenced a Motion To Change (“MTC”) with a request to terminate spousal support as of July 1, 2016. At approximately the same time, the husband commenced a Divorce Application. The wife contests both the husband’s MTC and the husband’s Divorce Application.
[6] On March 14, 2017 the wife failed to attend at a scheduled settlement conference and failed to file a settlement conference brief. A few days earlier she had written to the trial coordinator and informed the trial coordinator that she was not willing to participate in a settlement conference because she had a pending motion for disclosure. As a result of the wife’s failure to attend at the settlement conference, her Answer was struck, and both the Divorce Application and the MTC were scheduled for an uncontested hearing.
[7] On the return of this motion, in open court on March 16, 2017 the wife stated that she had in fact intended to attend the settlement conference, but did not do so because of a snow storm. She said that she had telephoned the St. Catharines Courthouse and left a message on the general mailbox that she could not attend because of the storm. Further, the wife stated that she had previously emailed the husband and informed him that she did not feel that either one of them should attend the settlement conference because of the pending storm. The husband acknowledged receiving that email, but he said that he responded by saying that they were both obliged to attend.
[8] The husband also informed the court that he was particularly eager to proceed with his Divorce Application because of his advancing age.
THE WIFE’S PLEADINGS
[9] Given these circumstances, I am prepared to reinstate the wife’s pleadings so that she may contest the husband’s MTC.
[10] However, I will not reinstate the wife’s Answer in the Divorce Application because there is simply no legitimate defence to the Divorce Application. Thus, the wife’s Answer in the Divorce Application remains struck. The divorce will be heard at an uncontested hearing on May 2, 2017 at 3:30 p.m.
THE HUSBAND’S MOTION TO CHANGE
[11] The husband’s MTC will proceed as a contested motion. The parties are hereby directed to obtain a new settlement conference date from the trial coordinator.
DISCLOSURE
[12] The parties disagree as to whether full and complete disclosure has been made by the husband. In support of her motion for disclosure, the wife provided a Form 20 – Request for Information, which contained a mixed bag of approximately 100 pages of documents, requests, complaints about the husband, and complaints about the trial process. Buried in these pages are some legitimate requests for disclosure. However, many of the requested documents are documents that pre-date the 2015 trial, and are therefore irrelevant to the current MTC. Other requested documents are confidential documents that relate to attempts to mediate the dispute between the parties.
[13] That being said, the documentary disclosure produced to the court by the husband seems to be incomplete. In summary, the husband has disclosed a copy of his 2013 tax return, his 2015 tax return, and his 2014 notice of assessment. He has also provided a printout of one Bank of Montreal account for the period May 30, 2016 to July 28, 2016, as well as one Bank of Montreal MasterCard statement and one Capital One MasterCard statement. In my view, more complete disclosure is required by the husband.
[14] From what I can glean from the wife’s material, it appears that the wife’s request for disclosure is focused on six bank accounts and two credit card accounts. Accordingly, I will order that the husband produce all records related to these accounts for the period from January 1, 2016 to the present. The husband shall have 60 days to produce this material.
[15] To be more specific, the husband shall produce all records related to the following accounts from January 1, 2016 to the present:
- Bank of Montreal 5280-6100-0185-8303
- Bank of Montreal 2291714919
- Bank of Montreal 21090026-14
- Bank of Montreal 0493-3212-126
- Scotiabank 709120486825
- Scotiabank 709120743127 (US Funds)
- Scotiabank 3839-4796-584 (US Funds)
- Capital One Credit Card 5457-5690-9807-5188
[16] I will also order that the husband is to provide a copy of his 2016 tax return and notice of assessment as soon as same are available.
CONCLUSION
[17] An order will be issued in accordance with the reasons set out in this endorsement.
J. R. Henderson J. Released: March 20, 2017