Stockill v. Stockill, 2020 ONSC 7535

Court File and Parties

Stockill v. Stockill, CITATION: 2020 ONSC 7535

COURT FILE NO.: 54/19

DATE: 2020-12-04

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Linda Jacqueline Stockill, Applicant

AND: William Roy Stockill, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL: Marlene VanderSpek for the Applicant; Luigi De Lisio for the Respondent

HEARD: December 4, 2020 at Welland

ENDORSEMENT

1This is a divorce action. The Applicant is moving to cite the Respondent for contempt of the order of Donohue J. made December 5, 2019. The Respondent is moving for additional disclosure.

The contempt

2A case conference was held on December 5, 2019 before Donohue J. On consent, in the presence of the Respondent, she ordered him to do six things within 30 days:

1. Provide statements of a certain bank account "retroactive to the date of separation."
2. File a certificate of financial disclosure.
3. File an up to date financial statement.
4. Provide confirmation that the Applicant remains listed as beneficiary of his life insurance policy available to him through his employer.
5. Provide confirmation of any and all life insurance policies in existence at the date of separation available for both parties through the Niagara Regional Police.
6. Provide details and documents related to the contract settlement received in 2017.

3He did not do so. In late January 2020 counsel for the Applicant wrote to counsel for the Respondent to ask after the disclosure. The order of Donohue J. was taken out on February 25, 2020. The Applicant brought the present motion, returnable March 6, 2020. On March 10, 2020 the Respondent provided the requested disclosure more or less sufficiently.

4I say more or less because two items remain. The bank statements were disclosed up to the time of separation. The Respondent did not consider post-separation statements to be relevant. I think that he misunderstood. The order requires bank statements from the date of separation to December 5, 2019. The Respondent is now prepared to make this disclosure.

5The second item is number 5. The Respondent complied with item number 4 by confirming that the Applicant is the beneficiary of his life insurance policy from employment. He still needs to confirm that there were no other life insurance policies in existence at separation. I do not think that the evidence justifies a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent wilfully omitted to do the things he was ordered to do. I think he thought that the answer to number 4 answered number 5 as well. It did not. He is prepared to answer number 5 in writing.

6If the Respondent does not make good on the two commitments he made today, he can be ordered to do so at the settlement conference.

7The Respondent also did not comply with the order of Donohue J. in that he made the required disclosure a bit too late. I do not think that this was wilful, either. I think it had to do with the necessity of getting documents from third parties, the natural pace of litigation and the normal demands of the practice of law.

The Respondent's disclosure motion

8The Respondent asked eight things of the Applicant. In my opinion, but for one, either she has answered sufficiently, or the requested disclosure was not necessary. The one exception is her complete tax returns for taxation years 2016, 2017 and 2018. She understands that she has to disclose these items. I do not see in the record a letter demanding these specific items before the motion was brought, so I shall leave the matter to the settlement conference. Disclosure of these items can be ordered then if necessary.

Disposition

9Both motions are dismissed.

10The parties may make brief written submissions to costs, the Respondent within 7 days of release of this endorsement and the Applicant within 7 further days.