Joseph v. John, 2025 ONSC 3186
Court File No.: FC-16-51180-00
Date: 2025-06-02
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario – Family Court
Re: Vini Joseph, Applicant
And: Jimmy John, Respondent
Before: A.M. Daurio
Counsel:
- W. Ahmed, Counsel for the Applicant
- Respondent – Self-represented
Heard: 2025-05-27
Ruling on Motion
[1] The Applicant brought a motion returnable on May 27, 2025 seeking Orders striking the Respondent’s pleadings, leave to proceed on an uncontested basis, a declaration that the Respondent is in default of the Order of Justice Douglas dated March 2, 2020 and an interim Order dispensing with the Respondent’s consent and signature for the purposes of transferring title of properties as set out in the 2020 Order of Justice Douglas.
[2] The Respondent requested an adjournment of the motion and both parties made submissions related to the contested adjournment in the morning. The Court advised that I would consider the request over an extended lunch break and if the adjournment request was denied, that the motion would proceed that afternoon.
[3] After reviewing evidence and hearing submissions, I dismissed the Respondent’s request for an adjournment and provided oral reasons.
[4] The Applicant’s motion proceeded thereafter.
Background
[5] The parties were married on April 17, 1995 and separated on July 27, 2015. There are two children of the relationship who are now adults, namely Julian Celin (born July 3, 1997) and Kevin John (born February 5, 2002).
[6] This matter has been outstanding since 2016, approaching nine years.
[7] The first Case Conference took place on February 2, 2017 and there have been approximately 11 Court attendances since that time.
[8] At a pivotal juncture, on March 2, 2020, the parties attended a Settlement Conference with Justice Douglas and they entered into a partial Minutes of Settlement. The Order made as a result of that consent will be detailed further below.
[9] Important for the purposes of background context, the Douglas J. Order was made just before the COVID-19 pandemic was declared and, thus, some of the timelines included in the Order could not be adhered to and required flexibility.
[10] In any event, the Order of Douglas J. resolved on a full and final basis all of the property issues between the parties. The Respondent was granted leave to amend his Answer within 30 days of that Order to include a trust claim he wished to advance against the Applicant’s business, however, he did not pursue that claim as the Answer was not amended. As such, there are no further property claims before the Court.
[11] This matter was organized and ready to proceed to trial during this May 2025 trial sittings. In Newmarket Family Court, the parties are required to attend a Trial Readiness Conference (“TRC”) in advance of the sittings if called upon by the Trial Coordinator to do so.
[12] A TRC was scheduled for this proceeding on May 12, 2025, virtually.
[13] I was the Judge presiding on that date.
[14] TRCs are not intended to be substantive conferences. They are a brief, virtual, appearance for the Court to check on the status of matters scheduled to proceed to trial and to assist in resolving procedural issues, such as late filing or changes to witness lists, etc.
[15] In this case, as is reflected in my Endorsement of that date, the Respondent had reached out to the Trial Coordinator by email requesting an adjournment of the TRC as he claimed to be unwell. He provided a doctor’s note from March 2025 and no further medical documentation. The Trial Coordinator advised the Respondent that he would need to request the adjournment at the conference.
[16] The Respondent did not attend the TRC. He also failed to attend the Court date prior to the TRC, on January 2, 2025.
[17] Counsel for the Applicant claimed that the Respondent had not filed any material for the trial and that he had not provided required disclosure. He expressed significant concern regarding the impact further delay would have on the Applicant’s emotional well being and her finances.
[18] After a brief discussion, I granted the Applicant leave to bring a motion to strike the Respondent’s pleadings (and other related items of relief) due to his lack of participation.
[19] The referenced motion proceeded before me on May 27, 2025.
Litigation History Relevant to the Motion
[20] On December 4, 2018, the Respondent had failed to attend Court when Justice MacPherson had made himself available to assist the parties in reaching resolutions.
[21] On that date, Justice MacPherson stated that the matter should proceed to a Trial Scheduling Conference and “should be heard at the next sittings as it has been outstanding for some period of time.” That was more than six years ago.
[22] The Respondent failed to attend the Trial Scheduling Conference on March 21, 2019 before Justice Sutherland. The Endorsement of that date stated “it appears to me that the Resp[ondent] is delaying this matter….[t]his matter needs to come to a conclusion.”
[23] In his costs Endorsement related to a Summary Judgment Motion heard on May 1, 2019, Justice Sutherland stated that he “found the conduct of the respondent attributed to delaying the efficient prosecution of the proceeding and [he] has failed to comply with disclosure orders of this court.”
[24] Justice Sutherland went on to describe the Respondent’s behaviour as being “unreasonable” and “obstructionist.” That he “delayed the hearing of the motion and…the proceeding itself.”
[25] Justice Sutherland did not grant the SJM the Applicant requested, however, he endorsed that the matter be expedited to trial in October 2019.
[26] On February 19, 2020, Justice Kaufman was scheduled to hear a motion filed by the Respondent.
[27] Justice Kaufman noted that the Respondent had not updated his Financial Statement since 2016. The motion was adjourned as the material had not been served with sufficient notice on the Applicant and because the Respondent had not updated his Financial Statement “in over 3 years.”
[28] Justice Kaufman awarded costs in favour of the Applicant for costs thrown away in the amount of $1,300, plus HST, payable “following trial and/or resolution.”
[29] On March 2, 2020, as mentioned earlier, a consent Order was made that the Respondent later alleged had been based on fraudulent information. According to Justice Douglas’ Endorsement of that date, he noted that the “parties and Counsel worked diligently to develop partial MOS [Minutes of Settlement].”
[30] It does not appear that there were any Court dates between the time that Order was made and a Case Conference that proceeded before Justice Shaw on August 8, 2024.
[31] At the August 2024 conference, the Respondent stated his wish to set aside the March 2, 2020 Order. He took no steps to do so in the four intervening years leading up to that conference. Further, he had taken no steps to address this claim in the nine months since the conference was held in August 2024 (until he attempted to proceed with a cross motion on May 27, 2025).
[32] The Respondent advised Justice Shaw that he wished to proceed to a motion for interim spousal support and the Applicant advised that she wished to bring a motion to dispense with the Respondent’s consent to sell the matrimonial home.
[33] Orders were made that day, on consent, as the Respondent claimed that he “wishes to pick up his belongings from the matrimonial home.” With 48 hours’ notice, the Respondent was granted permission to attend at the home on no more than eight occasions, for no more than two hours. There was no time limit set for the Respondent to exercise these opportunities.
[34] Justice Shaw did not grant or deny leave to bring motions. On September 16, 2024, the Respondent’s 14B motion was before this Court wherein he had raised a number of complicated issues. Out of those issues, this Court found that the only appropriate item to be addressed by way of 14B was his wish to proceed with a motion for spousal support.
[35] I granted leave and provided guidelines. I also provided the Respondent with information and resources that could be accessed by self represented litigants and suggested that he may wish to secure legal advice. The Respondent did not pursue this motion, until he attended with his cross motion on May 27, 2025.
[36] On December 6, 2024, Justice Bennett dismissed the Applicant’s request for an extension of time to file motion material for a motion scheduled on December 18, 2024. Justice Bennett commented that no Affidavit accompanied the request and stated that the Case Conference had occurred months prior. The Respondent pointed to this Endorsement at the motion before me, for the purposes of being highly critical of Counsel for the Applicant.
[37] A Trial Scheduling Conference proceeded on December 20, 2024, and the Respondent had asked the Applicant to adjourn the date due to illness. She did not agree to adjourn and the Respondent attended and fully participated.
[38] The Respondent did not raise any concerns with the Court about his health or ability to comply with the deadlines set out in the TSEF agreed to on that date.
[39] There does not appear to be an Endorsement for the December 20, 2024 date. Justice Shaw set January 2, 2025 as a continuation of the TSC, however, it is not clear to the Court why this occurred.
[40] The Endorsement of January 2, 2025, stated that the Respondent did not attend as required. The Respondent had been contacted by the Court, he had been paged at the Courthouse, he was contacted by Counsel for the Applicant, to no avail.
[41] In her January 2, 2025 endorsement, Justice Shaw noted that the TSEF had been completed on the December 20, 2024 Court date with both parties present and that she was not making any changes to the form given the Respondent’s absence.
[42] Justice Shaw noted that the “Court went through each paragraph [of the TSEF] with the parties and obtained their agreement on them.”
[43] No steps were taken in this proceeding between that date in January and the TRC that took place on May 12, 2025, and referenced above.
The Applicant’s Position
Motion to Strike
[44] The Applicant took the position that the Respondent had failed to meaningfully engage in this proceeding as he had not filed a Financial Statement at Court since 2016, he did not provide full disclosure of supporting documentation and, she alleged, that he deliberately avoided providing any such disclosure.
[45] The Applicant alleged that the Respondent was in breach of a disclosure Order of Justice Douglas dated February 2, 2017, and his ongoing obligation to provide income information and other supporting documents.
[46] The Applicant claimed that the Respondent was intentionally dragging out the litigation and delaying. She said that the Respondent failed to attend at scheduled meetings and examinations, and he would ask for last minute adjournments without a valid excuse.
[47] She pointed out that there were numerous Endorsements in the Court file, referenced above, where Judges had repeatedly commented on the Respondent’s lack of participation, his absences from Court dates and his failure to provide disclosure and comply with disclosure Orders.
[48] In her view this was a waste of resources, and it had increased the legal costs she incurred.
[49] The Applicant alleged that the Respondent was attempting to exhaust her emotionally and financially in order to wear her down and get what he wanted.
[50] In addition to his lack of engagement in the proceeding, the Applicant alleged that the Respondent breached Justice Douglas’ Order by collecting rental income of $2,000 per month between 2020 and 2023 from her business property.
[51] Furthermore, and egregiously (knowing that there was a Court Order transferring the property into the Applicant’s name), the Respondent had taken her to the Landlord and Tenant Board in 2023 when she transferred the lease into her name, and he was not successful.
[52] The Respondent failed to provide any financial support to his children and the Applicant believed that the Respondent had financial resources that he was not disclosing.
[53] The Applicant stated (as reflected in the final Order of Justice Douglas) that the Respondent had removed $299,086 from the parties’ joint bank account post-separation and provided no accounting of where that money went. Further, she paid him an equalization payment of approximately $160,000 to $165,000 in 2020 in satisfaction of what was owed to him under the Order. As such, he had around $459,000 at his disposal, she claimed.
[54] The Applicant believed that the Respondent invested the funds and had been living off of those investments. She sought disclosure and tracing of the funds, none had been provided.
[55] The Applicant alleged that the Respondent did not provide her with any Income Tax Returns, bank or credit card statements. She also requested a copy of his passport, as she believed he had travelled frequently to India and Dubai to manage his various businesses and investments. He refused and never provided her with a copy.
[56] The Applicant took the position that the Respondent’s plea of being homeless and penniless were baseless and not supported by any evidence. She stated that the Respondent frequently stayed at the condo he owned in India, for which no mortgage nor other payments were required. He resided there rent-free.
[57] In any event, the Applicant believed that the Respondent should be able to work and earn an income of around $50,000 as he had earned this income at her dental clinic and he had various skills.
[58] She stated that the Respondent had not provided any proof of efforts he had made to become employed and she believed that he was intentionally underemployed and living off of his investment income.
Declaratory Relief
[59] The Applicant sought to confirm that the Respondent had failed to amend his pleadings within 30 days of Justice Douglas’ Order to include a trust claim against her business. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic occurred around this time, it was challenging to enforce the term of the Order.
[60] However, at the time of the motion before me, it had been more than five years since that Order was made and the Respondent had not amended his pleadings to seek such relief.
[61] The Respondent did not dispute this at the motion.
[62] As such, the relief will be granted.
Enforcement of Justice Douglas’ Order
[63] The Applicant sought an Order dispensing with the Respondent’s consent to transfer title of the two properties in this proceeding, namely 116 Hailsham Court, Woodbridge, Ontario and 29-9699 Jane Street, Maple, Ontario.
[64] The parties were to meet at a lawyer’s office to sign consents in accordance with Justice Douglas’ Order. Given the pandemic, this could not occur at that time and the timelines in the Order could not be met.
[65] However, as stated above, it has now been more than five years since the Order was made. The Respondent admitted that he had not signed the consent to transfer. He claimed that he now believes the Order was made fraudulently and he wished to set it aside.
[66] The Respondent alerted the Court of his wish to set aside Justice Douglas’ Order in early August 2024, nine months hence. He has failed to bring any such motion. It has now been more than five years since the Order was made transferring the properties into the Applicant’s name.
[67] The signature of the Respondent to effect the transfer was a mere formality, however, it is clear that the Respondent had been intentionally frustrating the Order because he did not agree with it.
[68] As such, the relief requested is granted.
The Respondent’s Position
[69] The Respondent focused much of his evidence on submissions regarding procedural fairness and fundamental rights of litigants in this proceeding.
[70] He expressed that the motion to strike had been set in his absence and the TRC proceeded on a date that was set by the Court without consulting with him.
[71] While the Respondent did not advise the Court in advance of the TRC date that he was not available to attend that day, he still took the position that the Court date should not have been scheduled in such a manner.
[72] The Respondent focused his submissions on his health. He did not provide any corroborating evidence to support his claims of health struggles. While the Court was aware of a doctor’s note dated March 16, 2025, as it had been sent to the Court on the day of the TRC, it was not filed with the Respondent’s evidence in this motion.
[73] The Respondent stated that he started to feel unwell in the fall of 2024, however, he acknowledged that he did not bring this condition to the attention of the Court.
[74] He stated in submissions that his health deteriorated further approaching the December 2024 Court date, however, he did not advise the Court and, as set out above, he consented to various timelines being set for trial.
[75] In March 2025, the Respondent was provided with a doctor’s note. He did not send that note to the Applicant, her Counsel, nor the Court until May 12, 2025, two months later.
[76] The note referenced the need for a four week follow up, however, the Respondent provided no evidence that any such follow up had occurred.
[77] The Respondent spoke of his experience with the Family Court in Canada as being one that has impacted his confidence in the justice system negatively. It was that lack of confidence that interfered with his engagement in these proceedings, he claimed.
[78] The Respondent did not feel heard at previous Court dates. He felt that he had a story to tell and that no one listened to him. He felt that information had been misrepresented and accepted as fact.
[79] The Respondent was given considerable leeway in making his submissions at the motion. He provided a detailed narrative of his experiences as an immigrant to Canada, his relationship with the Applicant and the impact the separation has had on his relationship with his children. He was quite emotional when talking about his children.
[80] From the Respondent’s perspective, he had a lot of evidence that the Court required before it made decisions in this case. He felt that the Court needed to consider the totality of the circumstances when making findings and determinations.
[81] The Court asked the Respondent questions in order to focus his submissions on the issues before me.
[82] The Respondent acknowledged that he did not pay the costs award made, however, he claimed to now have 10 years worth of Notices of Assessments to provide to the Applicant. The Court advised the Respondent that no matter what my decision was on this motion, he should provide that information to the Applicant’s lawyer as soon as possible.
[83] The Respondent claimed in submissions that he had not been able to file his taxes for many years because he could not access his documents that were located in the matrimonial home.
[84] He claimed in submissions, with no supporting evidence, that the Applicant would not permit him to enter the home despite Justice Shaw’s August 4, 2024 Order.
[85] Somehow (it was not clear to the Court), he had since been able to file his taxes. The Court pointed out the contradiction in his submissions, however, the Respondent was not able to explain how he could now file his taxes even though he was alleging that the Applicant denied him access to the home in contravention of Justice Shaw’s Order.
[86] The Respondent was pleasant and articulate in Court. Despite my decision to deny his request to adjourn the motion, he continued to engage in submissions in an articulate and detailed manner.
The Law
[87] The Family Law Rules (FLR) provide the Court with the authority to deal with people who fail to obey court Orders. Specifically, Rule 1(8) of the FLR provides a list of options for the Court that are not exhaustive, as follows:
Failure to obey order
1(8) If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any orderthat it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including,
(a) an order for costs;
(b) an order dismissing a claim;
(c) an order striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, response to motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party;
(d) an order that all or part of a document that was required to be provided but was not, may not be used in the case;
(e) if the failure to obey was by a party, an order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise;
(f) an order postponing the trial or any other step in the case; and
(g) on motion, a contempt order. O. Reg. 322/13, s. 1.
[88] Further, the Ontario Child Support Guidelines provide the Court with specific options where a person fails to comply with Orders as they relate to the payment of support, as follows:
Failure to comply with court order
24. Where a parent or spouse fails to comply with an order issued on the basis of an application under clause 22 (1) (b), the court may,
(a) strike out any of the parent’s or spouse’s pleadings;
(b) make a contempt order against the parent or spouse;
(c) proceed to a hearing, in the course of which it may draw an adverse inference against the parent or spouse and impute income to that parent or spouse in such amount as it considers appropriate; and
(d) award costs in favour of the other spouse, an applicant under section 33 of the Act or an order assignee up to an amount that fully compensates the other spouse, the applicant or assignee for all costs incurred in the proceedings. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 24.
[89] The caselaw is clear that a party, whose pleadings have been struck, are no longer able to participate in the case. [Caldwell v. Caldwell, [2006] O.J. No. 1469 (OCA)]
[90] In Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, the Court of Appeal reinforced the notion that the most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information. This requirement is immediate and ongoing. Failure to abide by this fundamental principle impedes the progress of the action, causes delay and generally acts to the disadvantage of the opposite party. It also impacts the administration of justice. Unnecessary judicial time is spent, and the final adjudication is stalled. Financial disclosure is automatic. It should not require court orders – let alone three - to obtain production.
[91] In Norris v. Norris, 2019 ONSC 2795 at para 20, the court set out a three-step test governing the exercise of judicial discretion to strike a party's pleadings:
- Is there a triggering event justifying the striking of pleadings?
- Is it appropriate to strike the pleadings in the circumstances of the case?
- Are there other remedies in lieu of striking pleadings that might suffice?
[92] In family law cases, pleadings should only be struck, and trial participation denied, in exceptional circumstances and where no other remedy would suffice. Purcaru v. Purcaru, 2010 ONCA 92 at para. 47 The exceptional nature of this remedy is rooted in the significance of the adversarial system, as recognized in Purcaru, at para. 49:
The adversarial system, through cross-examination and argument, functions to safeguard against injustice. For this reason, the adversarial structure of a proceeding should be maintained whenever possible. Accordingly, the objective of a sanction ought not to be the elimination of the adversary, but rather one that will persuade the adversary to comply with the orders of the court.
[93] Pleadings in a family law proceeding should only be struck in “egregious and exceptional circumstances” which includes willful non-compliance with a court order to provide financial disclosure. Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONCA 909, paras. 7 & 9 In making this assessment a court must consider: (1) the disclosure provided; (2) an itemization of the disclosure that the impugned party has failed to provide; (3) whether there has been willful disobedience; (4) proportionality. Owen v. Owen, 2018 ONSC 1083
[94] In Levely v. Levely, 2013 ONSC 1026, Justice Chappel emphasized the importance of a "strong and decisive" judicial response where a party fails to respect the court process and court orders, stating:
[12] Family Court proceedings are intended to be a means by which aggrieved parties can have their disputes arising after separation adjudicated upon by the court in a just, efficient and timely manner. Unfortunately, they all too often become a destructive tool which one party wields and manipulates in order to create further financial and emotional hardship for the other party. The frequency with which Family Law litigation degenerates into an abusive game of delay tactics, stonewalling, and dodging of judicial authority is a concern which must remain at the forefront of the judge's mind in considering remedies for a party's failure to participate as required in court proceedings or to comply with court orders. Family Law litigants who come to the court for assistance must come with a strong sense of assurance that the process will be an effective means of mending and stabilizing the family fabric, rather than a futile money pit of failed justice. The court has a critical responsibility and role to play in ensuring that proceedings which are intended to protect families and lead to resolution of pressing and emotionally divisive issues are not hijacked by a party and transformed into a process for further victimizing the other party and the children in their care.
[13] …The scope of [the Family Law] Rules must be interpreted broadly in order to protect the integrity of the court process and the beneficial intention of Family Law proceedings, and to ensure that parties who do respect the court system are able to achieve justice in a timely, affordable and emotionally respectful manner. Judicial response to a party's failure to respect the court process and court orders should be strong and decisive.
[95] As stated in Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONSC 3776, 2016 CarswellOnt 8951 (S.C.J.) “Without enforcement of the primary objective, a party can frustrate the civil justice system’s goals of efficiency, affordability, proportionality, and fairness, by making the process slow, expensive, and distressful.” The Court of Appeal held that striking of pleadings is not reserved for drastic and extreme cases.” (2016 ONCA 909).
Analysis
[96] It is important for the Court to first clarify what issues remain before the Court in this proceeding. There are no parenting issues before the Court, as the parties’ children are now adults. There are no property issues or trust claims before the Court as those issues were addressed by Justice Douglas’ final Order and I am making a declaration today that the Respondent did not put forward a trust claim.
[97] The only issues presently before the Court are child support, section 7 expenses and spousal support. As such, the critical evidence that must be considered by the Court is primarily related to the financial circumstances of the parties starting in 2015 and evidence related to claims of imputation of income.
[98] In a case such as this, disclosure of financial records is critical.
[99] The Court must consider the factors set out in Norris, above, when it is faced with a request to strike pleadings.
Is there a triggering event justifying the striking of pleadings?
[100] In the view of this Court, there have been many triggering events that justify the striking of pleadings. The very fact that the Respondent has failed to comply with the most basic requirement set out in the Family Law Rules to file updated Financial Statements on a regular basis, is a triggering event. In this case, he has not filed a Financial Statement in nine years. This is egregious.
[101] In addition to that failure, the Respondent has not provided basic financial disclosure, such as his Notices of Assessment.
[102] The Respondent’s explanation, that he could not access the home to obtain his documents, made little sense. First of all, he had been out of the home for at least five years and, thus, the relevant documents from the past five years were not at the home.
[103] Second, he claimed that the Applicant would not let him into the home – which begged the question of how he was able to file all of these tax documents when he could not do so previously? The Court did not find this to be a plausible excuse.
[104] The Applicant raised important questions about where the Respondent put the funds he received from the equalization of net family properties and, further, questions about his employment status.
[105] The Respondent claimed to be homeless and penniless, however, he just returned from a trip to India. He owned a condominium in India. When asked how he was able to afford to go to India, the Respondent claimed that his family funded the trip. There was no evidence filed to support this claim.
[106] The questions raised by the Applicant are legitimate questions that require fulsome responses in the form of disclosure.
[107] The absolutely blatant lack of response over a period of almost nine years is unacceptable. Pleadings have been struck in far less egregious situations.
Is it appropriate to strike the pleadings in the circumstances of the case?
[108] When the Court considers the background of this proceeding, the length of time that has been outstanding and the need for finality, combined with the ongoing pattern of the Respondent to make excuses, complain, and fail to provide disclosure to even support the claim he is making for spousal support; it is very clear to the Court that the only way to move this matter forward is to do so without the Respondent’s participation, or by limiting his participation.
[109] The Respondent’s allegations of a fraudulent scheme forming the basis of Justice Douglas’ Order is a serious allegation. If the Respondent took it seriously, and thought that it could be supported by evidence, then it was up to him to take steps to address it.
[110] The fact that the Respondent failed to do so for more than five years demonstrated to the Court that he raised this complaint as a means to delay and deflect. There was no evidence of any steps taken to address it.
[111] It is questionable whether the Respondent would be successful at a motion to set the Order aside given the significant delay, and the fact that the Order was made on consent and with the assistance of Counsel. The merits of the claim are weak.
[112] While the Respondent claimed to be unwell starting in the fall of 2024, that does not excuse his behaviour that started in 2016.
[113] The Court had no updating medical information from the Respondent, nor any real details regarding his health issues over the past several months.
[114] The Court gave the Respondent’s claim of failing health a lot of thought and reviewed the record before me carefully. While the Respondent made claims in his submissions, they sometimes contradicted each other.
[115] For example, he said he could not file the motion for interim support after this Court granted him leave to do so in the fall because of his ailing health. However, he then attended at a Trial Scheduling Conference and raised no complaints about his health and he consented to timelines for filing trial documents.
[116] Thereafter, knowing that he had timelines and that a trial was looming, the Respondent apparently obtained a doctor’s note in March 2025 about his poor health and the impact it would have on his ability to participate in the litigation.
[117] However, the Respondent did not send that letter to the Applicant or her lawyer. He did not file it with a 14B motion to alert the Court and to seek an adjournment of the trial.
[118] The Respondent held onto the letter until the eleventh hour, on May 12, 2025. By that time, the Applicant’s trial documents would have already been prepared and significant expense incurred. No reason was provided for the delay in providing this letter to the Court and the Applicant.
[119] Either the letter is authentic, and the Respondent intentionally withheld it in order to increase the stress and costs of the Applicant, or it is not authentic and the Respondent created it for the purposes of seeking further delay of the proceedings.
[120] As noted earlier, the doctor’s note was not filed in the evidence. No Affidavit was attached, sworn by the doctor, to confirm authenticity. The note mentioned a follow up in four weeks and no updated information was provided.
[121] In these circumstances, the doctor’s note raised more questions than answers. For example, if the Respondent had been cooperative throughout the proceedings, had provided disclosure and demonstrated a genuine interest in moving this matter forward AND he disclosed the note when he received it – it is likely that this note would have been sufficient for the parties to agree to adjourn the trial to the next sittings.
[122] In the context of the case before me, however, the Respondent has demonstrated a repeated pattern of delay and lack of cooperation. His failure to disclose the note in March 2025 suggests to this Court that the Respondent wished to use the information retrospectively in order to continue with his pattern of delay, delay, delay.
[123] Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Respondent was experiencing health issues that would have prevented him from providing disclosure and preparing for trial, rather, his claim of poor health was simply a continuation of the ongoing pattern of behaviour from the Respondent that would be likely continue in the future.
Are there other remedies in lieu of striking pleadings that might suffice?
[124] A review of the file demonstrated to the Court that there had only been one costs award made against the Respondent, despite his ongoing and flagrant disregard for his disclosure obligations. That costs award, technically, is not payable until the conclusion of these proceedings.
[125] The Respondent has been savvy in providing excuses and explanations to various Judges over the past many years that have permitted him to get away with this continuing pattern.
[126] The Respondent claimed to be homeless and penniless, as such a costs award is likely not going to be paid.
[127] Other remedies, such as giving him more time to provide disclosure seem pointless given that he has had many years to meet these obligations. The fact that the Respondent has not filed a Financial Statement since 2016 is shocking.
[128] The only way to move this matter forward is to strike the Respondent’s pleadings and to give him limited rights to provide evidence to the Court for the uncontested trial.
[129] To continue to permit the Respondent to engage in these proceedings would result in further delay, further expense to the Applicant and further Court resources that would be a wasted.
[130] If the Court were to do anything less than strike the Respondent’s pleadings, such a decision would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
[131] After the motion proceeded, on May 29, 2025, the Court was alerted that the Respondent attempted to file motion material. That material had been rejected by the filing office. Given my decision herein, the Respondent’s motion material will not be accepted as his pleadings have now been struck.
ORDER
This is a Final Order.
This Order is made pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.
Declaratory Relief
- The Respondent failed to amend his Answer to include a trust claim against the Applicant’s business in accordance with Justice Douglas’ March 2, 2020 Order. As such, no such claim may be pursued by the Respondent.
Enforcement of Order
- To enforce paragraph 8 of Justice Douglas’ Order dated March 2, 2020, the Respondent’s signature shall not be required to effect transfer of title to the Applicant regarding the below listed properties in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Order of Justice Douglas dated March 2, 2020:
- 116 Hailsham Court, Woodbridge, Ontario;
- Unit 29 – 9699 Jane Street, Maple, Ontario.
Striking Pleadings
The Respondent’s Answer in this proceeding is hereby struck pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.
The Respondent is not entitled to any further notice of steps in the case, except as provided by subrule 25 (13) (service of Order).
The Court may deal with the case in the Respondent’s absence.
Uncontested Trial
The Applicant has leave to proceed to an uncontested trial of the case. Service of the documents on the Respondent is not required.
If the Respondent wishes to have the Court consider evidence at the uncontested trial, he may serve and file the following documents within 30 days of this Endorsement being released:
- A sworn/affirmed and complete 2025 Form 13 Financial Statement.
- Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment for the years 2012 to 2024.
- 30 pages of additional evidence compiled into an Exhibit Book.
The Respondent shall not be entitled to participate in the uncontested trial in any other way.
On a day at least 45 days after the release of this Endorsement, the Applicant may contact the Trial Coordinator’s office to schedule a one day hearing, in person, for the uncontested trial to proceed before Justice Daurio.
I am seized.
Costs
If the parties cannot agree on the issue of costs, I shall consider the request for costs.
The Applicant shall serve written submissions on the Respondent and file electronically, through the Trial Coordinator within 20 days of this decision being released.
The Respondent shall serve written submissions on the Applicant and file electronically, through the Trial Coordinator’s office within 10 days following receipt of submissions from the party opposite.
Submissions shall be limited to two pages exclusive of the Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle. There shall be no right of Reply.
If any party fails to file submissions in accordance with the above timelines, they are not entitled to costs.
A.M. Daurio
Date: June 2, 2025
Cited Cases
Legislation
- Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99
- Ontario Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97
- Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43