Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-20-20649 Date: 2025-08-18 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Galit Altman, Applicant And: Yoel Altman

Before: Mathen J.

Counsel: Julie Hannaford / Angela Pagano, for the Applicant Yoel Altman, Self-represented

Heard: August 13, 2025

Endorsement

Overview

[1] This is a family law case. The Applicant, Galit, brings a motion to strike the Respondent Yoel's pleadings, and to determine the amount of a penalty owing under Justice Kraft's endorsement dated July 15, 2024.

[2] I am persuaded that the Respondent remains in breach of several court orders. I find that some of the triggering events Justice Kraft previously described persist. I decline to exercise my discretion to not impose a sanction. This case calls for the Respondent's pleadings to be struck. The matter shall proceed to an uncontested trial.

[3] I find, further, that the Respondent is liable to pay a penalty of $399,000.

[4] I adopt the following history from Justice Kraft's endorsement:

a. The parties were married for 16 years. They have three children, ages 19, 16, and 13. The parties separated in July 2019.

b. The children reside with Galit in the matrimonial home in Toronto. She has not worked outside of the home since 2011 and is the primary parent.

c. During the marriage, the parties lived an affluent lifestyle. They owned a matrimonial home in Forest Hill, travelled by private plane, sent their children to private Jewish day schools, purchased high-end clothing, were members of exclusive clubs, and employed a full-time nanny.

d. Yoel is an entrepreneur, involved in financing high growth companies in biotechnology, technology, e-sports, and real estate. In March 2020, about 7 months after separation, Yoel moved to the Bahamas and then to Florida. He has not returned to Canada.

e. Galit issued an application on December 14, 2020, in which she seeks an equalization of net family property, spousal support, primary residence of the children, sole decision-making responsibility for the children, child support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a freezing of Yoel's assets.

f. Yoel served an Answer and Financial Statement on February 12, 2021. At that time, he was represented by Gary Joseph and had retained Steve Ranot as his Chartered Business Valuator to prepare an income report and a valuation report of his corporate assets. Yoel's financial statement contained "TBD" for his income and for the value of each corporation he owned.

g. On November 4, 2022, Yoel delivered his expert reports. His expert, Steve Ranot, opined that Yoel's income for support purposes was -$10,240,000 in 2020 and -$13,790,000 in 2019, and that his assets, both personal and corporate, were worth just over $30 million on the date of separation. Galit's expert, Timothy Martin, from Verity Valuation Group ("Verity") served a Request for Information ("RFI") on Yoel in April 2023. Yoel has not complied with this RFI.

[5] Justice Kraft determined that the Respondent had not complied with several court orders which she summarized as follows:

a. An obligation to disclose and value the Respondent's assets and debts on the date of separation. This obligation was particularized in a number of orders including by Justice Faieta in 2021, and subsequent orders by His Honour and Justice Diamond. While Justice Kraft acknowledged that Yoel had made partial disclosure, she found that "the one thing he has not done is simply list truthfully and with back-up documentation all of his assets and liabilities as at the date of separation (including providing expert valuations where necessary)."

b. An email to Bialik Hebrew Day School in which Yoel declared he was no longer responsible for the children's tuition, in direct violation of an order issued on October 5, 2021.

c. Violation of a preservation order, by moving funds out of undisclosed accounts and into new accounts which Yoel then depleted and did not properly account for. Justice Kraft rejected what she called Yoel's "hollow" case that the transfers were for business purposes.

[6] After finding the above triggering events, Justice Kraft did not strike Yoel's pleadings. Instead, she granted Yoel one more chance on the following terms:

a. Within 45 days of the release of this Endorsement, Yoel shall rectify his breaches of the 2021 Faieta Orders and provide the outstanding disclosure to Galit. This includes the rolling disclosure obligation for any and all accounts over which Yoel has an indirect or direct interest, answering all of the items that have been identified by Galit's counsel as outstanding set out in Exhibit "P" of her March 13, 2024 affidavit, answering the RFI delivered to him by Tim Martin, and providing complete details of all transactions arising from the 54 undisclosed accounts with supporting documentation. For every day that Yoel does not comply with this disclosure obligation between the day of the release of this Endorsement and onward, he shall be fined $3,000 a day.

b. At the end of the 45-day period, Galit shall prepare a summary chart detailing what she claims remains outstanding, if anything. Within 7 days of receiving the summary chart from Galit, Yoel shall provide a responding chart. The parties shall arrange a conference before the case management judge, Diamond, J., to address whether there remains outstanding disclosure.

c. If a consent cannot be reached at the case management conference before Diamond, J. and a further dispute between the parties remains, Diamond, J. shall determine whether a further hearing is needed to determine whether there is outstanding disclosure remaining or whether Galit shall be permitted to move ex parte to have Yoel's Answer struck (except for his parenting claims).

d. Until (b) and/or (c) takes place, Yoel shall continue to be fined $3,000 a day.

e. Yoel shall have no right to seek disclosure from Galit, no right to take any step nor bring any motion in this proceeding or be permitted to attend or participate at the uncontested trial unless the trial judge orders otherwise.

f. Yoel shall not be permitted to bring any further proceedings or seek further relief from the court until he is in compliance with the 2021 Faieta Orders as set out in (a) above.

g. If this matter is proceeding to an uncontested trial, a trial management conference shall be scheduled to determine the length of uncontested trial and any procedural/evidentiary issues that need to be addressed.

[7] The parties attended a case conference on November 25, 2024 – four months after Justice Kraft's order. The presiding judge, Justice Diamond, noted that the parties were at odds over whether Yoel had satisfied Justice Kraft's order. Justice Diamond further noted that "it was the stated intention of [Galit] to not bring a further motion under Rule 1(8) for non-compliance" but rather to "rely upon the law of adverse inference at trial".

[8] In the meantime, Yoel served and filed an appeal in the Ontario Court of Appeal. That action stayed Justice Kraft's order since the order contained a provision for the payment of money.

[9] The Court of Appeal refused leave, in part owing to lack of jurisdiction. Yoel was ordered to pay costs of $5,275. There is no evidence that Justice Kraft's Order is under appeal at any court.

[10] Justice Diamond presided over two more conferences on May 14, 2025, and July 9, 2025. Yoel appeared but did not file any materials. On July 9, His Honor scheduled the within motion to strike which would include a question of whether and how much of a penalty Yoel owes.

[11] Yoel remains in breach of several costs awards. As such, he was not entitled to be heard during this motion. Given the serious consequences at stake, I permitted him to make oral submissions. He filed an affidavit which I also reviewed.

Analysis

[12] My findings of fact are contained in the following analysis.

[13] The issues in this case are:

a. Should the Respondent's pleadings be struck for non-compliance with court orders, in particular, the production Orders dated October 5, November 12, and December 14, 2021 ("Faieta Orders") and the Kraft Order dated July 15, 2024?

b. What, if any, is the amount owing from the Respondent under the penalty imposed by Justice Kraft?

Should the Respondent's Pleadings Be Struck?

[14] For the following reasons, I find that Yoel's pleadings should be struck.

The Law

[15] Court orders are not optional. Non-compliance must have consequences: Gordon v. Starr, at para 23; Taylor v. Taylor, at para 3; Levely v. Levely, 2013 ONSC 1026, at paras. 12 and 13.

[16] When a party fails to respect court processes, judicial responses should be "strong and decisive": Levely.

[17] The court must be alive to the risk that proceedings can be "hijacked by a party and transformed into a process for further victimizing the other party and the children in their care": Levely.

[18] Rule 1(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the "Rules") provides that where a party has failed to comply with a court order, the Court may make any order it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including by striking a party's pleadings pursuant to Rule 1(8)(c).

[19] Rule 19(10) empowers the court to strike pleadings under Rule 1(8) for nondisclosure.

[20] The court also has inherent jurisdiction to make an order that it considers appropriate to address a party's failure to respect the court process, including breach of an order. This authority includes the jurisdiction to strike pleadings: Hughes v. Hughes, [2007] OJ No 1282 (QL); 10905 (ONSC) at para 27.

[21] Under Rule 1(8.4), striking a party's pleadings denies the party any further notice of the steps in the case (except service of an Order) and disentitles them to participate in a case. The case may be dealt with in the party's absence, and the matter may proceed to an uncontested trial. These consequences are automatic unless the Court orders otherwise.

[22] The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld striking pleadings when there is a "consistent and unyielding pattern of noncompliance with court orders and a total disregard for the process of the court": Hill v. Gregory, 2018 ONSC 6847 at paras 69-70; Ablett v. Horzempa, 2011 ONCA 633 at para 7.

[23] Courts are rightly cautious about striking pleadings in family matters involving parenting. Nevertheless, such pleadings can be struck: Purcaru v. Purcaru, 2010 ONCA 92. Where a parent is unlikely to contribute in a productive manner to the trial and their past behaviour warrants striking their pleadings, that may justify a loss of the right to participate: Kim v. McIntosh, 2023 ONSC 356; Holden v. Ploj, 2023 ONSC 1287.

[24] Applying Rule 1(8) generally involves three steps:

a. First, the court must determine whether there is a triggering event that allows the court to consider the wording of Rule 1(8);

b. Second, if the answer to (a) is yes, the court must consider whether it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to not sanction a non-complying party; the onus is on the non-complying party to persuade the Court why it should escape a sanction; and

c. Third, if the court decides against exercising the discretion noted in (b), it retains very broad discretion as to the appropriate remedy.

Ferguson v. Charlton, 2008 ONCJ 1 at para. 64

[25] When deciding whether to strike pleadings, a court must consider if remedies in lieu of striking pleadings would suffice: Van v. Palombi, 2017 ONSC 2492 at para. 30; Giavon v. Giavon, 2020 ONSC 21 at para 69.

Application to This Case

[26] The first question is whether Yoel remains in breach of the Kraft Order and/or the Faieta Orders.

[27] I am persuaded on a balance of probabilities that Yoel is, at least, in breach of the following:

a. Justice Faieta ordered Yoel to make continuous, "rolling disclosure", monthly, for all accounts over which Yoel has an indirect or direct interest. I am advised that Yoel has not provided such disclosure as of March 2025. Yoel did not dispute this; he says there was nothing to disclose.

b. Justice Kraft ordered Yoel to respond to a request for information to prepare an income report. Galit had engaged a company called Verity Valuation Group to examine Yoel's income. Verity served a Request for Information on Yoel in April 2023. While Yoel delivered a reply by August 29, 2025 (the last day to comply with the Kraft Order), Galit argues that the response was deficient. I have examined a November 22, 2024, affidavit from Timothy Martin, the valuator from Verity. Mr. Martin deposed that having reviewed the information Yoel provided, he was unable to prepare his own valuation and income reports. Mr. Martin details an extensive list of missing information. Yoel did not specifically address the allegation that he has not fully responded to Mr. Martin's request, and I therefore consider this claim to be uncontested.

[28] To borrow from Justice Kraft, I find that Yoel has still not listed, simply and truthfully and with back-up documentation, all his assets and liabilities as at the date of separation.

[29] Therefore, I find the first step of a Rule 1(8) analysis is satisfied.

[30] Turning to the second step, for the following reasons I decline to exercise my discretion to not impose a sanction on Yoel:

a. Yoel has been given numerous "last chances" to comply with basic principles of disclosure. He has failed to avail himself of those chances.

b. Yoel is also in breach of numerous costs awards. Some of the awards are as little as $2,000. Yoel's refusal to pay any costs over the course of the litigation suggests that he does not respect the court.

c. Yoel currently pleads poverty, but he has not responded to Galit's detailed allegations about his luxurious lifestyle, including numerous trips. The evidence before the court does not substantiate Yoel's claim of poverty.

d. Yoel bears the onus to persuade the court to exercise discretion. Yoel takes no responsibility for the way the case has unfolded. His affidavit and submissions do not evidence any regret. He claims he has complied as fully as he could with the orders. He also blames Galit and her counsel. Yoel has not discharged his persuasive burden.

[31] The third and final step is deciding upon the remedy. I am persuaded that striking Yoel's pleadings is the appropriate recourse. There is no evidence that a lesser remedy will suffice, especially since Yoel claims that (a) he has done all that he can and (b) everything is Galit's fault.

[32] Although not addressed by either party explicitly at the motion, the case may involve at least some parenting issues as the children are under 18. The caution that courts rightly exercise in Rule 1(8) cases that involve parenting cannot devolve into a quasi-immunity for recalcitrant parties. Given the case history, I find that permitting Yoel to retain any standing is likely to frustrate the proceeding by creating more delay. Further delay would not be in the children's best interests.

[33] Furthermore, the children live primarily with Galit, and Yoel does not live in Canada. In his materials, Yoel says nothing about any arguments he might wish to make on parenting and decision-making. Nevertheless, the case management judge and, eventually, trial judge can determine what, if any, evidence might usefully be received from Yoel to enable a final decision that is in the children's best interests.

[34] I find there to be a clear case for striking Yoel's pleadings, and an order to that effect shall issue.

What, If Any, Is the Amount Owing from the Respondent Under the Penalty Imposed by Justice Kraft?

[35] The second issue is what, if any, penalty Yoel owes. I find that Yoel owes $399,000.

[36] In her July 15 order, Justice Kraft stated that if Yoel did not comply with the order within 45 days, he would have to pay a penalty of $3,000 per day from the date of her Endorsement. Her Honour continued:

a. At the end of the 45-day period, Galit shall prepare a summary chart detailing what she claims remains outstanding, if anything. Within 7 days of receiving the summary chart from Galit, Yoel shall provide a responding chart. The parties shall arrange a conference before the case management judge, Diamond, J., to address whether there remains outstanding disclosure.

b. If a consent cannot be reached at the case management conference before Diamond, J. and a further dispute between the parties remains, Diamond, J. shall determine whether a further hearing is needed to determine whether there is outstanding disclosure remaining or whether Galit shall be permitted to move ex parte to have Yoel's Answer struck (except for his parenting claims).

c. Until (b) and/or (c) takes place, Yoel shall continue to be fined $3,000 a day.

[37] In my analysis of the first issue, I determined that Yoel did not comply with Justice Kraft's order within 45 days.

[38] Galit argues that one way to interpret Justice Kraft's order is that Yoel should pay the penalty during the entire period that he remains in breach, i.e., up to the date of this motion. Galit concedes that a more "conservative" way to read the order is that the penalty applies up to the parties' November 25, 2024, case conference before Justice Diamond.

[39] Given the wording of subparagraph (c), reproduced above, I find that Justice Kraft's order is better read as limiting the daily penalty up to the date of the parties' case conference. It seems that Her Honour assumed that by that point either the parties would agree that Yoel had satisfied his obligations or Galit would move to strike Yoel's pleadings. While Galit did not agree that Yoel was in compliance, she decided not to seek to strike Yoel's pleadings. I recognize that there was some additional uncertainty because Yoel had filed an appeal, which temporarily stayed the enforcement of the Kraft Order. Nevertheless, given the heavy penalty and the precise language used in the Kraft Order, I believe that what Galit calls the more conservative interpretation is the one that reasonably applies in this case.

[40] I asked Yoel whether he thought he owed any penalty. His response was equivocal. Yoel says he has complied with all court orders to the best of his ability. I do not take him to have a position about the period over which the penalty should be determined.

[41] Therefore, relying on the calculations Galit provided in her statement of law, I find that there is a penalty owing between July 16 and November 25, 2024, inclusive, in the amount of $399,000.

Costs

[42] Galit was entirely successful on this motion.

[43] Galit seeks costs of $19,229. She asks that HST be added to this amount.

[44] Galit's bill of costs shows that the majority of legal work was done by Ms. Pagano, who is a 2019 call. Having regard to (a) the breakdown of the work, (b) the extremely convoluted nature of the case (there are 396 entries in the Applicant's tab in the master bundle), and (c) the complex materials required for her argument on this appearance, I am persuaded that Galit incurred greater than average expenses. Nevertheless, this was a one-hour motion. I therefore find it appropriate to award costs that are slightly lower than what Galit requests.

[45] Galit shall receive costs in the amount of $20,000.

Order

[46] In conclusion, I make the following order:

a. The Applicant's motion is granted. The attached order shall issue. For clarity:

i. The Respondent's pleadings are struck because he has failed to obey multiple court orders, and in particular the order of Justice Kraft dated July 15, 2024.

ii. The Applicant will proceed to an uncontested trial to be conducted pursuant to directions from the case management judge.

iii. Pursuant to the order of Justice Kraft dated July 15, 2024, the Respondent Yoel Altman shall pay to the Applicant Galit Altman a penalty of $399,000 within 30 days.

iv. The Respondent Yoel Altman shall forthwith pay to the Applicant Galit Altman costs in the amount of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Justice Mathen

Date: August 18, 2025