Sandra Ang v. Winston Ang and Jacqueline Ang, 2026 ONSC 1230

Ang v. Ang, et al, 2026 ONSC 1230

COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-00029715-0000 DATE: 2026-03-02

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: SANDRA ANG, Applicant AND: WINSTON ANG, Respondent AND: JACQUELINE ANG, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice K. Sah

COUNSEL: Hanna Kofman, Counsel, for the Applicant in the Family Proceeding Evan Moore, Counsel for the Applicant in the Civil Proceeding The Respondent, Winston Ang, self represented in the Family Proceeding but assisted by Scott Turton, his counsel in the Civil Proceeding Murtaza Yailaqi, Counsel for the Respondent, Jacqueline Ang in the Civil Proceeding

HEARD: February 5, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

Overview

1On February 5, 2026, the court heard a long motion which was comprised of two motions brought by two parties.

2For simplicity and ease of reading, the parties will be referred to by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

3In this family court proceeding, the applicant, Sandra Ang ("Sandra"). There are two respondents, Winston Ang ("Winston") and Jacqueline Ang ("Jacqueline").

4Sandra brings a motion to strike the financial claims advanced in Winston's Answer. Parenting issues have been resolved at trial and are subject to Reasons for Decisions released January 5, 2026, by Stevenson J., reported at 2025 ONSC 7254. Sandra alleges Winston is in breach of six orders. Winston resists this motion and brings a countermotion as set out below. Jacqueline focussed her submissions on Winton's motion.

5Winston brings a motion seeking an order for the partial release of the proceeds of sale of a property to satisfy his court ordered spousal support and child support obligations as well as an amount to cover child support for a further 12 months. Sandra supports this request. Jacqueline opposes it.

Brief Background

6Winston lived a double life for many years. He has been married to Jaqueline for over 25 years. While married, he began a romantic relationship with Sandra. Winston told Sandra that he was separated from Jacqueline and that she was delaying the finalization of their separation. This was a lie that continued for eight and a half years.

7Believing Winston's lie, Sandra and Winston had a ceremonial marriage ceremony in Hawaii and hosted a celebratory party inviting hundreds of guests. Eventually, Winston and Sandra decided to have a child via IVF. Their daughter was born in 2018.

8During those eight and a half years, Sandra and Winston purchased a few properties. First, they purchased a home located at 92 Glenvale Blvd. (the "Glenvale" property) and put title to the property in Sandra's name alone. The parties sold the Glenvale property, and the proceeds of sale were deposited into Sandra's account. Some of the proceeds of sale were loaned to Winston's company, Blueprint Properties Inc.

9Sandra and Winston then purchased 16 Danville Drive (the "Danville" property) which they held as joint tenants. The Danville property was sold pursuant to Faieta J.'s order in this proceeding dated February 28, 2023.

10Sandra and Winston separated on January 21, 2022, following an incident that led to Winston being charged with uttering threats against Sandra.

11One month after their separation, Winston and his corporations initiated a civil suit against Sandra alleging misappropriation of funds.

12Five months after their separation, Sandra initiated a family law proceeding claiming sole decision-making, child and spousal support, and an equitable relief of a joint family venture.

13The family and civil actions have been consolidated.

14After a five-day trial on parenting issues heard in December 2025, Stevenson J. granted Sandra sole and final decision-making in relation to the child, with unsupervised and non-overnight parenting time to Winston.

Litigation History

15Within the family proceeding several orders were made as further described below.

16Order of Sharma J. dated October 24, 2022 ("disclosure order") – This order required Winston to produce basic financial disclosure including personal and corporate income tax returns.

17Order of Sharma J. dated November 15, 2022 ("s. 30 assessment order") – This order required Winston to pay one half the cost of the s. 30 assessment. This order is not subject to the motion before the court. The cost of the assessment was dealt with by Stevenson J. in his cost endorsement, in Ang v. Ang, 2026 ONSC 752.

18Consent Order of Faieta J. dated February 28, 2023 ("child support order") – This order required Winston to pay Sandra child support in the amount of $2,779 per month.

19Order of Faieta J. dated July 6, 2023 ("spousal support order") – This order required Winston to pay Sandra spousal support in the monthly amount of $5,065 retroactive to September 2022.

20Cost Order of Faieta J. dated August 1, 2023 ("Faieta cost order") – This was an order for costs on the spousal support motion. This order required Winston to pay cost to Sandra in the amount of $15,000.

21Jacqueline commenced civil proceedings against Winston and Sandra alleging misappropriation of funds from a family trust. That claim and the family proceeding were consolidated on consent subject to a determination of costs.

22The cost Order of Rhinelander J. dated August 9, 2024 ("Rhinelander cost order") – This court order was made on a settled motion for the consolidation of Jacqueline's civil claims with the family proceeding. This order required Winston and Jacqueline to each pay Sandra costs in the amount of $2,250.

23The parties attended a settlement conference on February 28, 2025.

24As set out above, all parenting issues have been resolved by way of final order after a trial heard in December 2025.

25The only issues that remain in dispute, subject to this family proceeding, are financial issues including property and support.

Issues to be Determined

26In relation to Winston's motion,

i. Should this court order the partial release of funds from the sale proceeds of the Danville property to Sandra to be credited towards the outstanding and prospective support and costs owing by Winston?

27In relation to Sandra's motion,

i. Has there been a triggering event that justifies the striking of Winston's pleading?

ii. Should Winston's Answer be struck in whole or in part, or should another remedy be implemented?

iii. If Winston's Answer is struck in whole, what are the appropriate consequences for him?

Analysis

Release of Funds

28Winston acknowledges that he has not paid Sandra in accordance with the child support order, the spousal support order, the Faieta cost order, or the Rhinelander cost order. He seeks to pay these accrued amounts plus interest and child support on a prospective basis for the next 12 months from the proceeds of sale of the Danville property. Sandra agrees to this request. Jacqueline does not.

29Jacqueline argues she has an interest in the funds held in trust from the sale of the Danville property. She claims to have an equitable right of tracing and a proprietary interest in those funds and any disbursement at this stage would be premature.

30It is Jacqueline's evidence that Winston was having an affair with Sandra without her knowledge. During Winston and Jacqueline's marriage, Jacqueline claims they jointly invested in and developed investment properties together, including Winston's corporation, Blueprint Properties Inc. Jacqueline claims through this joint effort they accumulated substantial funds.

31According to Jacqueline, she and Winston agreed to establish a family trust for Jacqueline's benefit as a part of their estate and tax planning; however, Jacqueline was unaware that Winston had deceptively created a separate family trust she coined a "deceptive trust".

32According to Jacqueline, when she and Winston sold their jointly owned property, it generated substantial net proceeds, which were intended to fund their family trust. However, she later uncovered that Winston used the majority of those net proceeds to fund the deceptive trust which removes her as beneficiary and instead, lists Winston's two sons as beneficiaries.

33Jacqueline submits she was unaware that Winston withdrew the alleged misappropriated funds from the deceptive family trust and transferred it to Sandra to purchase the Glenvale property. She also says she was unaware that Winston and Sandra purchased the Danville property and claims Winston and Sandra financed a Scotiabank bridge loan secured against the Glenvale property to purchase the Danville property.

34Jacqueline asserts ownership over the net proceeds of sale of the Glenvale property, maintaining that those funds were never lawfully Sandra's or Winston's.

35Jacqueline claims to have uncovered evidence linking the alleged misappropriated funds from the Glenvale property to the purchase of the Danville property. She registered a caution on title to the Danville property to protect her interest. When the Danville property sold, Jacqueline reluctantly agreed to the release of $350,000 each to Winston and Sandra while the remaining amount was left in trust.

36Sandra claims to be the beneficial owner of the Danville property, notwithstanding the property was held with Winston as joint tenants. Jacqueline asserts a beneficial interest in the Danville property.

37Jacqueline opposes Winston's motion seeking the release of the funds held in trust claiming the release would unjustly prejudice her claims and would violate the terms of a consent holdback agreement which all parties jointly approved. This holdback stipulated that no funds may be dispersed without mutual consent or a court order.

38Jacqueline submits that a full determination of her claims, including tracing, accounting, and quantification of losses can only be made following a trial on the merits, where all evidence can be properly adduced and adjudicated. She claims releasing funds prematurely would undermine her ability to recover what is rightfully owed and deny her a fair adjudication of her claims.

39Jacqueline claims she has had to endure hardship throughout this ordeal, including being forced to go back to work, bearing the brunt of significant financial costs, and sacrificing her time and energy for a matter that should never have involved her in the first place.

40The terms of the consent holdback agreement signed by all parties explicitly provides the court with the jurisdiction to order the release of funds.

41Therefore, the court shall order the release of funds for the following reasons.

42The release of the funds does not preclude Jacqueline from pursuing her claims against Sandra and/or Winston.

43Contrary to the suggestion of her counsel, an order for the release of funds is not tantamount to summary judgement.

44If the requested funds are released to Sandra, Jacqueline is still free to advance her position at trial and present all evidence in support of her case to allow the trial judge to decide whether her claims of misappropriation are founded.

45Jacqueline has not applied to the court for a preservation order and/or Mareva injunction in relation to Blueprint Properties Inc., Winston's and/or Sandra's assets, or the funds specifically held in trust.

46While the court sympathizes with the situation Jacqueline is in, her claims are not prejudiced if the funds are released and there is no request for preservation of same.

47Jacqueline has not tendered any evidence to support a finding that her claims will be undermined or that she will be denied a fair adjudication. The issue of the collectability of her claims if successful are not before this court.

48While Jacqueline claims that the release of partial funds would effectively end her civil action, the court disagrees. This court is not rushing to judgement on these issues without a proper record as alleged.

49Any order for the release of funds can be made without prejudice to Jacqueline's claims.

50Jacqueline has not provided any reliable evidence in support of her refusal to release the funds her husband has requested to satisfy his breach of various court orders. She also has not brought a cross motion seeking a preservation of the funds, as outlined above.

51There is approximately $1,050,085.89 held in trust with Meyrick, Weatherhead, Weatherhead LLP. Specified amounts, as set out below, currently held in trust by Meyrick, Weatherhead, Weatherhead LLP shall be released to Sandra from Winston's presumptive one-half share.

Non-compliance and Request to Strike

52Under the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 ("FLRs"), the court may strike a party's pleading on the basis of a failure to comply with court orders.

53Even though most motions to strike relate to a party's non-compliance with disclosure obligations, the power to strike extends beyond non-compliance with disclosure duties: Holly v. Greco, 2019 ONCA 464, 28 R.F.L. (8th) 49, at para. 10.

54The court's authority to strike a pleading for non-compliance with court orders rests in part on the court's inherent jurisdiction to make any order which it considers appropriate to address a party's failure to respect the court process: Hughes v. Hughes, 2007 10905 (ON SC), [2007] 85 O.R. (3d) 505 (S.C.), at para. 27; Levely v. Levely, 2013 ONSC 1026, at para. 11; Hill v. Gregory, 2018 ONSC 6847, at para. 38.

55Rule 1(8) of the FLRs reads:

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 order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including,

(a) an order for costs;

(a.1) an order to pay an amount to a party or into court as a penalty or fine;

(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) a contempt order, if sought under rule 31.

56When determining motion such as the one before this court, three issues must be determined as per Mullin v. Sherlock, 2018 ONCA 1063, 19 R.F.L. (8th) 1, at paras. 44-47:

1. Is there a triggering event justifying the striking of the pleading?

2. Should the pleading be struck in whole or in part, or should another remedy be implemented?

3. If the pleading is struck in whole, what are the appropriate consequences for the party whose pleading was struck?

57Winston concedes that he is in breach of various court orders. His rationale for same need not be analyzed in the context of motion. Winston brought his motion for the release of funds to fulfill his support obligations and rectify his breach of various court orders after Sandra brought her motion to strike his Answer in relation to the financial issues. The timing of his request is calculated and self-serving.

58Winston ought to have brought his motion in 2023 after the child support order and spousal support order was made if he could not fulfill his obligations. He ought not to have consented to the child support order if he knew or ought to have known that he could not fulfill this obligation.

59Winston could have brought his motion at any reasonable period after 2023. Instead, he allowed support arrears to accrue in the approximate amount of almost $8,000 per month for two and half years.

60The court must be guided by the primary purpose of the FLRs which is required to deal with cases justly: FLRs, at r. 2(2).

61In dealing with a case justly, the court can implement procedures and measures proportionate to the importance and complexity of a case: FLRs, at r. 2(3)(c).

62In the analysis, and to promote the primary objectives of the FLRs, the court is encouraged to consider whether the likely benefit of taking a step justifying the cost and determine whether the court can dispose of issues that do not need a full investigation and trial: rr. 2(5)(a)(e)

63While it is acknowledged that the court's discretion to strike a pleading should be exercised sparingly and in limited and exceptional circumstances, this court takes the view this is such a circumstance.

64Winston consented to paying Sandra child support in the monthly amount of $2,729. He paid support for the period of March 2023 to July 2023. Then, he stopped paying completely. Since then, child support has not been paid for over two and a half years.

65This conduct has affected Sandra's ability to meet the needs of the child who she has been supporting entirely on her own.

66Winston was ordered to pay spousal support retroactive to September 2022. He has not paid any support under the terms of the order. Considering the retroactive component of the spousal support order, his obligations have been outstanding for over three years.

67The cost orders have also been outstanding for several years.

68Winston has not demonstrated an ability or a willingness to respect the rules of the court or court orders.

69Winston has failed to comply with even the most basic disclosure obligations. In these circumstances, striking his pleadings is an appropriate and proportionate measure to secure his compliance with the court orders. Any resulting limitation on his ability to participate in the proceeding cannot be said to arise solely from the court's action, but from his own longstanding refusal to meaningfully engage in the process.

70In this matter, the court is already operating without sufficient financial disclosure, and as is often the case in such circumstances, adverse inferences may be drawn from lack of disclosure, and any findings will need to be made on the basis of the best evidence available given Winston's continued failure to provide the information required.

71It should be noted that Winston's continuous breach of court orders, obligations, and responsibilities has negatively impacted the child.

72In addition, Winston's conduct has progressively eroded Sandra's financial stability and emotional well-being.

73In this case, to approach the matter fairly and efficiently and in a manner that respects the legal process and the rule of law, it would be a proportionate remedy to strike the financial aspects of Winston's Answer.

74The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld many decisions where a party's pleadings have been struck for failure to comply with court orders, including disclosure orders: Nguyen v. Pham, 2025 ONCA 858; Manjunath v. Kuppa, 2024 ONCA 668; Aslezova v. Khanine, 2023 ONCA 153; Bouchard v. Sgovio, 2021 ONCA 709, 63 R.F.L. (8th) 257; Manchanda v. Thethi, 2021 ONCA 127; Peerenboom v. Peerenboom, 2020 ONCA 240, 446 D.L.R. (4th) 418; Holly v. Greco; Mullin v. Sherlock; Roberts v. Roberts 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6.

75However, this analysis requires the court to first consider all other alternative remedies to determine if there could be a more responsive and proportionate remedy, based on the facts of the case at hand. Winston's request to remedy all the orders requiring payment is an appropriate alternative.

76As a result, this court will not, at this time, strike Winston's Answer. Instead, it will provide him with another opportunity to comply with the disclosure order failing which, this matter may be returned to the court, on notice, for a determination of the motion.

77As a part of a fair and just determination of how to remedy Winston's non-compliance, this court will look to prospective payments to be made under the terms of various court orders.

78Winston suggests, and Sandra agrees, that the equivalent of twelve months of child and spousal support payments be released from the fund to cover his future support obligations. This court will order the release of the prospective support payments from Winston's presumptive one-half share of the proceeds as this arrangement is in the child's best interests and is appropriate given his longstanding failure to comply with prior court orders.

79The total amount currently held in trust is sufficient in that, even after the release of funds ordered by this Court, approximately $750,000 will remain.

80Jacqueline's evidence is that the sale of her and Winston's former property yielded net proceeds of $703,700. She alleges that Winston deceptively diverted $500,000 from those sale proceeds and misappropriated the funds to Sandra for the purchase of the Glenvale property and subsequently, the Danville property. The amount remaining in trust should be sufficient to satisfy Jacqueline's claim for recovery of the alleged misappropriated funds if she is successful at trial.

81With respect to financial disclosure, Winston was ordered to exchange updated financial information and personal and corporate tax returns. Pursuant to the disclosure order, the parties exchanged Requests for Information. Winston was served with Sandra's Request for Information on December 2, 2022. Winston failed to provide his response by January 13, 2023. Some disclosure was delivered to Sandra in December 2023 and January 2024.

82According to the Sandra, Winston is still required to produce: i) an updated sworn financial statement, supporting disclosure for all values in his sworn financial statement, including assets and debts; ii) supporting disclosure for the cash surrender values of his five life insurance policies listed in his financial statement; iii) statements of account from the Granite Club; iv) an explanation of how he is paying his expenses; v) a tracing of the $350,000 he received from the net proceeds of sale of the Danville property; vi) full personal income tax returns for 2022, 2023, his notice of assessment for 2023; and vii) corporate financial statements and tax returns for the six businesses listed on his financial statement for the year 2019 and onward.

83In response, Winston deposes that he has provided various documents including tax returns and select corporate records and personal banking information. He provided no further evidence to assist the court in determining what outstanding disclosure remains. His evidence does not persuade this court that he is in compliance with the disclosure order that clearly required Sandra and Winston to exchange Requests for Information and provided a deadline for responses. The disclosure order also clearly states that if an answer is not provided, an explanation shall be provided as to why the information is not produced or what steps have been taken to obtain the information.

84Winston will have 30 days to produce the disclosure that is said to be outstanding as set out in Sandra's affidavit evidence, failing which, Sandra is free to return her motion to strike on notice.

85Winston has been given another chance to produce very basic, easily attainable financial disclosure which has now been outstanding for two years. He risks harsh remedies if he does not comply.

Orders

86The following orders shall issue.

87On a without-prejudice basis, and without affecting any rights or claims any party may have regarding entitlement to, or proprietary interests in, the funds or any other matters arising under the Consent Holdback Agreement dated May 30, 2023, the following amount shall be released to Sandra from Winston's presumptive one-half share:

a) Child support payments required under the order of Justice Faieta dated February 28, 2023, specifically $2,729 per month from January 1, 2023, to and including February 1, 2026, less payments made from March 1, 2023 to July 1, 2023, plus post-judgement interest calculated to the date of payment;

b) Spousal support payments required under the order of Justice Faieta dated July 6, 2023, specifically the amount of $5,065 per month from September 15, 2022, to and including February 1, 2026, plus post-judgement interest calculated to the date of payment;

c) Costs owing in the amount of $15,000 as ordered by Justice Faieta on August 1, 2023, plus post-judgement interest calculated to the date of payment;

d) Costs owing in the amount of $2,500 as ordered by Justice Rhinelander on August 9, 2024, plus post-judgement interest calculated to the date of payment; and

e) The sum of $93,529 representing child and spousal support payments for the period of March 1, 2026, to March 1, 2027.

88On or before April 2, 2026, Winston shall produce to Sandra:

a) An updated sworn financial statement, supporting disclosure for all values in his sworn financial statement, including assets and debts;

b) Supporting disclosure for the cash surrender values of his five life insurance policies listed in his financial statement;

c) Statements of account from the Granite Club;

d) An explanation of how he is paying his expenses;

e) A tracing of the $350,000 he received from the net proceeds of sale of the Danville property;

f) Full personal income tax returns for 2022, 2023, his notice of assessment for 2023; and

g) Corporate financial statements and tax returns for the six businesses listed on his financial statement for the year 2019 and onward.

89If Winston fails to comply with the order above, Sandra is free to return her motion to strike Winston's Answer, on notice, and upon filing an updated affidavit. Winston shall have the right to file a responding affidavit, and Sandra has the right of reply. Service and filing deadlines shall comply with the FLRs once a return date is mutually agreed upon and shall comply with the Provincial and Regional Practice Directions.

Costs

90The parties are encouraged to settle costs of this motion.

91If they are unable to settle costs, Sandra shall submit cost submissions within 14 days of the release of this decision and the Winston and Jacqueline shall submit cost submissions within 14 days of receipt of Sandra's submissions. All cost submissions shall be limited to three pages double spaced excluding Offers to Settle and the Bills of Costs. There shall be no right of reply, unless requested by the court. If costs are not received within the timelines ordered, costs shall be deemed settled.