Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-24-45268-000 Date: 2026-03-18 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Parisa Alami-Narenji, Applicant And: Mojtaba Ahmadi, Respondent

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice M.D. Faieta

Counsel: Poroshad Mahdi, as agent, for the Applicant Self-represented Respondent

Heard: March 17, 2026

Endorsement

[1] The applicant mother brings this motion for an order that the respondent father's Answer be struck pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 ("FLR") for failure to comply with orders for the disclosure of documents, for an order to prohibit the applicant from bringing any further proceedings regarding financial matters (as opposed to parenting issues) and for an order for financial disclosure in respect of matters not previously ordered.

Background

[2] The parties were married in February 2016. The applicant mother states that the parties separated in December 2023 while the respondent husband states that the parties separated in August 2024. The parties have two children, ages six and seven. The issues in this application include parenting time, decision making responsibility, child support, and equalization of net family property.

[3] The applicant works as an investment advisor. Since about 2022, the respondent has operated a HVAC business. The applicant states that the respondent earns cash income from this work. This is denied by the respondent. She states the respondent also earns cash income from a renovation business. The respondent owns a rental property and earns income from that property. The applicant states that in 2018 the parties bought an investment property at 72 Bedle Avenue, Toronto.

[4] On May 16, 2025, Justice Shin Doi ordered that the respondent father deliver financial disclosure as described in the table below within 30 days. At a settlement conference on October 24, 2025, Justice C. Stevenson's Endorsement states, at paras. 6-8:

The Order of Justice Shin Doi dated May 16, 2025 required the Resp to deliver a Cert of Fin Disclosure and updated Fin Statement. He did so, but the applicant says this compliance was incomplete.

The applicant may bring a motion for further information or documents but should first provide an itemized list to the Resp for the info/docs that the Applicant says must still be produced.

Para. 2. Of the Order contemplated the Resp retaining an expert to produce an income analysis and valuation of his income for 2021-2204. He shall retain such an expert as soon as reasonably possible and instruct that expert to produce the contemplated report ASAP. The respondent shall give the expert all documents requested by the expert to facilitate production of that report.

[5] The applicant mother delivered an affidavit dated February 27, 2026 outlining her position on whether the respondent father has complied with the above Orders and made a further request for information, as shown below.

Disclosure Ordered by Justice Shin Doi	Applicant wife's position	Respondent husband's position
A Certificate of Financial Disclosure together with the supporting documentation required by the Rules.	Received June 15, 2025. Lacks "significant disclosure". The lacking disclosure is unspecified.
The respondent's financial statements and tax returns for 2433463 Ontario Ltd. for the years 2021-2024	Corporate financial statements for 2021-2024 not produced. Corporate tax returns received for 2022-2025 and 2024 Notice of Assessment produced
The respondent's complete personal tax returns for the years 2021 to date	Delivered
Particulars of all of the respondent's personal and business bank and credit card accounts that he has held for the last three years and copies of statements for such accounts from January 1, 2021 to date	Received TD chequing statement 7981 and TD Emerald Visa 563/667 for 2021-2025. Outstanding: TD LOC 744 statements for May 2024 and June 2025 to present. Outstanding: RBC Savings 448 statements for 2023-2025. BMO Mastercard 532 statements for 2021, January-November 2022, and for 2025. BMO Business Banking 050 statements for 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and January-February 2025
Corroboration of the claim made by the respondent that he owns 50% of the property known as 72 Bedle Avenue, Toronto in trust for another party	No longer relevant as the respondent has abandoned this claim
Particulars of and copies of leases respecting the premises known as 115 Codsell Avenue, Toronto and 72 Bedle Avenue, Toronto	Outstanding: Executed lease agreements. Detailed rent roll/ledger for 2021-2024. Proof of rent deposits'. Expense receipts and invoices. Property tax statements. Utility statements. Repair/maintenance documents
Copies of mortgage applications that the respondent made with respect to 115 Codsell and 72 Bedle	Outstanding. Mortgage statement insufficient.
An updated Financial Statement to include a detailed breakdown of the respondent's income from all sources	Outstanding. Lacks detailed breakdown by source.
The respondent shall deliver to the applicant, upon the reasonable request by the applicant, an income analysis and valuation of his income by a qualified professional for the years 2021 to 2024.	Outstanding	Unnecessary

[6] The respondent father delivered a responding affidavit that largely did not address the applicant's position shown above. For that reason, the third column in the chart above is largely blank. The respondent is emphatic that he has not received undisclosed cash income and states that he has never had net rental income. He states that a valuation of his income is unnecessary given that he reports his income to the CRA, the small size of his business, and the anticipated $14,000-$18,000 cost of an income valuation.

Analysis

[7] Rule 1(8) of the FLR states:

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. [Emphasis added].

[8] If an Application is struck, then under Rule 1(8.4), the following consequences apply unless a court orders otherwise:

1. The party is not entitled to any further notice of steps in the case, except as provided by subrule 25 (13) (service of order).

2. The party is not entitled to participate in the case in any way.

3. The court may deal with the case in the party's absence.

4. A date may be set for an uncontested trial of the case.

[9] In Mullin v. Sherlock, 2018 ONCA 1063, 19 R.F.L. (8th) 1, at paras. 44-46, Pepall J.A. outlined the following three-part test for deciding whether to strike a party's pleadings under Rule 1(8) in cases of non-disclosure:

First, when faced with an allegation of failure to obey a disclosure order, before granting a remedy, the judge must be satisfied that there has been non-compliance with the court order.

Second, once satisfied, a judge may have recourse to the alternatives described in Rule 1(8). In assessing the most appropriate remedy, a judge should consider the following factors:

• the relevance of the non-disclosure, including its significance in hindering the resolution of issues in dispute;

• the context and complexity of the issues in dispute, understanding that an uncomplicated case should have little tolerance for non-disclosure, whereas a case involving extensive valuation of assets may permit some reasonable delay in responsiveness;

• the extensiveness of existing disclosure;

• the seriousness of efforts made to disclose, and the explanations offered by a defaulting party for the inadequate or non-disclosure; and

• any other relevant factors.

Having considered these factors, the judge will then determine the best remedy. The orders identified in Rule 1(8) are not exclusive. Other approaches may be appropriate. For example, one option might be to invite the moving party to seek at trial an adverse inference from the failure to disclose and for the motion judge to memorialize this invitation in reasons for decision. Parties frequently rely on another option, namely a request for an adjournment to allow for more time to effect disclosure. Occasionally this may be appropriate especially in a complex case, but an adjournment should not be considered to be automatic. Fully compliant disclosure is the expectation, not the exception.

[10] In Chiaramonte v. Chiaramonte, 2013 ONCA 641, 370 D.L.R. (4th) 328, Tulloch, J.A., as he then was, stated at para. 31:

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, 75 R.F.L (6th) 33, at para. 47. The exceptional nature of this remedy is rooted in the significance of the adversarial system, as this court 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.

[11] Clearly, the respondent has failed to comply with the Stevenson Order requiring him to retain an expert to produce an income analysis and valuation of his income for the period of 2021 to 2024 as soon as possible. The respondent has made it clear that he has not done so and has no intention of doing so.

[12] The respondent's latest Financial Statement dated March 12, 2026 states that he has employment income of $17,000. There are no other sources of income and no supporting documents provided. Nevertheless, on the first page, he states that he is currently self-employed, and not employed, by Quality Build Ontario. The same Statement reports gross income in the prior year of $252,930.25. It reports total monthly income of $12,459.36, comprised of $1,416 from employment income, $9,661.83 in self-employment income, $57.35 in pension income. The respondent's income appears variable over a six month period and his financial statements lack clarity. For these reasons, the income valuation is important to determining support.

[13] On the other hand, the respondent has partially complied with the Shin Doi Order.

[14] Given his modest efforts, at least in respect of the Shin Doi Order, I find that the best remedy is not the immediate striking of the respondent's Answer.

[15] In my view the respondent should be given a final opportunity to come into compliance with the Shin Doi Order and the Stevenson Order before his Answer is struck.

Costs

[16] The applicant mother seeks costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $13,110. Given the materials filed, I find that this amount is excessive. I find that it is fair and reasonable to order that the respondent pay costs of $4,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, within 30 days to the applicant.

[17] Finally, the respondent should be aware that information pertaining to family law and retaining lawyers can be found on the Court's website:

https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/areas-of-law/family/

Conclusion

[18] Order to go as follows:

(a) By April 20, 2026, the respondent shall deliver a letter from a Chartered Business Valuator to the applicant which confirms that the CBV has been retained by the respondent to produce an income analysis and valuation of his income for the years 2021 to 2024.

(b) By August 20, 2026, the respondent shall deliver the CBV's income analysis and valuation to the applicant.

(c) By April 20, 2026, the respondent shall deliver all outstanding documents to the applicant. These documents shall be delivered in an organized and itemized fashion along with a table of contents. If the respondent is unable to deliver any of these documents, then by April 20, 2026, he shall deliver an affidavit to the applicant explaining why he is unable to produce those documents along with a description of what efforts he made to obtain those documents.

(d) Unless this court orders otherwise, the respondent's Answer shall be struck, other than in respect of parenting issues, if an affidavit is produced by the applicant which shows that the respondent has failed to comply with paragraphs 18(a), 18(b) and 18(c) of this Endorsement.

(e) If the Answer is struck, the respondent is not entitled to any further notice of steps in the case, except as provided by subrule 25(13) of the FLR, nor is he entitled to participate in the case in any way other than in respect of parenting issues.

(f) The respondent shall pay costs of this motion in the amount of $4,000 to the applicant by April 20, 2026.

(g) This Order is effective immediately without the issuance and entry of a formal order.

The Honourable Mr. Justice M.D. Faieta

Date: March 18, 2026