Lacko v. Imran, 2026 ONSC 1936
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Nikolett Lacko, Applicant
And:
Kashif Imran, Respondent
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice M.D. Faieta
Counsel: Patricia Rodriguez-McNeill, for the Applicant
Self-represented Respondent
Heard: March 31, 2026
Endorsement
1The 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 and for an order permitting this application to proceed to an uncontested trial without notice to the respondent. Although duly served, the respondent did not appear or file any responding materials.
Background
2The parties were married in March 2014. There are three children of the marriage ages 4, 8 and 11. The parties separated on February 9, 2022.
3In April 2022, this application for decision making, parenting time, child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, a divorce and a restraining order was commenced.
4On August 12, 2022, Justice Pollak issued a consent Order that: (1) the respondent pay temporary child support of $537 per month commencing May 1, 2022; (2) the respondent have supervised parenting time with the children one hour each weekend or as available; (3) the respondent provide annual financial disclosure by June 1st each year; (4) the respondent to make specific disclosure within 45 days.
5On December 9, 2022, counsel for the applicant sent a letter to the respondent’s counsel advising that the respondent was behind in child support payments and had not made financial disclosure. The respondent was warned that a motion under rule 1(8) might be brought if disclosure was not provided by January 20, 2023.
6The respondent began visiting the children through Access for Parents and Children Ontario (“APCO”) in February 2023. In June 2023, APCO notified the applicant that the file had been placed on hold as the respondent had cancelled three consecutive visits.
7Around November 2023, the respondent moved to Dubai to work as a hotel manager where he appears to have re-partnered.
8On April 23, 2024, the respondent had a video call with the children via WhatsApp. Since that time, he has not communicated with the children nor sought to resume his parenting time.
9On June 19, 2024, the parties were divorced by Order of Justice Shin Doi.
10On June 23, 2024, the respondent did not attend a settlement conference, nor did he file a settlement conference brief. At that time, Justice Horkins granted the applicant leave to bring a motion on notice to the respondent to strike his Answer for non-compliance with Justice Diamond’s Order dated May 29, 2023.
11The respondent ceased to be represented by counsel sometime in 2024.
12As of October 10, 2025, the respondent is in arrears of child support in the amount of $7,298.07. The Director, Family Responsibility Office, has taken various steps to enforce this Order including suspending the respondent’s driver’s licence.
13The applicant states that the respondent has failed to provide the following financial disclosure required by one or more of Form 8.0.1 Automatic Order, dated April 28, 2022, the Order of Justice Pollak dated August 12, 2022, and the Order of Justice Diamond dated May 29, 2023, in relation to
(1) Disclosure in relation to 2154347 Ontario Limited:
a. Corporate TD bank statements from January 2021 and March 2023 to present;
b. Corporate TD Visa statements from January -December 2019, April 2023 to present.
c. T2 for 2019, 2020 and 2021
d. Business valuation as of the date of marriage and date of separation
e. A statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payment paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporation with whom the corporation does not deal at arm’s length;
(2) Personal disclosure
a. Copies of all statements for all bank accounts and credits listed in the respondent’s Financial statement dated July 26, 2022 from January 1, 2020 to present – specifically BMO Chequing …394, June 3, 2022, March 2023 to present; BMO USD savings …141, November 2020 and August 2021; TD Canada Trust Chequing … 482, January 2020, October 2020, February, March and July 2021; BMO Line of Credit … 5420, December 2020, May 2022, March 2023; TD Canada Trust mortgage …257, Annual statements for 2020, 2022 to present; TD Canada Trust Line of Credit … 185, April 2022, May 2022 statements; TD Visa … 0500 statements; TD Visa … 2117 statements; Scotia Mastercard …7165 statements September 2019, February -December 2020, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, 2022, June-December 2023; BMO Mastercard … 8606 statements; BMO Mastercard …5480 February 2020, November 2020, May 2021, June 2021, June 2022, December 2022, January 2023; TD Visa … 7817 January-December 2019, March 2023 to present; Amex …3202 January 2019-March 2022; April 2023 to present; Amex … 82003 January 2019 – March 2022, April 2023 to present; MBNA Mastercard … 5060 January -April 2022, April 2023 to present; BMO Mastercard … 1058 statements; BMO Mastercard … 7402 outstanding;
b. Copies of any statements of net worth that have been filed with any bank during the past three years
c. Copies of all applications for loans or credit of any kinds from January 1, 2020, to date
d. A list of all safety deposit boxes
e. Agreement of purchase and sale for 135 Donlands Avenue including tracing of funds received form sale
f. Closing documents for sale of 135 Donlands
g. Agreements of purchase and sale for all cars or vehicles purchased or sold by the respondent since January 1, 2019
h. Proof of any loans to or from the respondent since January 1, 2019
i. Proof of purchase and/or warranties for jewellery/watches
j. Tax returns and notices of assessment for 2019, 2020, 2022 and tax return for 2021
k. A statement from each of the following banks detailing current open accounts and credit card existing – Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Royal Bank, MBNA Credit Card, American Express and Alterna
l. Confirmation of the total earnings paid in the year to date (2022) or letter from employer
m. Certificate of financial disclosure
Analysis
14Rule 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].
15If an Application is struck, then under Rule 1(8.4), the following consequences apply unless a court orders otherwise:
The party is not entitled to any further notice of steps in the case, except as provided by subrule 25 (13) (service of order).
The party is not entitled to participate in the case in any way.
The court may deal with the case in the party’s absence.
A date may be set for an uncontested trial of the case.
16In 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.
17In 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.
18Clearly, the respondent has failed to comply with one or more of the various disclosure orders that have been made. He has also failed to comply with the child support order.
19The outstanding disclosure is extensive. As a consequence, the respondent’s true financial circumstances are unknown. As was the case in Singh v. Seth, 2022 ONCA 837, for years, the respondent has failed to provide the necessary disclosure required to advance this litigation. In my view, no other remedy will suffice, and no additional opportunities should be given to the respondent to comply with the disclosure orders.
20Accordingly, the motion is granted. After the applicant uploads her Form 23C affidavit to the OCPP portal, this uncontested trial will in due course be scheduled for a written hearing.
Costs
21As noted by Monahan J., as he then was, in Sonia v. Ratan, 2023 ONSC 982, at paras. 25-33, the overarching principles governing awards of costs in family law proceedings are proportionality and reasonableness. The applicant mother seeks costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $7,451.79 inclusive of HST and disbursements. I find that it is proportional and reasonable for the respondent to pay costs of $5,000.00, to the applicant within 30 days.
Conclusion
22Order to go as follows:
(a) The respondent’s Answer dated July 26, 2022, is struck.
(b) The respondent is not entitled to notice of any further step in this proceeding.
(c) The applicant may proceed to an uncontested trial by way of affidavit without notice to the respondent.
(d) The respondent shall pay to the applicant costs in the amount of $5,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements within 30 days.
(e) This Order is effective immediately without the issuance and entry of a formal order.
Honourable Mr. Justice M.D. Faieta
Date: March 31, 2026