CITATION: Gibson v. Gibson, 2026 ONSC 2291

COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-196-00

DATE: 2026-04-17

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Lindsay Dawn Gibson

Margaret Waddington, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

Lee Robert Gibson

Michael Cupello, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: April 9, 2026, at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski

Decision On Motion

Introduction

1The applicant brings this motion seeking to strike the respondent’s Answer in accordance with rr. 1(7.1), 1(8)(b) and (c), and 1(8.1) of the Family Law Rules.

2In the alternative, the applicant requests that the claims of the respondent for equalization and spousal support be dismissed with costs, and that an uncontested hearing be scheduled in accordance with r. 1(8.4)4 of the Family Law Rules.

3In the further alternative, the applicant asks the Court to sever the issues of equalization and spousal support from the parenting issues and that these issues be allowed to proceed by way of an uncontested hearing.

4The relief sought by the applicant is based upon her unsuccessful efforts in obtaining meaningful financial disclosure from the respondent.

5The application in this matter is dated September 29, 2022. The respondent’s Answer and Financial Statement dated November 2, 2022, were filed on November 3, 2022.

6While this matter got off to a slow start, at a case conference scheduled on June 27, 2024, the endorsement notes that the parties agreed to discuss outstanding financial disclosure.

7On June 11, 2025, at which point the applicant had changed lawyers and retained Ms. Waddington, an e-mail was sent to the respondent’s counsel outlining the applicant’s request for financial disclosure. In this regard, the request was for an updated financial statement or a draft net family property statement.

8On October 17, 2025, Ms. Waddington sent an e-mail to the respondent’s counsel indicating that her client would be willing to enter into settlement discussions, but only once the outstanding financial disclosure had been made.

9On November 27, 2025, the respondent provided the applicant with a financial statement. However, this updated document was still missing much of the information that had been requested by the applicant, and was more or less the same as the previous financial statement dated November 2, 2022.

10On December 18, 2025, following a motion which addressed the partial disbursement of net sale proceeds from the matrimonial home, Justice Lepere ordered, on consent, that updated financial statements of both parties were to be exchanged within 60 days. In addition, it was agreed that certificates of financial disclosure would be exchanged. The agreed upon 60 day time period meant that this disclosure was due on or before February 16, 2026.

11After no documents were provided by the respondent, Ms. Waddington sent a letter on February 17, 2026, once again asking for the respondent’s updated financial statement and a certificate of financial disclosure.

12On March 2, 2026, Ms. Waddington sent another e-mail confirming that still nothing had been received, and that court proceedings would accordingly have to be brought.

13The motion was served on March 9, 2026, with a return date of March 19, 2026.

14On March 19, 2026, the motion was adjourned to March 26, 2026.

15On March 26, 2026, at the request of the respondent, the motion was further adjourned to April 9, 2026. The endorsement of that same date directed the respondent to respond to the request for financial disclosure as well as the motion to strike.

16On April 7, 2026, the respondent served a Form 13.1 Financial Statement and a Form 13A Certificate of Financial Disclosure, both of which were sworn/affirmed on April 7, 2026.

Position of the Applicant

17The Family Law Rules provide that when a party fails to obey an order of the court, or fails to follow the Rules, a court can make an order dismissing a claim or striking an Answer or other document filed by the party: see rr. 1(7.1), 1(8)(b) and (c), and 1(8.1).

18As a consequence of striking a document, r. 1(8.4)4 provides that the issue, or the entire matter, can proceed to an uncontested hearing.

19The applicant also relies on r. 2(3) which establishes parametres for dealing with cases in a just manner.

20Ms. Waddington submitted that the Answer and other documents of the respondent should be struck for failure to provide financial disclosure.

21The Financial Statement dated April 7, 2026, is still deficient and substantially the same as the version dated November 2, 2022, and November 27, 2025. The only material change to the April 7, 2026, Financial Statement is the inclusion of current debts which has no impact upon the equalization or spousal support claims.

22The Certificate of Financial Disclosure is also deficient.

23The Court of Appeal for Ontario has reiterated the importance for full and frank financial disclosure on numerous occasions: Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, at paras. 11-13; see also Dagher v. Hajj, 2021 ONSC 2853, for a review of relevant case law.

24The duty to provide financial disclosure is described as “the most basic obligation in family law”, being an immediate and ongoing requirement. When one party ignores his or her duty in this regard, litigation is delayed and the administration of justice is negatively impacted. Because of the automatic requirement to provide financial disclosure, orders of the court are completely unnecessary.

25In the case of Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONCA 909, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated, at para. 13, that when a party chooses not to disclose financial information and ignore court orders directing disclosure, he or she puts themselves at risk of losing their standing within the court proceedings.

26Finally, in Mullin v. Sherlock, 2018 ONCA 1063, at para. 45 of the Court’s decision, a number of factors were set out which should be considered in fashioning an appropriate remedy to non-disclosure:

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

b) 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;

c) the extensiveness of existing disclosure;

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

e) any other relevant factors

27When asked to point out the deficiencies in the disclosure which was emailed to Ms. Waddington’s office on April 7, 2026, the following submissions were made:

• with respect to the financial statement, paragraph 4 on page 2 did not provide a gross income figure, and instead said that the income tax return was recently filed and would be provided, and if a return was provided there would be information which could be filled out in this paragraph;

• on page 5, there were no figures provided for household goods and furniture for any of the three dated columns;

• on page 5, while a Tundra was valued at $24,000 on the valuation date, and a Tacoma was valued at $24,000 on the date of marriage, no documents were included in the Certificate of Financial Disclosure emailed on April 7, 2026 (“CFD”) in support of these values;

• on page 5, Part 4(c), two chequing bank accounts are listed with very specific values as of the valuation date which must have come from somewhere, but again no documents were provided in the CFD;

• on page 6, Part 4(d), no life insurance and no benefits are listed, but the applicant asserts that such assets did exist and no explanation has been provided for not acknowledging these in the Financial Statement;

• under part 5 which addresses debts and liabilities, while significant debts are listed as existing on the valuation date, no corresponding documents have been provided in the CFD;

• with respect to the CFD, it was only served on April 7, 2026;

• in terms of any bank records which are included in the CFD, despite very specific figures being listed in the Financial Statement, strongly suggesting that they came from “somewhere”, only recent bank statements were included;

• while an OMERS statement of earnings and deductions was provided from January 2024 to April 2026, the date of separation is June 2022 and no information regarding the pension, including a valuation, is included in the CFD;

• similarly, while the CFD lists an OMERS deferred pension statement, it is for the time period May 2025 to April 2026 which is irrelevant for the purposes of determining equalization issues; and

• in terms of details of liabilities in the CFD, two documents are referenced in lines 79 and 80, neither of which are dated before May 2024 and as such do not have any bearing on the equalization issues since these are irrelevant for valuation purposes.

Position of the Respondent

28With respect to any criticism of the applicant that information relating to the current values of bank accounts or assets was provided, Mr. Cupello submitted that the family law forms require this information and it must be provided.

29With respect to the information provided, the arguments of the applicant are focussed on the fact that the information is not “good enough”. Rarely, if ever, is the information “good enough”, according to the respondent, and that is why the process of Questioning, which in turn results in responses to undertakings, exists.

30The respondent has complied with the production of his Financial Statement and the CFD. On this basis, his Answer should not be struck.

31Rule 2(2) provides the primary objective of the Family Law Rules which is to enable the court to deal with cases in a just manner.

32Rule 2(3) mandates that cases are to be dealt with justly, ensuring fair procedure, not wasting money or time, applying proportionality principles to the conduct of the litigation, and properly allocating court resources.

33Applying both subrules 2(2) and 2(3) to the facts of this case, there is no basis for this matter to proceed on an uncontested basis. Mr. Cupello admitted that the respondent failed to comply with the order of Justice Lepere in that the updated disclosure was not provided within the 60 day time period. However, the fact is that he is now in compliance, and if the applicant wants more information she can serve a request to admit, schedule Questioning, or ask for a listing of documents. Striking the Answer in these circumstances would not be in accordance with the spirit of the Rules.

34Instead, this matter should proceed forward with an established timetable that includes the exchange of an Affidavit Listing Documents and, if necessary, Questioning.

Decision

35From a review of the evidence, it is clear that the respondent has ignored the requests of the applicant for details relating to the position he is taking with respect to the values of assets and debts existing as of the date of marriage and the date of separation.

36While the respondent has properly included some information in relation to the current value of limited assets and debts, he has failed to provide the values of his bank accounts, overdrafts, pension, vehicles, household goods and furniture, life insurance, benefit plans, or relevant historical income information. And, in those cases where values have been provided, missing in many cases are the source documents, or other evidence, supporting the figures used by the respondent in his Financial Statement or CFD.

37After two previous Financial Statements of the respondent were provided, on April 7, 2026, a third Financial Statement was sent to the applicant which was more or less identical to the previous versions. This is despite the repeated requests of the applicant for more fulsome and detailed disclosure as she is clearly entitled to receive in accordance with the Rules.

38Issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family properties can only be determined if the parties are forthcoming with detailed financial disclosure. The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information: Roberts, at para. 11. Financial disclosure is automatic, and should not require court orders: Roberts, at para. 13. Parties to a matrimonial proceeding must produce documents relating to their financial circumstances, and willful non-compliance with this obligation must be considered egregious and exceptional: Manchanda, at para. 13.

39Aside from the basic duty of parties to provide complete and fulsome financial disclosure which is entrenched in the Rules, on June 11, 2025 an email from Ms. Waddington to Mr. Marchak and his legal assistant – both from the office of Mr. Cupello’s which represents the respondent – details the information the applicant was requesting. This included the following:

1. Income Tax Returns for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024;

2. Notices of Assessment for 2022, 2023 and 2024;

3. A copy of his most recent paystub or source of income for this year;

4. Documentation for the valuation of the 2012 Toyota Tundra and the 2005 Toyota Tacoma;

5. A value for the household goods and furniture as of DOS;

6. Copies of all bank statements for DOS – CIBC and RBC (Sole Accounts);

7. Line of Credit Statements – Scotiabank – ending in 4445 and 5658; and

8. An updated financial statement, or a draft NFP.

40Almost a year later, and after another 5 written requests of the applicant were sent to the respondent, in response to this motion to strike, another Financial Statement and Certificate of Financial Disclosure were provided two days before the motion was scheduled for argument.

41And the financial disclosure was still not responsive to the requests of the applicant set out in the email from June 11, 2025.

42I also note that no evidence was filed by the respondent which attempts to explain why he had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure. Instead, the position advanced is that financial disclosure has been provided, the applicant is not entitled to claim that it is not “good enough” because it is never “good enough”, and that the matter should simply proceed to Questioning.

43It is conceded that some disclosure efforts will not be perfect. Perhaps many, or even most. But when faced with requests for further disclosure, and a party specifically identifies what it wants arising from the imperfect disclosure, it cannot be acceptable in today’s litigation arena to suggest that spending resources on Questioning is more appropriate than simply responding to the request.

44This is especially so when there has been no suggestion that the requests for information and documents of the applicant are unreasonable or irrelevant. In the face of reasonable requests for disclosure, a refusal to respond in a meaningful manner ignores the proportionality principles which govern today’s litigation processes.

45Accordingly, I find that grounds exist for the applicant’s request to strike.

46However, I am not prepared to grant that relief at this time. In accordance with the primary objective set out by r. 2(2), and the court’s duty established in r. 2(4), with the directions provided by r. 2(3), this matter can still proceed forward which recognizes the rights of the applicant to have the issues raised in her application heard in a just and fair manner, while at the same time providing the respondent with the continued opportunity to participate in his defence.

Case Management and Timetable

47In order to do so, in accordance with the Rules, including r. 2(5), I am appointing myself as the case management judge in this matter, and will oversee its progress to ensure that all issues are addressed in a timely manner.

48This matter shall be placed on the Thunder Bay Running Trial List for February 2027, which runs during the weeks of February 8, 16 and 22, 2027. At the present time, I am allocating three days for the trial, which is subject to reconsideration at either the settlement conference stage or the trial management hearing in this matter, both of which shall be scheduled before the end of November 2026.

49With respect to the Running List for February 2027, the Speak To Date is December 8, 2026, with the Trial Confirmation Date being February 3, 2026, both of which are scheduled for 9:00 a.m. EST via Zoom.

50In order to ready this matter for the trial, which is now scheduled for February 2027, the following steps shall be taken:

1. Within 10 days of the release of this decision, the parties will engage in a form of written questioning. Should either party require information relating to the financial disclosure which has been made to date, a letter shall be prepared and sent which outlines those requests. These requests could seek a range of details, including basic information such as what value is attributed to a specific item or line item, or a more detailed request for evidence – documents or otherwise – which supports the information provided.

2. Within 30 days of the release of this decision, the parties will provide affidavit evidence in response to the written questioning.

3. Within 60 days of the release of this decision, the parties shall undergo Questioning if either party requests this opportunity. Any questioning of any party shall be limited to 2.5 hours. During the questioning, if any refusals are given in response to requests for undertakings, then within 10 days following the Questioning, those refusals shall be brought before me at either a 9:00 a.m. or 4:30 p.m. time slot for summary determination. In this regard, the parties shall be prepared to present and discuss the refusals without the aid of transcripts.

4. Within 90 days of the release of this decision, answers to any undertakings provided during Questioning shall be exchanged.

5. A case management hearing shall be scheduled during the month of August 2026 in order to discuss the next steps which need to be taken in order to ensure the continued progress of this matter.

6. Any motions which either party wishes to bring with respect to any issue in this litigation shall be brought before me, either during a regular motions court date which coincides with my sitting schedule, or at a special hearing booked for no more than 1 hour. Case conferences are still required before any motions can proceed, but those are not required to be scheduled on my calendar.

51If there are any questions or issues arising from this case management order, then the parties can arrange a conference before me. However, the schedule and the timing of events shall not be altered nor amended notwithstanding these questions or issues.

52If any party materially defaults in their compliance with the terms of the case management schedule, that shall be grounds for striking out a party’s pleading.

Costs

53I now turn to the issue of costs which the applicant seeks in this motion.

54The respondent argued that costs would not be appropriate in the circumstances where the Answer is not struck, i.e., the relief sought by the applicant is not granted. In the alternative, Mr. Cupello submitted that the request for costs in the amount of $12,000 was excessive.

55Without the applicant bringing this motion, and requiring the respondent to risk his Answer being struck without providing financial disclosure, it is apparent that the respondent would not have provided this disclosure.

56Again, there was absolutely no evidence provided by the respondent which explained his inability, if any, to respond to the requests of the applicant for disclosure.

57The respondent agreed to a consent order on December 18, 2025, which required him to provide disclosure on or before February 16, 2026. In submissions during this motion hearing, it was acknowledged by the respondent that he failed to abide by the Order of Justice Lepere in this regard.

58On March 2, 2026, the applicant confirmed that she would be bringing a motion, and still the respondent provided no disclosure.

59The motion was returnable on two separate dates before it was argued on April 9, 2026. It was only on April 7, 2026, that any attempt at providing the disclosure which was requested was provided.

60If not for this motion, the respondent would still be in default of the December 18, 2025, Order and his disclosure obligations.

61In accordance with the principles set out in r. 24, including my finding that the applicant’s motion was reasonably advanced, that the conduct of the respondent ignored his duty to provide meaningful and detailed financial disclosure, and that this failure to respond to the applicant’s request spanned a period of approximately 10 months and involved a breach of at least one court order, the result of this motion entitles the applicant to costs.

62A Bill of Costs was filed by the applicant which supports claims of partial indemnity costs of $6,089.31, substantial indemnity costs of $9,133.97, and full indemnity costs of $12,178.62.

63In light of the findings, I have made regarding the effort of the applicant to avoid this motion and the efforts of the respondent to ignore his legal obligations to provide financial disclosure, I award the applicant her costs of this motion fixed in the amount of $7,500, including HST and disbursements, which are to be paid forthwith by the respondent.

The Hon. Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski