Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Deliska Beauregard, Applicant
AND:
Peter Daniel Duda, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice Kraft
COUNSEL: Kristen Normandin & Vanessa Sectakof, for the Applicant
James B.C. Edney, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 16, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Nature of the Motion
1The applicant, Deslika Beaurgard (the “wife”), brings this motion seeking a declaration that the respondent, Peter Daniel Duda (the “husband”), is in breach of: (a) the endorsement of Ramsay J. dated November 26, 2025; (b) the court’s Automatic Order dated May 23, 2025; and (c) Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules.1 Pending rectification of these breaches, the wife seeks an order prohibiting the husband from taking any further steps in this proceeding, other than proceeding with the hearing of his spousal support motion, and requiring him, within 10 days, to comply with the Automatic Order and to provide full responses to the outstanding items in her Request for Information dated January 23, 2026.
2The husband seeks dismissal of the wife’s motion. He asserts that he has provided adequate financial disclosure and is in compliance with the endorsement of Ramsay J. dated November 26, 2025, the Automatic Order dated May 23, 2025, and the FLRs. With respect to the outstanding requests in the wife’s Request for Information dated January 23, 2026, the husband submits that he has substantially complied, and that any remaining requests are disproportionate and not relevant to the issues in dispute.
Issues to be determined
3The issues for me to decide on this motion are:
a. Is the husband in breach of the November 26, 2025 order of Ramsay J., the May 23, 2025 Automatic Order, and/or Rule 13 of the FLRs?
b. If so, should an order be made under Rule 1(8) of the FLRs prohibiting the husband from taking any further steps in the proceeding, other than with respect to his spousal support motion, until the breaches are remedied?
c. Should the husband be ordered to provide, by affidavit and within 10 days, full responses to the outstanding items in the wife’s Request for Information (“RFI”) dated January 23, 2026?
Background
4The following facts are not in dispute:
a. The parties met during law school in 1996 and began cohabiting in January 1998. They married on October 6, 2001. The parties separated after 24 years of marriage, on February 3, 2025.
b. They have one child, a son, age 19, who attends post-secondary education at Western University in London, ON.
c. When the child is not at school, on holidays and during the months of May to and including August, he resides with the wife exclusively.
d. The wife is a corporate lawyer and works in-house at a finance and insurance provider in the automotive dealership industry.
e. The husband practiced as an insurance defence litigator until he suffered a stroke on December 2, 2020.
f. The husband receives long term disability insurance through Sunlife as well as Canada Pension Plan benefits. The wife calculates his income from all sources to be $137,568 a year. The husband’s sworn financial statement lists his income at $101,930.40 a year.
g. Until separation, the wife physically and emotionally supported the husband through his treatments and therapies after he suffered his stroke while working full time and raising the parties’ child.
h. The wife and child moved out of the matrimonial home in February 2025. The husband remains living there. The sale of the house is a main issue in this proceeding.
i. The wife alleges that she suffered verbal and emotional abuse by the husband during the marriage. She submits that this verbal abuse has continued since the separation. The husband denies this.
j. After separation, the husband withdrew $150,000 from the parties’ joint Home Equity Line of Credit without the wife’s knowledge or consent. The husband refused to return the funds despite the wife asking him to do so. The wife remains solely responsible for paying the interest on the carrying the line of credit.
k. The parties attended a case conference before Ramsay, J. on November 26, 2025, at which an order was made for the husband to attend Questioning before the end of February 2026. That did not happen. A date was agreed for the husband’s Questioning on February 13, 2026, but the husband did not attend and the wife obtained a Certificate of non-attendance.
l. On December 22, 2025, the wife’s counsel wrote to the husband’s counsel proposing a mutual exchange of Affidavits Listing Documents by January 23, 2026 (this was 21 days prior to the husband’s scheduled Questioning date).
m. On January 16, 2026, the husband’s counsel stated he would be unable to comply with the requested exchange date for the Affidavits Listing Document, and instead proposed February 6, 2026.
n. The wife served the husband with an RFI on January 26, 2026.
o. The wife produced her Affidavit Listing Documents on February 6, 2026. The husband did not provide his Affidavit Listing Documents on that date, nor did he provide a date by when it would be produced.
p. On February 11, 2026, the husband’s counsel suggested the wife had not complied with Rule 19 of the FLRs because the documents referenced in her Affidavit Listing Documents were not attached to it.
q. On February 20, 2026, the wife’s counsel confirmed that the documents were ready for inspection pursuant to Rule 19 since service of her Affidavit Listing Documents on February 6, 2026. The husband’s counsel had not made any request to attend at the wife’s counsel’s office to inspect the documents. These documents have subsequently been provided electronically at the request of the husband’s counsel.
r. The wife was having difficulty obtaining basic financial disclosure from the husband. He did not comply with the Automatic Order for Disclosure from the Court, nor did he answer her RFI, dated January 26, 2026. As a result, she served her Notice of Motion, dated March 26, 2026, and the supporting affidavit, sworn on March 31, 2026, on the husband on March 31, 2026, for this motion returnable on April 16, 2026. In response, the husband and brought a cross-motion for spousal support, returnable the same day.
s. The husband served his Affidavit Listing Documents on March 26, 2026, after the wife served this Notice of Motion. The husband provided over 10,000 pages of text messages between the parties, his conversation with the parties’ son, and the parties’ group chats with the child and their previous dog walker.
t. Only after the wife served the husband with her motion materials, did he provide an updated sworn financial statement and provide documentary disclosure.
u. The parties had a Settlement Conference on April 1, 2026, before Stevenson, J., the day before which the husband provided the wife with documentary disclosure that was not organized. At this conference, Stevenson, J. scheduled both parties’ Questioning for June 29 and 30, 2026, set the return date for the husband’s spousal support motion for September 10, 2026 and indicates that the wife’s disclosure motion was to proceed on April 16, 2026. After this conference, the husband withdrew a further $44,000 from the joint line of credit, maxing it out to $300,000 without the wife’s knowledge or consent. The husband refuses to return the funds despite the wife asking him to do so. The wife has brought a motion about this, which is returnable later this month. The wife continues to pay the monthly interest payments on the Home Equity Line of Credit without any contribution from the husband.
v. Despite these withdrawals from the joint line of credit, the husband has not paid any child support to the wife. Nor has he contributed toward the child’s s.7 expenses, which include post-secondary educational costs.
w. In addition to servicing the interim on the parties’ joint line of credit on her own, the wife now pays rent for herself and the child and has been paying 50% of the carrying costs of the matrimonial home where the husband has been residing. The wife wishes to obtain her equity from the matrimonial home and has asked for the husband’s consent to the sale of the home. The husband refuses to consent to the sale of the home, claiming it has been retrofit to accommodate his physical disabilities.
Issue One: Is the husband in breach of the November 26, 2025 order of Ramsay J., the May 23, 2025 Automatic Order, and/or [Rule 13](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html#sec13_smooth) of the [FLRs](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html)?
The Ramsay Endorsement
5On November 26, 2025, the parties attended before Justice Ramsay for a first Case Conference, at which it was ordered that the questioning of both parties was to be completed by February 27, 2026.
6That same day, the wife’s counsel wrote to the husband’s counsel requesting dates for acceptable dates in January 2026.
7The husband’s counsel did not respond to this email. The wife’s counsel then followed up again on December 2, 2025 and served a Notice of Questioning for January 16, 2026.
8The husband’s counsel did not respond until December 19, 2025, and stated they were not available on January 16, 2026 and proposed an alternative date of February 13, 2026. The wife’s counsel subsequently served an Amended Notice of Questioning for the date proposed by the husband.
9It is not disputed that the husband failed to appear for his scheduled questioning on February 13, 2026. A Certificate of Non-Attendance was issued.
10On February 20, 2026, the wife’s counsel wrote to the husband’s counsel to request additional dates for the rescheduled questioning so that it could proceed without delay in March 2026. No response was received.
11After the wife served her affidavit in support of this motion, the parties attended a Settlement Conference where Stevenson, J. made an Order that Questioning proceed on June 29/30, 2026. The wife has now served her Notice of Questioning for June 30, 2026.
12While it is clear that the husband was in breach of the Endorsement of Ramsay, J., dated November 26, 2025 when the wife served her motion materials because he did not attend questioning by the end of February 2026, now that dates for the Questioning of both parties has been rescheduled, I do not find that the husband is in breach of the Ramsay Endorsement.
The Automatic Order
13On May 23, 2025, an Automatic Order was issued pursuant to Rule 8.0.1 of the FLRs. Part of the obligations pursuant to the Order are as follows:
a. Paragraph 5(a) requires the party to provide all materials that were filed with their income tax return for each of the three most recent years; and
b. Paragraph 5(e) requires the party receiving disability payments or a pension to provide the most recent statements that shows the total amount of income received during the current year, or, if such a statement is not provided, a letter from the appropriate authority providing this information.
14While the husband has provided his income tax returns, he has not included all slips and schedules, or other documentation that was provided to the Canada Revenue Agency.
15The wife asserts that the husband has also failed to provide a 2025 year-end statement or letter indicating the full amount of disability payments received through Sun Life or the Canada Pension Plan.
16I find the husband is in breach of the Automatic Order in this regard and order him to comply with the Automatic Order within 10 days.
[Rule 13](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html#sec13_smooth) of the [FLRs](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html)
17It was only after the wife served her notice of motion and affidavit supporting this motion that the husband served an updated sworn financial statement, dated March 25, 2026.
18The wife submits that the husband has not complied with Rule 13(3.3) in his failure to provide documentation showing the value, on the valuation, of property he owns, such as his comic book collection or watch collection.
19The husband submits that he provided values for these items on a best estimate basis. He acknowledges that he did not provide certified appraisals for these items and argues that the FLRs do not require him to provide the wife with certified appraisals.
20I agree with the husband that there is no requirement under the FLRs to produce certified appraisals for the value of property. In this manner, I do not find that he has breached the FLRs.
21The wife also argues that the husband breached Rule 13 of the FLRs because when he completed Part 2 of the Financial Statement, the budget section, he did not identify who pays for the expenses.
22The husband argues that this is not a breach of Rule 13 as there is no indication that that information must be provided. I agree, this is not a breach of the FLRs.
23I decline to find the husband in breach of Rule 13.
Issue Two: If so, should an order be made under [Rule 1(8)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html#sec1subsec8_smooth) of the [FLRs](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html) prohibiting the husband from taking any further steps in the proceeding, other than with respect to his spousal support motion, until the breaches are remedied?
24The FLRs set out detailed consequences for breach of an Order. Rule 1(8) provides: that 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 costs order, an order dismissing a claim, striking out pleadings and 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, among other things.
25Rule 1(8) does not require a finding that the breach has been intentionally committed by a parent, only that there is a breach. The burden of proof remains the civil test of a balance of probabilities. Rule 1(8) has a broad application in that it allows the court to make any order it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter. See A. v. S. 2021 ONSC 6648 (OSCJ), at paras. 21-22.
26The judge should be as creative as necessary in crafting remedies to ensure that the noncompliance identified and the resulting damage to the other party are addressed as fully, justly, and quickly as possible: see Leveley v. Levely, 2013 ONSC 1026, (OSCJ), at paras. 13 and 18.
27Although the husband is only currently found to be in breach of the Automatic Order for Disclosure, dated May 23, 2025, I do find that he was in breach of the Ramsay Endorsement and Rule 13 of the FLRs when the wife prepared and served her motion materials. As a result, the wife was forced to incur legal fees unnecessarily and this motion had to be brought. Pursuant to Rule 1(8), these prior breaches and current breaches of the Automatic Order shall be addressed when costs of this motion are determined.
Issue Three: Should the husband be ordered to provide, by affidavit and within 10 days, full responses to the outstanding items in the wife’s Request for Information (“RFI”) dated January 23, 2026?
28On January 23, 2026, the wife served an RFI on the husband. She argues that to date, the husband has not satisfied this RFI by way of an Affidavit. Further, the wife claims that only select pieces have been provided as part of the husband’s Affidavit Listing Documents, which were provided over two months after the service of the RFI.
29The wife now seeks an Order that the husband provide an Affidavit in response to the outstanding items in her RFI along with all supporting documentation.
30The wife asserts that the following items remain outstanding from her RFI dated January 23, 2026:
Completed Part 2: Expenses (of a sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement) with totals calculated and details of who pays for the expense; and
Completed additional sections of assets/liabilities with values for all items, including but not limited to Mr. Duda's comic book collection, with supporting documentation.
31I am persuaded that identifying who is paying for the husband’s expenses as reflected in his budget may not necessarily need to be answered. However, the overarching question of how the husband is financing his monthly deficit should be answered by the husband by way of an affidavit.
Documentary proof of the expenses listed in Mr. Duda's Form 13.1 Financial Statement, sworn November 20, 2025.
32The husband’s position is that the FLRs do not require him to prove his expenses listed in his Form 13.1 financial statement, sworn on November 20, 2025. Further, the husband submits that he is not required to provide the wife with receipts for his personal budget items. I do not agree.
33My review of the husband’s sworn financial statement is that his monthly budget amounts to $12,646.68 or $151,760.16 a year. Since this budget is clearly higher than the income he deposed that he earns of $101,930.40 a year, the husband’s financial statement itself is internally inconsistent. Whenever a family law litigant is faced with a sworn financial statement, where a party is running a deficit of $50,000 a year, questions will be asked as to how that party is managing to pay their expenses. While the FLRs do not specifically require the husband to provide proof of his expenses, this inconsistency should be answered and an explanation that can be proven should be given as to how the husband is meeting his monthly deficit.
34The answer to this question, which can be accomplished either by the husband proving that the budget portion of his financial statement is not inflated, or by the husband proving how he managing his monthly deficit is directly relevant to his means and needs and his spousal support claim. This is relevant and not disproportionate in my view. He shall answer this question.
Documentation to support Mr. Duda's physiotherapy, prescription medications, medical supplies, PSW, personal trainer, and counselling expenses.
35The husband argues that this request has been satisfied by him. He submits that his Affidavit Listing Documents, sworn on March 26, 2026, at Tabs 229-260 answers these questions. The wife, however, does not agree. She argues that the tabs referred to by the husband do not provide answers for the line item in his budget listed as “medicine, drugs and PSW (4 times per month)” of $2,000 a month. This line item also contained an asterisk which identified that this expense is being incurred as he lives alone and requires supports due to his disability. There is no indication that this expense was “estimated” by the husband as all the other expenses listed under the Health Section are estimated. Further, this expense of $2,000 a month, is separate and apart from his monthly trainer expense of $725 as he estimated, the uninsured costs of his estimated prescription drugs of $140 a month, and the estimated uninsured costs of his clinical psychology sessions of $270. Since the husband has indicated this figure in his budget, he must be able to substantiate this.
36Again, this is directly linked to his means and needs and his spousal support claim. He shall answer this question.
Certified appraisals for the value of the watches listed on Mr. Duda's Form 13.1 Financial Statement, sworn November 20, 2025.
37The husband’s position is that this is not a relevant or proportionate request by the wife. He submits that he has provided estimated values for his watches, none of which are worth much. I agree with the husband that certified appraisals are not necessarily required by the FLRs, however, the onus remains on the husband to prove the fair market value of the 10 watches in his collection.
38If the husband does not have certified appraisal reports or insurance documents related to these watches, then he shall identify that in an affidavit and explain how he arrived at the estimated values he placed on his sworn statement.
Complete and unredacted monthly, quarterly, and/or annual statements for the following accounts, from January 1, 2022 to present, and ongoing to trial:
(i) RBC Chequing Account *0786: February 2026- present
(ii) RBC Savings Account *0745: February 2026 – present
(iii) RBC Investment Account *3263: January 2022 – present (with exception of May 2025
(iv) GIC Statement with this account number if accounts are the same)
(v) BMO TFSA Account *4642: May 2022, August 2022, November 2022, February 2023, May 2023, August 2023, November 2023, January 2024; February 2026 – present
(vi) BMO LIRA Account *7451: February 2026 – present
(vii) BMO RRSP Account *0788: February 2026 – present
(viii) BMO RRSP Account *8293: January 2023, November 2023, January 2024, May 2024; February 2026 – present
(ix) RBC Avion Visa Infinite Account *3781/6346: January 2023 – February 2024; February 2026 – present
(x) BMO Joint Account *6-292: RBC R February 2024, April 2024, June 2024, September 2024, November 2024, February 2026 – present
(xi) Sunlife Aviva DCPP Account *9643: January 2022 – December 2023, January 2026 – present
(xii) BMO Joint Line of Credit Account *9-661: July 2023, January 2024, February 2024, January 2025, February 2026 – present
(xiii) BMO USD Mastercard Account *1744: January 1, 2022 – present
39For the bank statements that are missing from February 2026 onward, the husband argues that there is no ongoing obligation under the FLRs for him to produce rolling disclosure until a trial of this matter. While that may be, given the fact that the husband relies on his physical disability as the basis for his spousal support claim and claims that he unilaterally withdrew funds from the joint line of credit to fund his ongoing expenses to survive, I am persuaded that it is relevant, prudent and proportional that he provides the wife with updated bank statements for the indicated accounts from February, 2026 to present. This court has stated that the most basic obligation in family law proceedings is the duty to disclose financial information. The requirement is immediate and ongoing: Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6, at para. 11.)
40For the BMO chequing account #6-292, even though the husbands Certificate of Financial Disclosure, sworn on April 10, 2026, lists that the husband provided these statements from November 11, 2021 to January 10, 2025, the wife identified that the following months of statements are missing: February 2024, April 2024, June 2024, September 2024 and November 2024. All missing statements shall be produced.
41For the BMO RRSP account #8293 statements, even though the husband’s Certificate of Financial Disclosure, sworn on April 10, 2025, lists that he provided these statements from January 1 2022 to December 31, 2024, the wife has identified that the following months of statements are missing: January 2023, November 2023, January 2024 and March 2024. All missing statements shall be produced.
42For the BMO TFSA account #4642 statements, even though the husband’s Certificate of Financial Disclosure, sworn on April 10, 2025 lists that he provided these statements from January 1 2022 to December 31, 2024, the wife has identified that the following months of statements are missing: May 2022, August 2022, November 2022, February 2023, May 2023, August 2023, November 2023 and January 2024. All missing statements shall be produced.
43For the BMO HELOC account #9661 statements, even though the husband’s Certificate of Financial Disclosure, sworn on April 10, 2025, lists that he provided these statements from November 26, 2021, to January 25, 2026, the wife has identified that the following months of statements are missing: July 2023, January 2024, February 2024 and January 2025. All missing statements shall be produced.
44For the RBC Visa *6346 which are missing for January 2023 to January 2024, the husband shall make the requests of RBC to produce these statements, copy the wife’s counsel with proof that he has made the request and provide the missing statement when they are received.
45Although the husband’s chart indicates that he has produced his BMO USD Mastercard account statements for the period January 1, 2022, onward, the wife asserts that this is not accurate. The husband shall produce the statements and if he has already done so, then he shall indicate that in his affidavit.
46It is not the responsibility of the wife to determine where the $194,000 of funds the husband removed from their joint line of credit has gone. Rather, it is the husband’s onus, given that he has this information in his possession and control to continue to make disclosure and be transparent about what he has done with this significant amount of capital.
A complete explanation and proof of the alleged "retrofits" the husband has paid for the matrimonial home.
47The husband takes the position that this request has been satisfied. In his Affidavit Listing Documents, the husband deposed that the wife paid for and controlled the retrofits to the parties’ matrimonial home. The wife disagrees with this.
48I find that the answer to this question is relevant to the issue of the sale of the matrimonial home since there is conflicting information as to the extent of the retrofits in the matrimonial home, which is linked directly to the husband’s refusal to consent to the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home on account of his disabilities. He shall answer the question and provide a detailed list of the retrofits done on the house and identify what he has paid for.
Documentation to support the husband’s alleged contributions to the matrimonial home from October 2004 to present, including his contributions "well over the $52,625" contemplated by the Marriage Contract.
49The husband’s position is that this request has been satisfied. He explains that he has listed all documents that are within his possession or control in his Affidavit Listing Documents. Again, the wife disagrees. I find that this information is relevant. If the husband has no further documentation in this regard, then he shall indicate that in his affidavit and the wife can pursue questions about his alleged contributions to the matrimonial home that exceed $52,625 during his Questioning.
A full and complete accounting of the funds the husband has withdrawn from the joint line of credit post separation, with supporting documentation, including but not limited to the approximately $70,0000 spent.
50The husband’s position is that this request is not relevant nor proportionate to the issues in this case. I disagree. The funds from the joint HELOC were withdrawn by the husband without the wife’s consent or knowledge. The husband’s explanation is that he withdrew the funds for his “day-to-day survival”. Given the circumstances of the removal, the husband shall answer what the funds have been used for in a more specific way. His savings have increased by $85,980.70 from the date of separation according to his sworn financial statement. That may account for some of the funds he withdrew unilaterally from the HELOC, but it does not explain where the remainder of $108,020 has gone. Again, it is not the wife’s job to try and figure out what the husband has done with these funds. He is in possession and control of this information, and he has the onus to explain where the funds have gone and identify what it has been spent on. He shall answer this by way of affidavit.
A complete copy of the husband’s insurance benefits booklet, with a summary of his insurance claims submitted from January to December 2025, with supporting documentation that the husband has maxed out his annual coverage.
51The husband’s response to this is that the request by the wife is not relevant and it is disproportionate. Further, he argues that he provided a copy of his insurance policy information in his Affidavit Listing Documents at Tabs 87-90. I disagree with the husband that this request is irrelevant. Given that the husband has listed many expenses related to his disability and necessary treatments, it follows that if he is not able to produce receipts for same, that he produces a summary of the insurance claims submitted for the 2025 year and the insurance benefits so his needs are known and so the uninsured portion of these amounts can be determined and not “estimated”. Again, the husband’s spousal support claim is directly linked to this information as it relates to his means and needs. He shall produce this information.
ORDER
52This court makes the following order:
a. The Respondent shall comply with The Automatic Order dated May 23, 2025, in full within 10 days;
b. The Respondent provide a comprehensive response with all supporting documents and an Affidavit to the Applicant’s Request for Information dated January 23, 2026, within 10 days, and specifically the following paragraphs from the Request for Information:
- (a) Completed Part 2: Expenses (of a sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement) with totals calculated and details of who pays for the expense and/or how the respondent is funding his monthly deficit; and
(b) Completed additional sections of assets/liabilities with values for all items, including but not limited to Mr. Duda's comic book collection, with supporting documentation.
Documentary proof of the expenses listed in Mr. Duda's Form 13.1 Financial Statement, sworn November 20, 2025.
Documentation to support Mr. Duda's physiotherapy, prescription medications, medical supplies, PSW, personal trainer, and counselling expenses.
Certified appraisals if they exist for the value of the watches listed on Mr. Duda's Form 13.1 Financial Statement, sworn November 20, 2025. If no certified appraisal exist for the watches, the Respondent shall advise how he arrived at the values listed in his sworn Financial Statement.
Complete and unredacted monthly, quarterly, and/or annual statements for the following accounts, from January 1, 2022, to present, and ongoing to trial:
(a) Any and all other bank accounts, credit cards, lines of credit, and/or debt products that Mr. Duda holds either solely or jointly with another person, or to which another individual holds in trust for Mr. Duda and/or to which Mr. Duda has access to, not previously disclosed on Mr. Duda's Form 13.1 Financial Statement sworn November 20, 2025 or set out above.
(b) In particular, these statements are as follows:
ii. RBC Chequing Account *0786: February 2026- present.
iii. RBC Savings Account *0745: February 2026 – present.
iv. RBC Investment Account *3263: January 2022 – present (with exception of May 2025 GIC Statement with this account number if accounts are the same)
v. BMO TFSA Account *4642: May 2022, August 2022, November 2022, February 2023, May 2023, August 2023, November 2023, January 2024; February 2026 – present.
vi. BMO LIRA Account *7451: February 2026 – present.
vii. BMO RRSP Account *0788: February 2026 – present.
viii. BMO RRSP Account *8293: January 2023, November 2023, January 2024, May 2024; February 2026 – present.
ix. RBC Avion Visa Infinite Account *3781/6346: January 2023 – February 2024; February 2026 – present.
x. BMO Joint Account *6-292:RBC R February 2024, April 2024, June 2024, September 2024, November 2024, February 2026 – present.
xi. Sunlife Aviva DCPP Account *9643: January 2022 – December 2023, January 2026 –present.
xii. BMO Joint Line of Credit Account *9-661: July 2023, January 2024, February 2024, January 2025, February 2026 – present and on a monthly basis pending the trial of this matter.
xiii. BMO USD Mastercard Account *1744: January 1, 2022 – present.
A complete explanation and proof of the alleged "retrofits" Mr. Duda has paid for the matrimonial home and a detailed list of all “retrofit” completed on the house.
Documentation to support Mr. Duda's alleged contributions to the matrimonial home from October 2004 to present, including his contributions "well over the $52,625" contemplated by the Marriage Contract.
A full and complete accounting of the funds Mr. Duda has withdrawn from the joint line of credit postseparation, with supporting documentation, including but not limited to the approximately $70,0000 spent.
A complete copy of Mr. Duda's insurance benefits booklet, with a summary of his insurance claims submitted from January to December 2025, with supporting documentation that Mr. Duda has maxed out his annual coverage.
c. The parties shall endeavour to settle the costs of this motion. If they are unable to do so, the parties shall exchange costs submissions of no more than 3 pages in writing, not included a Bill of Costs or Offers to Settle within 10 days of the release of this Endorsement.
Kraft, J.
Date: April 17, 2026
Footnotes
- Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (“FLRs”).