Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Tania Hagopian, Applicant
AND:
Kevork Kechichian, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice M. Sharma
COUNSEL: Joanna Hunt-Jones (agent for adjournment request), Applicant
James B.C. Edney and Joseph Slavec, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: February 19, 2026
Endorsement
1On August 27, 2025, Nakonechny J. scheduled this long motion, brought by the Respondent, and a cross-motion by the Applicant. She also fixed October 5, 2026 for the start of a 14-day trial, and an exit pre-trial on June 10, 2026.
2The Respondent’s Notice of Motion is dated October 28, 2025. In summary, he seeks declarations that he has complied with a disclosure order of Papageorgiou J., dated December 2, 2021 (“Disclosure Order”), and that there is no monetary penalty owing pursuant to orders of Diamond J., dated May 17, 2022 and July 04, 2022 (“Penalty Orders”). He also seeks an order that the Applicant reimburse the Respondent the sum of $29,3000 USD for penalty overpayments he made.
3In the Applicant’s cross-motion, dated January 9, 2026, she sought to vary the 2018 interim consent support order of Jarvis J. On January 26, 2026, she advised the Court that this motion would not be proceeding.
Adjournment of the Respondent’s Motion
4The Applicant sought to adjourn the Respondent’s motion. She argued that on January 22, 2026, her counsel, Mr. James Marks, was removed as counsel of record by me at a motion. Mr. Marks’ Notice of Motion was dated January 14, 2026, and heard on January 22, 2026.
5I granted Mr. Marks’ motion. In my decision, I did not require Mr. Marks to remain as counsel of record until this motion was argued, nor did I make today’s date peremptory, as requested by the Respondent. Because the Applicant’s affidavit for this motion was already complete, I found the Applicant had time find a lawyer to prepare a factum and argue this motion. If the Applicant sought to adjourn today’s motion, she was instructed to raise that with the motions judge and file affidavit evidence of her efforts to secure a new lawyer. She did not do so. However, her agent, Ms. Hunt-Jones prepared a factum which suggested the Applicant had consulted several lawyers since January 22, 2026 and was unable to find one.
6I declined to grant an adjournment for the following reasons. First, the earliest date to which this motion could be rescheduled was in July 2026, after the exit pre-trial. This would deprive both parties of an opportunity on June 10, 2026 to settle and meaningfully advance this case.
7Second, the 2021 Disclosure Order and the 2022 Penalty Orders were made years ago in this 2018 Application. The Respondent states he complied with his disclosure by July 18, 2022. The penalty imposed was significant - $700 USD per day - and if the penalty continued to accrue to the date of the motion, the penalty exceeded $900,000 USD. I was satisfied, after reading the motion material, that the issue of compliance with the Disclosure Order and the massive penalty had become distracting side issues impeding resolution on the merits of this case.
8Third, I was not satisfied prejudice to the Applicant would result if the adjournment were not granted. Her affidavit material, which I had reviewed, details why she believed disclosure was outstanding. The outcome of this motion is binary – either the Respondent complied or he did not. I could make this determination fairly and justly, based on the affidavit evidence filed, without the necessity of argument from counsel.
9Fourth, I recognized the Applicant may be prejudiced if the declaratory orders, as worded by the Respondent in his Notice of Motion, were granted. The Disclosure Order required on-going disclosure by the Respondent. The volume and type of disclosure ordered and produced in this case is significant. It would be challenging for a self-represented litigant to be intimately familiar with all of it.
10However, the Respondent’s position was that he had “substantially complied” or exerted best efforts to comply, and that the disclosure he has provided is proportionate. Even if the declaratory orders were granted, it would remain open to the trial judge to draw an adverse inference against the Respondent at trial if there is disclosure that is no longer available but could have been available had the Respondent complied sooner with his obligation. Also, if the declaratory order were to merely state that he complied with disclosure as of July 18, 2022, then this issue is fully addressed in the parties’ affidavits.
11Finally, despite my Order removing Mr. Marks from the record, and the Applicant’s knowledge as of January 14, 2026 that this order might be made, the Applicant did not prepare an affidavit describing her efforts to secure a new lawyer.
12For these reasons, the adjournment was denied.
Recusal
13On my initiative, I invited submissions as to whether I should recuse myself from this motion. On the motion to remove Mr. Marks as counsel, I received an affidavit from him that set out his evidence for this relief. To protect solicitor-client privilege, Mr. Edney nor his client saw that affidavit. The Applicant did. The issue was whether I was biased or whether a reasonable apprehension of bias had been created because I read Mr. Marks’ affidavit.
14Ms. Hunt-Jones was kind enough to make arguments on this issue as well. She was given copies of Mr. Marks’ affidavit, and the Applicant’s responding affidavit, with the consent of the Applicant. I also invited Mr. Edney to make submissions, recognizing he may have limited arguments without knowing the contents of Mr. Marks’ affidavit.
15I provided oral reasons why I would not recuse myself. Briefly, I was not satisfied that a reasonably informed person, aware of the circumstances of the case and the contents of the affidavits, would likely conclude or perceive that I might consciously or unconsciously approach this case with prejudgment or bias: Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area No. 23 v. Yukon Territory (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 25, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 282, at paras. 20-21. The affidavits contain various statements, but they lack particulars with respect to this motion. Furthermore, to the extent that opinions were expressed, they do not bind me. Judges regularly reject statements and opinions offered by lawyers and litigants.
16Finally, the outcome of this motion required binary findings on the evidence (i.e., was disclosure or meaningful efforts at disclosure made), which I would determine independently regardless of any statements or opinions expressed.
Overview of Facts on Respondent’s Motion
17The parties were married on September 1, 1996 and separated on October 25, 2015. They have two children, aged 26 and 22.
18The Applicant alleges that during the marriage, the Respondent controlled all the finances. She states that where he spent money during the marriage, and his income for support purposes were unknown and completely hidden from her.
19This Application was originally commenced in the Central East region in 2017. Consent disclosure orders were made by Charney J. on September 25, 2017 (“Charney Order”).
20On September 26, 2018, Jarvis J. made a support order (“Jarvis Order”) to pay child support of $14,000 a month commencing September 1, 2018, s. 7 expenses of $36,00 per year at a rate of $3,000 a month, and spousal support of $32,000 a month, totalling $49,000 a month.
21The Applicant brought a motion for disclosure on July 18, 2019, which was resolved on consent (“Paisley Order”). A second disclosure motion before Papageorgiou J. was resolved on consent on December 2, 2021. The Disclosure Order is duplicative of the Paisley Order because it references and cites multiple parts of the Paisley Order.
22On May 17, 2022, parties were before Diamond J. on a motion to have the Respondent’s pleadings struck. The Respondent conceded he had not fully complied with the Disclosure Order. Diamond J. refused to strike pleadings, but required the Respondent to produce by June 17, 2022 the items found in paras. 1, 4(b), 4(d), 5(e), 10(a), 10(d), 11(c), 13 and 14 of the disclosure order. A monetary penalty of $700 USD was imposed for each day of non-compliance after June 17, 2022.
23By June 17, 2022, the Respondent concedes that he did not produce all the disclosure ordered by Diamond J.
24On June 30, 2022, the parties reattended before Diamond J. The Applicant again sought to strike the Respondent’s pleadings. Diamond J. noted that the Respondent “exerted efforts to try and comply”, but he was still not in compliance. He refused to strike pleadings. He found the Respondent still had not produced items in paras. 4(d), 5(e) regarding vesting dates, 10(d), 13 (regarding Car #2) and 14.
25On September 15, 2022, the Applicant brought a motion before Kraft J. for further disclosure. At para. 40 of her decision (“Kraft Order”), she notes the outstanding issues in this case are the Respondent’s income for support purposes (child and spousal), and property division. Regarding his disclosure efforts, Kraft J. wrote at para. 44:
In addition to relevance, I am obliged to consider the concept of proportionality. Mr. Kechichian has been put to tremendous time and expense in producing the financial disclosure in this matter. He changed counsel and done his best to comply with the disclosure ordered. Some of the disclosure requests made by Ms. Hagopian are simply not relevant to the issues left to be determined at trial. Instead, they are about how Mr. Kechichian is spending his income, information to which Ms. Hagopian is not entitled.
The Parties’ Positions
26The Respondent says he produced the outstanding items in paras. 4(d), 5(e), 10(d), 13 and 14 of the Disclosure Order by July 18, 2022 (31 days after the Court ordered deadline of June 17, 2022).
27The Respondent further says that when he consented to the various disclosure orders, he did so with the intent of advancing this litigation promptly. However, in retrospect, he had not appreciated at the time the scope of the disclosure that was sought of him, nor had he considered that some of the requested disclosure had little to no relevance.
28He conceded his delay in not complying with the Disclosure Order, but said that once the Penalty Orders were made, he made significant efforts to produce what was outstanding, and that he exerted significant efforts to comply by July 18, 2022. He relies on the quote of Kraft J. above.
29He says the penalty that he should have paid was $21,700 USD, however, he paid $51,000 USD as a penalty. The amount he has paid is not disputed by the Applicant, but she says that $5,000 of the $51,000 was paid for a different purpose.
30The Applicant’s position on the motion is that:
The Respondent has not complied with the Charney Order, Paisley Order, or the Disclosure Order. The Respondent is also in breach of the Jarvis Order. Therefore, this Court should not entertain the Respondent’s motion.
If the Court does hear this motion, the Respondent still has not complied with paras. 4(b), 4(d), 5(e), 10(d), 11(c), 13 and 14 of the Disclosure Order. She states he is in breach on an ongoing basis of other items in para. 5 of the Disclosure Order.
In her Responding Affidavit, she relies upon a Schedule from her Expert Report, prepared by Fuller Landau, to establish the Respondent has not complied with these paragraphs of the Disclosure Order.
Issues
31The issues to be determined are:
a. Is the Respondent in breach of Court Orders such that the Court should not hear his motion?
b. Whether the Respondent complied with paras. 4(d), 5(e) regarding vesting dates, 10(d), 13 regarding Car #2, and 14 of the Disclosure Order, and if so, when did he comply?
c. What penalty is owed, and has the Respondent overpaid the penalty?
Analysis
Legal Principles
32Court Orders are not suggestions: Gordon v. Starr, [2007] W.D.F.L. 4107. They demand compliance.
33“The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information…It should not require court orders – let alone three – to obtain production.” Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450 at paras. 11 and 13.
34At the same time, “there must be a balance between relevant and proportional disclosure and weaponizing disclosure and overreaching for tactical purposes”: Ierullo v. Ierullo et al, 2025 ONSC 3224 at para. 152.
35The process of disclosure cannot become an independent battle within the overall litigation campaign: Saunders v. Saunders, 2015 ONSC 926, at para. 13.
36Regarding the use of penalties to compel court ordered disclosure under r. 1(8)(a.1) of the Family Law Rules, there must be (a) non-compliance with a Court Order (the “triggering event”), and (b) an assessment of the most appropriate remedy in the circumstances, with regard to several factors: Mullin v. Sherlock, 2018 ONCA 1063 at paras. 44 – 45.
37Those factors include the relevance of the non-disclosure, the complexity of the issues in dispute, the extensiveness of the existing disclosure, and the seriousness of the efforts made to disclose and any explanations offered for outstanding non-disclosure: Mullin, at para. 45.
38As these were the factors that would have informed the decision to first impose the Penalty Orders, I must now assess these same factors in determining whether the Respondent has complied with the Disclosure Order such that the Penalty Orders must terminate.
39Consistent with a broad and purposeful application of r. 1(8), if a penalty is imposed for non-compliance with a Court Order, it should be tied to the breached order such that the penalty will encourage compliance with the breached order: Bouchard v. Sgovio, 2021 ONCA 709 at para. 51. Correspondingly, when there has been compliance, the penalty should cease because it no longer serves the purpose of encouraging compliance.
40Cases that have examined whether there was compliance with court ordered disclosure have considered whether there was “sufficient compliance.” Milne v. Milne, 2019 ONSC 6601 at para. 31.
Issue 1: Should this Court hear the Respondent’s Motion?
41The Applicant’s affidavit identifies what is outstanding from the Charney Order (Ex. 5), Paisley Order (Ex. 17). She states that there are also items outstanding from the Disclosure Order, and non-compliance with the support order made by Jarvis J.
42In his Reply affidavit, the Respondent notes that in the Penalty Orders, there is no reference to any breaches of the prior Orders (Charney, Paisley, or Jarvis), nor is there a reference to other aspects of the Disclosure Order that remains outstanding other than the specific items in the order of July 4, 2022. The Respondent states that it is extremely unfair that the Applicant is now, four years later, raising these historic non-compliance issues.
43I agree that it is unfair. In addition, I note the following.
44First, paras. 10 and 12 to 15 of the Disclosure Order incorporates several paragraphs from the Paisley Order. Even the Applicant’s affidavit acknowledges that many items in the Disclosure Order recount items from the Paisley Order because they had not been previously disclosed. That led to the motions before Diamond J. where the outstanding items were synthesized. In the decisions of Diamond and Kraft JJ., the Applicant did not claim there were outstanding items from the Paisley Order not included in the Disclosure Order.
45To now state that there is other non-compliance with the 2018 Paisley Order, not previously addressed in the Disclosure Order or the subsequent motions before Diamond or Kraft JJ. is unfair. The same holds true for alleged non-compliance with the Charney Order. This retroactive attack on the Respondent suggests the Applicant is using disclosure as a weapon.
46Second, some of the alleged breaches are non-existent.
47For example, para. 2c of the Charney Order requires the Respondent to produce a Net Family Property statement brief containing the value of all assets and liabilities. The Applicant states that the Respondent has not produced one. However, the Kraft Order states at para. 40 that the Respondent had sworn an updated financial statement on May 9, 2022, “along with all the supporting documents for all current values.”
48Regarding non-compliance with the Jarvis Order around support, Kraft J. specifically found at para. 26 that the Respondent had cured his breach of the Jarvis Order, and that he had paid all outstanding child and spousal support on September 6, 2022. The Applicant has not identified in her affidavit any further non-compliance with the Jarvis Order.
49The materials are too voluminous for the Court to do a line-by-line assessment of whether there has been compliance with all previous disclosure orders made since 2017. The number of matters alleged to be outstanding since 2017 would take time for the Respondent to address in a Reply Affidavit, which is meant to be brief. I also question the relevance of some of the items.
50I am satisfied that the Respondent has made extraordinary efforts to produce all outstanding disclosure by July 2022. As such, he should not be precluded from arguing a motion to end the penalties imposed on him. To continue to impose the penalty would serve no purpose. The better remedy, in my view, is to the extent an item has not been produced, and which could have been at the time, an adverse inference may be drawn against the Respondent at trial.
Issue 2: Has the Respondent complied with the Disclosure Order such that the Penalty Orders should terminate, and if so, when?
51Before turning to the specific items that Diamond J. determined remained outstanding as of July 4, 2022, I summarize the evidence of the scope of what the Respondent has produced and his efforts to produce information generally.
52The Respondent states he did not appreciate the scope of what he was agreeing to produce when he consented to the disclosure orders made by Paisley J. on July 18, 2019 and by Papageorgiou J. on December 2, 2021. The Paisley Order required production of 22 items, including the tracing of funds from at least two accounts, and bank statements from various banks from inception to present. The Disclosure Order made by Papageorgiou J. incorporated many of the terms of the Paisley Order, and it also required disclosure of additional items. The Respondent did not appreciate, at the time, that some of the items sought were irrelevant or disproportionate, nor did he appreciate how time consuming it would be to comply.
53He concedes that he did not comply promptly with these orders. He says that by February 18, 2022, he retained new counsel, Ms. Harris. By the time of the return of the motion before Diamond J. on June 30, 2022, he had made significant efforts to comply with all outstanding disclosure. This is consistent with endorsements of Diamond J. on July 4, 2022 and Kraft J. on September 16, 2022.
54In his 24-page affidavit, at para. 19, he attaches a chart that documents what was produced and when he complied with the Disclosure Order. He attaches supporting exhibits, which total 2,543 pages, that demonstrate the scope of his disclosure. These include emails from Ms. Harris to Mr. Marks from April to August 2022. Where information was not provided or available, an explanation was provided. By June 30, 2022, Diamond J. was satisfied the Respondent had exerted reasonable efforts to produce everything, except the items referenced in his Endorsement, dated July 4, 2022.
55The Applicant’s evidence with respect to the Respondent’s non-compliance is set out in an expert report of Fuller Landau Valuations Inc. (“Fuller Landau”), dated January 7, 2026. In it, Fuller Landau concludes the Respondent has not complied with items listed in Diamond J.’s Endorsement of July 4, 2022. While I appreciate this expert sought to provide a summary of what was outstanding, it is not the function of an expert to apply the law to the facts, or whether the penalty should continue. Therefore, it is of minimal assistance in deciding this motion. It is clear that Fuller Landau was demanding strict compliance, and was not assessing the Respondent’s efforts to disclose nor the relevance of the court ordered disclosure.
Para 4(d) of Disclosure Order
56Para. 4(d) required the Respondent to disclose “All grant documents and award letters for Stock Options, Restricted Stock Units, or any other form of compensation for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021 from all employers.”
57I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with para 4(d) of the disclosure order by July 18, 2022 because:
a. On April 25, 2022, Ms. Harris provided all of the statements for grant letters from NXP Restricted Stock Unit (“RSU”) Plans since the beginning of the Respondent’s employment there in 2019. She advised these were the only grants he has received since 2019.
b. On May 24, 2022, in response to requests for further information about the vesting date of the Respondent’s RSUs with E-trade, Ms. Harris advised the Applicant’s counsel of his efforts to obtain the requested information and attached email correspondence with E-trade evidencing his efforts to obtain the vesting date on an E-trade statement.
c. On July 18, 2022, Ms. Harris provided Applicant’s counsel with print-outs from E-trade that established the vesting dates of the RSUs with E-trade.
58Fuller Landau took the position that a grant letter was not provided. A grant letter cannot be produced if it does not exist. I am satisfied that the print-outs from E-trade respecting the RSUs is the best information the Respondent can provide around the grants.
Para 5(e) of Disclosure Order
59Para. 5(e) of the Disclosure Order required the Respondent to provide: “All grant documents and award letters for any stock options, Restricted Stock Units, or any other form of compensation from his employer.” As compared with para 4(d), the parties understand this term to be a continuing obligation to disclose all sources of income from any new or current employers.
60Based on exhibits N and O to the Respondent’s affidavit, I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with para 5(e) of the disclosure order by July 18, 2022. As Diamond J. stated in his July 4, 2022 Endorsement, the only outstanding issue for 5(e) was the vesting dates for the Respondent’s deferred compensation through RSUs.
61Exhibit O is an email from Ms. Harris to Applicant’s counsel. It attaches an e-mail from the Respondent from NXP which lists the grants of RSUs that were given to the Respondent and on which date. As described above, the Respondent provided a print-out from E-trade on July 18, 2022 that sets out the vesting date of the RSUs. Therefore, I am satisfied the Respondent has provided the vesting date of the RSU’s under 5(e) by July 18, 2022.
62The Applicant appears to take the position that the Respondent has not complied with this aspect of the Order because he has not disclosed grant documents and award letters after May 2023 from the Respondent’s subsequent employers – Arm Inc. and Intel. But Diamond J.’s order was limited to the vesting dates for the Respondent’s existing RSU – not future employment or remuneration.
63In any event, the Respondent says that all of his income is reported in his US equivalent of a T4. Furthermore, in his Reply Affidavit, he states that all of the grant documents/award letters he received from (a) Arm in 2023, 2024, and 2025; and (b) Intel since he started in September 2025, will be produced by March 6, 2026.
64To the extent this disclosure remains outstanding at trial, or if the Respondent has not fully disclosed the scope of his remuneration with Arm Inc. or Intel, an adverse information my be drawn against him at trial.
Para 10(d) of Disclosure Order
65Paragraph 10(d) of the Disclosure Order requires the Respondent to provide: “With respect to paragraph l(b) of the Order of Justice Paisley dated July 18, 2019 (the "Paisley Order"), the Respondent shall forthwith: [PROVIDE] All statements relating to the account from which the monthly mortgage payments have been made since inception.
66Exhibit Q to the Respondent’s affidavit demonstrates that banking statements from a TD Chequing Account No. *9913 from January 2016 to June 2022 were produced on July 15, 2022.
67The Applicant says that 14 monthly bank statements from inception of the mortgage, October 2014 to December 2015 were not provided. The Respondent replies that all that was available to him was six years’ worth of records; records for the requested 14 months which predated January 2016 were not available to him.
68It is well known that banks do not maintain records going back a fixed number of years, which is the reason why he says he cannot produce them. Furthermore, I question how relevant this disclosure is. The bank records produced consistently disclose two transactions each month - withdrawals of around $960 to pay off this mortgage, and a corresponding deposit of $960. In any event, if the trial judge were to conclude the 14 missing statements were relevant and that the Respondent could have obtained them had he complied with his disclosure obligation sooner, an adverse inference may be drawn against him.
69I am satisfied that the Respondent complied with para.10(d) of the Disclosure Order by July 15, 2022.
Para 13 of Disclosure Order
70Para. 13 of the Disclosure Order required the Respondent to produce: “With respect to paragraphs 1 (j) and 1 (l) of the Paisley Order, the Respondent shall forthwith provide disclosure as ordered by these paragraphs for Car #2.
71Car #2 was an Audi S4. Paragraphs 1(j) of the Paisley Order dealt with “details of all car payments…,including but not limited to purchase documentation and loan documentation” and 1(l) dealt with “details of Car #2…including year, make, model, purchase documentation, and any loan documentation.”
72Exhibit S to the Respondent’s affidavit establishes that the loan account statement for the Audi S4 was produced on April 29, 2022. Exhibit T is an email from Ms. Harris to the Applicant’s counsel, dated July 15, 2022, indicating that the Respondent was not able to obtain financing documents for the Audi S4. It attached email correspondence between the Respondent and a person at an Audi dealer in San Diego, with a phone number, that documented his efforts to get the loan documentation.
73The Applicant states the Respondent is in breach because he has not produced monthly account statements covering the entire period of the car loan. However, this is not what the Disclosure Order or the Penalty Order required.
74Furthermore, I question the relevance of the loan documents. The car was purchased in 2015 shortly after separation for around $20,000. The Respondent’s income was significant, which he says was over $1.5 million USD in 2014 and around $650,000 USD. The car and associated loan documents are of limited relevance, given this income.
75Regardless, I am satisfied that the Respondent exerted best efforts to obtain the loan documents. I find he complied with para. 13 of the Disclosure Order by July 15, 2022.
Para 14 of Disclosure Order
76Paragraph 14 of the Disclosure Order requires the Respondent to provide: “With respect to paragraph 1(o) of the Paisley Order, the Respondent shall forthwith comply with this paragraph, and in particular the Respondent shall forthwith: (a) Disclose each bank account to which he transferred funds from E*Trade, up to and including the final destination for the funds; (b) Disclose the amount he transferred to each bank account that he transferred funds to, up to and including the final destination for the funds; (c) Specify the currency for each transfer; (d) Specify the purpose of each transaction and/or payment; (e) Explain why he transferred funds to interim accounts before the funds reached their final destination; (f) Provide all cancelled cheques; (g) Provide all wire transfer documentation.
77Para 1(o) of the Paisley Order required the Respondent to produce “A response to the movement of funds from the E*Trade account as attached hereto as Schedule A, including but not limited to: (i) a complete tracing of all accounts to which the funds were transferred in or out; (ii) the final destination of each transaction; (iii) the purpose of each transaction; (iv) all cancelled cheques; and (v) all wire transfer documentation.”
78The Respondent says that between June 15, 2022 and June 20, 2022, he produced statements for his ETrade account, as well as statements for the five bank accounts to which he transferred funds from his ETrade account (Ex. U). Records from the Bank of America Account No. *2255 were not available due to the passage of time, but he says these records had been previously disclosed in 2015. His counsel advised that these were all the statements from these accounts.
79On July 15, 2022, he provided an audit report of all transfers from the E*Trade account, disclosing the accounts to which transfers were made, the interim destination of transfers, the final destinations of transfers, the currency of transfers, the purpose of transfers, and explanations as to why funds were sent to interim accounts before arriving at their final destination (Ex. V). Supporting documentation with respect to the audit report was also provided (Ex. W).
80The Applicant states that, based on a forensic audit report she had prepared by JDP Forensic Accounting (“JDP”), there are other transactions for which tracing or an explanation was not provided. However, the Respondent states that Schedule A to the Paisley Order only listed 52 transactions between 2012 and 2015, which the Respondent has explained. The Disclosure Order of Papageorgiou J. did not add to the transactions or require explanations of the additional transactions that were critiqued by JDP. The Respondent further states that the additional tracing and explanation sought by the Applicant, as identified in para. 25 of his Affidavit, was not the subject of any Court Order. I agree.
81The Respondent further states that he exercised best efforts to provide a full and complete response in relation to the transactions. If information from his own tracing is outstanding, he says it is only because of the passage of time. These transactions occurred between 2012 and 2015.
82I am satisfied that the Respondent substantially complied with para. 11 of the Disclosure Order by July 15, 2022. As Diamond J. stated in his July 4, 2022 Endorsement, the issue of the adequacy of the tracing is a conclusion best left for the trial judge.
Concluding Comments on Disclosure
83Disclosure motions should rarely occur. This is because of the immediate and continuing obligation on family litigants to disclose financial information. In this case, there were multiple motions that wasted the parties’ and the Court’s resources. The Respondent did not do as he was required to do, agreed to do, or compelled to do by court order. None of my reasons are intended to excuse the Respondent for his behaviour. There is on-going disclosure required of the Respondent about his most recent income. His counsel stated at the motion further disclosure of any items outstanding would be made on March 6, 2026. The Court assumes this has already occurred.
84However, the Applicant appears to have weaponized disclosure. She dismissed the Respondent’s reasonable efforts to find historic documents, continued to pursue documents that were of marginal relevance, no relevance, or which do not exist, and she continued to exact a penalty despite diligent efforts being made. At some point, a party seeking disclosure must accept that an opposing party, who has taken all reasonable steps to produce information, cannot produce a document that does not exist or no longer exists. Proportionality must come into the mix.
85To the extent that the Applicant continues to have questions regarding the Respondent’s tracing of funds, I would encourage the parties’ and their experts to meet in advance of the exit pre-trial to have the Respondent answer reasonable questions the Applicant’s expert may have.
Issue 3: What penalty is owed, and has the Respondent overpaid the penalty?
86The Respondent calculates that the penalty owed is $21,700 USD. He states disclosure of all remaining items from the July 4, 2022 Endorsement of Diamond J. were produced on July 18, 2022 – 31 days later than the court ordered deadline of June 17, 2022. Because he paid the Applicant $51,000 USD, he states he is entitled to a reimbursement of $29,300 USD.
87The Applicant makes two arguments. First, she states that if the penalty were to end, the penalty should run to August 29, 2022 because this is when the Respondent complied with para. 1 of the Disclosure Order, which required the Respondent to provide proof of a life insurance police of at least $2,000,000 USD in which the Applicant is designated as the irrevocable beneficiary.
88In response, the Respondent concedes this term was not fully complied with until August 29, 2022, but he says that this paragraph was not identified by Diamond J. in his Penalty Order of July 4, 2022. Therefore, no penalty attaches to it.
89Since no penalty was associated with non-compliance with para. 1, it would not be fair to impose a penalty on the Respondent after-the-fact. Furthermore, the fine imposed in this case was intended to compel compliance. The evidence is that, by June 15, 2022, the Respondent had sent to the Respondent his life insurance package which required the signature of the Applicant on a designation page. On August 17, 2022, he sent an acknowledgement from the insurer that the Applicant was recorded as the irrevocable beneficiary. And on August 29, 2022, the full policy was delivered. On these facts, it would be unfair to have the penalty run to August 29, 2022.
90Second, the Applicant states that the Respondent only paid $46,000 USD as a penalty. She states that he made a payment of $4,000 USD on August 12, 2022 and $1,000 USD on August 15, 2022, but these amounts were for a child’s expenses, A. On the evidence before me, and for the purposes of an interim motion, I am satisfied that the funds were paid as a penalty because:
a. The documentary evidence suggests it was in payment of a penalty. On September 16, 2022, after the $5,000 was paid, the Applicant sent an email asking “Can you transfer more of the penalty?” She says she mis-spoke in this email and intended to ask for more money to be put into her USD account for the penalty. I take her words written on September 16, 2022 to mean that she understood part of the penalty had been paid when the $4,000 and $1,000 amounts were paid in August 2022.
b. The Respondent was paying significant sums towards child and spousal support. The child, A, graduated in April 2021 from his first undergraduate degree. The Respondent’s evidence is that he did not vary the amount of child support nor the $36,000 per year in s. 7 expenses he was paying. Therefore, I have difficulty finding that the $4,000 and $1,000 USD payments were to cover expenses for an adult child. They could only be characterized as payment of the penalty.
91For these reasons, I find that the Respondent has paid to the Applicant as a penalty $51,000 USD, and of this amount, the Respondent is entitled to a reimbursement of $29,300 USD, which I order the Applicant shall pay within 60 days.
Order to go as follows:
92I make the following orders:
a. This Court declares that the Respondent, Kevork Kechichian (the “Respondent”), as of July 18, 2022, has complied with his disclosure obligations pursuant to the Order of Justice Papageorgiou, dated December 2, 2021, subject to a finding at trial (i) that an adverse inference should be drawn against the Respondent for any items not disclosed; and (ii) about the adequacy of the Respondent’s tracing of funds.
b. This Court declares that there is no monetary penalty owed by the Respondent to the Applicant pursuant to the Orders of Justice Diamond, dated May 17, 2022 and July 4, 2022.
c. This Court declares that the Respondent has overpaid the penalty owing pursuant to the Orders of Justice Diamond, dated May 17, 2022 and July 4, 2022, in the amount of $29,300 USD.
d. This Court orders that, within 60 days, the Applicant shall reimburse the Respondent $29,300 USD as a refund for his overpayment of penalties.
Costs
93The parties are strongly encouraged to settle the issue of costs from this motion.
94If they are unable to do so, they may request a 9:00 a.m. Zoom conference before me by contacting the Family Trial Office. Prior to the conference, they may deliver cost submissions, attaching any Offers to Settle and a Bill of Costs. Cost submissions shall not exceed 3 pages, double-spaced.
Justice M. Sharma
Date: April 20, 2026