CITATION: Ezer v. Ezer, 2026 ONSC 3479
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DAVID EZER
Applicant
(Responding Party)
– and –
ASYA EZER
Respondent (Moving party)
Enio Zeppieri and Weis Noorani, for the Applicant (Responding Party)
Julie Amourgis and Andrea B. Scharf, for the Respondent (Moving Party)
HEARD: April 20, 2026
S. vella J.
REASONS FOR sentencing on contempt motion
1For Reasons dated February 9, 2026 (Ezer v. Ezer, 2026 ONSC 769) (the “Contempt Decision”), I found that the Respondent (moving party), Asya Kovnat-Ezer, had proven the requisite elements of contempt against the Applicant (responding party), David Ezer, beyond a reasonable doubt and that, in the circumstances of this case, it was not appropriate to exercise my discretion to decline to issue a finding of contempt. Specifically, I found Mr. Ezer in contempt of court in relation to the Orders of Wilson, J. and Paisley, J. requiring him to maintain Dr. Kovnat-Ezer as a beneficiary to a life insurance policy to secure his equalization payment so long as it is outstanding, and to secure his ongoing spousal support obligations against his Ontario Pension Board (OPB) pension plan.
2The Applicant was ordered to do the following within thirty days to purge his contempt:
(a) Purchase a life insurance policy in an amount equal to four times his earnings to secure the outstanding equalization claim, with accrued interest, as per the Order of Wilson J. dated June 26, 1998 (and the subsequent orders affirming this order) and produce written proof to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer, or in the alternative, pay the equalization ordered plus accrued interest; and
(b) Take the requisite steps to secure Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s ongoing spousal support entitlement against his OPB administered public service pension plan (OPB pension), as per the Order of Wilson J., dated May 10, 2000, and produce written proof to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer.
3I reserved costs of the contempt motion to the conclusion of the sentencing hearing as per r. 31(5)(f), Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.
4Dr. Kovnat-Ezer seeks orders requiring Mr. Ezer to pay a penalty of $16,500 (reflecting his 50% share of their late daughter’s estate which remains in trust in Australia), and order that Mr. Ezer instruct his Australian counsel to release his share of the estate proceeds in satisfaction of the fine and the balance of the monies held in trust from that estate to her, and a period of incarceration of 15 days. She also seeks a stay of Mr. Ezer’s pending Motion to Change, until he purges his contempt.
5Mr. Ezer curiously states in his factum that the sentencing hearing follows a finding of contempt “arising from alleged non-compliance with orders relating to life insurance and pension security”. As I reminded Mr. Ezer’s lawyer at the hearing I have already found the requisite intent founding the contempt order.
6In his factum, Mr. Ezer also appears to attempt to relitigate the finding of contempt. The factum states that the “proper venue is the Motion to Change (e.g., hearing, focused hearing, trial, etc.) where these disputes can be addressed on a full evidentiary record, not via a contempt shortcut”.
7In submissions, Mr. Ezer’s lawyer stated that the only reason Dr. Kovnat-Ezer brought the contempt motion when she did was to counter and frustrate Mr. Ezer’s motion to change the spousal support. His lawyer characterized the contempt motion as “procedurally duplicitous” and an “abuse of process”, notwithstanding my finding of contempt. As at the contempt motion, Mr. Ezer continued to take the position that the contempt motion and now sentencing should be deferred until his motion to change is heard.
8I dealt with that argument and dismissed it at the contempt motion. I again dismiss this argument at the sentencing hearing. Mr. Ezer has been in breach of the subject orders for approximately 25 years. Even if he is ultimately successful on a Motion to Change in the future, this has no bearing on the existing contempt. Furthermore, a Motion to Change will not alter the equalization amount Wilson J. found he owed. This case is easily distinguished from the circumstances of Oliveira v. Oliveira, 2023 ONCA 520, where the contemnor was already penalized by other court sanctions in the related civil proceedings, and those sanctions had to be factored into what would be an appropriate and proportionate sentence on contempt.
9Mr. Ezer submits the appropriate remedy is to:
(a) Decline to impose any custodial sentence;
(b) In the alternative, impose a suspended or further alternative nominal penalty;
(c) Grant the Applicant a (further) reasonable period of time to purge contempt;
(d) Permit compliance with the underlying orders through reduced or alternative security, as appropriate; and
(e) Any further order that this Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.
10At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Ezer gave viva voce evidence in person in court. In addition, he filed his affidavit sworn April 13, 2026, his Motion to Change (the spousal support order which was the subject of the contempt) dated August 14, 2023, his Financial Statement sworn April 13, 2026, and a factum.
11Dr. Kovnat-Ezer filed an affidavit and a reply affidavit together with her factum.
12The evidence establishes without doubt that Mr. Ezer did not purge the contempt. He did not obtain the requisite life insurance policy, nor did he secure Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s ongoing spousal support against his OPB pension. Mr. Ezer submits, however, that it is no longer financially viable for him to obtain a life insurance with a death benefit in an amount that is four times his income given his age, health, and limited/fixed financial resources. The cost of the requisite life insurance policy, he submits, is far too expensive and exceeds his ability to pay. Furthermore, while he submitted that he made efforts to secure Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s ongoing spousal support against his OPB pension, it became clear based on his viva voce evidence, addressed below, that he had not actually done so. Furthermore, he has not paid anything towards the outstanding equalization obligation.
13I therefore must determine the appropriate sentence.
Sentencing Principles on Contempt of a Family (Superior Court of Justice) Order
14Rule 31(5) of the Family Law Rules provides that, after a finding of contempt, the court may impose a penalty, fine, order imprisonment, not do what the court forbids, obey any other order, do anything else the court decides is appropriate, and/or to pay costs in any amount to be decided. The scope of sentences can include a suspended sentence or no penalty where the contempt has been purged: Cassidy v. Cassidy, 2010 ONSC 2707, 85 R.F.L. (6th) 148, at para. 14.
15The sentencing principles on a contempt in a civil proceeding was recently set out by the Court of Appeal in Oliveira.
16The Court of Appeal emphasized that the principle of proportionality must be the guiding factor in dealing with all aspects of a contempt hearing, including costs: Oliveira, at para. 71.
17At para. 79 of Oliveira, the court approved the following 6 factors for determining an appropriate sentence for a contempt proceeding from its earlier decision in Boily v. Carlton Condominium Corp. 145, 2014 ONCA 574, 121 O.R. (3d) 670, as follows:
(a) Proportionality of the sentence to the wrongdoing (a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender);
(b) The presence of mitigating factors;
(c) The presence of aggravating factors;
(d) Deterrence and denunciation;
(e) The similarity of sentence in like circumstances; and
(f) The reasonableness of a fine or incarceration.
See also, Carter v. Carter, 2026 ONCA 29, 180 O.R. (3d) 81, where the Court of Appeal again approved these factors as applicable to family law proceedings, at para. 68.
18Proportionality of the sentence to the gravity of the contempt is a guiding principle in family law proceedings in assessing what sentence will be appropriate in the fact-specific circumstances of the case.
19In Cassidy, a family law contempt case, the court identified the following objectives of an appropriate sentence:
(a) The sanction must be sufficient to ensure that the administration of justice is not brought into disrepute: at paras. 9, 11, and 20;
(b) The sanction should be restorative to the victim of the contempt, and punitive to the contemnor: at para. 10;
(c) The sanction is intended to coerce compliance with court orders: at para. 12.
The Evidence
David Ezer
20David Ezer testified at his contempt sentencing hearing. Mr. Ezer did not help his case, nor was he a sympathetic witness.
21Mr. Ezer became easily frustrated, combative, dismissive, and sarcastic under cross-examination. For example, when he was asked to confirm that if he were to die, there was no life insurance to pay the equalization amount he owes, he pulled out his wallet and said, “nope I guess not”.
22He acknowledged that he has not paid his equalization in over 25 years and that this debt is accruing interest. He acknowledged that the reason he initially did not pay, and filed for bankruptcy, was because he gambled and lost his money.
23He made it clear that in his view, Dr. Kovnat-Ezer had received more than enough from him over the years and was not entitled to, nor in need of, a penny more from him. He blamed her for their divorce, saying that it had been a loveless marriage.
24His apology to the court appeared to be more about his position that he could no longer afford to buy an insurance policy in a sufficient amount to secure the equalization payment which, by April 2026, had increased from $36,856.73 to about $172,000 due to accrued interest, given that Wilson J.’s original order was made on June 26, 1998.
25Contrary to his counsel’s submissions that he had attempted to purge part of his contempt by contacting the OPB to add Dr. Kovnat-Ezer as a beneficiary to his OPB Pension or to otherwise secure Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s spousal support entitlement as security against the pension, he made no such attempt. Rather, as became clear during his viva voce testimony, he merely contacted the OPB and received information about the spousal support that was being deducted from his pension. He was directed to the Financial Responsibility Office and was then informed that they were deducting the monthly spousal support payable to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer pursuant to the support deduction order. Mr. Ezer made no inquiry as to whether, and how, he could add Dr. Kovnat-Ezer as a beneficiary.
26The only effort Mr. Ezer made was through his lawyer’s filing of a form attached to his affidavit called a Declaration of Spousal Status on February 23, 2026. A review of that form reveals that he was changing spousal status on the form. There is no mention of Dr. Kovnat-Ezer, and neither Mr. Ezer nor his counsel could explain the purpose of that form.
27As for the life insurance policy, Mr. Ezer submitted by way of his affidavit that he obtained estimates for a number of life insurance policies, which estimates he attached to his affidavit. He attested that he would have to pay $631 a month for a $100,000 life insurance policy and $831.21 a month for a $150,000 life insurance policy with Seniors Choice, dated February 20, 2026. However, few details were revealed about the features of these life insurance policies, including all of the terms he sought. For example, the quote submitted in evidence for the Seniors’ Choice policy states that no medicals or blood tests are required for approval – “we only ask just a few health and lifestyle questions”, contrary to his affidavit in which he deposed that he had “yet to qualify for a policy as extensive medical assessments will be required to qualify”. It was also revealed that the latter policy included a cash surrender benefit and terminal illness coverage as part of the quote.
28Mr. Ezer’s position is that he cannot afford a monthly premium of $631 or more.
29In terms of Mr. Ezer’s ability to have paid insurance premiums, and his ongoing ability to pay premiums, it was put to him under cross examination that his line 15000 income in 2025 was $92,997 as shown on his 2025 Notice of Tax Assessment under total income. Mr. Ezer disputed the accuracy of this figure, stating that it was not his document, but an amount prepared by the CRA. He preferred to rely on his financial statement sworn April 14, 2026, in which he listed his income at $52,005.60. This position is notwithstanding the fact that his Notice of Assessments, which outline a higher income amount, are attached to this Financial Statement.
30In his 2023 and 2024 Notices of Assessment, his line 15000 income is also listed as $92,997.
31Mr. Ezer confirmed that his sources of income are his OPB pension, CPP, and OAS.
32Nonetheless, Mr. Ezer continued to deny that he earns approximately $93,000 a year during his viva voce testimony and disputed the accuracy of the Notices of Assessment issued by the CRA.
33Mr. Ezer acknowledged that while he pays $21,000 a year to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer as spousal support, it is tax deductible to him, and reflected in his income tax returns. He confirmed he has brought a Motion to Change to reduce or terminate his spousal support obligation.
34Mr. Ezer testified under cross-examination that he is pension splitting with his current wife, Barb Taylor, for tax purposes. The evidence shows that Ms. Taylor is financially independent from Mr. Ezer.
35He confirmed that he does not have to pay rent or any mortgage. He pays for the food, while Ms. Taylor takes care of their other living expenses.
36Under cross-examination, Mr. Ezer confirmed that he had prepared no plan to pay any of the equalization owing to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer. He said that all he could afford was a life insurance policy with a death benefit of $50,000 which would cost him about $250 per month. He indicated that he had asked the insurer to proceed with the application for this life insurance policy, but he has yet to undergo the medical examination. There was no explanation for why this was not done earlier, and no evidence to corroborate that he has started any process for buying any life insurance policy.
37He rationalized that a death benefit $50,000 was more than enough for Dr. Kovnat-Ezer because it covers the original equalization amount of approximately $36,000, without accrued interest, and emphasized that he cannot afford a higher premium, especially as long as he has to pay spousal support.
38He confirmed that he is 79 years old, retired, on a fixed income, and has “serious” medical conditions. However, little detail was provided by Mr. Ezer (and none by any of his doctors or health care providers) about these medical issues. As counsel for Dr. Kovnat-Ezer pointed out, he brought the same medical concerns before Paisley J. in 2008 when he sought a change in the spousal support, and His Honour rejected those arguments and reinstated the spousal support. At the time, Mr. Ezer was 61 years old and already retired.
Dr. Kovnat-Ezer
39In her affidavit evidence, Dr. Kovnat-Ezer described the efforts she has made to enforce the court orders, and the obstacles Mr. Ezer has placed to thwart those efforts including filing for bankruptcy and then refusing to comply with the Trustee’s terms for discharge meaning neither she nor any of the unsecured creditors received any funds.1 She also described Mr. Ezer’s refusal to authorize his Australian counsel to distribute the estate of their late daughter, Paulina, who died in Australia in 2021 and left an estate valued at about $33,000, to be divided equally between Mr. Ezer and herself. Mr. Ezer took control of the estate by applying for probate and becoming Estate Trustee and thus has retained control over the net estate proceeds.
40Dr. Kovnat-Ezer also described the financial hardships and anxiety she has suffered as a result of Mr. Ezer’s refusal to abide by the court orders. She deposed that she was hospitalized on several occasions in the past for heart problems, resulting in her inability to work and her dependency on Mr. Ezer’s spousal support payments and Paulina’s financial assistance. She noted that, in her view, the only reason she has received ongoing spousal support, is because a Support Deduction Order was issued. Mr. Ezer has never voluntarily paid her any amount.
41Dr. Kovnat-Ezer also noted that the spousal support paid by Mr. Ezer is listed on his Notice of Assessments for 2022, 2023, and 2024, as a deduction in the sum of $21,000 per year.
42Dr. Kovnat-Ezer was not cross-examined on her affidavit.
43I find that Mr. Ezer did not purge his contempt, nor has he made timely efforts to put into place some form of life insurance policy designating a death benefit to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer, both of which are well within his capabilities. Furthermore, he made no meaningful effort to designate Dr. Kovnat-Ezer as a beneficiary to his OPB pension. I reject his argument that he cannot afford a premium higher than $250 a month based on his guaranteed yearly fixed income of nearly $93,000, his relatively modest living expenses and the fact that he has been earning at least this amount for many years. In these circumstances, his regret as expressed to the court is hollow.
44I also find that Mr. Ezer has profited from not paying life insurance premiums while refusing to pay the equalization owed to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer, for the better part of 25 years, to her financial and emotional detriment.
45Where the objective documentary evidence contradicts Mr. Ezer’s sworn testimony and his sworn financial statement, I accept the documentary evidence. This includes his Notices of Assessment and the Declaration of Spousal Change.
46Where Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s evidence contradicts Mr. Ezer’s evidence in material aspects, for the reasons stated above, I prefer Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s evidence. Mr. Ezer has proven himself to be self-serving and not forthright with this court, whereas much of Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s evidence is supported by the documentary evidence.
47However, I accept Mr. Ezer’s evidence that he does not believe he should have to pay anything more to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer because, in his view, he has paid her enough by way of spousal support which has been deducted from his monthly pension in accordance with a Support Deduction Order.
Analysis and Disposition of Sentence
48After a finding of contempt, the next stage requires me to consider the factors relevant to sentencing and determine an appropriate sentence in the specific circumstances of this case, based on my findings.
49The list of possible sanctions available to a family court are outlined in r. 31(5) of the Family Law Rules. The list is not exhaustive: Dumont v Lucescu, 2016 ONSC 1042, at para. 26.
50The court has wide discretion in family proceedings to craft an order and impose conditions which is tailored to the finding of contempt: Carter, at para. 44.
51There are two broad purposes underlying sentencing for contempt outlined in Carter, at para. 67:
The primary purpose is to compel compliance by the contemnor to protect and enforce the rights of the party who has obtained the order. A secondary purpose is punishment of the contemnor to uphold the authority and dignity of the court and the rule of law.
52The sentence is generally more than the mere purging of the contempt. The sentence reflects the sanction for the contempt itself: Dumont, at paras. 28-29.
53The appropriate sanction should be restorative to the victim, and punitive to the contemnor: Cassidy, at para. 10.
The Factors and Findings
54It is relevant to my assessment of the appropriate factors that there are no dependent children. Hence, I need not consider how a sentence could impact the best interests of a child.
The proportionality of the sentence to the wrongdoing
55Mr. Ezer’s conduct is serious. He has demonstrated a long period of deliberate defiance of court orders and a willingness to employ any means possible to delay the day of reckoning with a view to waiting out Dr. Kovnat-Ezer seemingly until one of them dies. Mr. Ezer even filed for bankruptcy to reduce his obligation to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer and yet did not comply with the Trustee in Bankruptcy’s conditional discharge plan leaving his creditors, including Dr. Kovnat-Ezer, in limbo during the repudiated bankruptcy period and ultimately, with no recompense. I have recounted the various other measures he took to frustrate Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s to enforce compliance with the court orders in the Contempt Decision.
56On the other hand, Dr. Kovnat-Ezer required her equalization payment given her inability to work and has depended on the spousal support to live. She has suffered and continues to suffer from anxiety and distress at the fact that neither of these obligations have been secured, thus leaving her in a situation of income insecurity. The fact that Dr. Kovnat-Ezer received a $249,993.00 death benefit as a result of their late daughter’s death in 2025 does not ameliorate the hardship she has suffered for many years, nor the fact that she is entitled to the equalization payment as part of her income security.
Mitigating Factors
57The mitigating factors are Mr. Ezer’s advanced age of 79 years old, chronic health challenges, and that he has never been convicted of a crime. I do not accept the submission that his financial circumstances have prohibited him from compliance with the court orders, including paying the court ordered equalization amount, for 25 years. He may have less income now then he did prior to retirement, but he still has a substantial fixed and guaranteed income, and lives in a spousal relationship where expenses are shared.
Aggravating Factors
58As stated, Mr. Ezer has demonstrated a blatant disregard for court orders and continues to attempt to justify his non-compliance with underlying orders. He shows no remorse and continues to deny that he should have to pay Dr. Kovnat-Ezer any amount for the equalization or spousal support notwithstanding the court orders and believes he will be vindicated when his Motion to Change is resolved. There is no doubt that he could have paid the equalization, even with interest accruing, at any point over the past 25 years based on his income and would only have had to pay Dr. Kovnat-Ezer half of the equalization amount had he followed through on the terms of his conditional discharge from bankruptcy. There is no excuse whatsoever for not having ensured Dr. Kovnat-Ezer was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy and of the OPB pension both prior to and following his retirement. At the very least, he could have engaged in good faith efforts to implement the requisite security if there were other barriers (that were not proven before me).
Deterrence and Denunciation
59Court orders are not suggestions. They must be complied with. When court orders are intentionally disregarded, the administration of justice is brought into disrepute. Accordingly, a sentence must reflect both general deterrence and specific deterrence to ensure court orders are obeyed: Cassidy, at paras. 18 and 34.
60Courts have issued sanctions in the form of fines and/or incarceration, in addition to penalties to be paid to the innocent victim and other uniquely tailored sanctions such as stays and striking pleadings, to discharge sentencing objectives. In Dumont, at para. 30, the court observed that average fines and penalties have ranged from $25,000 to $75,000. Adjusting the upper limit figure for inflation to 2026 dollars, this amount is calculated to $98,207.33. Depending on the circumstances of the case, some courts have ordered penalties below $25,000: Ding v Chen, 2023 ONSC 3733.
61In Blatherwick v. Blatherwick, 2016 ONSC 4630, 84 R.F.L. (7th) 134, a decision dealing with a sentencing on contempt in a family law matter, the contemnor was found to have been in contempt for failing to “cash in” a life insurance policy and pay the cash surrender value to the other spouse, and for transferring control of a corporation he was ordered not to transfer. In that case, the contemnor had not purged the contempt by the date of the sentencing hearing. After reviewing the various factors, including the financial ability of the contemnor to have easily paid, and the finding that the contemnor essentially “thumbs his nose” at his former spouse, Ricchetti J. settled on a custodial sentence of 180 days.
62In Sharpley v. Sharpley, 2005 ONCJ 483, 21 R.F.L. (6th) 443, at para. 17, the court required the contemnor to pay a penalty which reflected the difference between what the contemnor was ordered to pay as child support and what he should have been ordered to pay based on his actual income, failing which the contemnor was ordered to be incarcerated. The contemnor was also prohibited from filing a Motion to Change until he fully complied with the subject order to produce income tax returns, notices of assessment, and a pay stub for every year from 2004.
63In Carter, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision to impose a 90-day custodial sentence on the contemnor with an opportunity to mitigate that sentence if the contemnor paid $350,000 towards his outstanding obligations to his former spouse. The contempt involved a breach of a Mareva injunction and preservation order, which resulted in the dissipation of funds that were to have been preserved pending the determination of the family law entitlements, and many years of deceit by the contemnor.
The reasonableness of a fine or incarceration.
64Custodial sentences are rare in family law proceedings, though they have been imposed in appropriate cases (Remus v Remus, (ONSC)). It is however a remedy of last resort: Castillo v. Xela Enterprises, 2024 ONCA 141, 171 O.R. (3d) 16, at para. 35.
65In my view, incarceration is not the appropriate punishment for this situation. This is in part due to Mr. Ezer’s age. However, of more significance, I favour restorative justice in the circumstances of this case as being the stronger deterrent. In my view, requiring Mr. Ezer to pay more money to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer than he already owes is more just and meaningful punishment than a jail sentence. Indeed, requiring Mr. Ezer to pay more money at all is a more effective deterrent at this stage than incarceration. Therefore, a modest fine will adequately address the court’s denunciation of Mr. Ezer’s behaviour.
The Sentence
66Considering Mr. Ezer’s 25-year campaign of taking whatever measures possible to avoid paying Dr. Kovnat-Ezer the court ordered equalization amount, and to avoid securing her family law entitlements a more meaningful, and proportionate, form of sanction is the imposition of a penalty. This penalty should reflect Mr. Ezer’s persistent refusal to pay anything towards equalization, the 25-year deprivation of the family law entitlements Dr. Kovnat-Ezer has suffered giving rise to income insecurity, and the distress she experienced by virtue of not having access to the equalization payment nor the family law obligations secured in a manner that this court deemed appropriate as reflected by the court orders.
67By refusing to have either paid his equalization in a timely manner, before the interest ballooned to the point that it has, and/or purchasing appropriate life insurance upon retirement in the sum required proportionate to any unpaid equalization, as well as securing the ongoing spousal support entitlements against his OPB pension, Mr. Ezer has dug a deep financial hole of his own making. With his pension entitlements of around $93,000 per year, and his likely higher earnings prior to retirement, he could have easily paid off the equalization amount then owing and thus, relieved himself of some of the security obligations, while not depriving Dr. Kovnat-Ezer of her equalization entitlement for 25 years.
68Instead, the record demonstrates that he made other choices which had the effect of depriving Dr. Kovnat-Ezer of her family law entitlements adjudged appropriate upon the breakdown of their marriage. These choices include filing for bankruptcy and then not making any payments as directed by the Trustee in Bankruptcy. Had he abided by the payment plan at that time, he would only have had to pay Dr. Kovnat-Ezer half of the equalization owing (as an unsecured debt), but he did not. Based on the evidence before me2, Mr. Ezer steadfastly refused to use his cash legacy from their late daughter’s estate which, at least at one time if not now, was in the sum of approximately $16,500 to make a payment towards equalization or otherwise fund a monthly premium for a life insurance policy while at the same time refusing to authorize the release of Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s share of their late daughter’s estate in the same amount. He also income splits with his current wife and has attempted to rely on that tax driven decision to support his position that his income is much lower than reflected on his line 15000 Notice of Assessment to attract sympathy from the court and lower his obligations.
69Mr. Ezer made arguments before this court that Dr. Kovnat-Ezer did not “need” any more money from him because of her inheritance from their late daughter of approximately $250,000 in 2025, and that he had, in his view, overpaid spousal support. This has the appearance of Mr. Ezer taking the law into his own hands. He does not have that power.
70It is also clear from Mr. Ezer’s testimony that he will continue to make excuses for not paying the equalization owed or taking the requisite steps to secure the support and equalization obligations. He will not purchase an insurance policy, according to him, in excess of $50,000 which is far short of what is needed to secure his current obligations, much less bring him in compliance with the underlying court order requiring him to maintain a life insurance policy that is four times the amount of his income.
71In my view, the appropriate and proportionate penalty must be on the higher end of the range that reflects restorative justice for the two and a half decades Dr. Kovnat-Ezer has suffered with income insecurity, anxiety, and mental distress, while being appropriately punitive to Mr. Ezer who has caused this stress by not paying any of the equalization or accrued interest, while at the same time financially benefiting from not paying that money or, alternatively, the insurance premiums related to securing the equalization or designating her as a beneficiary to his OPB pension over that period of time.
72It is also clear to me that in order for Dr. Kovnat-Ezer to realize restorative justice on a pragmatic level, given Mr. Ezer’s track record of non-compliance with court orders and his steadfast determination not to pay another penny to her, that the penalty must be enforceable by way of a Support Deduction Order as permitted under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 31.
73The definition of a “support order” outlined in section 1(1)(f) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act includes the “irrevocable designation, by a spouse who has a policy of life insurance or an interest in the benefit plan, of the other spouse or a child as the beneficiary”. On a plain reading of this Act, the order requiring Mr. Ezer to secure the spousal support by means of an irrevocable designation of Dr. Kovnat-Ezer as a beneficiary of his OPB pension is, therefore, a support order and capable of enforcement by way of a Support Deduction Order.
74Accordingly, I order that Mr. Ezer pay a penalty to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer in the sum of $75,000 to reflect his breach of order to secure his support obligations by designating Dr. Kovnat-Ezer as an irrevocable beneficiary to his OPB pension plan, within the meaning of s. 1(1)(f) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, together with his failure to designate her as a beneficiary to a life insurance policy. This monetary order is to be enforceable by way of an SDO and is in addition to his ongoing spousal support obligations which are currently being enforced by way of an SDO. This amount is more than the amount sought by Dr. Kovnat-Ezer but reflects the fact that I am denying her request to incarcerate Mr. Ezer for a period of 15 days. More importantly, it is proportionate to the gravity of the contempt as it reflects the principal equalization payment plus some of the accrued interest. The penalty must be more than simply the original amounts payable by Mr. Ezer in order to have the requisite effect of denunciation to him and others who think that if they simply ignore court orders for long enough by employing bad faith tactics, they might escape them altogether or will only have to pay the principal amounts owing.
75In addition, for reasons already stated, he will pay a fine of $5,000.
76I also order Mr. Ezer to take the steps necessary to direct the transfer of Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s share of their late daughter’s estate, currently being held in trust by his Australian counsel, to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer or to whom she may direct in writing. This order shall be sufficient authority for Mr. Ezer’s Australian counsel to so act. Mr. Ezer shall provide a copy of his correspondence to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer or to whom she may direct in writing.
77I further direct that Mr. Ezer instruct his Australian counsel to release any remaining share of his net proceeds of their late daughter’s estate, if any still exists, to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer or to whom she may direct in writing to be held in trust, pending further court order.
78As well, any costs award I may make against Mr. Ezer will also be enforced by way of an SDO.
79Mr. Ezer made it clear that he intends to proceed with his Motion to Change. Dr. Kovnat-Ezer requested that I stay that motion until Mr. Ezer satisfies his obligations and purges the contempt.
80In my view, staying the Motion to Change is appropriate in these circumstances. Mr. Ezer has demonstrated that he has no intent to pay Dr. Kovnat-Ezer her equalization entitlement, much less discharge his security obligations because he believes he is overpaying spousal support. This belief underlines his intentional breach of the family court orders. It is just, fair, and proportionate that he be prevented from bringing a Motion to Change those very same spousal support obligations until he purges the contempt of court in accordance with the Contempt Decision. To allow Mr. Ezer to continue his Motion to Change would be to allow a form of litigation abuse, as recently articulated in the majority judgment of Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16. Mr. Ezer has made no good faith efforts to pay down the equalization obligation or to secure the equalization and spousal support obligations for 25 years. To allow him to continue this motion would justify his decision to ignore court orders as he believes his Motion to Change will vindicate his view that he has and continues to overpay his spousal support obligations.
81Once Mr. Ezer purges the contempt in accordance with paragraph 95 of the Contempt Decision, he may proceed with his Motion to Change.
Orders and Costs
82I make the following orders:
(a) Mr. Ezer shall pay a penalty of $75,000 to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer. A Support Deduction Order shall issue adding this penalty to the existing spousal support order obligations.
(b) Mr. Ezer shall pay a fine of $5,000 within 30 days from release of this decision.
(c) Mr. Ezer shall direct his Australian counsel, in writing, to release Dr. Kovnat-Ezer’s share of their late daughter Pauline’s estate in the approximate sum of $16,500 to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer or to whom she may direct in writing. The correspondence shall be delivered to Mr. Ezer’s Australian counsel within 10 days from release of these Sentencing Reasons, and a copy as well as any response to it provided to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer or to whom she may direct in writing upon delivery of his correspondence and receipt of any response.
(d) Mr. Ezer shall direct his Australian counsel, in writing, to release to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer, or to whom she may direct in writing, his share, if any remaining, of their late daughter Pauline’s estate to be held in trust, pending further court order. Again, the letter shall be delivered within 10 days of release of these Sentencing Reasons to Mr. Ezer’s Australian counsel and a copy as well as any response to it, provided to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer or to whom she may direct in writing.
(e) Mr. Ezer’s motion to change is stayed until such time as he purges his contempt as set out in paragraph 95 of my Contempt Decision.
83The parties shall provide me with their cost outlines and submissions to a maximum of three pages, double spaced with respect to costs within 10 business days from today.
S. VELLA J.
Released: June 12, 2026
CITATION: Ezer v. Ezer, 2026 ONSC 3479
COURT FILE NO.: FS-96-MP228761-0001
DATE: 20260612
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DAVID EZER
Applicant (Responding Party)
– and –
ASYA EZER
Respondent (Moving Party)
REASONS FOR SENTENCING ON
CONTEMPT MOTION
S. VELLA J.
Released: June 12, 2026
1 I found at the contempt motion that because the Trustee was discharged, but Mr. Ezer was not, the stay under the Bankruptcy Act was lifted by operation of that statute; see paras. 38-48, Contempt Decision.
2 On May 12, 2026, Mr. Ezer’s lawyer filed an Aide Memoire providing further arguments with respect to the funds held in Australia by his Australian lawyer with respect to their late daughter’s estate. Attached to that Aide Memoire was correspondence from his Australian lawyer clarifying that no funds are left to the credit of Mr. Ezer as his share went to pay his legal fees and only $7,483.37 Australian dollars is left to the credit of Dr. Kovnat-Ezer. Furthermore, the Australian lawyer indicates that there is no barrier to Dr. Kovnat-Ezer obtaining her share of the funds from her perspective. However, the attached documents are not evidence, and Mr. Ezer did not address this issue in his viva voce evidence or his affidavit evidence when he had a chance. Furthermore, and in any event, I do place little weight on the amounts that are remaining in trust or any barriers to recovery by Dr. Kovnat-Ezer in assessing the sentencing factors.