Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS-19-15-000
Date: 2026-02-13
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: Lea Riitta Johnson, Applicant — and — Paul Caruso, Respondent
Counsel: Samuel R. Bachinski, for the Applicant Self Represented
Heard: November 13, 2025, at Fort Frances, Ontario
Before: The Honourable Madam Justice C.M. Brochu
Reasons on Motion
Overview
[ 1 ] The applicant has brought a contempt motion and is seeking to have the respondent's Answer struck pursuant to r. 1(8) (c) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, and the consequences pursuant to r. 1(8.4) applied for failing to comply with several court orders related to financial disclosure.
[ 2 ] There is no question that the striking of pleadings is an exception remedy for non-compliance. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that individual disclosure is the lynchpin of our family law system.
[ 3 ] I have found that the circumstances of this case warranted an exceptional remedy for non-compliance.
[ 4 ] The following are my reasons.
Background
[ 5 ] The parties began cohabitating in July 1997. They married on June 26, 2004. They separated on August 14, 2017.
[ 6 ] These proceedings were initiated by the applicant on April 30, 2019. Several motions have been brought to obtain financial disclosure from the respondent.
[ 7 ] There are multiple issues in this matter that cannot be addressed because of the lack of disclosure, including spousal support and equalization. The review of court orders below illustrates the nature of the financial disclosure required for this matter to be finalized.
[ 8 ] The following is a summary of the relevant court orders/endorsements that have been made to date:
1) July 9, 2019 – Endorsement of Newton R.S.J.
a. The respondent is to value his pension forthwith;
b. The respondent is to provide all records relating to Busy Beaver since September 2017, all banking records for the respondent operating as Busy Beaver Fuels and Rainy River Current within 30 days.
c. The parties to share equally in having the cost of the appraisal of the matrimonial house completed.
2) December 3, 2019 – Order of Fregeau J.
a. The Respondent shall comply with all disclosure requirements set out in the Endorsement of Newton J. dated June 9, 2019, on or before January 7, 2020.
3) February 11, 2020 – Order of Warkentin J.
a. Within 10 days the respondent shall provide a list of bank accounts, investments, debts or liabilities in the name of his sole proprietorship Paul Caruso o/s Busy Beaver Fuels.
b. Within 10 days the respondent shall provide a list of bank accounts, investments, debts or liabilities in the name of his corporation The Rainy River Current.
c. Within 20 days the respondent shall provide all sales records of Busy Beaver Fuels for November 1, 2016, to date.
d. The respondent shall on or before March 5, 2020, provide all business bookkeeping records relating to Busy Beaver Fuels for 2019.
4) July 9, 2021 – Order of Nieckarz J.
a. The respondent to immediately comply with paragraph 9 of Warkentin J.'s order by providing copies of his bookkeeping accounts for Busy Beaver Fuels, from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019.
b. The respondent shall provide copies of the bookkeeping records from January 2020 to present and make available for inspection all sale records from November 1, 2016, to the present in accordance with paragraph 8 of Warkentin J.'s order.
c. Upon receipt of verification of payment for the pension valuation by the applicant, if the respondent's position remains that no payment was required for the pension, then he shall provide confirmation from his pension administrator and obtain an explanation form them as to why it was required in this case.
5) February 18, 2025 – Endorsement of Fitzpatrick J.
a. The respondent shall provide a signed Authorization and Direction allowing Solutions Bookkeeping, the respondent's accountant, to provide to the applicant's counsel "any and all financial information concerning the corporation that operated the gas station business and the sole proprietorship that somehow appropriated the asses of the corporation for its own use post separation.
6) March 13, 2025 – Endorsement of Fitzpatrick J.
a. Compliance with the terms of the order of February 18, 2025, is "in the works". Applicant to provide list of all financial documents she requested to be disclosed and produced by or on behalf of the respondent by March 21, 2025. The respondent is to provide the documents requested on or before April 4, 2025.
7) May 23, 2025 – Endorsement of Fitzpatrick J.
a. Ms. Johnson has complied with my order. Mr. Caruso has not.
b. Applicant given leave to bring a motion for contempt or to strike pleadings.
[ 9 ] This is not the first time the applicant has brought a contempt motion seeking similar reliefs. On November 18, 2021, a contempt motion was brought for failing to comply with some of the orders that remain outstanding today. The respondent retained a lawyer, and the motion was eventually dismissed on consent with the understanding that the respondent would comply with the orders.
Legal Framework
[ 10 ] Subrule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules sets out that if a person fails to obey an order in a case, the court may make any order it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including:
a) An order for costs;
b) An order dismissing the claim;
c) An order striking out any pleading (including documents on motion to change), financial statement or any other document filed by a party;
d) An order that all or part of a document the court ordered produced, and was not, may not be used in the case;
e) If the breach is by a party, that the party is not entitled to any further order in the case, unless the court orders otherwise;
f) An order postponing the trial; and
g) On motion, a contempt order.
[ 11 ] In Aslezova v. Khanine, 2023 ONCA 153, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated the following at paras. 9-10:
[9] It is well established that while discretionary, the remedy of striking pleadings is extraordinary and should only be used sparingly and in limited and exceptional circumstances, and when no other remedy would suffice. Such a decision is "driven by the particular facts of each case", including the importance or materiality of the items of disclosure not produced, and the context of the proceedings: [References omitted.]
[10] This court has found that wilful failure to comply with disclosure obligations "must be considered egregious and exceptional," and those who "choose not to disclose financial information or to ignore court orders will be at risk of losing their standing in the proceedings as their claims or answers to claims may be struck". [References omitted.]
Analysis
[ 12 ] A review of the record illustrates the difficulties experienced by the applicant in obtaining disclosure from the respondent.
[ 13 ] Court orders dating back from 2019, 2020 and 2021 remain outstanding. These issues were recently readdressed by Fitzpatrick J. An order was made for disclosure. On March 20, 2025, counsel for the applicant sent a letter to the respondent outlining the documents required, in accordance with the endorsement of Fitzpatrick J. dated March 13, 2025.
[ 14 ] The response from the respondent came in a three-page letter and consisted of what he states he had done for the business, with no supporting documents. He concluded this letter by stating "Their-fore I will not be supplying my books unless ordered".
[ 15 ] This is in 2025, after having been ordered on numerous occasions to supply his "books".
[ 16 ] The applicant acknowledges that on June 12, 2025, the respondent delivered a blue bin full of loose, unorganized documentation to her counsel's office. It is submitted that most of the documents provided are not related to the applicant's request. The documentation is incomplete, for example it includes statements for 2019 for some months but not others.
[ 17 ] The respondent has also provided a handwritten one-page document entitled "Caruso Business Expenses", dated March 4, 2025. He lists expenses for 2019 to 2023. It is unknown where these numbers have been extracted from as no documents were provided to substantiate these figures.
[ 18 ] In response to the applicant's affidavit for this motion, it was the respondent's position that the "boxes of books" were delivered to the applicant's home. It is unclear when this would have occurred. This seems to be a recent position adopted by the respondent. The applicant denies having received or having any of these documents.
[ 19 ] The respondent has appeared in court on several occasions, he has never mentioned having delivered boxes of books to the applicant. This recent position taken by the respondent does not align with his past conduct.
[ 20 ] It is acknowledged that he delivered a blue bin of unorganized documents at the applicant's counsel's office on June 2, 2025. Based on the evidence provided, I accept that this in no way contained all the documentation ordered disclosed by the Court – it did not even scratch the surface.
[ 21 ] It makes no sense for the respondent to raise, for the first time at this motion, that he delivered all the documents directly to the applicant.
[ 22 ] He continues to state that he does not understand the orders and what is being requested of him. And he insists that he has nothing. This is contrary to his comments made in a letter received by the applicant's counsel in response to their March 20, 2025, letter, that he would not be supplying his books unless ordered. This would lead to an inference that he has the "books".
[ 23 ] The respondent has been given ample opportunities to comply with his disclosure obligations. He has consistently advanced that he does not understand the process. I agree with Fitzpatrick J. that this process has been explained to him by several judges on multiple occasions, and detailed orders and endorsements have been drafted to outline specifics on what the respondent is to produce.
[ 24 ] Despite the foregoing, years have passed, and the respondent continues lamenting that he does not know or understand the process and continues to ignore the court orders.
[ 25 ] Most recently, he has shifted to adopting the position that he has delivered, at some untold point in time, all the "books" directly to the applicant.
[ 26 ] I find that the respondent has failed to obey the above-noted orders of this court. He was aware of the court orders, some of them having re-ordered compliance on more than one occasion. He has been given ample opportunities to fulfill his disclosure obligations and to comply with the court orders. As recently as March and May 2025, Fitzpatrick J. provided another opportunity to the respondent to comply with the outstanding orders, and the most recent orders for disclosure. He has not done so.
[ 27 ] It is acknowledged that some information was received, but it is incomplete, and in no way fulfills the disclosure obligations as ordered.
[ 28 ] The respondent's initial response to the applicant's counsel in March/April 2025 (correspondence not dated) was that he would not provide his books unless ordered, even though this had been ordered on more than one occasion. He then provided a mash up of documents in a blue Tupperware bin. And subsequently, he took the position that all the boxes of books were, at some undisclosed time, delivered directly to the applicant.
[ 29 ] This matter has been going on for long enough. The respondent has consistently ignored the Court's orders, when the heat is on, he gets involved, and instead of putting his efforts in complying with orders, he tries to shift blame to the applicant. There needs to be an end to these matters, the respondent has made it clear that he has no intention of complying with these court orders.
[ 30 ] The documents that are being sought by the applicant and have been ordered produced by the Court are material to the outstanding issues of spousal support and equalization.
[ 31 ] I find that the respondent has failed to comply with his disclosure obligations and has failed to comply with this Court's orders. This has caused an inordinate delay in bringing this matter to an end and has caused the applicant to incur substantial costs.
[ 32 ] The respondent has been given several opportunities to comply with the orders. This is not the first time that the applicant has brought a contempt motion. The previous motion was dismissed based on the respondent's promise to provide documents. That did not occur.
Conclusion and Order
[ 33 ] I find that the respondent has failed to abide by the following Court orders:
a. July 9, 2019 – Endorsement of Newton R.S.J.
b. December 3, 2019 – Order of Fregeau J.
c. February 11, 2020 – Order of Warkentin J.
d. July 9, 2021 – Order of Nieckarz J.
e. March 13, 2025 – Endorsement of Fitzpatrick J.
[ 34 ] Having considered all the above factors, I find that it would be futile to make a further order for disclosure. The history of the matter justifies striking the respondent's Answer.
[ 35 ] I note that the draft order provided by the applicant is worded as follows the "Answer and any other documents filed by the Respondent are struck". That request is too broad. A party seeking to strike pleadings and documents should list the documents to be struck. This has not been done.
[ 36 ] I make an order that the Answer filed by the Respondent shall be struck.
[ 37 ] Rule 1(8.4) sets out the consequences of striking out certain documents. These consequences apply unless a court orders otherwise.
[ 38 ] Although the respondent has failed to abide by the court orders for disclosure, the respondent has always participated in these proceedings. As stated, the remedy of striking pleadings is extraordinary and should be used sparingly.
[ 39 ] Consequently, I have narrowed the consequences provided in r. 1(8.4) as follows:
a. The respondent shall be entitled to notice of the uncontested trial.
b. The respondent will not be entitled to file any further documents and/or evidence in these proceedings.
c. Subject to the trial judge's discretion, the respondent shall be entitled to provide brief closing submissions on legal issues.
d. The matter is to be scheduled for an uncontested trial.
Costs
[ 40 ] The applicant was successful with her motion and should be entitled to costs.
[ 41 ] The applicant shall file brief costs submission within 14 days of the release of these Reasons. The submissions are not to exceed three pages, not including any offers to settle or bill of costs.
The Hon. Madam Justice C. M. Brochu
Released: February 13, 2026