The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that granted partial summary judgment in favour of the respondent on the issue of non-disclosure of the appellant Neil's interest in a family trust established by his father Solomon.
The motion judge found that Neil had deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust to Randi when they entered into a separation agreement.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the trust indenture had been disclosed to Randi's counsel and financial advisors, and that Randi was deemed to have knowledge of Neil's interest through her counsel.
The court held that Neil's omission from his financial statements could not transform actual disclosure into non-disclosure under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.
The court also found that even if there had been non-disclosure, the asset was not significant as it constituted excluded property under the Family Law Act.
The claims for conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit, and punitive damages against Solomon were also dismissed as they could not be sustained on the evidence.