|
Family - Financial Disclosure. G.S. v. S.B.
In G.S. v. S.B. (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered an issue of 'imputed income', here in a family law context:Did the trial judge err in imputing income to the father without an evidentiary basis?
[47] In his written submissions, the father argued that the trial judge had little evidentiary basis for imputing income of $50,000 to him. He did not pursue this argument orally. I find it to be unpersuasive.
[48] The Court of Appeal has recently emphasized that “disclosure is the lynchpin of our family law system”: Ferguson v. Ferguson, 2022 ONCA 543, at para. 28. Without adequate, accurate, and timely financial disclosure, trial judges are left in the unenviable position of determining income on the limited evidence available. Here, the father did not provide the financial disclosure necessary to properly determine his income. He was on notice that this could give rise to an adverse inference.
[49] The trial judge did not choose an arbitrary figure for his income. She relied on the evidence available to her. She noted that the father previously had an income of almost $135,000 and that he appeared to have made no efforts to become employed since his nightclub closed due to COVID-19. His lifestyle was reflective of a person who had access to capital, and he owned a house worth at least $1.65 million. This evidence supported her imputation of income for support purposes in the amount of $50,000. . Janzen v. Cook
In Janzen v. Cook (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers the importance of financial disclosure in family separations:[9] I accept completely the statement this court made in Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6, at para. 11, that: “The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information.” This obligation is immediate and ongoing in family law proceedings, and a failure to comply can lead, as it did in Roberts, to a defaulting party’s pleadings being struck and their right to contest the proceeding being taken away. . Cronier v. Cusack
In Cronier v. Cusack (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a 'net family property' equalization application:[20] While the parties’ NFP statements must be considered by the trial judge, as with any evidence presented to the court, the trier of fact can accept none, some, or all of it: Sagl v. Sagl, 1997 CanLII 12248 (ON SC), 31 R.F.L. (4th) 405 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 30; Qaraan v. Qaraan, 2012 ONSC 6017, at para. 35. In this case, there were numerous NFP statements prepared before, during and after the trial, along with oral and documentary evidence from both parties. As the evidence was adduced during the trial, updated NFP statements were produced. This is not unusual, and indeed, may helpfully respond to the court’s resolution of certain key factual disputes, such as the separation date, and so assist the parties and the court in focussing on the outstanding issues.
[21] In this case, the parties did not follow the trial judge’s directions, rending their updated NFP statements unhelpful. The trial judge issued reasons for decision after the trial, asking the parties to prepare new NFP statements reflecting his determinations of various asset values. This is a common and sensible approach, which reflects the fact that it is not the responsibility of the court to prepare such statements. It is up to the parties to prepare and submit their NFP statements: Cong v. Cong, 2007 CanLII 7994 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 38. However, where, as here, the parties fail to accept the trial judge’s determinations, the revised NFPs do not assist. . Lalande v. Lalande
In Lalande v. Lalande (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal noted the importance of financial disclosure in family law:[5] We do not accept any of these arguments. The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information. This requirement is immediate and ongoing: Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6, at para. 11. . Adler v. Deloitte Touche Tohamtsu
In Adler v. Deloitte Touche Tohamtsu (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal stated the importance of financial disclosure in family law:[21] The obligation of financial disclosure in family law litigation is basic. Despite extensive jurisprudence and rule amendments, litigants continue to resist disclosure. Full financial disclosure is immediate and absolute. Failure to disclose has been called “the cancer of family law litigation”: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, 449 D.L.R. (4th) 147, at para. 33. This court has repeatedly echoed similar comments. The documents are clearly relevant and would be required to be produced in Ontario.
|
