Background
The parties married in India in 2003 and immigrated to Canada in
2006. Their daughter was born in 2007 and they separated in
2011. Throughout the marriage, the wife was the primary
caregiver and had limited paid employment. The husband
controlled the family finances and operated multiple businesses,
often through corporations. Following separation, the wife
sought child support, spousal support, financial disclosure,
equalization and divorce. The litigation quickly became
dominated by the husband’s persistent failure to provide
meaningful disclosure.
Call Now
Procedural History
Despite repeated court orders, the husband failed to produce
complete and reliable financial information. His pleadings were
ultimately struck due to ongoing non-compliance, an exceptional
remedy reserved for serious disclosure breaches. Even after
that, he continued to advance unsupported income positions and
resisted support obligations.
Contact Us
Issues
The Court had to determine:
-
Whether the husband’s income should be
imputed for child and spousal support;
-
The proper retroactive and ongoing child and
spousal support;
-
The effect of struck pleadings on the
husband’s ability to contest support; and
-
Whether costs should be awarded and how they
should be enforced.
Call Now
The Law
Courts require full and frank financial disclosure to determine
child and spousal support. Where a payor spouse controls
business income and disclosure is unreliable or withheld, courts
may impute income based on available evidence, lifestyle
indicators, and reasonable inference. Where pleadings are struck
for disclosure failures, the non-compliant party’s ability to
dispute the other party’s evidence is sharply restricted. Courts
may also order significant costs where litigation conduct
undermines the process, particularly where non-disclosure forces
unnecessary motions and delay.
Contact Us
Analysis
When will the Court impute income where a spouse controls
businesses?
The Court imputed income because the husband’s reported earnings
did not reflect his true financial capacity. He controlled
business operations, could influence how income appeared on
paper, and failed to provide coherent financial records. The
Court confirmed that imputation is not punitive it is necessary
to ensure support reflects real ability to pay, especially when
a payor spouse creates uncertainty through non-disclosure.
Call Now
Does the Court need perfect financial proof before imputing
income?
No. The husband argued the Court could not impute income without
precise records. The Court rejected that position: when a
party’s disclosure failures create uncertainty, the Court is
entitled to draw reasonable inferences, and that uncertainty is
resolved against the non-disclosing party.
Contact Us
What is the legal impact of struck pleadings in a support case?
Struck pleadings are not symbolic. Because the husband’s
pleadings were struck, he was substantially limited in disputing
entitlement and quantum. The Court accepted the wife’s evidence
where it was reasonable and internally consistent, noting that
the husband’s conduct eliminated any reliable alternative
evidentiary foundation.
Call Now
Can the Court order large retroactive child and spousal support
where there has been non-disclosure?
Yes. The Court ordered substantial retroactive child support
after finding the husband had the ability to pay during the
retroactive period and the child had been under-supported for
years. Retroactive spousal support was also ordered because the
wife’s economic disadvantage flowed from the marriage and the
husband’s control over finances. The Court rejected “delay”
arguments where delay was tied to the husband’s disclosure
failures.
Contact Us
Can costs be treated as enforceable like support?
Yes, in appropriate cases. Given the husband’s litigation
misconduct, the Court awarded substantial costs to the wife and
emphasized that meaningful enforcement mechanisms were required
particularly where a party deliberately frustrates the court
process and forces the other party to spend money simply to
obtain basic disclosure and support.
-
Can the Judge order costs? Yes, in this case the Judge ordered
$80,000 in costs.
-
Can the court leave the matrimonial home to the wife? Yes, in
this case the husband had substantial assets that were not
disclosed and left the wife with sole ownership of the house.
-
Can the court order child and spousal support arrears if the
payor fails to provide financial disclosure? Yes, in this case
the court ordered the husband to pay $496,716 in arrears of
child and spousal support from 2011 to 2017.
-
Can the court impute income on the husband? Yes, if the
husband works in family-owned businesses and understates his
income and refuses to provide financial disclosure, the court
can impute income.
Call Now
Conclusion
The Court imputed income at a level significantly higher than
the husband’s reported income, ordered substantial retroactive
child support and spousal support, and awarded significant costs
against the husband with enforcement consequences. The decision
reinforces that:
-
non-disclosure, especially by business owners, will lead to
imputed income and adverse inferences;
- struck pleadings have real, case-determinative effects;
-
retroactive support is a predictable remedy where underpayment
results from non-disclosure; and
-
serious litigation misconduct can justify costs that are
enforced with “teeth.”
Contact Us
