The court also condemned offensive and unfounded allegations against the trial judge's impartiality
In a recent family law case, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s decision to deny claims for equalization payments and spousal support, while affirming an award of damages for physical and psychological abuse.
The dispute in Wang v. Li, 2024 ONCA 819 arose from a marriage that began in 2013 and ended in 2017. The trial judge had ruled against the appellant, who sought equalization of net family properties, a declaration of trust over the matrimonial home, and spousal support. Instead, the trial court granted the respondent exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, an unequal division of net family properties, and $75,000 in damages for physical and psychological abuse.
The trial judge found that the respondent used her funds from the sale of a business in China to purchase the matrimonial home and cover the couple’s expenses during cohabitation. The home was registered solely in the respondent's name, and the judge concluded that no portion of it was held in trust for the appellant. Furthermore, the judge determined that requiring an equalization payment would be unconscionable, citing factors such as the short duration of the marriage, the respondent’s disproportionate financial contributions, and the appellant’s false financial disclosures and controlling behaviour.
The trial judge also denied spousal support, noting that the appellant had not taken steps toward self-sufficiency and that the marriage provided no basis for compensatory or non-compensatory support.
The appellate court upheld these findings, rejecting the appellant’s arguments regarding errors in the trial judge’s assessment of evidence. The court emphasized that the trial judge’s findings were supported by the record, including contemporaneous financial documents and testimony.
The court also dismissed the appellant’s application to introduce fresh evidence, including a handwriting examination report and additional documents, finding that the evidence could have been presented at trial and was unlikely to have affected the outcome.
In its decision, the appellate court condemned offensive and unfounded allegations made by the appellant about the trial judge’s impartiality, describing them as reprehensible and inconsistent with Canadian values. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal.
