Wife had 'misguided view' that obeying orders is optional, but judge gives her a chance to comply
An Ontario Superior Court of Justice family division judge stressed the importance of complying with court orders in ruling on a case where an estranged spouse chose not to follow directives about not talking about the divorce proceedings in front of her children and for not providing sufficient details about joint cryptocurrency accounts she had access to.
“It is apparent that RM’s misguided view to date has been that her compliance is optional,” wrote Justice Peter Douglas in a recent decision.
“I cannot emphasize strongly enough how dangerous this view is. If RM [the wife whose husband alleged she broke the court orders] wishes to ensure she is not precluded from ongoing active participation in this proceeding, she must comply with orders of this court to the very best of her ability.”
Isidoro R. Grossi, lawyer for RM’s estranged spouse, AF, said, “In my opinion, what the judge is saying is, ‘Listen, court orders are meant to be followed, and you can’t take these things lightly.’”
However, in considering what penalty he might impose, Justice Douglas said, “Before I consider which options are best suited to the circumstances before me, I intend to give RM an opportunity to bring herself into compliance as a demonstration that she has developed an understanding of the importance of compliance with orders of the court.”
He noted that remedies - which include “costs, dismissal of RM’s claims, striking RM’s pleadings, denial of further audience to RM and a . . . motion for contempt” can be “expensive and procedurally devastating.”
Instead, he adjourned the matter until later this summer, when a Zoom call will be held to address RM’s compliance. This includes whether she will authorize the release of payments to AF that should have been paid to cover shared expenses, and repay money she removed from the couple’s joint account.
The judge also ordered RM to provide confirmation of the total number of cryptocurrency accounts she established, either in her name, AF’s name, both parties’ names or jointly with any third party. She is also to confirm the account numbers and provide login information for these accounts. If she is not able to comply, she must provide an affidavit detailing
efforts to comply and explain why compliance is not possible.
Justice Douglas reserved his decision on costs.
The parties married on Sept.22, 2001, and separated on Sept.1, 2022. They have two children, a 20-year-old daughter and a 17-year-old son. The former marital home was sold, and the net proceeds are now in a trust account.
Justice Douglas’s decision resulted from a motion from AF, seeking a finding that RM breached court orders granted Nov. 18, 2022, and May 8, 2023.
The first order imposed disclosure obligations, granting exclusive possession of the marital home to AF, granting leave for questioning, and prohibiting certain activities by both parties, including an order that the parties “shall not speak about this litigation in front of the children...nor shall they permit their family members to do so.”
The second order imposed further disclosure obligations upon RM and fixed dates for questioning of the parties in June 2023, an event RM did not attend.
However, in alleging that RM was discussing the divorce with the children, AF said he received a text from his daughter insisting he not attend court on Jan.4, 2023, and that [the daughter] must have received information about the court appearance from RM.
AF also said RM attended the marital home with the children on Jan.16, 2023, for three hours, during which RM texted him: “The kids are disgusted!! You are sick.” The children also messaged AF directly, asking his whereabouts.
RM again attended the marital home on Jan.22, 2023, with the children, who dismantled furniture that AF and RM had not agreed to remove.
In her affidavit, RM responded: “I have not spoken about this litigation in front of
the children; however, if asked a question by the children of their own volition, I
cannot lie to them.” During submissions, RM conceded she had likely been overheard by her daughter at least twice when RM was discussing the litigation with one of her parents.
Justice Douglas wrote in his decision: “RM’s evidence is internally inconsistent. At the same time that she swears she has not spoken about the litigation in front of the children, she admits doing so when asked by the children.”
He added: “I am concerned by RM’s decision to directly involve the children in her attendance at the marital home.”. However, Justice Douglas did not regard the children’s attendance as a breach of the order. “At the same time, I do note RM’s failure to respect the admonition in my . . . endorsement to refrain from involving the children directly in this dispute.”
Also, the “responsible and order-compliant response to a query from the children [would have been] to decline answering, as it is a matter between the parents.”
As for providing full disclosure of the cryptocurrency accounts, Justice Douglas says he is “not satisfied RM has fully exhausted her best efforts” to comply with obligations under the outstanding orders and notes that the information she was ordered to disclose is “readily obtainable.”
Justice Douglas also wrote that “there is no dispute” that RM breached the November 2022 order that requires both parties to share certain expenses. RM said she did her best to comply, but couldn’t, and now proposes to settle her obligation with her share of the proceeds from the marital home.
Likewise, RM failed to get written consent from AF when she withdrew money from a joint savings account, as she was obligated to do under the court order. RM said she provided notice in writing and needed the money for her daughter’s university expenses. Still, Justice Douglas says this was “clearly insufficient” to comply with the court.
AF’s lawyer, Grossi, said that “the judge was right” to allow RM to rectify her failure to comply with the orders. “If there was any misunderstanding before, there should be no misunderstanding now.”
He added: “If you don’t agree with a court order, or you are having problems complying, you don’t just ignore it. There are legal means to challenge it, like requesting that an order be set aside or changed.”
Grossi also agreed with the judge’s comments on keeping children out of the dispute between estranged parents. “There is no reason for the children to be brought into the litigation proceedings. They should not be used as pawns.”
