The court found she had also 'recklessly dissipated' family assets
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a wife's financial claims in a divorce case, finding that she had been addicted to gambling and recklessly dissipated family assets.
In Moretti v. Moretti, 2023 ONSC 5240, the court dismissed all claims between Maria and Tony Moretti in a protracted legal dispute over financial matters that began with their separation in 2016. The couple had been married since 2002 but separated in 2016, leading to their divorce in 2019. They have one son, Leo, who remains a "child of the marriage" even though he is an adult because he lives with autism.
Leo and his mother, Maria, live at 118 Gilley Road, once the matrimonial home. Tony owned the property, but he was ousted from the house after he was charged with assaulting Maria. Since separation, Maria has lived in the former matrimonial home with her ex-husband, Manuel Cardoso, who claims to live in the basement. He pays her $800 every month and assists with Leo.
The central issues presented in the trial were primarily financial, with Maria seeking retroactive and continuing child and spousal support, equalization, and a 50 percent interest in the matrimonial home. On the other hand, Tony argued that Maria dissipated family assets, totalling $5 million, due to her gambling addiction. Tony asserted that Maria is disentitled from various financial claims, including an equalization payment, spousal and child support.
The court ultimately dismissed all claims by Maria and Tony against each other, except for the outstanding support issue for Leo. Maria's gambling addiction became a focal point of the trial. Maria claimed that from 2016 to 2021, she deposited over $2 million into her bank accounts. Deposits during the marriage were close to $3 million. Maria said these were all the amounts that others gave her to play the slots because she was lucky. The court did not find Maria a credible witness overall, and she had not met her burden of satisfying the court on a balance of probabilities that none of the over $2 million in her accounts was money she earned or owned.
After reviewing the evidence, the court did not find that Maria suffered any disadvantage from her role in the marriage and suffered no financial burden from the marriage breakdown. From 2016 to the trial date, Maria's bank records show over $2 million in deposits, while Tony earned a modest average income of $50,000. The court emphasized that it was not for Tony to show that the $2 million was income. Instead, it was for Maria to show that it was not, but the court found that she had failed.
Moreover, the court said Maria did not tender any medical or vocational evidence to conclude that he was unable to work and entitled to support. As a result, the court dismissed Maria's claim for retroactive and ongoing spousal support.
The court also found that Maria had recklessly dissipated family assets, so she is not entitled to equalization. The court said Maria gambled away funds she could have used to cover family expenses or invest for her and Leo's future.
The court explained that under the Family Law Act, the court might award a spouse an amount that is less than half the difference between the net family properties if the court believes that equalizing net family property would be unconscionable, having regard to reckless depletion of her net family property and the fact that one spouse, in this case, Tony, incurred disproportionately larger liabilities to support Maria during the marriage.
The court found that Maria "did what she pleased and recklessly depleted funds." In addition to the gambling, Tony had to sell a property, give Maria $400,000 and take out a line of credit against the matrimonial home to pay her an additional $180,000 due to loan repayment obligations she had to friends.
The court said that Tony took on a more significant burden to assist Maria despite her gambling and that "Maria's behaviour shocks this court's conscience." As a result, the court ruled that an unequal division is warranted.
Ultimately, the court dismissed all claims between Maria and Tony. The only outstanding issue was support for Leo, which required further information on Leo's circumstances for the court to correctly assess what Tony may owe for ongoing child support.
