Florovski v. Florovski
The motion judge did not err in declining to enforce a penalty that appeared disproportionate and properly left interpretation and enforcement of the disclosure penalty to the trial judge; because the order was interlocutory it was not appealable to this court and the appeal was quashed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2021 ONCA 606
- Parties
- Appellant: Diane Florovski; Respondent: Louie Florovski
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 September 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Family / Interlocutory Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal quashed
- Legal Topics
- Disclosure, Sanctions, Appealability, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Diane Florovski
Appellant
Louie Florovski
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family / Interlocutory Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the daily $500 disclosure penalty should be enforced and accumulated to $224,000
- 2 Whether the motion judge erred in declining to strike the respondent’s pleading
- 3 Whether an interlocutory order of this nature is appealable to the Court of Appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge did not err in declining to enforce a penalty that appeared disproportionate and properly left interpretation and enforcement of the disclosure penalty to the trial judge; because the order was interlocutory it was not appealable to this court and the appeal was quashed.
Court Disposition
Appeal quashed
Orders
- Appeal quashed.
- Costs payable by the appellant to the respondent in the amount of $15,000, all inclusive.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Florovski v. Florovski Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2021-09-10 Neutral citation 2021 ONCA 606 Docket numbers C68917 Judges Strathy, George R.; Lauwers, Peter D.; Sossin, Lorne Subject Family Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Florovski v. Florovski, 2021 ONCA 606 DATE: 20210910 DOCKET: C68917 Strathy C.J.O., Lauwers and Sossin JJ.A. BETWEEN Diane Florovski Applicant (Appellant) and Louie Florovski Respondent (Respondent) Fadwa Yehia and Gabrielle Pop-Lazic, for the appellant Christina Doris and Sydney Bunting, for the respondent Heard: September 3, 2021 by video conference On appeal from the order of Justice Richard T. Bennett of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 2, 2020, with reasons reported at 2020 ONSC 7486. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] In this family law case, Vallee J. made an order requiring the respondent to make full disclosure, building in a daily $500 financial penalty for any failure to do so on a timely basis (August 26, 2019 - 2019 ONSC 5013). The appellant moved to strike the respondent’s pleading and to enforce the penalty, which by then had accumulated to the total of $224,000, even though disclosure was relatively complete. The motion judge declined to do so and left the proper application of the penalty provision in the order of Vallee J. to the trial judge, as all parties acknowledge. He did not err in declining to enforce a penalty that appeared to be disproportionate to the degree of non-disclosure. Because this was an interlocutory order, it is not appealable to this court. The appeal is quashed with costs payable by the appellant to the respondent in the amount of $15,000, all inclusive. “G.R. Strathy C.J.O.” “P. Lauwers J.A.” “L. Sossin J.A.”