The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from an order striking the appellants’ defence for repeated non-compliance with production orders in estate litigation.
Because the appellant's Charter s.2(a) claim raises issues that require adjudicative facts (notably sincerity and the extent of interference) and because the respondent's cross-appeal relies on the same testimony, the Registrar ordered the appellant to obtain transcripts of the parties' testimony at trial; cost concerns acknowledged but cannot justify depriving the Court of the evidence necessary to decide the appeal or to exercise discretion on entertaining new Charter arguments on appeal.
Source excerpt
Get (religious divorce)
Freedom of religion (s.2(a) charter)
Contempt
Transcript settlement
Admission of new constitutional arguments on appeal
The court adjourned a contempt finding to trial, ordered additional steps to obtain UK financial records, and imposed a $5,000 fine for past disclosure non-compliance.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the striking of a contempt motion against non-parties and dismissed the appeal, while granting leave on costs but rejecting the costs appeal.
The court dismissed cross-applications to remove an estate administrator and to release funds, but ordered disclosure steps and payment of prior costs from the administrator’s share.
The court dismissed a summary trial application over a building scheme, finding the record too undeveloped to decide broad injunctions and tenancy issues.
The court found the defendants in contempt of an interim order after they allowed vehicles to be parked on an easement, hindering the plaintiffs’ access.
The Federal Court awarded the Applicants all-inclusive lump-sum costs of $35,000 after contempt proceedings, and barred use of CTKFN funds to pay the order.
The judge granted a limited stay under s.134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act because the RJR‑MacDonald criteria were met and, absent a stay, the April 18, 2023 contempt order and warrant of committal could render part of the appellant's pending appeal moot; however the stay was granted only until the disposition of the appellant's November 19, 2025 motion in the Superior Court because the single judge would not preempt that court's determination and lacked jurisdiction to void the warrant outright.
The court granted a divorce, varied an interim child support order by imputing the claimant’s income at $50,000, and dismissed an interim sale of the family home and s. 228 FLA fines.