The relevance of the information sought is a paramount consideration: court
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has mandated a financial disclosure in a divorce case and clarified the applicable legal standards regarding disclosure.
In Anthony v. Anthony, 2024 NSSC 10, the court addressed extensive disclosure requests in a divorce and property division case between Beverley Anthony and Kenneth Anthony. Beverley filed a motion for comprehensive financial disclosure from Kenneth and several businesses associated with him.
Beverley, a former teacher, initiated the motion as part of her ongoing legal battle over property division, the alleged tort of conversion of matrimonial property, and spousal support following their separation in August 2021. The couple, who were married in 1990 and have two adult children, have not resolved these issues since their separation.
Most Read
Kenneth, who is involved in property development and apartment rentals, had consented to some disclosure but resisted other requests. His objections were based on claims that some businesses were non-operational or did not exist, that he did not control certain companies, and that the requests were overly broad and constituted a fishing expedition. He also argued that the volume of requests violated the principle of proportionality.
The Supreme Court clarified several legal standards regarding disclosure. It ruled that relevance of the information sought is paramount, and the requests must be supported by evidence to avoid characterizing them as mere fishing expeditions. The court also emphasized the importance of proportionality in considering the volume and scope of disclosure.
The court ordered Kenneth to produce personal financial records and certain business records. It was decided that he must disclose information from a company he was found to be associated with, even though he is not a controlling shareholder. This includes financial statements, tax returns, and shareholder loan account transactions for the last ten years.
However, the court did not require disclosure for several other companies mentioned in the motion. These companies were either non-operational or where Kenneth’s ownership or control was not established.
The court’s ruling underscored the obligations of parties in a divorce to provide meaningful financial disclosures to enable fair resolution of claims. The court further stressed that transparency in financial matters is crucial to justly resolving disputes over property division and spousal support. Ultimately, the court ordered 60 days for the completion of the ordered disclosures, with a note that costs would be addressed if the parties could not reach an agreement.
