Compliance with a disclosure order does not constitute attornment to jurisdiction: court
The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected a husband's motion to stay a financial disclosure order despite his challenge to the court's jurisdiction.
In Trop v. Trop, 2024 ONCA 855, the court ruled that the husband failed to demonstrate the conditions necessary for a stay and emphasized the importance of financial disclosure in family law proceedings.
The dispute arose from an order by a lower court judge requiring the husband to provide updated financial information within 30 days. The husband argued that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, asserting that the issues should be resolved in Texas, where he had initiated proceedings and where the wife is challenging jurisdiction. The husband sought a stay of the financial disclosure order, claiming that compliance would amount to attornment to Ontario’s jurisdiction and undermine his jurisdictional challenge.
The Court of Appeal applied the three-part test for a stay, requiring the moving party to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and that the balance of convenience favours the stay. While the court acknowledged that a serious issue to be tried exists, it rejected the husband’s argument that complying with the financial disclosure order would result in irreparable harm.
The court ruled that compliance with a disclosure order does not constitute attornment to jurisdiction. Citing case law, the court noted that only voluntary steps indicating acceptance of the court's authority amount to attornment. Since the husband had already provided an initial financial statement and contested jurisdiction in his pleadings, the court found no reason to treat further disclosure as attornment.
The court also emphasized the critical role of financial disclosure in family law proceedings. It highlighted that such disclosure is an ongoing obligation and essential to the administration of justice. Delays or failures to disclose financial information impede the progress of cases and disadvantage the opposing party.
The balance of convenience favoured the wife, as she is entitled to financial disclosure regardless of the jurisdictional dispute. The court found no evidence that the husband would avoid similar disclosure requirements even if the case were transferred to Texas.
Additionally, the court criticized the husband’s delay in seeking the stay, noting that he filed the motion weeks after the compliance deadline. This failure to adhere to the court's order weighed against granting the equitable remedy of a stay. Ultimately, the court ordered the husband to comply with the financial disclosure order.
