Superior Court Penalties

Regions and Judges of Ontario

Peter Karl Roscoe

Nov 2008

Contents

Page

Introduction 1

Summary of Penalties For All Regions 3

Eastern Region

Eastern Region Judicial Summary 6

Eastern Region Financial Data 7

Eastern Region Cases 8

Toronto Region

Toronto Region Judicial Summary 23

Toronto Region Financial Data 24

Toronto Region Cases 25

Central East Region

Central East Region Judicial Summary 42

Central East Region Financial Data 43

Central East Region Cases 44

Central South Region

Central South Region Judicial Summary 61

Central South Region Financial Data 62

Central South Region Cases 63

Central West Region

Central West Region Judicial Summary 78

Central West Region Financial Data 79

Central West Region Cases 80

page

Southwest Region

Southwest Region Region Judicial Summary 93

Southwest Region Region Financial Data 94

Southwest Region Region Cases 95

Northwest Region Region

Northwest Region Region Judicial Summary 104

Northwest Region Region Financial Data 105

Northwest Region Region Cases 106

Northeast Region

Northeast Region Judicial Summary 114

Northeast Region Financial Data 115

Northeast Region Cases 116

Conclusions

Regional Discrimination Indexes 122

Judicial Discrimination Indexes 124

Financial Data 126

Penalties Against Self Represented Litigants 129

Introduction

This study examines 13 potentially punitive measures which may be ordered by Ontario Superior Court judges in family divorce actions. All categories except cost penalties, comes from data collected between Jan 2000 to Oct 2006, on the Canlii legal network. Cost penalties data has been taken from a separate study which extended from Jan 2000 to Aug 2007. All cases which fit category criteria in the timespan have been included. The penalty categories evaluated in this study span most major aspects of divorce. Contempt and default primarily relate to the violation of court orders. They often lead to the imposition of other penalties. Imputed income, prejudgment interest, and lump sums, are representative of financial measures. Imputed income is generally connected with support determinations, and prejudgment interest with equalization. Supervised access reflects concerns regarding children. Added emphasis has been given by using the interim impact on children to assess major and minor penalization with regards to restraining orders and exclusive possession of the family home. Summary judgment and striking pleadings could be described as procedural issues. Cost determinations are made at most hearings. Usually the benefits of cost penalties are given to the party the judge determines to be the overall winner. Not all measures examined could be properly termed as penalties, but they all have the potential of leaving that impression on those whom they are imposed. Extreme applications could most certainly have a punitive quality. To facilitate analysis, penalties have been classified as major or minor. Although a small amount of interpretation must be used in classification, a list of criteria for eah penalty type is reproduced below. In general, it can be said that major penalties are those which most clearly have severe impact on an individual. Or those with the most negative potential on the outcome of the divorce. Total penalties show who received the most penalties and major penalties who received the worst. The one thing all penalties have in common is that they are imposed on divorcing litigants against their will. Consent agreements are not included unless the issue initially consented subsequently becomes contested.

Major and Minor Penalty Classification

Penalty		Minor Penalty	Major Penalty
Contempt	C	Purged, overturned on appeal, minor less than 5 K penalty	Greater than 5 K penalty, imprisonment, or other penalty that would affect divorce outcome
Costs ( before appeal )	Cts
Interim Motion Costs		Less than 6.5 K	Greater than 6.5 K
Divorce Action Costs		Less than 15 K	Greater than 15 K
Post Divorce Action Costs		Less than 10 K	Greater than 10 K
Default	D	Set aside, overturned on appeal, minor less than 5 K penalty	Greater than 5 K penalty, imprisonment, or other penalty that would affect divorce outcome, vesting or charging order
Exclusive Possession of the Family Home	Ep	Overturned, occupancy rent or equivalent payments, non custodial spouse gets the home, minor timespan until sale	Opposing spouse gets interim custody and interim possession of the home
Freezing	F	Removed, overturned on appeal, only against a minor asset, mutual orders	Major or all assets
Imputed Income	Ip	Overturned on appeal, less than 15 % of declared income, support recipient	Over 15 % of declared income
Lump Sum	L	Overturned on appeal, less than 5 K	Greater than 5 K
Prejudment Interest	Pr	Overturned on appeal, Less than 5 K	Greater than 5 K
Restraining Order ( excluding restrained from moving or changing childrens names )	Ro	Overturned on appeal, rescinded, mutual, restrained from moving	Includes children, issued or upheld by the family court, issued by other agency if it results in interim custody, or possession of the family home
Security ( excluding equalization held in trust for both parties )	Sc	Overturned on appeal, insurance policy less than 500 K, passports for access to children	Insurance policy greater than 500 K
Striking Pleadings	St	Overturned on appeal, minor issue or pleading only	All others
Summary Judgment	Js	Overturned on appeal, minor issue only	All others
Supervised Access	Sa	Overturned on appeal, varied before trial, supervised party gets joint or sole custody of children	All others

Penalties may be imposed at interim hearings, divorce trials, and in post divorce actions. Not all cases are reported on legal networks. Interim hearings especially are often underrepresented. . Rulings may sometimes be obtained from other appearances such as trials, variations, appeals, or defaults. The endorsement where the penalty is discussed is the reference given in the case summaries. Penalties were divided into regions by the assignment of the judge who made the rulings. It would appear there is some interregional mobility of judges. A few judges may have been reassigned from other districts, and others may of just been given temporary assignments. Judges who have retired but were active during the time period are included. The nature of legal networks is such that they try to include a full range of examples. This means that most unusual or extreme cases are recorded. The result is that minor penalties may be under reported, but most major penalties should be represented. Since penalties against females are less common it is likely that they are mostly reported. Case summaries for all the data used in this study may be found after the judicial and financial data for each region. Conclusions follow on page .

Data Summary

MJ = Male Judge FJ = Female Judge

	Penalties Against Men				Penalties Against Women
Region	# Male Judges	# M J Rulings	# Female Judges	# F J Rulings	# Male Judges	# M J Rulings	# Female Judges	# F J Rulings
Eastern
Total Penalties	20	86	10	154	7	12	5	18
Major Penalties	15	46	10	102	1	1	2	4
Toronto
Total Penalties	16	73	24	203	5	6	11	29
Major Penalties	15	55	23	155	1	2	3	9
Central East
Total Penalties	17	122	9	104	9	23	7	14
Major Penalties	14	82	9	85	8	13	4	6
Central South
Total Penalties	25	192	5	19	12	44	2	3
Major Penalties	23	122	5	13	9	15	1	1
Central West
Total Penalties	13	117	6	65	12	30	5	22
Major Penalties	13	75	6	46	4	4	2	8
South West
Total Penalties	15	95	6	31	8	22	4	10
Major Penalties	14	59	6	17	3	4	2	2
North West
Total Penalties	9	77	1	23	9	25	1	8
Major Penalties	9	39	1	14	6	9	1	3
North East
Total Penalties	8	44	3	22	7	11	4	5
Major Penalties	7	30	2	13	1	5	1	2
Total Penalties	123	806	64	621	69	173	39	109
Major Penalties	110	509	63	445	33	53	16	35

Penalties Against Men

	Type of Penalty
Region	C	Cts	D	Ep	F	Ip	Js	L	Pr	Ro	Sa	Sc	St
Eastern
Total Penalties	6	76	12	9	9	32	2	18	9	25	12	20	10
Major Penalties	2	33	8	6	7	27	2	16	4	16	11	7	8
Toronto
Total Penalties	8	70	14	12	13	56	5	23	10	16	4	36	7
Major Penalties	7	41	10	8	11	53	5	22	5	10	3	23	7
Central East
Total Penalties	3	55	12	8	8	36	5	17	6	23	14	25	15
Major Penalties	2	28	9	7	7	34	4	13	1	17	12	20	14
Central South
Total Penalties	1	90	5	13	4	25	3	14	9	15	15	13	1
Major Penalties	0	43	4	8	5	23	2	14	4	12	12	5	1
Central West
Total Penalties	2	43	7	6	15	41	4	19	7	14	7	17	1
Major Penalties	2	24	4	4	6	38	3	14	2	6	6	12	1
South West
Total Penalties	3	28	4	3	3	19	2	26	3	10	4	19	3
Major Penalties	3	10	3	1	2	17	2	21	1	4	3	6	2
North West
Total Penalties	2	26	3	8	8	9	2	8	3	12	2	17	1
Major Penalties	1	7	3	6	6	6	2	5	3	8	2	5	1
North East
Total Penalties	0	15	7	4	2	15	1	7	2	5	1	7	0
Major Penalties	0	6	7	4	0	12	1	6	1	3	1	3	0
Total Penalties	27	402	64	63	62	233	24	132	49	120	59	154	38
Major Penalties	17	192	48	44	44	210	21	111	26	76	50	81	34

Penalties Against Women

	Type of Penalty
Region	C	Cts	D	Ep	F	Ip	Js	L	Pr	Ro	Sa	Sc	St
Eastern
Total Penalties	2	14	2	1	2	3	0	0	0	3	1	1	1
Major Penalties	0	3	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
Toronto
Total Penalties	1	13	4	1	6	2	0	0	0	4	1	1	2
Major Penalties	0	4	0	0	3	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
Central East
Total Penalties	2	17	0	1	3	8	0	1	0	3	2	0	0
Major Penalties	2	8	0	1	2	2	0	1	0	2	2	0	0
Central South
Total Penalties	2	27	0	3	1	6	0	0	0	7	0	0	1
Major Penalties	1	11	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	1
Central West
Total Penalties	5	16	0	3	13	4	1	0	0	8	3	0	0
Major Penalties	3	4	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	0	0
South West
Total Penalties	3	11	0	0	0	7	4	0	0	2	1	0	0
Major Penalties	1	2	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
North West
Total Penalties	0	14	1	1	1	2	2	1	2	5	2	1	1
Major Penalties	0	3	0	0	0	1	2	1	0	2	1	0	1
North East
Total Penalties	1	5	0	0	2	5	0	0	1	0	0	1	1
Major Penalties	1	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Total Penalties	16	117	7	10	28	37	7	2	3	32	10	4	6
Major Penalties	8	37	0	3	5	8	4	2	1	9	7	0	4

Eastern Region Penalties and Cost Penalties Summary

Contents

1 Sex of judge M – Male F - Female

2 Region E - Eastern Region

# p – number of penalties # sr – number of penalties to self represented litigants

			Penalties Against Men				Penalties Against Women
			Total		Major		Total		Major
Judge	1	2	# p	# sr	# p	# sr	# p	# sr	# p	# sr

Aiken	F	E	33	13	20	9	2	1	0	0
Blishen	F	E	25	12	20	10	2	0	0	0
De Sousa	F	E	33	16	26	14	6	0	2	0
LaFrance-Cardinal	F	E	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
Mackinnon J	F	E	38	9	20	3	7	0	2	0
Metivier	F	E	10	5	3	1	0	0	0	0
Polowin	F	E	6	2	2	0	1	1	0	0
Robertson	F	E	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
Toscano Roccano	F	E	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
Trousdale	F	E	5	5	5	5	0	0	0	0
Belch	M	E	9	4	6	2	1	0	0	0
Chadwick	M	E	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
Charboneau	M	E	3	1	3	1	1	0	0	0
Cosgrove	M	E	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
Cusson	M	E	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
Hackland	M	E	5	0	3	0	2	0	0	0
Kealy	M	E	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Lalonde	M	E	9	6	7	5	4	3	1	0
Mackinnon C	M	E	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Macleod	M	E	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
Manton	M	E	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Maranger	M	E	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
Panet	M	E	6	3	2	2	1	0	0	0
Pedlar	M	E	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Power	M	E	16	10	9	5	0	0	0	0
Roy	M	E	4	4	2	2	0	0	0	0
Rutherford	M	E	9	4	4	3	2	0	0	0
Sedgwick	M	E	5	2	4	2	0	0	0	0
Sheffield	M	E	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Smith R	M	E	6	2	1	0	1	1	1	1

Female Judges	10	154	62	102	44	18	2	4	0
Male judges	20	86	40	46	24	12	4	1	1
Total	30	240	103	146	68	30	6	5	1

Eastern Region Financial Data ( in 1000 $’s )

Male Lump Sums missing 2

N = 16 Mean = 47.4 Total = 758.4

3.300 4.100 5.400 6.000 8.000 8.000 10.00 23.00 36.00 40.00 42.00 45.00 52.00 54.00 57.00 365.0

Male Imputed Income missing 2

N = 28 Mean = 43.8 Total = 1226.2

2.000 5.600 8.000 11.00 13.00 13.00 15.00 18.00 25.00 25.00 27.00 28.00 28.00 31.00 33.00 40.00 40.00 45.00 47.00 50.00 61.60 68.00 69.00 85.00 94.00 97.00 115.0 132.0

Male Cost Penalties

N = 78 Mean = 12.3 Total = 978.9

0.5000 0.8000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.600 1.800 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.800 3.800 3.800 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.100 4.300 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.500 5.700 5.800 6.500 6.500 7.500 7.500 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.500 9.000 9.000 9.600 9.700 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 12.10 15.00 15.00 17.00 18.00 18.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 25.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 36.90 40.00 40.00 49.00 50.70 60.90 95.00

Female Cost Penalties

N = 14 Mean = 13.4 Total = 187.6

1.000 1.300 1.500 3.000 4.500 4.800 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 10.00 20.00 46.00 70.00

Eastern Region Case Summary

1) Penalties Against Men

Contents

1 Sex of Judge M – male F - female

2 Region Ce – central east Cs – central south Cw – central east

E – eastern Ne – north east Nw – north west

Sw – south west T - Toronto

3 Sex of Mans Lawyer M – male F – female L – lawyer sr – self represented ex – ex parte

4 Sex of Womans Lawyer M – male F – female L – lawyer sr – self represented ex – ex parte

5 Major or Minor Penalty mj – major mn - minor

6 Type of Penalty C – contempt Cts – costs D – default

Ep – exclusive possession of the family home F – freezing assets

Js – summary judgment Ip – imputed income L – lump sum

Pr – prejudgment interest Ro - restraining order Sa - supervised access

Sc – security St – striking pleadings

7 Amount of impution of yearly income, or total cost penalty, or lump sum ( in 1000 $’s )

Judge

1

2

3

4

Case

5

6

7

Description

Aitken	F	E	M	M	Abaza v. Abaza, 2001 CanLII 28192 (ON S.C.)	mj	Ip	25.0	Man claims 125 K income and is imputed to 171 by Mackinnon J and 150 K by Aitken J, 4.8 K per month total support
Aitken	F	E	M	M	Abaza v. Abaza, 2001 CanLII 28192 (ON S.C.)	mj	Pr		Wife gets unstated prejudgment interest, she is denied exclusive possession but family home is vested to her
Aitken	F	E	M	M	Bhoi v. Bhoi, 2001 CanLII 28172 (ON S.C.)	mn	C		Contempt $ 500 fine
Aitken	F	E	M	M	Bhoi v. Bhoi, 2001 CanLII 28172 (ON S.C.)	mn	Cts	2.0	2 K costs of motion
Aitken	F	E	M	M	Bhoi v. Bhoi, 2001 CanLII 28172 (ON S.C.)	mn	Sc		Man must designate wife as beneficiary of insurance policy
Aitken	F	E	sr	M	Brown v. Brown, 2004 CanLII 12750 (ON S.C.)	mj	Ip	13.0	Man declared 2 K income imputed to 15 K, man claims to be disabled but court finds he has a cash business
Aitken	F	E	sr	M	Brown v. Brown, 2004 CanLII 12750 (ON S.C.)	mj	Sc		Woman owes man equalization but his income imputed and his equalization held as security for child support payments, unemployed, denied spousal support
Aitken	F	E	M	F	Buttrum v. Buttrum, 2001 CanLII 28187 (ON S.C.)	mj	L	36.0	36 K lump sum for spousal support
Aitken	F	E	M	F	Buttrum v. Buttrum, 2001 CanLII 28187 (ON S.C.)	mn	Pr		Prejudgment interest on equalization
Aitken	F	E	M	F	Buttrum v. Buttrum, 2001 CanLII 28187 (ON S.C.)	mn	Sc		Man must maintain a 100 K life insurance policy, also freezing order by Brennan J
Aitken	F	E	F	M	Cameron v. MacGillivray, 2005 CanLII 47696 (ON S.C.)	mn	Pr		Wife awarded prejudgment interest on 12 K equalization
Aitken	F	E	sr	M	Doherty v. Wilcox, 2007 CanLII 5527 (ON S.C.)	mn	Cts	4.0	Support variation, divided success, wife asks 8.3 K and gets 4 K
Aitken	F	E	sr	F	Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2005 CanLII 47744 (ON S.C.)	mn	Cts	5.0	5 K cost award for divorce trial, 5 K for 2 interim cost awards also
Aitken	F	E	sr	F	J.R. v. J.G., 2005 CanLII 14983 (ON S.C.)	mj	Ro		Restraining order for threatening, police assistance in retrieving items refused, mans contempt motion dismissed as he violated court orders, aceess to son suspended until he has counselling
Aitken	F	E	F	M	Jonas v. Da Silva, 2003 CanLII 49354 (ON S.C.)	mj	F		40 K lump sum support, security on home and possessions and new wifes assets, pleadings struck, 21 K ordered paid to court, man and new wife sentenced to jail, costs, garnishment of wages 70 %
Aitken	F	E	F	M	Jonas v. Da Silva, 2003 CanLII 49354 (ON S.C.)	mj	L	40.0	40 K lump sum support, security on home and possessions and new wifes assets, pleadings struck, 21K ordered paid to court, man and new wife sentenced to jail, costs, garnishment of wages 70 %
Aitken	F	E	F	M	Jonas v. Da Silva, 2003 CanLII 49354 (ON S.C.)