View Single Post
Old 04-14-2010, 10:24 PM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity

Needs vs. means on the Spousal Support. As demonstrated your ex has survived 3.5 years without.

Because of non-compliance of court orders - What stance do they have to bring further equitable relief application... Clean Hands Doctrine may apply.

Beidas v. Pichler (Legassé), 2008 CanLII 26255 (ON S.C.D.C.)
“Clean Hands”

[17] In Sherwood Dash Inc. v. Woodview Products Inc. [2005] O.J. No. 5298, P.M. Perell J. quoted the often-cited maxim that one who seeks equity must have clean hands. He said as follows in paragraphs 51-53:

An injunction is an equitable remedy and it is subject to the principles that govern the grant of equitable decrees and orders. One of those principles is the maxim that "one who comes to equity with clean hands."

As commentators and judges have noted, the metaphor that a claimant for equitable relief must have clean hands must be put into context. Judges of the courts of equity do not deny relief because the claimant is a villain or wrongdoer; rather, the judges deny relief when the claimant's wrongdoing taints the appropriateness of the remedy being sought from the court. In Argyll v. Argyll, [1967] Ch. 302, Ungoed-Thomas, J. described the principle nicely at pp. 331-2, when he said: "A person coming to Equity for relief ... must come with clean hands; but the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought."

In City of Toronto v. Polai, (1969), 8 D.L.R. (3d) 689 (Ont. C.A.), in describing the clean hands principle Schroeder, J.A. stated at pp. 699-70:

The misconduct charged against the plaintiff as ground for invoking the maxim against him must relate directly to the very transaction concerning which the complaint is made, and not merely to the general morals or conduct of the person seeking relief; or as is indicated by the reporter's note in the old case of Jones v. Lenthal (1669), 1 Chan. Cas. 154, 22 E.R. 739: "... that the iniquity must be done to the defendant himself."

[18] In Regina v. Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Inc., 1995 CanLII 1527 (ON C.A.), [1995] O.J. No. 1855, 24 O.R. (3d) 564, the Court of Appeal stated as follows at paragraph 133:

A Mareva injunction is a discretionary equitable remedy. It will only be granted to a person "who has clean hands". It is on this basis that the requirement for full and frank disclosure rests. See Chitel v. Rothbart, supra, where the application was refused because the plaintiff failed to make the necessary full and frank disclosure. The granting of an injunction also involves weighing the balance of convenience to the parties: Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, supra, at p. 176. It will be issued in circumstances where the plaintiff demonstrates that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued. Fairness to both sides is a consideration. By contrast, an execution can be issued as of right once a judgment has been obtained against the defendant. If the plaintiff has a valid judgment, considerations such as fairness and the "clean hands" of the plaintiff are irrelevant.
To summarize, I don't think the court will be too impressed with their non-compliance of court order.

Failure to comply with an order that was made on motion will have significant ramifications. See Sub Rule 14(25) of the Family Law Rules:


(23) A party who does not obey an order that was made on motion is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders that this subrule does not apply, and the court may on motion, in addition to any other remedy allowed under these rules,

(a) dismiss the party’s case or strike out the party’s answer or any other document filed by the party;

(b) postpone the trial or any other step in the case;

(c) make any other order that is appropriate, including an order for costs. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 14 (23); O. Reg. 89/04, s. 6 (7).

Last edited by logicalvelocity; 04-14-2010 at 10:31 PM.