Ruling says father, as a lawyer, should know importance of obeying court orders
The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed a father’s motion to extend the time to perfect his appeal, noting that he breached disclosure and support orders despite being a lawyer who should understand the importance of complying with court orders.
In Contardi v. Contardi, 2026 ONCA 420, the parties were involved in high-conflict family law litigation. The appellant father, a lawyer, breached court orders for support, disclosure, and costs.
The court struck the appellant’s pleadings and disentitled him to notice of events in the litigation. The trial proceeded uncontested. On Mar. 6, the trial judge ordered the appellant to pay:
The appellant breached the order for ongoing spousal and child support.
On Apr. 23, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against the Mar. 6 order. He failed to perfect his appeal, which he should have done by May 25.
On around May 20, the appellant retained a forensic accounting expert to prepare a report, which he planned to submit as fresh evidence on his appeal. Through the report, the appellant sought to show flaws in the expert opinion of the respondent’s trial expert.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellant’s motion for an extension of time to perfect his appeal and to obtain the report.
First, the appeal court pointed out that the appellant continued to breach the disclosure and support orders, which provided a sufficient basis to deny the extension motion.
The appeal court noted that the appellant unsuccessfully appealed the disclosure order, did not seek to stay the ongoing support order, and had no excuse for his non-compliance
Next, the appeal court ruled that allowing the extension would not serve the interests of justice, which was another reason to dismiss the motion.
The appeal court awarded the respondent mother all-inclusive costs of $8,150 because she should not have needed to respond to the extension motion, which lacked merit, abused the process, and aimed to delay.
The Ontario Court of Appeal saw no cogent justification to exercise its discretion to grant the extension motion.
First, the appeal court found the delay excessive and inexcusable in the context of family law litigation where the parties and their children deserved finality. The appeal court saw no reason why the appellant could not have perfected his appeal by the deadline.
Second, the appeal court determined that the appellant’s retention of the expert days before the perfection deadline suggested an intention to delay, which undermined a continuing intention to appeal.
Third, the appeal court held that the delay prejudiced the respondent and the children, who needed the court-ordered support, and undermined public confidence in the administration of justice.
Fourth, the appeal court saw no apparent merit in the appeal and no basis to assail the trial judge’s factual findings based on the record. The appeal court also said the appeal appeared spurious and vexatious.
The appeal court noted that the forensic accounting expert report, which sought to show errors in the respondent’s expert report, was not before it.
The appeal court added that many alleged deficiencies in the respondent’s expert report apparently arose from the appellant’s failure to provide the court-ordered disclosure, which significantly weakened the appellant’s challenge against the respondent’s expert report and the trial judge’s reliance on it.
The appeal court found it highly unlikely that the appeal panel would accept the appellant’s proposed fresh evidence.
The appeal court explained that the appellant’s plan to present an expert report as fresh evidence was seemingly an attempt to indirectly achieve what he could not do directly due to his stricken pleadings.
