Orders across 15-year litigation found him engaging in serious, deliberate, flagrant misconduct
The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal of a contempt finding in a proceeding that it described as an outlier even among the minority of high-conflict family law cases where a party is pursuing “a downward spiral of ruinous litigation.”
In Carter v. Carter, 2026 ONCA 29, the parties married in July 1999. They had two children and a tumultuous relationship. The appellant father perpetrated family violence against the respondent mother and the children.
The parties separated in December 2009 and divorced via an April 2018 order. Their children, who were under the age of 10 during the separation, were now adults.
Over 15 years ago, the father began the family law proceedings. Since then, the court has found that he has lied to it and engaged in serious, deliberate, and flagrant misconduct, including asset diversion, chronic non-disclosure, and deliberate obfuscation.
By the time the trial commenced in May 2024, the court had issued at least 97 court orders or endorsements, excluding the mother’s related support enforcement proceedings and foreign proceedings. The father represented himself at trial.
In October 2024, Justice J.A. Finlayson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued equalization, child, and spousal support orders. He found the father in contempt of a court order. In April 2025, the trial judge sentenced the father to 90 days of incarceration.
The father appealed the October 2024 trial judgment and the April 2025 penalty decision. He asserted two appeal grounds.
First, the father argued that the judge improperly conducted the contempt hearing and erroneously found him in contempt, as he did not intentionally violate the relevant order. The father added that the judge erred in setting a 90-day custodial sentence, which was unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to the contempt finding.
Second, the father alleged unfairness in the uncontested trial on financial and other enforcement issues because he did not have the opportunity to provide his version of the facts or respond to the case against him.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal upon rejecting both appeal grounds. The appeal court refused to issue a costs order.
The appeal court determined that the trial judge committed no errors in:
The appeal court ruled that the procedure relating to the contempt motion was sufficient in the circumstances.
According to the appeal court, the judge stated the pertinent legal principles for contempt proceedings, knew about the caution needed in the discretionary exercise of contempt powers, and properly considered the applicable factors in exercising his discretion.
The appeal court held that the father received:
The appeal court concluded that the father’s 15-year campaign, which sought to obscure the mother’s and the court’s understanding of his financial affairs, led to any limitations on his ability to present his version of the facts on the disputed financial issues.
