How to Get Your Case Cancelled: The Court of Appeal's Warning in Riley v. Riley

Case: Riley v. Riley, 2026 ONCA 328

Court: Court of Appeal for Ontario

Judges: Miller, Zarnett and Monahan JJ.A.

Appeal from: Justice Pamela L. Hebner, Superior Court of Justice, 2025 ONSC 2363

Family law cases involving property or support all depend on financial disclosure. Without it, a court cannot fairly determine the issues. Without it, parties can't know whether an offer to settle is fair or how to counteroffer.

In Riley v. Riley, 2026 ONCA 328 [Riley], the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that when a party repeatedly refuses to comply with financial disclosure orders, the court may impose the severe remedy of striking that party’s pleadings. "Striking" pleadings means to cancel the claims or answers that party is making, allowing the other party to move forward with their story alone. This remedy is not used casually. But where repeated non-compliance makes it unfair for the other party to defend the case, striking a claim may be necessary to preserve the integrity of the court process.

The Riley decision shows that a party cannot pursue an equalization claim while withholding the financial information needed to test that claim.

The Background: A Nine-Year Equalization Claim

Winston Riley and Anna Riley separated in 2015 after a 20-year marriage. In 2016, Mr. Riley commenced a family law application seeking an equalization payment, among other relief. Disclosure orders were made in 2016 and 2018. Yet, nine years after the case began, the equalization claim remained unresolved despite case management.

The central dispute concerned the value of Ms. Riley’s assets and whether Mr. Riley had assets or business interests he had not disclosed. Ms. Riley owned the matrimonial home, had interests in numbered companies that owned Windsor-area properties, owned vehicles, and operated “Riley’s,” a furniture and appliance store.

Mr. Riley claimed that he had no significant assets beyond bank balances totalling just over $69,000 at the valuation date. Ms. Riley disputed that. She pointed to Mr. Riley’s 2009 bankruptcy, during which he allegedly failed to disclose more than $190,000 in cash kept in his basement. She also alleged that he had became involved in similar businesses called “Original Riley’s” and “Original Mattress.” Her position was that a forensic accounting of Mr. Riley’s personal and business affairs was needed.

The Disclosure Orders

The Court of Appeal reviewed the disclosure history. In 2016, both parties were ordered to produce a significant amount of financial records. Mr. Riley was ordered to provide his bankruptcy filing, and both parties were ordered to provide five years of tax returns and bank statements retroactive to 2009.

In August 2018, Mr. Riley was ordered to produce further disclosure, including bank statements, credit card statements, financing applications, leases, property documents, corporate records, financial statements, business tax returns, business valuations for Original Mattress, and corporate documents for Original Riley’s.

In September 2018, both parties were ordered to disclose corporate minute books, corporate financial statements, income tax records, insurance policies, and other financial material. Mr. Riley was also ordered to provide details of certain financial and real estate transactions and to cooperate with Ms. Riley’s forensic accounting investigation.

The motion judge found that Ms. Riley took her disclosure obligations seriously. She obtained business valuations and brought motions against third-party institutions so that she could comply with her own disclosure obligations. Mr. Riley did not do the same.

The Motion Judge’s Decision

By the time the motions were argued, the motion judge identified 28 categories of alleged deficiencies in Mr. Riley’s disclosure. These included missing bank statements, credit card records, credit applications, insurance policies, accountant invoices, and records concerning the businesses in which he was alleged to have an interest.

The motion judge found that Mr. Riley did not make sufficient efforts to comply. He did not attend financial institutions to obtain documents he claimed he could not find. He did not bring third-party production motions. In one concerning example, he told Ms. Riley to obtain statements for a joint account with their child from the child, which the motion judge found problematic.

The motion judge also found that Mr. Riley’s affidavit explaining his non-disclosure was “rife with inconsistencies,” especially concerning the businesses. One inconsistency involved his denial of any interest in Original Mattress, despite a billboard describing the company as “Original Mattress & Furniture by Winston Riley.”

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the motion judge found Mr. Riley’s non-compliance egregious. She concluded that it would be unfair to require Ms. Riley to defend his equalization claim without the ordered disclosure. She also found that Mr. Riley “did not intend to help the court come to a just resolution.”

The motion judge struck Mr. Riley’s application, meaning his claims were cancelled.

Note: At the time of writing, the motion decision of Justice Hebner, reported at 2025 ONSC 2363, does not appear to be publicly available.

The Appeal

Mr. Riley appealed. He did not dispute that the motion judge had the power to strike his application under Rule 1(8). Instead, he argued that she wrongly exercised that discretion.

His main arguments were that the undisclosed documents were of little or no relevance, that he had already provided extensive disclosure, and that the motion judge failed to consider less drastic remedies.

The Court of Appeal rejected his arguments.

Justice Zarnett, writing for the Court, dismissed the appeal. The Court began with the basic principle that financial disclosure is central to family law. At paragraph 25, the Court quoted the important statement from Roberts v. Roberts:

“The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information.”

That principle drove the result. The Court held that Mr. Riley’s breach went directly to whether the case could be dealt with justly. The purpose of requiring disclosure was to allow Ms. Riley to defend against his equalization claim. Without the ordered disclosure, she could not fairly respond to his position about his assets.

The Court also emphasized that Rule 1(8) permits the striking of an application when a party fails to obey a court order. Although striking a claim is reserved for exceptional cases where no lesser remedy will address the failure to comply, it may be consistent with the primary objective of the Family Law Rules: dealing with cases justly.

The Key Principle

The key principle from Riley v. Riley is this:

Where a party repeatedly fails to comply with financial disclosure orders, and that non-disclosure prevents the other party from fairly defending the claim, the court may strike the non-compliant party’s pleading under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules. The remedy is exceptional, but it is available where no lesser remedy would cure the unfairness caused by the non-disclosure.

The Court applied the framework from Mullin v. Sherlock, which requires the court to consider whether there has been non-compliance and then determine the appropriate remedy by considering the relevance of the non-disclosure, the complexity of the issues, the extent of existing disclosure, the seriousness of efforts to disclose, and the explanations offered.

The Court found that the motion judge properly applied that framework.

Why the Missing Disclosure Was Relevant

Mr. Riley argued that some documents were not relevant because he said he did not own an interest in Original Mattress or Original Riley’s at the valuation date. The Court rejected that argument because ownership was itself disputed. The documents had been ordered precisely because they were relevant to determining whether he had an interest, when he had it, and what it was worth.

Put differently, Mr. Riley’s argument had the quality of a question-begging fallacy: he said the business records were irrelevant because he did not own an interest in the businesses, but whether he owned such an interest was precisely one of the central issues the records were ordered to help determine.

He also argued that some missing statements were from after separation and therefore irrelevant. The Court rejected that too. Post-separation financial activity may shed light on what existed at the time of separation. Missing statements between disclosed statements may also matter because a later statement does not necessarily reveal what appeared in an earlier missing one.

This part of the decision is important. Parties sometimes assume that they can decide for themselves what financial disclosure is “really relevant.” Riley confirms that once a court has ordered disclosure, a party cannot simply withhold documents based on their own view of relevance.

Existing Disclosure Was Not Enough

Mr. Riley also argued that he had produced a significant amount of disclosure. The Court accepted that the extent of existing disclosure is a factor, but not a shield against the consequences of failing to produce the rest of what was ordered.

The Court held that Mullin v. Sherlock requires a holistic assessment. The question is not whether some disclosure was made. The question is whether the remaining non-disclosure prevents the case from being resolved fairly.

Here, the missing disclosure went to the heart of Ms. Riley’s ability to defend against the equalization claim. Producing some documents did not cure the prejudice caused by failing to produce the rest.

No Lesser Remedy Was Proposed

The Court also rejected Mr. Riley’s argument that the motion judge should have used a less drastic remedy. An alternative remedy must actually address the prejudice caused by the non-disclosure. Mr. Riley did not propose such a remedy to the motion judge or to the Court of Appeal.

Result

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Riley’s appeal. He was ordered to pay Ms. Riley costs of the appeal in the agreed amount of $10,000, all inclusive.

Why This Case Matters

Riley v. Riley is a strong reminder that disclosure failures can decide a family law case before the court reaches a hearing on the merits.

In family law, financial disclosure is the basic condition for asking the court to make a fair order. This case also reinforces the seriousness of subrule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules. Courts will not strike pleadings lightly. But where a party ignores multiple disclosure orders, gives inconsistent explanations, fails to take obvious steps to obtain records, and leaves the opposing party unable to defend the claim fairly, striking pleadings will likely be justified.

For family law litigants, the practical lesson is simple: if a court orders disclosure, they ought to comply fully and promptly. If documents are unavailable, they should make real efforts to obtain them and explain those efforts clearly. It's best to not assume that partial disclosure will be enough.