Sigalas v. Sigalas Selas: Procedural Fairness and Non-Compliance

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Sigalas v. Sigalas Selas, 2025 ONCA 75 offers important guidance on procedural fairness, non-compliance with court orders, and the appropriate use of uncontested trials in family law proceedings. This case addresses when a party may be precluded from appealing due to non-compliance with court orders and provides clarity on remedies available under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

Key Facts

The parties married in 2010, had two young children, and separated in 2022. In February 2023, they executed a separation agreement providing for shared parenting, joint decision-making, and a nesting arrangement in the family home. Unfortunately, the relationship deteriorated significantly:

• Both parties were charged with assault at different times
• The wife alleged the husband’s income was approximately $300,000, while the husband claimed it was one-third of that amount
• The husband, self-employed in mortgage brokerage, failed to provide financial documentation despite multiple court orders
• The husband refused consent for the wife to travel with children, necessitating a motion
• He was ordered to pay $1,800 in costs, which he did not pay until shortly before the appeal
• He was ordered to pay interim child support of $2,977 monthly starting January 2023
• He failed to file his Answer with required financial documentation

On July 4, 2023, at a scheduled court attendance that the husband missed, the Court ordered him to serve and file his Answer within ten business days, failing which the matter could proceed to an uncontested trial. The husband served his pleading after business hours on July 18, 2023, which the wife alleged was non-compliant, incomplete, and improperly filed. She subsequently set the matter down for an uncontested trial.

The trial proceeded in writing on February 26, 2024, with the decision released on March 12, 2024, and a supplementary decision on May 6, 2024. The trial judge made orders concerning child support, spousal support, property division, and parenting arrangements.

Issues to be Determined

The Court of Appeal addressed two primary issues:

1. Motion to Quash: Should the husband’s appeal be quashed due to his non-compliance with multiple court orders?
2. Appeal on the Merits: Was the husband denied procedural fairness when the trial judge proceeded with an uncontested trial despite his attempt to file an answer?

Court’s Analysis

Motion to Quash

The wife argued that the husband’s appeal should be quashed because he had shown flagrant disregard for court orders:

• He had not paid child support since June 2023
• He had not paid spousal support or equalization payments
• He had not paid various costs orders
• He had not provided required financial disclosure

The Court identified relevant factors for determining whether to quash an appeal due to non-compliance:

• Willfulness of the breach
• Amount of arrears
• Explanation for the breach
• Attempts to correct the breach

The Court distinguished this case from Brophy v. Brophy, where the husband had participated in the trial. Here, the husband claimed his breach of the filing deadline was minor and resulted from misunderstanding the 4:00 p.m. filing rule. He attributed his non-payment of support to serious health issues affecting his income, though the Court found insufficient evidence to support this claim.

Critically, the Court noted that the trial judge was not informed that the husband had attempted to serve an Answer, albeit late. The Court also observed that the wife did not advise the husband that his Answer was late and she would be proceeding with an uncontested trial.

While acknowledging the husband’s non-compliance, the Court determined this was not an appropriate case to quash the appeal. Instead, it referred to Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules as a more appropriate remedy, citing Gray v. Gray, 2017 ONCA 100, 137 O.R. (3d) 65 and Hilton v. Hilton, 2021 ONCA 29. Rule 25(19) allows a party to bring a motion to set aside or vary an order made in their absence if they can demonstrate fraud, mistake, or lack of notice.

Appeal on the Merits

The husband argued that he was denied procedural fairness because:

• He technically complied with the July 4, 2023 order (delivering the Answer on the tenth business day)
• He was self-represented and didn’t understand the 4:00 p.m. rule
• No one advised him of this requirement
• The trial judge made findings based on incomplete information

The Court rejected these arguments, finding:

• The July 4, 2023 order resulted from the husband’s persistent non-compliance
• The husband breached the order by filing an incomplete Answer after hours
• The husband did nothing to remedy his default in the seven months before trial
• The trial judge was entitled to proceed with an uncontested trial given the husband’s conduct
• There was no merit to the argument that he was denied procedural fairness
• The husband failed to produce financial documentation required by multiple orders
• The husband acted in bad faith throughout the litigation

The Court emphasized that a party cannot assert procedural unfairness when their own conduct led to the procedural situation they face—here, the husband’s persistent non-compliance and inaction negated his claim. Even at the appeal stage, the husband had not produced the required financial documentation.

Practice Tips for Ontario Family Lawyers

1. Proper Disclosure is Paramount: The case emphasizes the fundamental importance of complying with financial disclosure obligations. Non-disclosure can lead to severe consequences, including the loss of the right to participate in proceedings.
2. Document Communication with Opposing Parties: When a party makes a late or deficient filing, consider formally notifying them that you consider their filing deficient and that you intend to proceed with an uncontested hearing if not remedied.
3. Full Disclosure to the Court: When proceeding with an uncontested hearing, ensure the court is fully informed of all relevant facts, including any attempts by the opposing party to comply with orders, even if those attempts were deficient.
4. Rule 25(19) as a Remedy: For clients who missed a trial or failed to file documentation in time, consider a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules rather than an appeal. The Court of Appeal has consistently directed parties to this efficient remedy for procedural defaults.
5. Self-Represented Litigants: When opposing a self-represented litigant, take extra care to clearly communicate filing requirements, including time limitations. Self-represented litigants often struggle with procedural rules, but the court’s rejection of the husband’s fairness argument shows that ignorance does not excuse non-compliance. Proactively clarifying requirements may prevent procedural disputes.
6. Documentation of Defaults: Keep meticulous records of the opposing party’s non-compliance with court orders, as this may be critical if you need to defend proceeding with an uncontested hearing.
7. Health and Income Claims: When a party claims health issues are affecting income, insist on proper medical documentation and income verification. The Court noted that the onus rests on the party making such claims to provide sufficient evidence, as the husband failed to do here.
8. Bad Faith Considerations: The court will consider a pattern of non-compliance as evidence of bad faith, which can affect costs awards and procedural decisions. Documenting such patterns is essential.
9. Timing of Filings: Remember that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, documents received after 4:00 p.m. are deemed to be served the next day. This technical rule can have significant procedural consequences.
10. Full Disclosure Even in Uncontested Proceedings: Even when proceeding with an uncontested hearing, ensure you are providing the court with all relevant information to make a fair determination. The Court of Appeal noted the trial judge lacked full information due to the wife’s omission, suggesting that lawyers must present all facts to avoid appealable errors.

Conclusion

Sigalas v. Sigalas Selas reinforces the principle that procedural fairness in family law must be balanced against the need for compliance with court orders and the efficient resolution of disputes. The case serves as a reminder that while the courts will protect parties’ rights to be heard, those who persistently fail to comply with court orders may find themselves without remedy. For family law practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of proper procedure, full disclosure, and careful documentation at every stage of proceedings.

Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!

Connect with us on LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.