Ruling notes appellant threatened to denounce respondent’s counsel to legal regulator
In high-conflict proceedings between parents, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the father’s appeal and fresh evidence motion, which it considered the culmination of his concerning pattern of behaviour and litany of frivolous, vexatious, and abusive steps.
The court struck the pleadings of the father – the appellant in Kamil v. Alnoor, 2026 ONCA 53 – due to his breach of multiple court orders pertaining to financial disclosure, child support arrears, and ongoing child support.
In May 2025, following an uncontested family law trial, Justice Nathalie Des Rosiers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the father to give the respondent mother $62,833.45 as an equalization payment.
The father appealed and moved to file fresh evidence to support his position that the mother failed to advise the court of a 2022 appraisal of the matrimonial home. He alleged that he should have received an equalization payment based on that appraisal.
The mother sought to dismiss the appeal on three grounds:
- The father flagrantly breached court orders
- His appeal lacked merit
- His appeal collaterally attacked previous court orders
Appeal, fresh evidence rejected
Until the father complied with all the Superior Court’s and the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s outstanding court orders, the appeal court prohibited him from filing or proceeding with further matters before it, without first obtaining written leave from a single judge.
The appeal court noted that the father:
- failed to act in his children’s best interests
- harassed the mother and her counsel since January 2024
- put the mother through unnecessary stress and expense
- threatened to subject the mother to “legal hell” if she did not settle
- emailed her family threats to sue and a demand that they pay $400,000
- threatened to denounce the mother’s lawyer to the law society
- sent counsel at least 12 emails, primarily to raise concerns for the youngest child’s health
- wanted the mother to face a charge for neglecting the youngest child
- pursued a private prosecution against the mother for “denying a child the necessity of life”
“There comes a time when enough is enough,” stated the appeal court’s decision. “The appellant is well past that time.”
The appeal court saw a clear justification to dismiss the appeal due to:
- the father’s continuing and flagrant breach of court orders and disregard of his fundamental obligation to support his children
- his appeal’s total lack of merit
- his appeal’s collateral attack on previous court orders
First, regarding the ongoing breach of court orders, the appeal court noted that the Family Responsibility Office suspended the father’s driver’s licence due to his failure to pay child support. The appeal court pointed out that the loss of the licence did not prevent him from working.
Second, regarding the meritless appeal, the appeal court saw no basis for the motion seeking fresh evidence to support the father’s position. The appeal court explained that the fresh evidence could not have impacted the outcome because the matrimonial home’s sale before trial in 2023 rendered any earlier appraisals irrelevant.
Third, regarding the father’s collateral attack on prior court orders, the appeal court noted that these orders addressed his frivolous, vexatious, and abusive behaviour. The appeal court added that he did not appeal these orders he was currently challenging.
Lastly, the appeal court awarded the mother $1,722.84 in appeal costs on a substantial indemnity basis. The appeal court found that she should not be subject to the expenses of responding to the father’s appeal.
