“In this case, Bilah is asking the court to compel disclosure from Akiva, who is a party to the Mediation/Arbitration agreement. She makes this request on the basis that the Arbitrator stated in his Arbitral Award that he lacked jurisdiction to compel Akiva to file his personal and corporate income tax returns and financial statements. By contrast, Bilah argues the court has inherent jurisdiction to compel a party to file income tax returns, personal and corporate, and, as such the court should use its inherent jurisdiction to do so.
Bilah argues that Akiva’s personal and corporate tax returns are required to determine his income for support purposes and specifically referred to in s.21 of the Child Support Guidelines, SOR 97/175 (“CSG”). This information is also required to determine spousal support, since the definition of “income” in the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines mirrors the definition in the CSG. In addition to the statutory requirements for Akiva to produce full disclosure, personal tax returns and corporate tax returns and financial statement, the Family Law Rules require a party to attach his/her Notices of Assessment and tax information to his/her financial statement.
It is under this context that courts in Ontario have routinely ordered parties to file their income tax returns to facilitate disclosure in support cases. Bilah’s counsel referred to a number of cases where a payor was ordered to file personal and corporate income tax returns and when such returns were not filed, the payor’s pleadings were struck or he/she was found in contempt. This court has inherent jurisdiction to order individuals and corporations to file tax returns in its effort to ensure due process and ensure that cases are being dealt with justly. However, these are cases where the parties were in litigation before the Court and did not consent to a Mediation/Arbitration process as Bilah and Akivah have.
Akiva argues that the Arbitrator did not compel Akiva to file his personal or corporate tax returns but he was ordered to give Bilah the information she requires to determine Akiva’s income for support purposes. The Arbitrator ordered Akiva to produce all of the information he must give to Mr. Martin to determine his income to Bilah at the same time, so that she would have access to the information and data that would normally appear on an income tax return.
The Arbitrator made a discretionary decision about the proportionality of disclosure Akiva is to produce. This is entirely within his jurisdiction under the Mediation/Arbitration Agreement. Further, there is no way for Bilah to know the outcome of the Arbitration at this juncture. Having stated how important the information is to the issues of child and spousal support, it may well be that the Arbitrator draws an adverse inference if Akiva does not produce the financial documentation he has been ordered to produce.
I find that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award. The issue of Akiva’s child and spousal support obligations from January 1, 2023 onward is solely within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator as set out in the parties’ Mediation/Arbitration Agreement. Even if I disagree with the Arbitrator’s decision as to whether or not he had jurisdiction to order Akiva and/or his company to file income tax returns and financial statements, it does not permit this Court to interfere with the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award when the parties have submitted these issues to Mediation/Arbitration.”
Medjuck v. Medjuck, 2024 ONSC 2980 (CanLII) at 33-38