Inadequate Disclosure Adverse Inference Lawyers deal with a huge family law litigation problem often called the “cancer of family law litigation“. Our skilled and award winning, Inadequate Disclosure Adverse Inference Lawyers help:
- obtain full disclosure;
- obtain sanctions such as fines and special costs and jail time for non-disclosure;
- obtain Anton Piller raid Orders;
- obtain international Mareva Injunction Orders;
- seek adverse inferences for non disclosure; and
- unequal division when disclosure is not made.
BC Family Law Financial disclosure see SCFR Rule 5 helps justice to be delivered, prevents fraud, and ensures each BC spouse truthfully provides their full financial picture. Each spouse’s income, expenses, family property and debts are highly relevant during a divorce. Failure to disclose income and property leads to extra costs and potentially unfair results, so BC Courts sanction this failure severely.
MacLean Law’s Inadequate Disclosure Adverse Inference Lawyers Don’t Fool Around 1-877-602-9900
Lorne MacLean, QC and his team have even successfully raided business premises under an Anton Piller order to discover secreted documents and even jailed a Respondent for perjury after the precedent setting successful surprise raid.
In this week’s blog on a recent BC Supreme Court case of D.M.B. v. D.W.A.L, MacLean notes how Mr Justice Punnet capably discusses the consequences for non disclosure of documents on credibility and property division:
Disclosure Issues
[44]The respondent’s production of business records was problematic. It was neither timely nor complete. His record keeping, particularly regarding his claimed business expenses, was not organized for transparency.
[45]At trial Mr. L. explained that each year he went through his receipts that he kept monthly and organized them by category for the purpose of business deductions, and made a list of his monthly personal and business expenses. However, instead of keeping them organized in such a manner he said he then recombined his business and personal receipts and returned them to his monthly collections and threw away the lists showing the items claimed in each category. I note such practice appears illogical and no reason for it was given. At trial he had made no further effort to organize them in order to permit the assessment of his claimed expenses despite repeated requests from counsel to do so. As a result, when questioned he could not provide the details requested. This despite claimant’s counsel having made clear since early 2017 that the issue of business expenses claimed was a significant issue in the litigation.
[46]In addition, the respondent had repeatedly asserted that he had provided his 2014 income tax return despite ongoing requests from counsel for the claimant for its production. When he responded to these requests he did not state he had already provided it, and instead responded that it was not relevant. At one point he stated counsel had his 2014 notice of assessment, apparently viewing that as sufficient. In my view he was deliberately avoiding production of his 2014 return given it provided details of the business expenses claimed and as a result opened his claimed line 150 income to challenge.
[47]He also failed to produce his accounting and banking records from January 2014 to September 2014 despite claimant’s counsel specifically requesting them. They were relevant to his gross income deposits and business expenses. Counsel for the claimant warned Mr. L. on June 18, 2017 and February 16, 2018 that his failure to properly produce documents detailing his business expenses would cause a request that an adverse inference be drawn.
Consequences To respondent For Inadequate Disclosure Adverse Inference Lawyers
[48]This court has repeatedly noted the negative effects of inadequate and delayed disclosure. It increases expense, discourages settlement, prolongs the stress of litigation and, where children are involved, negatively affects them (see Cunha v. Cunha (1994), 99 B.C.L.R. (2d) 93 at para. 9 and Sebok v. Batis, 2018 BCSC 585 at paras. 13-15).
[49]In this instance such negative effects are clear. The lack of relevant and delayed disclosure has been an ongoing issue. At trial it continued as the failure to produce receipts relating to business expenses and the respondent’s repeated replies to questions that he would have to check his records that, while apparently present, were not organized and hence were not readily available, have led to uncertainty.
[50]While counsel for Mr. L. at one point prior to trial offered to organize the records, it was not incumbent on counsel for the claimant to request that counsel do such. Mr. L. cannot now state by way of explanation for his failure to organize the records that his lawyer offered to do so. That was his responsibility to have done.
[51]There was no plausible explanation given for Mr. L.’s failure to produce the records in a useable form. Given there were specific requests for them the inference is that they would have been produced if favourable to Mr. L.’s case. It can be assumed that they would hurt his position. The requested records were relevant given Mr. L.’s position on deductions from his business income.
[52]I will draw inferences against the respondent where appropriate.
[61]I find the respondent’s failure to disclose relevant financial information along with his unhelpful form of disclosure was a deliberate effort on his part to avoid disclosure leading to the inference that had such disclosure been made it would have been damaging to his position in this litigation and his financial interests.
Call our top rated Inadequate Disclosure Adverse Inference Lawyers today to get disclosure early on in family law proceedings. Meet with us in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Fort St John and Richmond BC or in Calgary.
