Recent case: Lack of full disclosure by abusive spouse

Hamour v. Hamour, 2021 ONSC 3965: This case concerned child support and division of property for a Sudanese family that immigrated to Canada in 2008. The case involved family violence, lack of transparent disclosure by the father of income and court documents from abroad, and testimonies from witnesses abroad that the judge found not to be reliable sources.

Although the parties separated in 2015, they both continued to live in the matrimonial home until 2018, when they sold the property. At that time, the father took three of the children (now adults) with him, leaving the youngest child in the care of the mother. He claimed that his wife had abandoned her duties as a mother and that he was the primary caregiver of the children.

He claimed that he retired in 2009, that his businesses had since closed, and that he was living off the generosity of loans from family and friends. He asked the court to order the mother to pay him spousal support, child support, and expenses for the three oldest children. He blamed her for depleting the value of his property and asked that she be made responsible for half his large debt, give money back for the jewellery in her possession (which he claimed she partly stole from him) and repay the $5,000 she withdrew from an RESP. Because the matrimonial home was in his name, he said she had no claim to the funds from its sale that were held in trust.

According to the mother, “the beginning of the end” was in 2014, a year before the separation. The police were called to the home and the father “was arrested for hitting and biting her during an argument.” Under pressure from family, she withdrew the charges (notably, the families of the two parties are related). Immediately after the charges were dropped, her husband dissolved his company in Canada, took a trip to Dubai and sold their former home there.

Further, the first property the couple had bought in Canada was jointly in both their names, so the mother was surprised to learn that the second home they had moved to in Brampton shortly before the dissolution of the marriage in 2012 had been registered in his name only. After the husband refused to let her visit her family in Sudan on a family trip in 2014, she remained there to see them. When she then tried to return home to Canada, he refused to pay for her ticket. When she did find a way to return home, she found that her husband had cancelled her credit and bank cards, phone plan, access to the joint bank accounts, and had locked her out of the family garage and mailbox. He also spoke badly about her to the children. She claimed she withdrew the money from the RESP following the separation out of desperation to pay for food for herself and the child she was supporting on her own.

In considering the evidence before her, Justice Van Melle found that there were substantial gaps in the father’s arguments and disclosure. She found that the father and his three adult children continued to live lavish lifestyles following the separation. He paid for all of their costs of higher education out of pocket. His lifestyle had not diminished, and he and the children frequented restaurants and continued to travel. Justice Van Melle further found that, although the father claimed he was the one who had taken care of the children, in fact, he had travelled for long periods of time for business, and it was the mother who had, for more than 20 years, been the primary caregiver of the children, allowing him to pursue his business interests. She was therefore, “entitled to support on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis.” 

In contrast to the father’s extravagant “post-separation lifestyle”, the mother’s conditions had substantially declined following the divorce. At the time of trial, the mother was 57 years old, raising the fourth child, an 11-year-old daughter, alone. She took language courses and training to find work and was getting by on less than $20,000 a year, while providing for her child.

Justice Van Melle granted the mother’s request for spousal support as a lump sum for seven years by, “[t]aking into account Mr. Hamour’s failure to acknowledge Ms. Hamour’s entitlement to spousal support, his belittling of her role in the marriage and his complete and utter failure to make full and frank disclosure…”

Lastly, in exchange for being able to have sole parenting time with her youngest daughter, the mother had agreed that she would not travel with her without the father’s written consent. Justice Van Melle found that the father had abused this agreement to control his wife’s mobility and to unreasonably bar her from travelling to Sudan with the child. Therefore, she ordered that the mother be free to travel with her daughter and be able to renew her passport without the consent of the father.

Written by Ottawa U Faculty of Law Fellowship student, Allana Haist, who worked with Luke’s Place for Summer 2021.