In Newton v. Newton, Justice Shaw considered when it was appropriate for the court to use its discretion to grant a vesting order in a Family Law context. In Newton, the court dealt with a wife who had refused to comply with multiple court orders for disclosure. She was eventually found in contempt for non-compliance and fined $1,000 payable forthwith and $50 per day for every day she failed to disclose the relevant information. 956 days passed before this matter was heard in court and by that time the wife owed $47,800 in penalties. However, regardless of the hefty fines, she had still refused to produce the relevant documents.
The husband sought an order from the court to vest the wife’s half of the matrimonial home to him. Justice Shaw reviewed the rule from Lynch v. Segal on vesting orders in a Family Law context, where the Court of Appeal stated that a court had a broad discretion when granting a vesting order and whether it would be granted or not was fact specific. In Newton, Justice Shaw indicated that section 9(1)(d)(i) of the Family Law Act gave the court jurisdiction for a vesting order for an equalization payment. Although the husband was the party owing the equalization payment, given the unusual circumstances of the case, Justice Shaw found it was equitable that the husband have the remedy that he sought. Justice Shaw found that it was unnecessary for the husband to take the extra step of selling the matrimonial home in order to execute on his judgment and obtain his wife’s equity of $30,000.