INGLIS v HAIGHT

The Appellant, Mr. Inglis, appealed a decision of the Chambers Justice denying his Application for production of financial records from corporations owned by the Respondent's parents and from a family trust that had been wound up following the parties' separation. The Application arose in the context of divorce proceedings between Mr. Inglis and Ms. Haight.

Ms. Haight was employed by one of the Respondent corporations owned by her parents. Another Respondent corporation was likewise owned by her parents. During the marriage, Ms. Haight's parents established a family trust under which both Ms. Haight and Mr. Inglis were discretionary beneficiaries. The trust was wound up in 2022 after the parties separated.

Mr. Inglis sought production of financial records from the corporations and the trust pursuant to Rule 5.13, arguing that the records were necessary to determine Ms. Haight's actual income. The Chambers Justice dismissed the Application and awarded lump-sum costs.

On Appeal, Mr. Inglis claimed that the Chambers Judge erred by:

1. misapplying Rule 5.13 by requiring proof of wrongdoing, hidden income, or established benefit before ordering non-party disclosure;
2. concluding that the trust disclosure was complete despite alleged uncertainty in the records; and
3. awarding disproportionate costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Chamber Justice’s decision. It confirmed that an applicant seeking non-party disclosure must generally establish that the requested records exist, are within the control of the non-party, are relevant and material to the issues in dispute, cannot be obtained from a party, and that it is otherwise appropriate to order production. The Court emphasized that Rule 5.13 cannot be used as a "fishing expedition" for third-party records.

With respect to the trust documents, the Court accepted the evidence that all available records had already been produced. With respect to production of records from the Respondent corporations, the Chambers Justice found that the requested documents were not relevant and material. Ms. Haight had no ownership interest in the corporations and was not a shareholder, officer, or director.

The Court further held that the Chambers Justice's finding that there were no additional trust records available for production was supported by the record. The Court also found no error in principle that would justify intervening with the Costs Award.

The Appeal was dismissed.