The Parties were engaged in divorce proceedings. The main issue at the hearing was the division of matrimonial property. However, the Defendant also raised concerns regarding their knowledge of certain Court documents that were allegedly served on them. Justice Akgungor also considered how Costs ought to be awarded in the circumstances.

The Defendant failed to properly engage with the proceedings in a meaningful way. The Defendant failed to provide disclosure as required, failed to provide answers to undertakings, and failed to attend at Applications for which they were provided notice. The Court eventually held the Defendant in contempt as a result of their failure to participate in the Action. As a result of cited in contempt, the Defendant was accruing a daily fine until the contempt was purged.

The Plaintiff had served all Court Orders, including the Orders declaring the Defendant to be in contempt, via email. Despite having been served, the Defendant stated that they were not aware of the Orders that were served upon them or their contents. Specifically, the Defendant claimed they were not aware that they were in contempt or that fines were accumulating. The Defendant did not dispute that they had received the emails containing the Orders, however they claimed that they “avoid emails like the plague” and had not read the contents of any emails from the Plaintiff’s counsel.

Justice Akgungor held that Rule 11.21 permits the service of Court Orders via email, and that even if the Defendant were not aware of the contents of the documents they had been served with, they had still been served. The Defendant’s failure to review documents properly served upon them did not vitiate the effect of those documents. The Court also noted that the Defendant’s conduct made it difficult to believe that they were unaware of the contents of the Orders.

In assessing Costs, the Court considered the factors set out in Rule 10.33 and found that the Defendant’s conduct and continued non-compliance with Court procedures and Orders supported an award of enhanced costs at 1.5 times the amount set out in Schedule C to the Rules.