Wang v. Li, 2024 ONCA 819, a recent and interesting decision of our Ontario Court of Appeal, highlighted important principles with respect to several issues including contributions to property, an equalization payment of net family property, and tort damages for domestic violence.

The parties met online in 2012, and Min Li (the respondent on appeal) was living in China with her daughter from a previous relationship at the time. In 2013, Feng Wang (the appellant) travelled to China to meet Li. The parties agreed to marry, and Li and her daughter moved to Toronto to live with Wang shortly after. In the fall of 2013, Li purchased the matrimonial home, which was registered in her name alone. The parties separated in 2017.

Both parties were self-represented and testified through an interpreter during a seven-day trial before Justice Paul Schabas. At trial, Wang sought a divorce, equalization of net family property and a declaration that Li held

title to their matrimonial home in trust for both parties. Li sought a restraining order against Wang, an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and an unequal division of any net family property in her favour.

Justice Schabas dismissed Wang’s claim for equalization and to the extent it was asserted at trial, his claim for support, granted the relief sought by Li, and ordered that Wang pay Li $75,000 in damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and mental suffering.

The Ontario Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge preferred Li’s evidence where it differed from Wang’s as Wang was evasive and selective in his memory. Wang’s evidence was also often inconsistent with contemporaneous records, and he gave evidence that was demonstrably false. By contrast, the trial judge found Li’s evidence straightforward and responsive and supported on all material issues by contemporaneous records.

The trial judge held that there was no basis to find that Li held any portion of the title to the matrimonial home in trust for Wang and that an equalization payment of any kind to Wang would be unconscionable given:

• The period of cohabitation was less than five years.
• Li paid a disproportionately larger amount to support the family during the cohabitation, including significantly increasing her debt load.
• Wang had signed a Prenuptial Declaration that Li would retain “sole ownership of assets under her name.”
• Wang had either provided false financial disclosure or was advancing false claims about his assets at trial.
• During cohabitation, Wang demanded money from Li, sought control over her assets and made threats to her if she did not agree.

The trial judge also held that Li was not entitled to either compensatory or non-compensatory spousal support and ordered $75,000 in damages, holding that the harmful effects of Wang’s conduct were “long-lasting and must be condemned.” The issue of tort damages is an emerging one in family,law cases, with the Supreme Court set to weigh in on Feb. 11 and 12 in the case of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia (stay tuned).

Wang appealed the trial decision and listed 12 mistakes he alleged the trial judge made in arriving at his decision. The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that Wang’s allegations were repetitive and somewhat confusing and consolidated the alleged mistakes into six main issues.

Wang also sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and declined to admit the fresh evidence. Multiple claims made by Wang could not be substantiated as he had failed to file a transcript of the proceedings.

Several of the alleged mistakes by the trial judge related to the trial judge’s findings that, in January 2013, Li received RMB 8,800,000 [approximately $1,200,000] for the sale of her Chinese architecture and design business and repayment of a loan, and that she subsequently used a portion of these funds to purchase the matrimonial home and pay all the parties’ expenses during cohabitation. The court held that Wang had not advanced any arguments to challenge the trial judge’s findings that his claims that he provided RMB 8,800,000 were false and unsupported.

Wang alleged that the trial judge erred in accepting Li’s allegations of domestic violence given that the charges against him were dropped and Li failed to call any witnesses or recordings to support her allegations. He also asserted that the trial judge erred in failing to admit an affidavit from his daughter which stated that she did not observe any domestic violence while living with the couple.

The court stated that where criminal charges are dismissed after a trial, the result in the criminal proceedings is not binding in civil proceedings in which the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities. The order from the trial judge of $75,000 in damages was upheld.

Wang’s final alleged mistake involved allegations of general misconduct and impropriety on the part of Li as well as bias by the trial judge. The court noted that like many of the other alleged mistakes, without a transcript of the trial proceedings, Wang could not substantiate those allegations.

The court made specific reference to Wang’s offensive remarks in his opening statement as noted by the trial judge, as well as his general allegations of bias, prejudice and hostility because the trial judge was Jewish. The court aptly stated, “More importantly, and leaving aside the absence of a transcript, the appellant’s submissions reflect prejudice antithetical to Canadian values. The submissions are reprehensible and have no place in a Canadian courtroom.”

Michael J. Stangarone is a partner and Kira Beck is an associate with MacDonald & Partners LLP, where they practice exclusively family law.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Press the button below to read the PDF version, or directly on Law360.