Law360 Canada ( March 11, 2026, 9:39 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from two judgments, including a finding of contempt and a 90-day custodial sentence. The parties married in 1999, separated in 2009, and divorced in 2018. They had two children. The appellant was the sole income earner and earned millions during the marriage. Since litigation began over 15 years ago, the appellant engaged in chronic non-disclosure, diversion of assets, lying to the court and deliberate obfuscation, resulting in his pleadings being struck in 2014 and multiple contempt findings. A Mareva injunction and preservation order were issued in 2019, yet the appellant continued to hide assets and misled the court. At trial, the respondent sought a second contempt finding for breach of the Sutherland J. Order. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding him in contempt and imposing a 90-day custodial sentence in three respects. The appellant argued that the contempt hearing was procedurally unfair and violated his constitutionally protected rights, that he did not intentionally breach the order, and that the 90-day sentence was harsh and disproportionate. He also claimed the uncontested trial on financial issues was unfair because he could not present his version of the facts and challenged the costs award as excessive given his alleged inability to pay. The intervener addressed the duty to assist self-represented litigants in contempt proceedings....