Court File and Parties
Court File No.: D21279/18 Date: June 22, 2023 Ontario Court of Justice
Between: Chris-Ann Christina Bartley, Applicant — AND — Martin Kofi Danso, Respondent
Before: Justice Melanie Sager
Motion heard on: June 8, 2023 Reasons for Decision released on: June 22, 2023
Counsel: Theodora J. Oprea, for the Applicant Ariel Kirzner, for the Respondent
Nature of this Motion
The parties have one child together named Azaiah Gabriel born […], 2018.
In prior proceedings between the parties, this Court made a final Order dated October 16, 2020 on consent, requiring the Respondent to pay $2,379.00 per month in child support to the Applicant based on imputed income of $300,000.00 per annum. That consent came only after this Court appointed an expert to prepare a report of the Respondent’s income. The report was never completed.
The Respondent now brings a Motion to Change child support. He asserts various changes in his circumstances. He asks in his Motion to Change1 for the Court to reduce his monthly child support to $615.00 per month commencing October 1, 2021, based on an imputed annual income of $66,051.00; or to $732.00 per month commencing October 1, 2021 based on an imputed annual income of $78,600.00 in the alternative; or to $676.00 per month based on an annual imputed income of $72,325.00 in the further alternative.
In support of his request for a decrease in child support, the Respondent has now, on his own, retained a Chartered Business Valuator (CBV) to determine his income. The CBV’s report does state that there has been a significant decrease in the Respondent’s income.
The determination of the Respondent’s income is complex. It was a hotly contested issue in the prior proceedings, and it remains so in this Motion to Change. That is because in 2011, the Respondent and his wife co-founded Miracle Arena for All Nations Church (the Church) located in Woodbridge, Ontario. The Respondent has worked as a senior minister of the Church since 2015. The Respondent also earned additional income from sales of religious items through a company he owns and operates with his wife, and he received significant non-taxable gifts, referred to as “Blessings”, from church congregants.
Moreover, the Applicant alleged in the prior proceedings, and again in this round of the litigation, that the Respondent’s financial affairs are heavily intertwined with the Church’s operations. There remains significant credibility and disclosure issues.
Against this backdrop, the Applicant brings an interim motion for the Respondent to provide an interim disbursement of $25,000.00. The Applicant seeks the disbursement to retain an expert to review and critique the income report that the Respondent is relying upon in support of his Motion to Change child support.
For the reasons that follow, the Applicant’s motion is granted. I find that the Applicant’s request to dismiss the Respondent’s Motion to Change has prima facie merit, there are significant credibility and disclosure issues that will need to be resolved, and an interim disbursement is necessary to do justice between the parties and to level the playing field. I also find based on the record before me, that the Respondent has the ability to fund the disbursement while the Applicant does not.
The Prior Proceedings
On August 17, 2018, the Applicant commenced an Application in this court in which she requested orders for custody of the child and child support from the Respondent.
On June 20, 2019, before the prior proceedings settled, this Court appointed CBV Vivian Alterman under rule 20.1(3) of the Family Law Rules to complete an income analysis for the Respondent’s income for the previous 3 years. It did so on the Applicant’s motion for, amongst other relief, an interim disbursement in those proceedings in the amount of $25,000.00 for reasons similar to those she argues on this motion.
In my decision dated June 20, 2019, at paragraph 7, I wrote,
At the commencement of argument on the motion with respect to the relief sought against the Respondent, the parties were advised that the court was contemplating exercising its authority under Rule 20.1(3) of the Family Law Rules to order an expert to complete an analysis of the Respondent’s income. This would result in the parties relying on one expert as opposed to the possibility of competing experts if the Respondent obtains an income analysis and the Applicant retains an expert to question the conclusions. A court appointed expert would assist in controlling the costs and the course of the litigation. (emphasis mine)
The Court was then of the view that the Respondent’s income was so complicated and intertwined with his wife and possibly the Church2, that it was necessary to proceed in this fashion.
As set out above, the report was never obtained, and the underlying proceeding settled. While the Order appointing an expert in the prior proceedings is not binding on the Court again in this Motion to Change, it is notable to this Court, that the effect of the settlement, followed by the Respondent launching this Motion to Change soon after and retaining his own expert, has changed the process for the determination of the Respondent’s income from that which the Court previously found to be appropriate.
The Respondent’s Income Report
According to the report of the Respondent’s CBV Ryan Benson dated April 20, 2022 (the Benson report), in 2018, before the Applicant commenced her initial Application for child support, the Respondent received $149,845.00 in income from the Church, pretax income from the company he owns jointly with his wife of $31,094.00 and $99,376.00 in “Blessings” from the Church.
In the years that followed, Mr. Benson determined that that the Respondent’s income for child support purposes from 2018-2021 was:
Year Income 2018 $446,006.00 2019 $201,782.00 2020 $78,600.00 2021 $66,051.00 Notably, the Respondent’s own CBV now says that his income for 2020 was over $200,000.00 less than the amount of imputed income to which he already agreed in 2020, raising questions about whether the Respondent is even able to establish the necessary change in circumstances according to the test in Trang v. Trang, 2013 ONSC 1980, discussed below.
The Parties’ Positions on the Motion to Change and on this Motion for Interim Disbursements
In regard to his Motion to Change, the Respondent argues that the following changes in circumstances have occurred:
(a) He says the church is operated by a Board of Directors. He says that in 2020 both he and his wife were notified that due to Covid-19 they were being laid off from the Church. He says he continued to perform ministerial functions for the Church without pay; (b) He says that he was advised in October 2021 that he would be reinstated by the Board of Directors as of November 1, 2021 at a salary of $110,000.00. He was also given a bonus of $28,700.00 for the unpaid work he did between March 2020 to October 2021; (c) On November 17, 2021, the Respondent says he received a letter from the Church advising that the offer to reinstate him at $110,000.00 was rescinded and he would be paid $75,000.00 annually as the Church was struggling financially; and (d) The Respondent says that his income has suffered as a result of the negative impact the previous litigation between the parties had on his reputation. As a result of his damaged reputation and Covid-19, the Respondent says his income has drastically reduced.
But as the Respondent correctly identifies in his affidavit sworn June 28, 2022, part of the difficulty determining his income for child support purposes in 2020 was due to the fact that he received large amounts of money, or “Blessings” from the Church congregants. They have not been reported on his Income Tax Return.
And as already set out above, in addition to his income from the Church, I note that the Respondent also owns and operates a company with his wife that sells Christian content items through an online store. Further, he founded Kofi Danso Ministries, a charitable organization in the United States “for the purpose of fathering funds to assist in Outreach Missions and Church Functions”, although he denies receiving any income from this organization.
By contrast, the Applicant takes the position that the Motion to Change should be dismissed because:
(a) The Respondent has failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances; (b) The Respondent has never complied with the final order made on consent and is in significant arrears of child support; (c) The Respondent has not paid costs orders of the previous proceedings totaling $17,500.003; (d) The Respondent is attempting to re-litigate the initial proceeding which is unfair to her and will force her to incur significant legal fees; (e) The Respondent failed to cooperate with a court ordered income analysis by AP Valuators in 2018. He did not pay the ongoing retainer of the expert as ordered by the court and he did not provide financial disclosure requested by the CBV; (f) The Respondent agreed to impute income at $300,000.00 on the eve of trial after failing to cooperate to have the income analysis completed; (g) The Respondent’s credibility was a serious issue in question in the previous litigation and he cannot be trusted to accurately report his income now after failing to do so in the past; and (h) The Applicant rejects the Respondent’s claims that his reputation was injured by the previous litigation. She questions his decision to commence litigation again if this is the case.
The Applicant strongly disbelieves that the Respondent’s financial circumstances have worsened or that he functions at arms’ length from the Church. She asserts that he is still the president of the Board of Directors. The Applicant also disbelieves that the Church was negatively impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. She says it has continued to receive donations of between $1.1 million and $1.6 million between 2018 and 20214. She specifically notes that between 2019 and 2021, the Church received an increase in donations year over year since 2018, despite the pandemic.5 The Church also bought land to build a new Church at the cost of $5,600,000.00 in May 2020.
For overlapping reasons, the Applicant moves for an interim disbursement of $25,000.00. She argues that she needs expert assistance to ascertain the true state of affairs respecting the Respondent’s income, to defend this Motion to Change. She argues that he can afford the cost of the disbursement and the Court’s assessment of the “playing field” favours her position.
The Respondent says that he has already retained an expert, the court does not necessarily require an expert critique of the Benson report, he cannot afford the disbursement, and that the assessment of the “playing field” favours him.
The legal framework for the Applicant’s motion
Rule 24(18) of the Family Law Rules provides that, “The court may make an order that a party pay an amount of money to another party to cover part or all of the expenses of carrying on the case, including a lawyer’s fees.”
An order for interim disbursements is discretionary: see Stuart v. Stuart.
In Benzeroual v. Issa and Farag, 2017 ONSC 3655, citing Stuart v. Stuart and other cases, Pazaratz J. summarized the principles governing the exercise of that discretion as follows:
[87] There is a presumption that parties pay their own legal fees until proceedings are over, at which point the court will determine whether any retroactive reimbursement for costs is appropriate. Melendez v. Soleimani, 2011 ONSC 5468; Waxman v. Waxman (2003), 168 O.A.C. 217 (C.A.). Mere inability or hardship paying one’s own legal fees does not in itself rebut that presumption.
[88] Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules allows the court to order that a party pay money to the opposing party to cover part or all of the expenses of carrying on the case, including legal fees.
[89] The rationale for interim disbursements was summarized by Rogers J. in Stuart v. Stuart, 2001 CarswellOnt 4586 at paragraph 5:
The duty in the court to ensure a fair procedure means that both parties should be able to request and give disclosure and to tackle complex valuation issues equally. One party should not be disadvantaged in the litigation by being unable to test the evidence of the other party.
[90] Stuart summarized the primary considerations in determining interim disbursements in family law cases:
a. An order for interim disbursements is discretionary. b. The claimant must demonstrate that the interim disbursements are necessary to pursue their case; that without the advance of funds for interim disbursements, the claimant cannot present or analyse settlement offers or pursue entitlement. c. The interim disbursements must be shown to be necessary. d. The claim or defence advanced must be meritorious. e. The exercise of discretion should be limited to exceptional cases. f. Interim costs are for the purpose of leveling the playing field. g. Monies may be advanced against an equalization payment.
[91] More recent case law suggests interim disbursements in family law cases are not limited to exceptional cases. McCain v. Melanson, 2017 ONSC 916; Sadlier v. Carey, 2015 ONSC 3537; Turk v. Turk, 2016 ONSC 4210; Romanelli v. Romanelli 2017 ONSC 1312.
[92] The recurring theme is that where one party is at an economic disadvantage, interim disbursements may be required;
a. To “level the playing field”. Ludmer v. Ludmer, 2012 ONSC 4478; C.M.M. v. D.G.C., 2015 ONSC 1815. b. To ensure that meritorious claims in the family law context are not abandoned or forfeited by those who lack financial resources and, as a result, are at a significant financial disadvantage relative to the other party in the proceeding. Morton v Morton, 2015 ONSC 4633. c. To allow both parties to advance and scrutinize their respective cases, in compliance with our comprehensive Family Law Rules, within the timelines imposed by case management.
[93] As noted in Stuart, interim disbursements have often been permitted where the payment can be characterized as an advance to the party who will likely be receiving an equalization payment in any event. But a pending equalization entitlement is not a pre-requisite to interim disbursements. While equalization is claimed herein, the evidence is unclear as to the likely outcome on this topic.
[94] Similarly, while some of the earlier case law considered the ability of the claimant to repay the funds in the event that their case fails, this does not appear to be a consideration which currently receives much favour. The purpose of much of our family law legislation is to address economic disadvantage. It would be illogical to require the disadvantaged party to prove they’ve got enough money to repay any advance on disbursements. If they had such resources, they likely wouldn’t be seeking interim disbursements in the first place. Romanelli v. Romanelli (supra).
[95] Under Rule 24(12) the threshold requirement of a “meritorious claim” is not terribly onerous: The claimant must establish a prima facie case. Rea v. Rea, 2016 ONSC 382.
[96] But interim fees and disbursements are not intended to fund a fishing expedition. There must be sufficient information in the materials filed on the motion to reassure the court that the claims being made are reasonable. Romanelli v. Romanelli (supra); Mcilvenna v. Pinkowski, [2010] O.J. No. 3963 (SCJ).
[97] A party claiming interim disbursements should provide estimates and explanations of the proposed expenditures, particularly those relating to experts and valuators. Hall v. Sabri, [2011] O.J. No. 4178 (SCJ); Jung v. Johnson, 2015 ONSC 6734. Ballpark numbers are generally insufficient (although the court may be able to take judicial notice of a reasonable range of anticipated legal fees).
[98] By the same token, until the financially dominant party cooperates fully and makes complete disclosure, it is difficult for a party claiming interim disbursements to assemble precise cost estimates from the professionals they seek to retain. Once it becomes clear that the financially dominant partner is intent on deception and obfuscation, a more expansive approach to interim disbursements may be necessary to avoid mischief and discourage non-disclosure.
[99] The party seeking interim disbursements should also be able to satisfy the court that despite reasonable steps to finance the litigation, they are still unable to proceed without advance funds. Turk v. Turk (supra).
[100] An award of interim disbursements pursuant to Rule 24(12) is not a predetermination of costs. The order is not intended to be a licence to litigate. Both parties should remain equally wary about the potential of a costs order against them. Rea v. Rea (supra).
Analysis
Prima Facie Merit
I find that there is prima facie merit to the Applicant’s argument, at least at this stage of the case, that the Respondent is attempting to relitigate the initial proceeding.
The governing Order of October 16, 2020 was a consent Order. It provided for the determination of the Respondent’s income. When the Motion to Change is determined, the Court’s task is not just to compare the Respondent’s declared income in subsequent years to that upon which the October 16, 2020 Order was based to see if there was a change. Rather, the applicable test is set out at paragraphs 42-60 of Trang v. Trang, 2013 ONSC 1980.
In Trang v. Trang, Pazaratz J. held that on Motions to Change involving imputed income, the Court will consider:
(a) Why income had to be imputed in the first place?; (b) Have those circumstances changed?; (c) Is it still necessary to impute income to achieve a fair result?; and (d) How did the Court quantify the imputed income and are those calculations still applicable?
In this context, I agree with the Applicant, that it would be unfair to her, to have to relitigate this Motion to Change without assistance. This is especially so since in the last round of the proceedings, the Respondent failed to comply with an order to obtain an income analysis from a court ordered CBV. Had the Respondent complied with the order and cooperated with the CBV to complete the income analysis, the Applicant would have had input into the process. By launching this further Motion to Change, the Respondent is attempting to rely on an income analysis that he obtained on his own, without any input or involvement from the Applicant.
Credibility
The Applicant raises a number of credibility arguments that if proven undermine the Respondent’s ability to satisfy the test in Trang v. Trang.
The Applicant says the Respondent’s credibility is so severely damaged that he cannot simply be taken at his word with respect to the income analysis he obtained on his own. Similarly, the Applicant says she cannot rely upon the findings of the Benson report, which necessarily turn on the veracity of the information that the Respondent himself supplied to his own expert. I agree with her.
For example, the Applicant argues that the Respondent has repeatedly been untruthful with this court and the Superior Court of Justice. She references an affidavit sworn by the Respondent in 2018 in litigation he commenced in the Superior Court of Justice denying paternity of the child on the basis that he did not engage in sexual relations with the Applicant. A DNA test proved his statements were not truthful.
Below I set out a number of more specific concerns about the Respondent’s financial disclosure in this proceeding to date, which further underscores the Applicant’s concerns about credibility. They also explain why I find the interim disbursement to be necessary.
Necessity
I accept, as the Applicant says, that the Respondent’s financial affairs are complicated, that she requires an expert to review the income analysis obtained by the Respondent, and that this may entail her own expert undertaking a lifestyle analysis, which the Respondent’s expert did not do.
The Applicant says that disclosure from the Respondent and other information she has obtained in the previous litigation suggests the Respondent’s affairs are so intertwined with the Church that is impossible to know what belongs only to the Church and what belongs to the Church and the Respondent and possibly his wife. For example, the Respondent included the Church’s bank account as an asset on a personal application for financing.6
There are also the non-taxable “blessings” that the Respondent admits having received from congregants in the past. According to the Applicant, the only explanation she has for the Respondent’s extravagant lifestyle and the lifestyle of his family, is that these “blessings” have continued.
The Respondent’s lifestyle is that he has a wife and 8 other children. Together, they purchased a home in 2017 for $2,000,000.00. Then a mortgage was registered in the amount of $1,250,000.00. According to the Applicant, the Respondent drives luxury vehicles, takes flying lessons, wears expensive clothing and sends his school age children to private school. These are not just statements by the Applicant; some of this is revealed on the Respondent’s own sworn financial statements.
In addition, the Applicant raises questions about the business income that the Respondent receives, via the business that he operates with his wife selling items of a religious nature.
I do not just rely on the Applicant’s allegations about lifestyle. Since commencing this Motion to Change, the Respondent has filed three sworn Financial Statements dated June 8, 2022, April 26, 2023 and May 26, 2023. The Respondent’s own statements in his sworn financial statements raise more questions for the Court than answers.
For example:
(a) The Respondent’s annual budget disclosed on his sworn Financial Statements vary significantly. His budget was disclosed at $57,954.00 in June 2022; $124,409.04 in April 2023; and $153,168.96 in May 2023; (b) The Respondent discloses his monthly mortgage payment of $2,589.75 on his June 2022 sworn Financial Statement, $2,551.75 on his April 2023 sworn Financial Statement, and $2355.46 on his May 2023 sworn Financial Statement; (c) On his June 2022 and May 2023 sworn Financial Statements he indicates that the amount he pays towards his mortgage represents 50% of the monthly mortgage payment; (d) The Respondent acknowledges that 4 of his 8 children attend private school, but the tuition is not disclosed on his sworn Financial Statements. He says his wife pays the monthly sum of $2497.75 with the child tax benefit; (e) In his June 2022 and April 2023 sworn Financial Statements the Respondent discloses no car loan or lease payments. Then, in his May 26, 2023 sworn Financial Statement, the Respondent discloses $4,990.40 in car loan or lease payments for which he says he pays 50% or $2,495.20 per month; (f) On his June 2022 sworn Financial Statement, the Respondent values his interest in his matrimonial home at $900,000.00, being 50% of the current value of $1,800,000.00. He then values his 50% interest at $800,000.00 and $1,000,000.00 on his April 2023 and May 2023 sworn Financial Statements respectively. The Respondent provides no evidence to support these valuations given that he and his wife paid $2,000,000.00 for the home in 2017, five years ago; (g) The original mortgage registered on the Respondent’s matrimonial home at the time of purchase in 2017 was $1,250,000.00 yet he discloses his mortgage to be $1,147,068.15 in June 2021, $1,138,309.62 in April 2023 and $1,138,598.72 as of May 2023 with no explanation for the nominal decrease over 5 years; (h) The Respondent’s June 2022 sworn Financial Statement discloses income for the previous year of $54,485.00 (the amount reported on his Income Tax Return) yet Mr. Benson calculated his income for the purpose of child support in 2021 to be $66,051.00.
The Respondent has not even prepared a full budget for himself, his wife and their 8 children on any of these sworn financial statements. Nor has the Respondent disclosed his wife’s income either, even though they seem to operate in tandem, in his line of work. The Respondent has not completed schedule B to the financial statement which provides information about other members of the household and their income7. Instead, the Respondent discloses 50% of the cost of expenses but fails to disclose who pays the other 50% or if he has any other expenses that a third party pays on his behalf8.
On a very rough basis, I note that on his Financial Statement sworn May 23, 2023, the Respondent discloses an incomplete annual budget for his household of $153,168.96. If the Court were to add back in the full monthly cost of the Respondent’s mortgage, home insurance, car insurance, car loans/lease payments for which he only included 50% of the cost and 100% of the cost of private school for his children which was absent from his sworn financial Statement, his annual budget increases by $97,904.99 resulting in annual expenses of $251,073.95. It is impossible for the Applicant, or the court to understand how the Respondent can fund this, when he reports an annual income of $114,800.00 as of his May 26, 2023 sworn Financial Statement.
Finally, the Applicant raises a number of additional questions that must be answered by the Respondent in terms of his role at the Church, his involvement in the purchase of land to build a new Church and residence at a cost of over $5,000,000.00, the disclosure of his interest in various luxury cars and the Church’s bank account on his application for financing with the TD Bank in 2019 and what he and his wife are currently earning from the sale of his goods through the online store.
The Court rejects the Respondent’s submission that a court is equipped to decide any issues arising from the Benson report. I find an expert to be necessary to conduct a full inquiry into the Respondent’s income on the facts of this case. An expert will be able to identify possible issues with the Benson report, request clarification from the author and possibly additional financial disclosure or information from the Respondent.
Only once that is done, will a court be properly positioned to determine any issues arising from competing reports or opinions. Reviewing and dissecting an income analysis prepared by a CBV is not within the expected general knowledge of a Judge making an expert critique in this case unnecessary. It is entirely reasonable that the Applicant will want to hire an expert to critique the Benson report for the purpose of furthering her case.
Based on the above, the Benson report appears on its face to be of limited value. I find that a critique and possibly an assessment of the cost of the Respondent’s lifestyle is necessary in order to move this litigation forward.
Amount of the Disbursement
The Applicant has obtained estimates from two companies who can complete an income analysis and was given the range of $15,000.00 to $35,000.00 by one and $17,000.00 to $23,000.00 from the other. The emails from Kalex Valuations and Vine Valuations are attached as exhibits to the Applicant’s affidavit.
Under the circumstances, these estimates are reasonable.
Leveling the Playing Field and Ability to Pay
Both parties argue that the “playing field” favours their position. However, the Applicant works for the Canadian government and earns approximately $60,000.00 per year. She supports herself and her son. She has approximately $21,000.00 in savings. Her monthly budget is approximately $6757.00 or $81,086.00 annually.
The Applicant cannot afford the cost of retaining her own expert. For example, she says the Respondent is in arrears of child support and only recently made a payment towards the outstanding costs ordered against him on six occasions.
Again, it is also the Respondent’s onus to prove his income.
By contrast, based on the above evidence respecting his credibility and disclosure, the Court has concerns about the veracity of the Respondent’s statement that he cannot afford the cost of a disbursement.
The Court cannot rely on the Benson report to make a finding that the Respondent cannot afford the disbursement. The concerns that I have already addressed, indicate that the report may be of limited value. The report is yet to be tested.
Moreover, the Court already determined that the Respondent’s income is $300,000.00. Unless or until that Order is varied, it is presumed to be valid.
At a minimum, the Respondent claims to currently earn at least $114,000.00 per year; almost twice what the Applicant earns. If taken at his word that his home has not increased in value by even one dollar since he purchased it in 2017, he has equity in the home of over $860,000.00. He should be able to access $25,000.00 from this equity.
In my view, the Respondent is in a better position to fund the disbursement. I find that the Applicant will be prejudiced in her ability to defend the Respondent’s claims without retaining an expert of her own to review the Benson report and the Respondent’s finances.
In other words, the Applicant’s request for $25,000.00 from the Respondent for interim disbursements is necessary to “level the playing field”.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the evidence set out above, I find the following:
(a) The Applicant requires an expert to determine what income level is required to fund the Respondent’s and his family’s lifestyle; (b) Currently the court has far more questions about the Respondent’s annual income since October 2020 then answers. Therefore, the Applicant’s request for funds to retain an expert to assist in determining the Respondent’s income is not a fishing expedition; (c) The amount requested by the Applicant is reasonable and consistent with the estimates given to her by two experts who are able to complete the work being requested by the Applicant; (d) The Applicant cannot fund the services required by an expert. Without these services, the Applicant will not be able to defend the Motion to Change; and (e) The Respondent has the means to provide the Applicant with the funds requested to enable her to proceed with the litigation.
Order
The Respondent shall pay the Applicant the sum of $25,000.00 forthwith to assist in retaining the services of an expert to critique the Benson report and if necessary, to complete an analysis of the cost of funding the Respondent’s and his family’s lifestyle.
If the Applicant seeks costs of this motion and the issue cannot be resolved on consent between the parties, the Applicant shall serve and file her costs submissions within 20 days of the date of this order which shall not exceed 5 pages not including attachments such as a Bill of Costs or Offer to Settle. The Respondent shall have 20 days from the date of receipt of the Applicant’s costs submissions to serve and file a reply which shall not exceed 5 pages not including attachments such as a Bill of Costs or Offer to Settle. All costs submissions shall be submitted directly to the trial coordinator who shall forward them to my attention.
Released: June 22, 2023 Signed: Justice Melanie Sager
Footnotes
Footnotes
- The Respondent’s position has changed since commencing the Motion to Change.
- The Applicant brought a motion against the Church for third party disclosure in the previous litigation.
- These costs have since been paid.
- This is the amount for receipted donations and does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars collected by the Church for “non-receipted donations”.
- This information is readily available to the public for Registered Charities and was provided by the Applicant.
- The Respondent says that was an error that he corrected and submitted an amended application to the bank. The application on which the Respondent included the Church’s bank account was provided to the Applicant directly by the bank pursuant to a Direction signed by the Respondent in the previous litigation. The amended application referenced by the Respondent was not provided to the Applicant by the bank but rather, an incomplete copy was attached as an exhibit to the Respondent’s affidavit sworn May 23, 2023.
- This schedule is only required if a deponent is making or responding to a claim for undue hardship or spousal support. The Respondent’s counsel advised the court on the motion that the Respondent would be seeking to amend his Motion to Change to include a claim of undue hardship given he has 8 children in his home. In any event, this is information that the Respondent should voluntarily provide to the court to better understand his claims.
- Counsel for the Respondent submitted that his wife pays the other 50% of these expenses but that was not in evidence before the court.