Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-009799 DATE: 20230224

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: BALKIRAN KAUR KHAIRA, Applicant AND: AJEET SINGH GHUMMAN, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice A.A. Sanfilippo

COUNSEL: Poroshad Mahdi, for the Applicant James Herbert, for the Respondent

HEARD: February 10, 2023

Case Conference Endorsement

[1] On December 20, 2022, I issued Reasons for Judgment in the trial of this Application: Khaira v. Ghumman, 2022 ONSC 7165. In paragraphs 225 and 282, I provided the parties with an opportunity to request a Case Conference in two defined circumstances. The Respondent requested the scheduling of a Case Conference, which was conducted on February 10, 2023 and addressed the following issues: (a) whether there was an arithmetic or computational error in the calculation of the Net Family Property (“NFP”) equalization; (b) a term required for the settling of the Judgment; and (c) the revision of the timetable for the delivery of written cost submissions.

A. Arithmetic or Computational Error in the NFP Calculation

[2] Paragraph 225 of the Reasons for Judgment provides as follows:

If the parties should consider that there is an arithmetic or computational error in the calculation of the NFP, as set out in Schedule “A”, they may confer and agree on an arithmetic or computational correction or they may request, within 30 days of the date of these Reasons for Judgment, the scheduling of a Case Conference to speak to any required correction.

[3] The Respondent submitted that there was an arithmetic or computational error in the calculation of the NFP equalization resulting from the findings made in relation to the “Parental Loans”, as that term is defined in paragraph 207 of the Reasons for Judgment. [1] The Respondent submitted that while I found that the Parental Loans consisted of both the principal amount of the loans and the compound interest, that only the principal amount of the loans was applied in the NFP equalization calculation.

[4] The Reasons for Judgment summarized, in footnote 2, the loans that comprised the Parental Loans. This was a summary of the loan analysis that was set out at paragraphs 132-158. The summary listed the loans that comprised the total amount outstanding, on the date of separation, with compound interest, as follows: “1,666,100+$105,360+$112,700=$1,884,160”.

[5] I found that the Parental Loans shall be discounted to 10% for use in the NFP equalization. This is set out in paragraph 223 of the Reasons for Judgment:

Specifically, I find that the values of the loans shall be discounted from $864,700 to $86,470, and the principal amount of the loans with compound interest to the date of separation shall be discounted from $1,884,160 to $188,416 for use in the NFP equalization. There shall be a corresponding reduction to 10% of the value to each of the loans that comprise the total principal amount. [Emphasis added.]

[6] Although the Reasons for Judgment stated that both the principal and compound interest components of the Parental Loans “shall be discounted from $1,884,160 to $188,416 for use in the NFP equalization”, only the principal amount of the Parental Loans was used in the NFP equalization calculation in Schedule “A” of the Reasons for Judgment. This is seen as follows:

(a) The “Value of Debts and Other Liabilities on Valuation Date” allocated to Dr. Ghumman included 10% of the principal amount of the Parental Loans totaling $864,700, without any compound interest. [2]

(b) The “Value of Date of Marriage Debt” owned by Dr. Ghumman consisted of 10% of the principal amount of the Parental Loans totaling $336,000, again without any compound interest.

[7] Dr. Ghumman stated that the NFP equalization calculation should have allocated to him as “Value of Debts and Other Liabilities on Valuation Date” 10% of the Parental Loans (principal and compound interest), consisting of $188,416 rather than $86,470.00, as indicated at paragraph 223 of the Reasons for Judgment. Dr. Ghumman stated that the “Value of Date of Marriage Debt” would similarly be 10% of both principal and compound interest, consisting of $37,118.40 rather than $33,600. [3]

[8] The Applicant, Ms. Khaira, submitted that there was no arithmetical or computational error and that the Reasons for Judgment intended that only the principal values of the Parental Loans be used in the NFP calculation. I do not accept this submission because it is contrary to a clear reading of the Reasons for Judgment, particularly paragraphs 132-158 and 193-223.

[9] The parties’ submissions at trial on their competing NFP equalization calculations were based on the application of both the principal and compound interest values for the loans. This is seen in trial Exhibit 4, “Form 13C: Comparison of Net Family Property Statements”. The competing positions of Dr. Ghumman and Ms. Khaira on the “Value of Debts and Other Liabilities on the Valuation Date” set out Dr. Ghumman’s position that $1,884,160 should be included as his debt while Ms. Khaira claimed that the Parental Loans should be attributed zero value for the purposes of NFP calculation. Similarly, Dr. Ghumman claimed debt through loans on the date of marriage of $371,183.00, representing both principal and interest, while Ms. Khaira maintained that these loans should be attributed zero value. This approach was replicated in the “Comparison of Net Family Property Statements” delivered by Ms. Khaira along with her written closing submissions.

[10] I accept the Respondent’s submission that there was an arithmetic or computational error in the calculation of the NFP equalization in Schedule “A” of the Reasons for Judgment in that only the principal amounts were used for the Parental Loans. The Reasons for Judgment provide that the NFP equalization calculation should include both the principal and compound interest values of the Parental Loans, as discounted to 10%, in both the “Value of Debts and Other Liabilities on Valuation Date” attributable to Dr. Ghumman and in the “Value of Date of Marriage Debt” attributable to Dr. Ghumman.

[11] The NFP equalization calculation shall be corrected to include the correct values for the Parental Loans using both the principal and compound interest. As stated at the Case Conference, I will leave to the lawyers for the parties the process of inserting the correct values in the NFP equalization calculation.

B. Settling the Form of Judgment

[12] In paragraph 282 of the Reasons for Judgment, I provided that the parties could request a Case Conference if they did not agree on the form of judgment. [4] The parties disagree in the settling of the form of judgment because the Respondent did not agree with the Applicant’s position that the judgment bears pre-judgment interest.

[13] The Reasons for Judgment state, in paragraph 281(e) that: “The judgment bears interest at the applicable rate under the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.” This is an award of interest provided by the Courts of Justice Act under sections 127 - 129: pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest. The form of judgment shall thereby provide for both post-judgment interest and pre-judgment interest.

C. Timetable for Delivery of Cost Submissions

[14] Paragraph 283 of the Reasons for Judgment set out a timetable for the parties to deliver their written submissions on costs, barring a negotiated resolution. [5] The timetable called for “any party seeking costs” to deliver their written cost submissions by January 20, 2023. When the Respondent requested this Case Conference on January 17, 2023, the Applicant notified the Respondent’s lawyer that she would defer her written submissions on costs until the hearing of the Case Conference because the final NFP equalization calculation could have an impact on the Applicant’s position on the cost consequences resulting from offers to settle.

[15] The parties agreed at the Case Conference that a new timetable be implemented for the determination in writing of the issue of costs as follows:

(a) The Applicant may, by February 27, 2023, deliver by email to my judicial assistant, after service and filing on CaseLines, written costs submission of no more than 8 pages, plus a Bill of Costs, together with a list of authorities relied on.

(b) The Respondent may, by March 13, 2023, deliver by email to my judicial assistant, after service and filing on CaseLines, responding cost submissions of the same length.

(c) The Applicant may, by March 17, 2023, deliver any reply cost submissions of no more than 3 pages.

[16] If no party delivers any written cost submissions by March 13, 2023, I will deem the issue of costs to have been settled.

Justice A.A. Sanfilippo Date: February 24, 2023

Footnotes

[1] Reasons for Judgment, para. 207: “I find that Dr. Ghumman has established that at the date of separation, he had loans outstanding to his parents in the principal amount of $864,700, that with compound interest totaled $1,884,160 [footnote omitted]. I will refer to these as the “Parental Loans”.

[2] This consisted of loans totaling $685,000, $79,700, and $100,000.

[3] Reasons for Judgment, paras. 136-138.

[4] Reasons for Judgment, paragraph 282: “The parties may deliver a form of judgment, with their approval as to form and content. If they do not agree on the form of judgment, the parties may request a Case Conference.”

[5] Reasons for Judgment, paragraph 283: “The parties are encouraged to agree on the issue of costs. If the parties cannot agree on the issue of costs, any party seeking costs may, by January 20, 2023, deliver by email to my judicial assistant after service and filing on CaseLines, written costs submission of no more than 8 pages, plus a Bill of Costs. Any party against whom costs is sought may, by February 10, 2023, deliver by email to my judicial assistant after service and filing on CaseLines, responding cost submissions of the same length. If no party delivers any written cost submissions by February 10, 2023, I will deem the issue of costs to have been settled.”