COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-681 DATE: 2023/04/25 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: MICHELLE S. DEROUIN -and- CHRISTOPHER ALEXANER DEROUIN -and- RICK DEROUIN AND CHRISTINE DEROUIN

BEFORE: Justice Marc R. Labrosse

COUNSEL: Beverly Johnston, Counsel for the Applicant Marc Coderre, Counsel for the Respondent Michael Rappaport, Counsel for the Rick and Christine Derouin (did not attend)

HEARD: November 9, 2022 and January 26, 2023

Endorsement

Overview

[1] The Applicant, Michelle Derouin, has brought this motion to strike the Answer and Claim of the Respondent Christopher Alexander Derouin based on non-compliance with the court orders of Justice Labrosse dated September 13, 2021, October 15, 2021, May 9, 2022, May 24, 2022, June 29, 2022 and July 27,2022, and non-compliance with the Family Law Rules (“FLR”). Alternatively, the Applicant seeks relief under Rule 1(8) of the FLR, to sanction the Respondent for failing to comply with prior orders.

[2] There is no dispute that the Respondent has not responded to his disclosure obligations within a reasonable time. This Court has bent over backwards to afford him the opportunity to do so. Finally, in the fall of 2022, he retained new counsel who got the file moving in the right direction. However, the Respondent’s new counsel, Mr. Coderre, has asserted that he has responded to the ordered disclosure as best that he can and that the remaining matters to address are either not available to the Respondent at this time, that they have been answered best he can or that they are as a result of his inability to pay child support or previously ordered costs.

Background Facts

[3] The parties were married on October 10, 2010 and separated on August 21, 2020. At the time of the Motion, the Applicant was 40 years of age and the Respondent was 39 years of age.

[4] There are two children of the marriage, namely * born November *, 2011, and *, born June *, 2014. The children have been in their mother’s primary care since separation and the Applicant is in possession of the home.

[5] The Respondent has not seen the children since the spring of 2020.

[6] The Application is dated April 14, 2021 and the Answer and Claim is dated August 17, 2021.

[7] On September 13, 2021, the parties attended a case conference before Justice Labrosse. The Court ordered the following disclosure be provided within 45 days:

a. The Respondent father to provide copies of his income tax returns for the past three taxation years.

b. Both parties shall provide documentation to support the values of their assets and liabilities listed on their sworn form 13.1 financial statements.

c. The Respondent shall provide documentation confirming the Respondent’s current gross income for child support purposes.

d. The Respondent shall provide financial disclosure of the Respondent’s business, CA Derouin Construction, including:

i. financial statements of the Respondent’s business for the date of marriage, the date of separation and three most recent taxation years; and

ii. a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the Respondent does not deal at arm’s length for the date of marriage, the date of separation, and three most recent taxation years.

e. The Respondent shall provide to the Applicant with copies of his medical records related to his psychiatric treatment dating back 4-5 years and he shall provide a report from the counsellor that he consulted in 2020 setting out the nature of the consultation, any medical diagnosis, treatment plan, and/or prognosis related to his mental health issues.

[8] On October 15, 2021, the parties consented to a temporary order wherein the parties were to serve and exchange Affidavit of Documents no later than November 12, 2021, such that questioning of the parties could proceed by December 20, 2021.

[9] Questioning was scheduled for December 17, 2021. Issues surrounding the undertakings and refusals arising from the Respondent’s questioning were dealt with in my Endorsement dated May 17, 2022. The Court ordered that the Respondent provide a Further and Better Affidavit of Documents and that he provide copies of each document. Additionally, the Court ordered the Respondent to pay all child support arrears and to commence paying previously ordered child support.

[10] On May 24, 2022, Justice Labrosse ordered the Respondent to serve and file a document which sets out a table with all disclosure or steps required from all previous orders.

[11] On June 29, 2022, Justice Labrosse found that the Respondent failed to meet his disclosure obligations and ordered a further case conference at which the Respondent would give further information on his compliance with the ordered disclosure.

[12] On July 27, 2022, Justice Labrosse made further orders in relation to disclosure and the need to pay child support. Justice Labrosse adjourned the Respondent’s motion to reduce child support and parenting time (this motion was never served by the Respondent), and allowed the Applicant to set a date for her motion to strike.

[13] This Court has continued to meet with the parties in an attempt to finally resolve the outstanding disclosure orders. It has been a painful process as the Respondent has provided his disclosure at an unacceptably slow pace. This has increased the Applicant’s costs in seeking enforcement of the disclosure orders.

[14] It must be noted that in the fall of 2022, the Respondent’s counsel had a significant health issue that required the Respondent to seek new counsel. That delay can only explain a small part of the overall delay. In the end, the overall delay lies at the feet of the Respondent.

Applicable Law

[15] Orders to strike pleadings are to be used only in exceptional cases: see Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450.

[16] In Manchanda v. Thethi 2016 ONSC 3776, appealed dismissed 2016 ONCA 909, Justice Myers held as follows:

“ A party should not have to endure order after order after order being ignored and breached by the other side. A refusal to disclose one’s financial affairs is not just a mis-step in the pre-trial tactical game that deserves a two minute delay of game penalty. Failure to disclose is a breach of the primary objective. Especially if it involves breach of a court order, a party who fails to disclose evinces a determination that he or she does not want to play by the rules. It is time to oblige such parties by assessing a game misconduct to eject them from the proceeding.”

[17] The utmost caution must be used before striking a party’s pleadings as it relates to custody and access. Custody is to be decided only on the best interest of the children with a full evidentiary record: see Burke v. Poitras 2ONCA 1025

[18] When faced with an allegation of failure to obey an order or rule, before granting a remedy, the judge must be satisfied that there has been non-compliance: see Mullin v. Sherlock, 2018 ONCA 1063 at para 44.

[19] In Mullin at para 45, the Court of Appeal stated that in assessing the most appropriate remedy for failure to obey a disclosure order, a judge should consider:

• the relevance of the non-disclosure, including its significance in hindering the resolution of issues in dispute;

• the context and complexity of the issues in dispute, understanding that an uncomplicated case should have little tolerance for non-disclosure, whereas a case involving extensive valuation of assets may permit some reasonable delay in responsiveness;

• the extensiveness of existing disclosure;

• the seriousness of efforts made to disclose, and the explanations offered by a defaulting party for the inadequate or non-disclosure; and

• any other relevant factors.

[20] In determining the best remedy, Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules permits the court to make any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including:

a. an order for costs.

b. an order dismissing a claim.

c. an order striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party.

d. an order that all or part of a document that was required to be provided but was not, may not be used in the case.

e. if the failure to obey was by a party, an order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise.

f. an order postponing the trial or any other step in the case; and

g. on motion, a contempt order.

Analysis

[21] The lack of cooperation by the parties to provide an accurate list of the outstanding disclosure presents significant challenges for the Court. There are 14 items of disclosure that are listed in Exhibit “B” of the Applicant’s affidavit dated August 9, 2022. Unfortunately, the Applicant has not updated that list and the Court has been left to search through the various affidavits and correspondence filed to find updates for the information on the various disclosure issues. Finally, it is further challenging because neither party has consistently dealt with the disclosure items in the same order and other peripheral issue have been raised to muddy the waters. This is a motion to strike for non-compliance with previous orders and that is where the Court will focus its attention. As such, the evidence filed is piecemeal and hard to find. In some cases, letters are included as exhibits to affidavits but then the documentation which accompanied the letter is not provided. These factors have delayed the finalization of this decision.

[22] Notwithstanding the above, the most reliable list of outstanding disclosure is the list found at Exhibit “B” of the Applicant’s August 9, 2022 affidavit coupled with my review of the orders and endorsements referred to in paragraph 1 of this Endorsement. I have also considered the outstanding answers to undertakings and advisements which were ordered as part of my Endorsement dated May 17, 2022.

[23] I do not purport to go over all the evidence in detail during this protracted motion. I will address the evidence that I deem most relevant as I consider each item of disclosure and provide my conclusion on if the disclosure has or has not been given.

Payment of Child Support and Child Support Arrears

[24] There is no dispute that the Respondent has failed to comply with my orders in respect of the payment of child support and the mounting arrears. It is particularly frustrating given that the order for the payment of child support was issued on consent.

[25] However, it must also be noted that the consent order in respect of child support was concluded in September, 2021 and the Respondent may not have had an accurate picture of his income for that year. He agreed that child support would be based on his “current income of $57,363”. He has since sworn that his income for 2021 was actually $23,923.

[26] Thus, there is a legitimate issue for trial as to what the Respondent’s actual income should be for child support purposes. There may also be an issue of imputing income to the Respondent but this Court is not in a position to assess the merits of such a claim by the Applicant and this would have to be done based on proper evidence at trial.

[27] At various times since the commencement of my involvement, the Respondent has made statements promising to start making payments, to continue making payments and various other statements made to simply appease the court in the moment, with no apparent intention to live by his statements. This is consistent with the Respondent’s overall approach to disclosure and how he has forced the Applicant to incur the cost of continuously re-evaluating the disclosure provided in a piecemeal fashion.

[28] The Respondent’s approach to the payment of child support and his disclosure obligations have also required numerous appearances before this Court and it is really not until the Respondent provided his January 6, 2023 affidavit that the Court has been in a position to properly assess the status of each disclosure item. In that affidavit, there is correspondence between counsel which suggests that the Respondent paid child support for the months of July, August, September, and October at the rate of $874 per month. There is also evidence in the same affidavit that some payments were made in November and December 2022 but it is unclear on the amount paid for those months. Further the Applicant disputes that child support was paid for September and October 2022 and she claims that the child support arrears were in the range of $12,000 by November 2022.

[29] The Court must also consider that the Respondent’s child support obligation based on his claimed income of $23,923 is roughly $360 per month. It is also noted that the Respondent has expressed a desire to bring a motion to change the child support order however, his non-compliance with disclosure issues has essentially prevented such a motion from being heard.

[30] It can be said that the non-payment of a temporary child support order obtained at a Case Conference is rarely a ground by itself, which would merit striking pleadings. It is usually coupled with other non-compliance issues, particularly disclosure and non-payment of costs. In my view, the non-payment of child support must be excessive and egregious to warrant striking pleadings if it is the only non-compliance issue. In Ilmer v. Ilmer, 2015 ONSC 289, the court struck the respondent’s pleading for failure to pay child support over a period of 10 years with arrears amounting to over $70,000. However, there were also other non-compliance and non-attendance issues in that case.

[31] There is no doubt that the Respondent is in breach of the existing child support order which was issued with the consent of the parties. It will be a legitimate issue for trial to determine if the income set out in the child support order should be amended to reflect his actual income or even an imputed income. This matter is on the September 2023 trial list and the Respondent would be well advised to respect his current child support obligations until a full determination of the issue can be made at trial. I will not order child support again. It is not at this point a stand-alone ground to strike the Respondent’s pleadings. It remains an issue to consider when the Court exercises its discretion on this motion.

Payment of Outstanding Costs Awards

[32] In his affidavit of January 6, 2023, the Respondent admits to his failure to pay my costs award to the Applicant in the amount of $6,698.55. He claims to not have the funds to pay this amount and offers that the Applicant can obtain a lien against the Respondent’s share in the equity of the matrimonial home.

[33] I am not aware if the Respondent has any equity in the matrimonial home. However, the non-payment of costs awards has historically been treated differently than non-payment of child support. It is common that when a party has outstanding costs awards against them, they are not allowed any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise, as specified in Rule 1(8). To a minimum, leave to take a step should be required.

[34] However, the Court must also consider that this matter is supposed to proceed to trial in September 2023 and this Court has an obligation to ensure that there will be no further delays. Currently, both parties have outstanding 14B motions for disclosure. Those will proceed and I have seized myself of them. However, beyond the disclosure and questioning issues, the Respondent shall not be entitled to any further court orders until the various non-compliance issues are resolved, including the outstanding costs award of $6,698.55 and any possible future costs awards.

Supervised Access Centre

[35] The September 13, 2021 consent order requires both parties to file their respective documents with the supervised access centre within 7 days. The Respondent has been inconsistent in his evidence on this issue. In his affidavit dated June 27, 2022, he claimed to have filed his application to the supervised access centre on-line. In his November 1, 2022 affidavit, he admits to not having filed his application to the supervised access centre.

[36] The Respondent has stated that he has not seen the children since November 2020. In November, 2022, the Respondent was taking the position that he wanted reunification counselling with the children and this seemed to be the reason that he had not filed his paperwork with the supervised access centre.

[37] Later in November 2022, the Respondent’s lawyer advised that the Respondent had contacted the Rose Garden Family Support Centre in Smiths Falls which offers supervised access services. In his January 6, 2023 affidavit, the Respondent states that he filed his application with the Rose Garden but provides no proof. He alleges that this was the supervised access centre agreed to by the parties but provides nothing in support.

[38] For the purposes of this motion to strike, I conclude that the Respondent has not complied with this obligation. He has not filed the documentation which confirms his compliance but more importantly, the Rose Garden is not in the City of Ottawa, being where the children reside. In the absence of a clear agreement otherwise, the Respondent is in default of this obligation and has clearly not taken reasonable steps to comply with the Court’s order.

[39] Furthermore, I do not agree with the Respondent’s bald statement dismissing his non- compliance as it is not a sufficient reason to strike a pleading. It is a factor to take into account amongst others.

[40] The point here is that the Court Order implicitly means that both parties have deemed that it was in the best interests of the children to have supervised access with the Respondent and he has not taken the necessary steps to make this happen. The Respondent approaches this issue as if he is the only one affected by his non-compliance, but he does not consider the children. His ongoing failure to comply with this obligation is troubling and will likely be troubling to the eventual trial judge.

Documents Supporting Values of Assets and Liabilities

[41] In his affidavit dated June 27, 2022, the Respondent provided a list of assets and liabilities and his explanation for where the supporting documents were. Most answers simply referred to the items being in the matrimonial home.

[42] The table attached as Exhibit “B” to the Applicant’s August 9, 2022 affidavit states that the Respondent’s laptop was returned to him in July 2022 but that he has yet to provide any supporting documents.

[43] The Respondent’s affidavit dated August 22, 2022 states that he has provided all the documentation to support the value of his assets and liabilities in his financial statement. The Applicant responded to that affidavit on August 30, 2022 by denying the Respondent’s general statement that he has provided all the documents. However, she did not provide an updated list of the items for which no documentation was provided.

[44] On October 30, 2022, the Respondent filed what he referred to as a more accurate financial statement. The Respondent’s correspondence dated November 22, 2023 attaches documents to support values for various assets.

[45] In his January 6, 2023 affidavit, the Respondent states that he has provided values for the majority of his assets including vehicle valuations. He acknowledges that he does not have access to his tools to get them valued and confirmed that he retained an appraiser who needs access to the matrimonial home to appraise it.

[46] Contrary to that which is stated in the Respondent’s January 6, 2023 affidavit, it is not only the values of his debts and liabilities that he was required to provide. It was the documents supporting the values. There is correspondence between the parties addressing the values of the assets and the documentation provided but it is not for this Court to try to compile a list of assets and liabilities and the date on which the documentation was provided. I am of the view that this should not fall on the Applicant either because she has spent enough money on these issues. This was the Respondent’s obligation, and he has failed to do so in an organized manner which clearly demonstrates that he has complied with the disclosure order in relation to debts and liabilities.

[47] It is not clear to the Court if there are still assets and liabilities that have not been properly valued other than the house and the tools. In this regard, the Applicant will give immediate access to the house so that it can be appraised. Also, per the Applicant’s November 30, 2023 letter, she does not oppose the return of the Respondent’s tools. The Respondent shall provide 4 dates in May 2023 when he can attend at the matrimonial home to pick up his tools and 4 dates when his appraiser can attend. The Applicant has said that the tools are all in the shed and as such, he will not require access to the house. They can then be valued within 30 days.

[48] The Respondent will compile a list of each of the assets and liabilities referred to in his most recent financial statement and will indicate on what date the documentation supporting values was sent to the Applicant along with a copy of the documentation supporting values. This list will be compiled and sent to the Applicant within 14 days of this Endorsement. For each item in the list of assets and liabilities for which documentation to support values has not been provided, the Respondent will be precluded from filing any further evidence on these items and the trial judge will deal with the Respondent’s failure to support the values as part of the trial.

[49] The delay in completing this required step clearly lies with the Respondent.

Current Gross Income from 2021

[50] This required disclosure was not provided in a timely fashion to allow for meaningful review by the Applicant. In the end, the Respondent relies on his 2021 Income Tax Return and Notice of Assessment.

[51] The Applicant raises outstanding issues related to the credibility of the Respondent’s information provided at that time. These are issues which can be dealt with at questioning and at trial. For the specific purpose of this outstanding disclosure, it was required in 45 days to be meaningful, and this prejudice cannot be cured by simply referring to the subsequent tax information. However, the Applicant has the only information available through the 2021 Income Tax Return and Notice of Assessment. No further step is required as the damage has been done.

Financial Disclosure of the Respondent’s Business

[52] In the original consent order of September 2021, the Respondent misled the Applicant into thinking that he operated an active business and that financial statements were available.

[53] Later, he provided evidence that his business was never incorporated and that all financial information for the years that he operated his business as a sole proprietorship is found in his tax returns. From 2017 to 2020, he was an employee and thus did not operate his business. His evidence is that he has provided his tax returns from those from 2011 to 2021.

[54] The Respondent then produced a box of documents from his business from 2011 to 2016 which he claims includes income and expense details from 2011 to 2016. He has told the Applicant that the box is available and that she was free to look through it. By correspondence dated November 30, 2022, the Respondent’s lawyer confirmed that the Applicant did not want to see the box of documents. Regardless, within 14 days of this Endorsement, the Respondent will provide a list of the documents which are in the box unless a full list has been included in his most recent Affidavit of Documents.

Medical Records and Reports

[55] This required disclosure was supplemented by my endorsement dated June 29, 2022 which required the Respondent to provided proof that all documentation from his doctors and medical practitioners was provided.

[56] The November 1, 2022 affidavit states that the Respondent has provided all psychiatric medical records available back to 2018, being the year he was hospitalized. He identifies those as the reports and information provided by Dr. Malek. He was also in the process of seeking another letter from his psychologist, Dr. McMahon.

[57] The January 6, 2023 affidavit attaches correspondence dated November 23, 2022 and November 30, 2022 which include copies of Dr. Malek’s medical records and all of Dr. McMahon’s medical records. Some records were excluded.

[58] What remains unclear is if the Respondent has provided “ a report from the counsellor he consulted in 2020 setting out the nature of the consultation, any medical diagnosis, treatment plan and or prognosis related to his mental health issues. ” The court was not provided with the specific correspondence from the medical professionals to see if each of this was provided.

[59] The challenge for the Court on this issue is that this goes to the issue of parenting and compliance is in the children’s best interest.

[60] In his June 27, 2022 affidavit, the Respondent takes the position that there were no medical records but the records of Dr. Malek and some relating to Dr. McMahon have now been provided.

[61] This consent order is clear. The Respondent shall provide a report from the expert he consulted in 2020 setting out the nature of the consultation, any medical diagnosis, treatment plan and prognosis related to his mental health issues.

[62] However, the ordered report shall be provided and until it is done, the Respondent will be entitled to no further orders of the court. Additionally, if the Applicant is required to take steps to address this non-compliance, the Respondent will bear the associated costs.

Affidavit of Documents

[63] The Respondent has now served three Affidavits of Documents. The first two did not comply with the Rules.

[64] On October 30, 2022, the Respondent served a new Affidavit of Documents with the assistance of his new counsel Mr. Coderre which seemed to comply with the rules. The Court’s understanding is that copies of all documents listed in the Affidavit of Documents have been provided. What is clear is that it took the Respondent one year to meet this obligation.

Three Construction Contracts

[65] The initial questions taken under advisement from questioning related to 2021 construction contracts as the Respondent referred to them in the present tense. He was then ordered by me to produce them in my Endorsement dated May 17, 2022. Now the Respondent has provided copies of three construction contracts that are dated May and June 2022.

[66] The Respondent has now said that there are no additional 2021 contracts and he says the only ones are dated 2022. The contradictions in the Respondent’s information can form part of questioning and the trial. Otherwise, this has been complied with.

Bank Statements and Application to Canada Wide

[67] The Respondent has provided a number of bank statements relating to his BMO everyday banking. There are some which are missing, and he should be continuing in his efforts to obtain the missing statements. He will write to BMO and obtain the missing statements within 15 days of the date of this Endorsement and provide proof to the Applicant that he has ordered the missing statements.

[68] The Respondent’s ongoing obligation to provide bank statements on a quarterly basis will continue until trial. It seems that the Respondent has not been consistent in providing his updated bank statements on a quarterly basis. Those should be provided on January 1, April 1, July 1, October 1 for the three previous months. This should avoid any ambiguity.

[69] The application to Canada Wide was provided together with documentation showing the efforts made to locate the company and obtain further documents.

Request Documents from Simpli/PC

[70] The Respondent has provided documentation showing that he has communicated with Simpli/PC and received certain statements. Further, the Respondent has offered to provide a direction. The Respondent will provide copies of any responses received from Simpli/PC on an ongoing basis.

[71] Should the Applicant succeed in obtaining the documents and incur costs of doing so, a request for reimbursement can be made to the trial judge.

[72] Otherwise, the direction will be provided within 15 days and this item will then have been otherwise complied with.

Information to Family Responsibility Office

[73] The Respondent’s counsel wrote to the Family Responsibility Office and provided the Respondent’s address and self-information. Copies were not provided to the Court but is it assumed that the “self-information” includes a current e-mail address and a current telephone number. A copy of that letter was sent to the Applicant on November 22, 2023. The delay lies with the Respondent.

Other Orders and Endorsements

[74] I have reviewed the orders listed by the Applicant in her Notice of Motion and my Endorsement dated May 17, 2022. There was additional disclosure related to the following issues:

a. The litigation file where the Respondent was represented by Brian Delaney which is not part of the list at Exhibit B of the August 9, 2022 affidavit;

b. Production of documents related to the Claim by Rick and Christine Derouin appear to have been provided by Mr. Coderre as per the January 6, 2023 affidavit;

c. List of e-mail addresses used by the Respondent provided on November 22, 2022;

d. Lease for 6804 Bank Street – The Respondent now says that there was no lease.

[75] Thus, it appears that these remaining issues have been addressed and may be relevant at questioning.

Striking pleadings for non-compliance with disclosure and failure to pay child support and costs

[76] As set out above, the Respondent continues to be in default of the following court ordered obligations:

a. Child support;

b. The outstanding cost award of $6,689.55;

c. Filing his application to the Supervised Access Centre in the jurisdiction where the children primarily reside;

d. A proper list of assets and liabilities with documents supporting values;

e. A list of the documents in the box relating to his business if not already in the Affidavit of Documents;

f. A report on his mental health;

g. Missing Bank Statements.

[77] When considering the available remedies under Rule 1(8), I make the following general statements:

a. The relevance of the non-disclosure is not significant on the financial issues. It seems that much of the documentation for assets and liabilities has been provided or can be provided once the Respondent can have the home appraised and get his tools to be valued.

b. The more relevant non-disclosure issue relates to the Respondent’s mental health given the decision-making and parenting time will be issues at trial. The best interests of the children warrant that this element of non-disclosure be properly addressed prior to trial. The Respondent must obtain the court-ordered report on his mental health.

c. The issues in this case are not overly complicated and it is for that reason that the Respondent’s failure to provide all the required information until January 6, 2022 is particularly egregious. He really did not make any serious efforts until he retained Mr. Coderre. From that date, efforts were made. However, the outstanding issues this can be dealt with by preventing the Respondent from taking further steps in the litigation and considering the overall costs submissions relating to this process.

[78] I consider the remaining non-disclosure to be less serious and sufficient disclosure has now been provided to allow this matter to move on to trial. Much of the work has been done and this favours that the litigation should proceed. I will continue with the parties to ensure that the disclosure is completed and the medical information is obtained to allow this matter to proceed to trial without further delay. It is therefore in the best interests of the parties and the children that the pleadings not be struck and that the matter be allowed to continue to trial with no further delays. This is how the court can best assist the parties and the children to bring an end to the litigation process.

[79] Consequently, the Court orders:

i. The Applicant’s motion to strike is dismissed.

ii. The alternate relief under Rule 1(8) is granted as set out herein.

iii. Both parties shall proceed with their Rule 14B disclosure motions followed by questioning. Justice Labrosse is seized of the remaining disclosure and questioning process. The Respondent shall not be entitled to any further court orders until the various non-compliance issues set out herein are fully addressed, including the outstanding costs award of $6,698.55 and any possible future costs awards.

iv. No further order shall be made in respect of the Supervised Access Centre application process. If such an application is to be made, it shall be made in the jurisdiction where the children reside, absent agreement in writing by the parties. The Respondent’s failure to comply with this requirement shall be considered along with the parenting issues which will proceed to trial.

v. The Respondent will compile a list of each of the assets and liabilities referred to in his most recent financial statement and will indicate on what date the documentation supporting values was sent to the Applicant and will include a copy of the documentation supporting values which will be relied upon at trial. This list will be compiled and sent to the Applicant within 7 days of this Endorsement. For each item in the list of assets and liabilities for which documentation to support values has not been provided, the Respondent will be precluded from filing any further evidence on these items and the trial judge will deal with the Respondent’s failure to support the values as part of the trial.

vi. The Respondent will provide 4 dates in May 2023 when he can attend at the matrimonial home to pick up his tools. He will then have 30 days to provide the Applicant with the documentation he will rely upon at trial to determine the value of the tools.

vii. The Respondent will provide 4 dates in May 2023 when his appraiser can attend at the matrimonial home for valuation purposes.

viii. The Respondent will provide a list of the documents in the box relating to his business within 14 days of this Endorsement, unless it is already part of the Affidavit of Documents.

ix. The Respondent shall provide a report from the expert he consulted in 2020 setting out the nature of the consultation, any medical diagnosis, treatment plan and prognosis related to his mental health issues. The Respondent will provide information on when this will be done, after consultation with his medical professionals. I will remain seized of this issue.

x. The Respondent will write to BMO and obtain the missing statements within 15 days and provide proof to the Applicant that he has ordered the missing statements.

xi. The Respondent’s ongoing obligation to provide bank statements on a quarterly basis will continue until trial. These shall be provided on January 1, April 1, July 1, October 1 for the three previous months.

[80] Any disputes will be resolved by Justice Labrosse at a 9am appearance which may be requested by either party.

Costs

[81] The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs. Otherwise, the Applicant will have 15 days from the date of this Endorsement to provide written costs submissions. The Respondent will thereafter have 15 days to respond. All costs submissions will be no longer than 4 pages plus attachments.

Justice Marc R. Labrosse

Date: April 25, 2023

COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-681 DATE: 2023/04/25 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE RE: MICHELLE S. DEROUIN v. CHRISTOPHER ALEXANER DEROUIN -and- RICK DEROUIN ENDORSEMENT Justice Marc R. Labrosse Released: April 25, 2023