Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-417875 DATE: 20240527 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Akiva Medjuck, Applicant AND: Rachel Bilah Medjuck, Respondent

BEFORE: M. Kraft, J.

COUNSEL: Hayley Cairns, for the Applicant Jonathan Roth, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 23, 2024

Nature of the Motion

Nature of the Motion

1The respondent, Rachel Bilah Medjuck (“Bilah”) asks this court to make a de novo order for financial disclosure from the applicant, Akiva Medjuck (“Akiva”) in the face of an interim Arbitral Award, made on December 18, 2023 (“2023 Interim Arbitral Award”), where the same disclosure was not granted. Alternatively, Bilah seeks leave to appeal the 2023 interim Arbitral Award.

[2] The issues for me to decide are, a. Does this Court have jurisdiction to order Akiva to produce financial disclosure de novo, in the face of the Mediation/Arbitration Agreement and/or the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award? b. Should Bilah be granted leave to appeal the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award?

[3] Under the terms of the parties’ Mediation/Arbitration Agreement, and section 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.17, an appeal lies to this court only a question of law, and only with leave. Leave will be granted if and only it the court is satisfied: a. The importance to the parties of the matters at stake in the Arbitration justifies an appeal; b. A determination of the questions of law at issue will significantly affect the rights of the parties.

4Bilah asks this Court to make a de novo order requiring Akiva to make the very financial disclosure the Arbitrator declined to order because he found he did not have jurisdiction to do so; and/or grant her leave to appeal the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award in respect of his conclusion that disclosure he considered “important”, “necessary”, and “required” was nevertheless disproportionate and thus not awarded.

5Akiva seeks to have Bilah’s motion for financial disclosure be dismissed. He argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the motion since jurisdiction is in the sole hands of the Arbitrator. In terms of Bilah’s motion for leave to appeal the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award, Akiva argues that Bilah has not met the test set out for leave to appeal in s.45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.17. and, in any event, there were no legal errors made.

Conclusion

Conclusion

6I have determined that this Court does not have jurisdiction to make a de novo order for financial disclosure in the face of the Mediation/Arbitration Agreement. I have further found that the Arbitrator made no errors in law when the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award was made, and therefore leave to appeal cannot be granted.

Some History

Some History

7This family has been engaged in high conflict mediation/arbitration for about 4 years with the Arbitrator.

8Bilah and Akiva are former spouses. They were married on May 31, 2001 and separated on April 25, 2017. They are now divorced.

9Both parties have left Canada since separation. Akiva now lives in Israel. Bilah now lives in New Jersey.

10There are four children of the marriage. The oldest son, age 21, lives in Toronto. The second oldest son, age 19, and the youngest son, age 12, reside with Akiva in Israel. The daughter, age 16, resides with Bilah in New Jersey and spends time with Akiva in Israel.

11During the marriage, Akiva ran a business assisting people in filing disability tax credits, called the National Benefit Authority Corporation (“NBA”). Prior income reports prepared by experts for Akiva reported that his income in 2017, for support purposes was $1,342,000 and in 2018, it was $1,141,000. The parties had a traditional marriage, with Akiva building his business, earning income and Bilah looking after the children and household. The family enjoyed a very high standard of living, including owning two yachts, two vacation properties and travelling overseas often.

12Akiva claims his business declined significantly after separation. He produced a letter from the CRA, dated July 14, 2023, which indicates that the NBA owes CRA about $5 million on account of Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy Debt. He also submits that as a result of a government bill passed in 2021, the NBA’s ability to do business was hamstrung. According to Akiva, as of April 15, 2024, the NBA ceased operations.

13The parties agreed to submit the issues arising from the breakdown of their marriage to mediation/arbitration with Herschel Fogelman (“the Arbitrator”) by way of a Mediation/Arbitration Agreement, dated August 8, 2020. On April 20, 2022, the parties consented to an Award resolving the issues of parenting, retroactive child support and retroactive spousal support up to December 31, 2022 (“Consent Award”). The outstanding issues of child and spousal support from January 1, 2023 onward remain in the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and were to be determined on or before July 1, 2023.

14In addition to settling the issues between the parties up to December 31, 2022, the Consent Award, provided that Akiva would not have to produce an income report for his 2020 or 2021 income.

15On August 23, 2023, Bilah sought disclosure from Akiva to determine his income for support purposes for the period January 1, 2023 onward. A procedural hearing took place before the Arbitrator. The items Bilah requested from Akiva included bank and credit card statements, personal income tax returns, corporate tax returns and financial statements for the NBA.

16On September 14, 2023, Akiva provided some limited disclosure. However, he did not produce any personal or corporate tax returns or corporate financial statements. In this package of disclosure Akiva produced the letter from the CRA advising that the NBA owes CRA about $5 million on account of Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy debt.

17Bilah obtained a procedural award from the Arbitrator on September 15, 2023, that Akiva make further and better disclosure by way of a sworn affidavit. Akiva delivered an affidavit on October 6, 2023. In this affidavit, Akiva swore that he could not produce personal or corporate income tax returns because he had not filed personal or corporate returns for the past 3 years; and he could not produce corporate financial statements for the NBA because none were filed. Further, no credit card statements, personal or corporate, were produced; and no disclosure to substantiate the use of the pandemic subsidies by the NBA was produced.

18Given the deficient disclosure, Bilah brought a disclosure motion before the Arbitrator. Just prior to the motion, Akiva agreed to retain Tim Martin, a chartered business valuator, to complete an income report for his 2022 income, but indicated he required 6-8 months to deliver it. The day prior to the motion, Akiva delivered a sworn financial statement disclosing no income, expenses of just under $1 million a year, with no explanation as to how he is meeting his expenses.

[19] Bilah’s interim motion was returnable on December 18, 2023. The issues before the Arbitrator at this temporary motion, as set out in the Interim Arbitral Award, were: a. The timeline for the delivery of an income report for Akiva for 2022 for 2023; b. Whether Akiva could be compelled to file and deliver personal income tax returns for 2021-2023, and corporate tax returns for his company, The National Benefit Authority Corp (“NBA”) for the same three years; c. Whether Akiva should be compelled to trace all the funds received by the NBA from the CRA in terms of pandemic-related subsidies; d. Whether Bilah should be paid temporary spousal support; and e. Whether Bilah should be ordered to provide the disclosure sought by Akiva.

[20] On December 21, 2023, the Arbitrator released an award (“2023 Interim Arbitral Award”) that a. Akiva produce an income report for his 2022 and 2023 income by Mr. Tim Martin by July 19, 2024; b. Akiva deliver to Bilah any and all documents he delivers to Mr. Martin and all of the data that one would normally find in a tax return; c. Akiva provide a tracing of monies the NBA received from CRA for 2021 and 2022 (i.e., pandemic subsidies), and that only for 2022, he trace how these funds were expensed by the NBA, whether any of these funds were expensed by him personally, and he account for any and all transactions in excess of $10,000; d. Bilah’s motion for temporary spousal support be dismissed without prejudice to her returning the motion upon receiving disclosure from Akiva; and e. Bilah deliver the disclosure sought by Akiva by February 28, 2024.

21In the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award, the Arbitrator acknowledged that personal and corporate income tax returns are “core documents” in the disclosure process, but he found that he had no jurisdiction to compel Akiva or a company to produce income tax returns or financial statements.

[22] The Arbitrator’s reasons set out in the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award, were as follows: a. In paragraph 16: “I cannot compel [Akiva] to prepare and file tax returns. I do not see that I have the jurisdiction to do so. I appreciate Mr. Roth’s submissions, that personal tax returns are core documents in the disclosure process and fully agree that had they been filed they would have to be produced.” b. In paragraph 17: “I do not believe and have not been provided with authority that says a company must produce a financial statement. Like a person, a company has a legal obligation file a tax return, but I am not certain that a company must prepare a financial statement.” c. In paragraph 18: “I take it from the submissions, that for tax and other reasons, [Akiva] does not wish to file a tax return at this moment. Candidly, I am not sure I understand this, but that is his choice to make. On this point I agree with Ms. Cairns that I cannot compel him to do so, either on a personal or corporate level. I agree that the language of s.21 of the CSG speaks to tax returns that have been “filed” and NOA that have been “received.” There is no provisions in the CSG that allows me or a judge to compel filing.”

23The Arbitrator did order Akiva to have Tim Martin complete an income report for his 2022 and 2023 income. He also ordered Akiva to submit all the data that one would normally find in a tax return to Bilah and Mr. Martin at the same time, and for Mr. Martin to share his scope of review documents with Bilah once his report is completed.

24In terms of the tracing of the Covid wage subsidies, the Arbitrator acknowledged that a tracing of these funds is necessary and required. He specifically found that “the crux of this case is what happened to the money that NBA got from CRA as wage subsidy, how that money was expended, when it was expended and who received the benefit of those funds.” The Arbitrator ordered Akiva to provide a tracing of money received from CRA for 2021 and 2022. For 2022, only, he ordered Akiva to also account for how those funds were expensed by NBA and or whether any were used by him personally, for any and all transactions in excess of $10,000. The Arbitrator made this distinction between 2021 and 2022 because he determined that “the Agreement resolving all support issues up to the end of December 2022 subsumes this request and as such, the request if disproportionate to any result.”

25On December 29, 2023, Bilah served a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal the Interim Arbitral Award.

26On February 26, 2024, Bilah served an Amended Notice of Motion, in which she also seeks an order to compel Akiva to prepare and file his personal income tax returns for 2020, 2021 and 2022; to compel Akiva to prepare and file his corporate income tax returns for the NBA for 2020, 2021 and 2022; to compel Akiva to prepare corporate financial statements for the NBA for fiscal years 2020, 2021 and 2022; and to provide a complete tracing for all of the CRA Covid wage subsidies the NBA received.

Issue One: Does this Court have jurisdiction to make a de novo financial disclosure order in the face of a Mediation/Arbitration Agreement?

Issue One: Does this Court have jurisdiction to make a de novo financial disclosure order in the face of a Mediation/Arbitration Agreement?

27Bilah argues that this Court may order disclosure where an arbitrator lacks the necessary jurisdiction.

[28] Section 6 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, provides that a court shall not intervene in matters governed under that Act except a. To assist the conducting of arbitrations; b. To ensure that arbitrations are conducted in accordance with arbitration agreements; c. To prevent unequal or unfair treatment of parties to arbitration agreements; and/or d. To enforce awards.

29What Bilah is seeking from this Court does not fall under the scope of s.6 of the Arbitration Act. Rather, Bilah argues that the Arbitrator’s finding that he lacked jurisdiction to make the financial disclosure order she requested is the reason she comes to this Court asking for relief.

30There are cases where this Court has made financial disclosure orders in the context of a family law case in the midst of an arbitration. However, these orders have been made generally to compel a non-party to make disclosure because he/she or a company have not been a party to the Mediation/Arbitration agreement and, as a result, the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction over the non-party.

31For example, in Garnet v. Garnet et. al., 2016 ONSC 949, Jarvis, J. considered a request by the wife for financial disclosure which the husband claimed was in the possession and control of a third party in the midst of an arbitration. Since the third party was not bound by the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to order production against him. Jarvis, J. held that the arbitrator’s lack of jurisdiction “does not preclude this court from ordering such disclosure in appropriate circumstances.”

32At paragraphs 10-13, Jarvis, J. stated:

10Family law arbitrations are governed by the Arbitrations Act, S.O. 1991, c. 17 and the Family Law Act and, in the event of a conflict, the latter Act prevails. Paragraph 9.7 of the parties’ Arbitration Agreement requires the parties, unless they agree otherwise, to comply as in court proceedings with the Family Law Rules.

[11] Family Law Rules 19 (11) and 20 (24) deal with documentary disclosure from a non-party and the confidentiality obligation imposed on the recipient of that disclosure. (11) If a document is in a non-party’s control, or is available only to the non-party, and is not protected by a legal privilege, and it would be unfair to a party to go on with the case without the document, the court may, on motion with notice served on every party and served on the non-party by special service, (a) order the non-party to let the party examine the document and to supply the party with a copy at the legal aid rate; and (b) order that a copy be prepared and used for all purposes of the case instead of the original. (24) When a party obtains evidence under this rule, rule 13 (financial disclosure) or rule 19 (document disclosure), the party and the party’s lawyer may use the evidence and any information obtained from it only for the purposes of the case in which the evidence was obtained, subject to the exceptions in subrule (25).

12The third party in this case is not a signatory to, or bound by, the Arbitration Agreement signed by the spousal parties and so the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to order production against him. But that does not preclude this court from ordering such disclosure in appropriate circumstances: Lafontaine v. Maxwell, 2014 ONSC 700.

13In Lafontaine, disclosure was ordered from non-party business associates of the husband. Accepting that considerable efforts had already been made by the husband and non-party in that case to answer the wife’s information requests, the court was not prepared to disagree with the arbitrator’s decision that certain specified information needed to be produced. This case is little different in my view. No appeal was taken by the husband to the award made by the arbitrator on May 20, 2015 that documents be produced and, equally as pertinent, the arbitrator expressed no view about the relative probity of the disclosure sought.

33In this case, Bilah is asking the court to compel disclosure from Akiva, who is a party to the Mediation/Arbitration agreement. She makes this request on the basis that the Arbitrator stated in his Arbitral Award that he lacked jurisdiction to compel Akiva to file his personal and corporate income tax returns and financial statements. By contrast, Bilah argues the court has inherent jurisdiction to compel a party to file income tax returns, personal and corporate, and, as such the court should use its inherent jurisdiction to do so.

34Bilah argues that Akiva’s personal and corporate tax returns are required to determine his income for support purposes and specifically referred to in s.21 of the Child Support Guidelines, SOR 97/175 (“CSG”). This information is also required to determine spousal support, since the definition of “income” in the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines mirrors the definition in the CSG. In addition to the statutory requirements for Akiva to produce full disclosure, personal tax returns and corporate tax returns and financial statement, the Family Law Rules require a party to attach his/her Notices of Assessment and tax information to his/her financial statement.

35It is under this context that courts in Ontario have routinely ordered parties to file their income tax returns to facilitate disclosure in support cases. Bilah’s counsel referred to a number of cases where a payor was ordered to file personal and corporate income tax returns and when such returns were not filed, the payor’s pleadings were struck or he/she was found in contempt. This court has inherent jurisdiction to order individuals and corporations to file tax returns in its effort to ensure due process and ensure that cases are being dealt with justly. However, these are cases where the parties were in litigation before the Court and did not consent to a Mediation/Arbitration process as Bilah and Akivah have.

36Akiva argues that the Arbitrator did not compel Akiva to file his personal or corporate tax returns but he was ordered to give Bilah the information she requires to determine Akiva’s income for support purposes. The Arbitrator ordered Akiva to produce all of the information he must give to Mr. Martin to determine his income to Bilah at the same time, so that she would have access to the information and data that would normally appear on an income tax return.

37The Arbitrator made a discretionary decision about the proportionality of disclosure Akiva is to produce. This is entirely within his jurisdiction under the Mediation/Arbitration Agreement. Further, there is no way for Bilah to know the outcome of the Arbitration at this juncture. Having stated how important the information is to the issues of child and spousal support, it may well be that the Arbitrator draws an adverse inference if Akiva does not produce the financial documentation he has been ordered to produce.

38I find that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award. The issue of Akiva’s child and spousal support obligations from January 1, 2023 onward is solely within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator as set out in the parties’ Mediation/Arbitration Agreement. Even if I disagree with the Arbitrator’s decision as to whether or not he had jurisdiction to order Akiva and/or his company to file income tax returns and financial statements, it does not permit this Court to interfere with the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award when the parties have submitted these issues to Mediation/Arbitration.

Issue Two: Should Bilah be granted leave to appeal the Interim Arbitral Award?

Issue Two: Should Bilah be granted leave to appeal the Interim Arbitral Award?

[39] The right to appeal the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award stems from the parties’ Mediation/Arbitration Agreement and from s.45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, which states that an appeal lies to this court only on a question of law, and only with leave. Leave will be granted if and only if the court is satisfied: a. the importance to the parties of the matters at stake in the arbitration justifies an appeal; and b. a determination of the question of law at issue will significantly affect the rights of the parties.

40Bilah’s position is that the Arbitrator made “errors of law,” and that the two conditions listed above have been satisfied. Akiva says Bilah has failed to satisfy the test in s.45(1).

[41] Bilah’s Amended Notice of Motion sets out that the Interim Arbitral Award relieves Akiva from his statutory obligations to make financial disclosure under the CSG and that the Arbitrator made the following errors in law: a. Does a family law litigant's agreement to produce an income report relieve that litigant of the obligation to make the disclosure required by the Child Support Guidelines? b. Is a family law litigant entitled to circumvent the Child Support Guidelines by refusing to prepare and/or file the documents which must be disclosed? c. Should a family law litigant be relieved of a disclosure obligation where disclosure could reveal the litigant's wrongdoing and thus expose the litigant to penalties or other consequences? d. Can disclosure that is "the crux of the case""important""necessary" and "required" nevertheless be disproportionate (as the Arbitrator concluded in respect of the tracing of about $5 million in emergency wage subsidy funds that the Applicant or the companies he controls must repay to CRA)?

42I fail to see how the questions posed by Bilah in her Amended Notice of Motion amount to errors in law. The 2023 Interim Arbitral Award set out the issues the Arbitrator was to decide at the temporary motion, being to determine (a) the timeline for the delivery of an income report for Akiva for 2022; (b) whether Akiva could be compelled to file and deliver personal income tax returns for 2021-2023, and corporate tax returns for his company, The National Benefit Authority Corp (“NBA”) for the same three years; (c) whether Akiva should be compelled to trace all the funds received by the NBA from the CRA in terms of pandemic-related subsidies; (d) whether Bilah should be paid temporary spousal support; and (e) whether Bilah should be ordered to provide the disclosure sought by Akiva.

43The Arbitrator did not make a finding that Akivah be relieved of the disclosure required by the CSG. Nor did he find that Akiva be permitted to circumvent the CSG or be relieved of a disclosure obligation. Rather, the Arbitrator made a finding that Akiva produce disclosure in a certain fashion and limited some of the disclosure Bilah requested on the grounds of proportionality.

44Nowhere in the 2023 Interim Arbitral Award does it refer to the first three questions of law Bilah set out in her Amended Notice of Motion. These issues were not before the Arbitrator. I agree with Stevenson, J., in Ferreira v. Esteireiro, 2013 ONSC 4620, that there can be no error of law relating to an issue the Arbitrator was not to adjudicate; at para. 18.

45This leaves the question of whether it can be said that the Arbitrator made an error in law in not ordering Akiva to trace the funds the NBA received from CRA in pandemic subsidies in 2021 because he found it would be disproportionate for him to do so. The court can only grant leave to appeal if the alleged error is a pure question of law.

46Questions of law are questions about what the correct legal test is. Questions of fact are questions about what actually took place between the parties. Questions of mixed law and fact are questions about whether the facts satisfy the legal test: Canada Director of Investigations and Research, Competition Act) v. Southam Inc. (1997), 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.) Ferreira v. Esteireiro, 2013 ONSC 4620, at para. 22.

47As I see it here, the question the Arbitrator had to decide is whether Akiva should be compelled to trace “all” the funds received by the NBA from the CRA which was about $5 million on account of Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Doing so required the Arbitrator to consider all the facts to support such a finding and all the facts that militated against such a finding. Regardless of whether deciding whether Akiva should trace “all” or “some” of the CRA Covid wage subsidies received by the NBA, it could not be determined without the Arbitrator considering the facts the led to the parties Consent Award, the remaining issues he has to decide in terms of child and spousal support for the period January 1, 2023 onward, and then consider Akiva’s income and ability to pay support. This involves fact finding as well as considering the relevance and proportionality of the disclosure requested. I conclude at the very least it was an issue of mixed law and fact. I say this because the Arbitrator would have to apply legal principles to the evidence before him, to consider whether the particular facts satisfy the legal test of relevance and proportionality to trace “all” or “part” of the CRA wage subsidies to his company.

[48] Further, it is clear this was a question of mixed law and fact when you read the Interim Arbitral Award, at paragraphs 21-27, where the Arbitrator states as follows: a. “21. The crux of this case is what happened to the money that NBA got from CRA as wage subsidy, how that money was expended, when it was expended and who received the benefit of those funds. I do not know the reason why CRA wants return of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy that it paid out in 2020 and 2021? I am unaware of he reasons for this request, its legitimacy, or its implications to Mr. Medjuck personally.” b. 22. I agree that a tracing of these funds is necessary and required. I cannot imagine that Mr. Martin would be able to address income to Mr. Medjuck without this information. For example, Mr. Medjuck includes P and L statements for NBA for 2022 and 2023 but no balance sheet. I have no idea how the moneys that were received from CRA were recorded and or expensed within the company. c. 23. The tracing of CRA funds is an important part of this case. The only issue for me is the commencement of the request. Ms. Cairns says we cannot go behind the agreement of the parties that settled support up to December 31, 2022. She says requiring a tracing of these amounts in 2021 and or 2022 is doing that. d. 24. I disagree in part. It is important for me, and I suspect Mr. Martin to understand what sources of money Mr. Medjuck had in 2022, where those funds came from and so on. Spousal support, which is one of the lingering claims in this matter, considers income but also means and ability to pay. To understand these, I need to understand how the NBA was allocated. e. 25. My Award is that Mr. Medjuck provide a tracing of moneys received from CRA for 2021 and 2022. For 2022, he shall also provide how those funds were expensed by NBA and or whether any were used by him personally. He need not do so for 2021. In this regard I agree with Ms. Cairns. The Agreement resolving all support issues up to the end of December 2022 subsumes this request and as such the request is disproportionate to any result. f. 26. Whether Mr. Medjuck’ s income is to be averaged over a three-year term is not an issue before me today. However, by the same token it is prejudicial to Ms. Medjuck not to have the 2022 data so that she may make that argument should she choose. Given the timelines above, I doubt this matter gets resolved before the end of 2024, at which point we will also have to consider Mr. Medjuck’ s current income discreetly or by way of averaging. g. 27. In terms of the details of the tracing, Mr. Medjuck shall account for any and all transactions in excess of $10,000 for 2022.”

49Accordingly, I find that Bilah has not satisfied the first branch of the test for leave to appeal, in that the question is not a question of law alone, but rather a question of mixed law and fact. Leave to appeal must therefore be denied.

50Even if I am wrong and the question of whether Akiva should provide a tracing for the Covid wage subsidies his company received in 2021 as well as in 2022, was a legal error, Bilah would have to meet both prongs of the leave to appeal test would have to be met.

Prong 1: Are the matters at stake of such importance than an appeal is justified?

Prong 1: Are the matters at stake of such importance than an appeal is justified?

51Bilah submits that with respect to the first prong of the test namely the matters at stake in the arbitration are sufficiently important to justify an appeal because she is currently not receiving any child or spousal support. She argues that this has a direct impact on her lifestyle but also on the lifestyle that she can provide to her 16-year-old daughter living with her.

52I do not agree that this is a matter of such importance that an appeal is justified. Bilah was paid child and spousal support up to the end of 2022. There is a process in place to determine her support entitlement starting January 1, 2023 and once the Arbitrator makes a final Award she will receive child and/or spousal support. The 2023 Interim Arbitral Award does not prevent Bilah from obtaining child and spousal support for the period of time from January 1, 2023.

Prong 2: Will the determination of the question at law significantly affect the rights of the parties?

Prong 2: Will the determination of the question at law significantly affect the rights of the parties?

53With respect to the second prong of the test, Bilah argues that not receiving critical financial disclosure means that she cannot properly pursue child and spousal support because she is not able to determine Akiva’s income for support purposes. The 2023 Interim Arbitral Award from Bilah’s perspective relieves Akiva of his obligation to provide the necessary disclosure set out in s.21 of the CSG.

54I disagree. When Bilah receives Akiva’s trancing of the Covid wage subsidies the NBA received in 2022, she will learn what happened to those funds, which the Arbitrator agrees is “the crux of the case”. If Akiva received any of these funds personally, then the Arbitrator can determine whether that impacts the calculation of his income for support purposes and also impacts his means and ability to pay both child and spousal support. Further, the Arbitrator can draw an adverse inference if the disclosure that was ordered is not produced by Akiva.

ORDER

ORDER

[55] This Court makes the following order: a. The respondent’s motion to compel the applicant to file and produce personal income tax returns for 2020, 2021 and 2022 is hereby dismissed. b. The respondent’s motion to compel the applicant to file and produce corporate tax returns for the companies he controls for the taxation years 2020, 2021 and 2022 is hereby dismissed. c. The respondent’s motion to compel the applicant to prepare and produce financial statements for the companies he controls for fiscal years 2020, 2021 and 2022 is hereby dismissed. d. The respondent’s motion for leave to appeal the Interim Arbitral Award, dated December 21, 2023 is hereby dismissed. e. The applicant is entitled to costs. If the parties cannot agree on the costs to be paid by the respondent, the applicant shall serve and file written costs submissions of no more than 3 pages (double spaced), not including Offers to Settle and/or a Bill of Costs within 15 days of the release of this Endorsement. The respondent shall serve and file written costs submissions within 5 days of being served with the applicant’s cost submissions. Reply costs submissions, if any, shall be no more than 1 page and served and filed within 3 days of receiving the responding costs submissions.