Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-15-00083320-0000 DATE: 2024 10 21
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
FATAHI-GHANDEHARI, Sara SCOCCO, Rocco and MACKENZIE, Jerald, for the Applicant Applicant
- and -
WILSON, Stewart WILSON, Elizabeth CHHINA, Samir, for the Respondent Stewart Wilson LEWIS, Kamla, for the Respondent Elizabeth Wilson Respondents
HEARD: September 27th, 2024
CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS
LEMAY J
[1] This is a matter that I have been case-managing for some considerable time. There are a large number of actions that are travelling together in this matter. On July 31st, 2024, I released a detailed set of reasons that addressed a number of the different actions at play in this case (2024 ONSC 4275). As part of my directions in that decision, a further case management hearing was held on September 27th, 2024.
[2] At that hearing, we discussed the following issues:
a) The potential for an appeal and/or enforcement of my July 31st, 2024 decision and the previous decisions. b) Whether Ms. Wilson’s counsel, Ms. Lewis, could get off the record at this point. c) The costs submissions for the July 31st, 2024 hearing. d) Next steps in this matter.
[3] I will deal with each issue in turn.
Appeal and Enforcement of Previous Decisions
[4] In my previous decisions in this matter, I have addressed the family law litigation. As a result of those directions (see 2021 ONSC 3547), Mr. Wilson owed Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari an equalization payment of approximately $1.2 million as well as spousal support, both retroactive and ongoing. The amounts owing would have been in excess of $1.6 million.
[5] The result of my July 31st, 2024 decision was that these amounts were enforceable against a property that was beneficially owned by Mr. Wilson, even though title to that property was in his mother, Elizabeth Wilson’s, name. Part of the directions I had provided to the parties in July involved the steps to consider in order to enforce my previous judgment against that property. In addition, an appeal might have required any enforcement action to be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the appeal.
[6] At the outset of the case management hearing, I inquired as to whether my decision had been appealed. I was advised that it had been, but that the amounts owing for both equalization and spousal support had been paid to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari in full. As a result, there is no need to consider the enforcement issues at this point.
Motion to Get Off the Record
[7] Ms. Lewis, who was counsel for Ms. Wilson until my July 31st, 2024 decision was released, has brought a motion to get off the record. I confirmed with Ms. Wilson that she was consenting to this motion. As a result, an Order is to issue removing Ms. Lewis from the record effective September 27th, 2024. Ms. Lewis is specifically invited to submit that Order to my judicial assistant for signature.
Costs Submissions
[8] Given that Ms. Wilson does not have counsel, she has not made the costs submissions in this matter. I granted an extension for those costs submissions for fourteen (14) calendar days. I should now have all of the costs submissions and will proceed to make a decision on the costs issues. That decision will be released separately.
Next Steps
[9] Between the various parties, there were a number of next steps that were discussed, as follows:
a) Whether the CPL should remain on the Wilson’s property. b) Whether the action in Court File No. CV 2021/16 is continuing or has been disposed of by my previous decisions. c) Whether Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari should be given leave to bring an action against Mr. Wilson and his mother, Elizabeth Wilson, for the tort of abuse of process and for the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering. d) Whether the spousal support of $5,000 per month should be continued or whether it should be ended. e) Whether the monies that have been paid into Court on account of the Bailiff action should be paid out of Court. f) Whether the Braidmore action should be transferred out of case management and back to Toronto. g) Whether a no-contact order should issue between these parties.
[10] During the course of the case conference, counsel had some discussion both with me and with their respective clients. The result of that discussion was that there was a shared understanding that there was nothing else in Court File 2021/16 that needed to be pursued. The matters in that case been fully and finally determined by the decisions that I have made in previous endorsements. The parties also agreed that there will be no additional costs associated with this matter for either side, beyond what is contemplated in my upcoming costs endorsement.
[11] As a result of that understanding, I determined that I am required to deal with any issue in respect of equalization or damages before I deal with the spousal support issues. To that end, I have determined that issues (a) and (c) from paragraph 9 should be dealt with together. I have also determined that those matters can be dealt with on a written record, without the need for viva voce evidence.
[12] The timetable for those matters is as follows:
a) Any party seeking relief (either on the CPL or for leave to bring an action) is to serve, file and upload their originating materials by no later than November 1st, 2024. b) Any party responding to materials described in paragraph (a) is to serve, file and upload their responding materials by November 22nd, 2024. c) Any reply materials are to be served, filed and uploaded by November 29th, 2023. d) Factums are required for these motions. All factums are to be served, filed and uploaded by December 13th, 2024. e) Copies of materials without further elaboration or comment are to be provided to my judicial assistant (Samantha.alves@ontario.ca).
[13] I also note that the issue of the spousal support has crystallized for the purposes of arguing arrears as of September 26th, 2024. That matter will be dealt with subsequently, and any process for dealing with it will be combined with the process for dealing with the tort action that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari proposes bringing should I grant leave to bring that tort action.
[14] I also note that, in her oral submissions, Ms. Wilson attempted to raise issues in respect of the equalization payment and other matters that I have already decided. I advised Ms. Wilson that those matters had been fully and finally determined and that I was not prepared to hear from her on those matters.
[15] In terms of the monies paid into Court in the Bailiff action, I expect that the combination of my costs award plus the monies owing to the Bailiff will deal with the bulk of that money. Should there be any remaining monies, we will address that issue at the January 6th, 2025, hearing.
[16] There was also some discussion of the non-contact order. I suggested to the parties that, at the end of this action, they should think seriously about consenting to a no-contact order in both directions.
[17] Mr. Scocco had also asked about a transcript for the December 11th, 2023 hearing. I will make inquiries and provide that transcript if it is available.
[18] Finally, there may be disclosure issues in respect of the spousal support motion that the Respondent proposes to bring. I will discuss those issues as part of the hearing on January 6th, 2025. The parties are not required to file anything in this respect, but they are expected to be prepared to discuss disclosure at that hearing.
Conclusion
[19] This matter will return for an in-person hearing on January 6th, 2025. In the meantime, the costs of the case management proceeding before me are reserved to the next appearance.
[20] In the meantime, my strictures on communications with the Court continue to apply. Other than Ms. Lewis, who has leave to provide me with a draft Order for signature, none of the other parties or counsel are permitted to contact myself or my judicial assistant between now and the January 6th, 2025 hearing other than to provide the materials set out in paragraph 12.
[21] I made that Order clear in my July 31st, 2024 decision. However, there was a breach of that Order. As a result, for clarity, the parties and counsel are advised that anyone who attempts to contact my office will be cited in contempt and will face a contempt hearing.
[22] As a final matter, given the poor relationship between the parties, I will be asking the Trial Office to provide me with a hybrid courtroom for the hearing on January 6th, 2025. I will advise the parties whether that has been obtained when it is obtained.
LEMAY J Released: October 21, 2024