COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Chand v. Chand, 2015 ONCA 228

DATE: 20150407

DOCKET: C57334

Feldman, Benotto and Brown JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Apollonia Chand

Respondent

and

Rabindar Chand

Appellant

Rabindar Chand, in person

Ken Nathens and Glen Schwartz, for the respondent

Heard: April 1, 2015

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Thea P. Herman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 28, 2013.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals the amount of the equalization payment owing to the respondent. He submits that the trial judge erred in calculating the equalization payment in the following ways:

• 1. By including in his net family property (NFP) money in his bank account that he said belonged to his sister;

• 2. By including in his NFP proceeds from his share of the sale of a Florida property where the proceeds of the sale had already been divided with the respondent;

• 3. By not including in the respondent’s NFP approximately $60,000 which he said was in her ING bank account as well as income he said she earned from her rental property in Holland; and

• 4. In the valuation of the home contents and artwork.

[2] The trial judge found that the money in the appellant’s bank account did not belong to the appellant’s sister. She heard extensive evidence on this issue and made findings of credibility. The trial judge considered certain emails between the appellant and his sister. The appellant submits that the trial judge should not have admitted these emails into evidence because the respondent had taken them without his authorization. Given the appellant’s testimony on his pre-trial questioning that there were no such emails, the trial judge correctly admitted them into evidence and considered them as one of the factors in her credibility assessment. The trial judge concluded that the money belonged to the appellant, not his sister. On the evidence, it was open to her to do so.

[3] The Florida property sold in 2003. Each party deposited half of the proceeds to his or her own bank account. The valuation date was May 1, 2012. The funds were not excluded property and therefore the funds from the sale of the property remaining in the appellant’s bank account on valuation day were properly included in his NFP.

[4] The appellant submits that approximately $60,000 representing funds shown on an ING bank statement from 2009 should have been included in the respondent’s NFP. He argued that, because the bank statement was disclosed to him by the respondent’s counsel, the amount shown must be included in her NFP. Counsel for the respondent indicated that the statement was sent to the appellant as part of the usual disclosure obligation. The relevant date for valuation for the purposes of equalization is May 1, 2012. The trial judge found that, as of that date, the balance in the account was $4,190. This latter amount was correctly included in the respondent’s NFP as it was supported by the evidence. The respondent’s NFP statement was attached as an appendix to the trial judge’s reasons.

[5] The trial judge determined that there was no undisclosed income from the wife’s excluded property in Holland. On the evidence, it was open to her to make this finding.

[6] Lastly, the trial judge made findings with respect to the value of the artwork and contents which were based on the evidence. We see no error or misapprehension of the evidence.

[7] The appeal is dismissed with costs payable to the respondent fixed at $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”