Court File and Parties

CITATION: Michaud v. Kasali, 2015 ONSC 2961

Divisional Court File No. 14/634

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

B E T W E E N

KATHLEEN MICHAUD

Appellant

• and –

BILL KASALI

Respondents

PRESIDING JUSTICES

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CORBETT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE HARVISON YOUNG

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE O'MARRA

AT THE DURHAM REGION COURTHOUSE,

150 BOND ST. E., OSHAWA, ONTARIO,

ON MARCH 3, 2015

Appearances

A. Bolieiro Counsel for the Appellant

B. Kasali Personally

MARCH 3, 2015

Neutral Case Citation Number

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CORBETT, J. (Orally)

We are all of the view that the appeal must be allowed. The trial judge gave thoughtful, comprehensive reasons on all issues but one; whether to impute income to Mr. Kasali for 2012.

Instead she ordered support for 2012 based on Mr. Kasali’s assessed income of $59,838.

The trial Judge found that “Mr. Kasali’s 2012 income is a bit of mystery.” She then found as a fact that Mr. Kasali’s 2012 income for support purposes was $59,838 but added “this amount may be subject to review upon additional disclosure.” Paragraph 60 of the decision.

The trial Judge did not render a decision on whether income should be imputed to Mr. Kasali and in effect, made an interlocutory order.

Counsel for Ms Michaud argued that this court should make the necessary findings and impute income to Mr. Kasali. We are not prepared to do that. This issue is highly material to the parties and does not turn on simple facts. Imputation of income is a discretionary decision best made by a trial Judge immersed in the case and its history.

We remit the case back to the Superior Court of Justice for trial of the support issue for January 1, 2012, onwards including issues of imputation of income. In the circumstances, this task would be best done by the trial Judge and not a new trial Judge unfamiliar with the case and the parties have no objection to the matter being returned to the trial Judge.

Mr. Kasali shall provide the documents to counsel for Ms Michaud described in paragraph 84 of the trial judgment by April 15, 2015.

This direction does not limit Mr. Kasali’s production obligations but should be considered minimum requirements already identified by the trial Judge.

Costs of the appeal in the discretion of the trial Judge upon final determination of the appeal.

I have endorsed the back of the appeal book as follows; for oral reasons given by D.L. Corbett, J., the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted back to McGee, J., for trial and final decision on the issue of imputation of income and support from January 2, 2012 onwards. Costs of this appeal in the discretion of McGee, J. on final determination of the outstanding issues.

FORM 2

Certificate of Transcript

Evidence Act, subsection 5(2)

I, Deborah Tinmouth, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recordings of Michaud vs. Kasali in the Superior Court of Justice held at 150 Bond St. E., Oshawa, Ontario, taken from Recording number 2812-201-20150302-, which has been certified in Form 1.

April 7, 2015 _______________________________

Deborah Tinmouth, C.C.R.