COURT FILE NO.: 5123/10
DATE: 20120528
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDRA CUMMING
Applicant
– and –
MING LIU
Respondent
G. Carson and V. Lam, for the Applicant
Self-Represented
HEARD: April 4, 2012
MILLER, J.
[1] Alexandra Cumming brings a motion for summary judgment in an application brought September 7, 2010 under the Family Law Act. In her application Ms Cumming seeks sole custody of Aiden YunHe Liu-Cumming born […], 2009 with access to Ming Liu. She seeks an order dispensing with Mr. Liu’s consent for her to travel with Aiden outside of the province or country and an order that Mr. Liu not remove Aiden from the Regional Municipality of Halton without her consent or a court order.
[2] Ms Cumming also seeks child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines; that Mr. Liu pay a proportionate share of Aiden’s special and extraordinary expenses; and spousal support, all retroactive to the date of separation. In addition, Ms Cumming seeks an order requiring Mr. Liu to obtain life insurance sufficient to secure spousal and child support; an order that there be a first charge against Mr. Liu’s estate to secure support and an order requiring Mr. Liu to maintain health, dental and drug coverage for Ms Cumming and Aiden.
[3] In Ms Cumming’s motion, in which she sought summary judgment, she sought, in the alternative, an order striking the Respondent’s pleadings and permitting her to proceed with an uncontested trial. In the further alternative, Ms Cumming sought an order requiring Mr. Liu to post $50,000 in costs. Ms Cumming provided, in her Trial Record, Mr. Liu’s Answer, dated October 19, 2010.
[4] A review of the Continuing Record, together with the written and computerized Court filing records revealed that Mr. Liu did not file his Answer, although he was at that time represented by counsel who appeared with him at a case conference January 28, 2011. Evidence from Ms Cumming reveals that Mr. Liu served a Notice of Change on September 18, 2011, two days before the Settlement Conference. This document was also not filed with the Court.
[5] I conclude that the matter may be decided as if the motion was an uncontested trial. I am mindful, however, that Mr. Liu’s position on various issues is set out in his unfiled Answer of October 19, 2010 and that he also served, but did not file, a Financial Statement sworn the same date.
[6] In his unfiled Answer dated October 19, 2010 Mr. Liu disputed the family history but made no claim other than asking that Ms Cumming’s claims be dismissed. Mr. Liu indicated that he agreed with the claims for child support and for custody. He specifically disagreed with the claims for spousal support and costs. Mr. Liu filed no material on the application other than a Case Conference brief and an affidavit on January 24, 2011.
[7] Neither the Case Conference brief nor that affidavit appears in the Continuing record. It is usual that Case Conference briefs are returned to the parties at the conclusion of the case conference.
Background
[8] The parties met in 2008. Mr. Liu is a citizen of the Republic of China and was in Canada on a student visa. The parties did not marry but cohabited for approximately one year. Aiden was born […], 2009. The parties separated in August 2009. Mr. Liu returned to China.
[9] February 23, 2010 Mr. Liu returned and visited with Aiden for short periods of time in February, March, April, May and June 2010. He would not provide an address or telephone number during this period and the parties communicated online. In his Answer dated October 19, 2010 Mr. Liu did not provide an address but directed that communication be made through his lawyer Jason Huang.
[10] Ms Cumming made a Request for Information November 5, 2010 asking for Mr. Liu’s address, status in Canada, school enrolment, income information and information to support his financial statement. No response was forthcoming. Further Mr. Liu did not contact Ms Cummings during this period. The parties attended a case conference January 28, 2011 at which Mr. Huang attended.
[11] That date a Temporary order was made, on consent, by Coats, J., granting temporary custody of Aiden to Ms Cumming, specified access to Mr. Liu in February 2011 and thereafter as agreed between the parties. Mr. Liu was ordered to serve and file an Affidavit in Support of a Claim for Custody or Access, including his current address and telephone number, by February 25, 2011. Mr. Liu was also ordered to provide his current visa status and supporting documentation and proof of his enrolment in school to date by February 25, 2011, Ms Cumming was permitted to apply for passport for Aiden and to travel with Aiden without Mr. Liu’s consent. Before travelling Ms Cumming was to provide Mr. Liu with 10 days written notice and a detailed itinerary. Mr. Liu was prohibited from removing Aiden from the province without Ms Cumming’s consent or a court order.
[12] A settlement conference was fixed for April 15, 2011. At the request of Mr. Liu’s counsel, the settlement conference was adjourned on consent to September 20, 2011. Two days in advance of the conference Mr. Liu served a Notice of Change.
[13] In this period Mr. Liu did not attend the specified access visits in February 2011. He showed up unannounced - despite Ms Cumming’s request that he notify her 48 hours in advance of any visit – on […], 2011. He saw Aiden again the next day on Aiden\s birthday. He next saw Aiden on an unannounced visit August 23, 2011. He saw Aiden again August 31 and September 15, 2011.
[14] The Settlement Conference proceeded September 20, 2011 Mr. Liu representing himself. He did not serve or file a Settlement Conference brief. That date the parties signed Minutes of Settlement, Mr. Liu assisted by duty counsel. A trial management conference was fixed for November 25, 2011 to permit Mr. Liu to obtain independent legal advice. Hourigan, J. made an order that day that service may be by e-mail. In the Minutes of Settlement Mr. Liu confirmed his e-mail address for service.
[15] The Minutes of Settlement provide that Ms Cumming shall have sole custody of Aiden but will make important non-emergency decisions in respect of Aiden’s education, health, religious activities and welfare after consultation with Mr. Liu and will advise Mr. Liu of any major changes in Aiden’s health; Aiden’s primary residence shall be with Ms Cumming; Mr. Liu is to have access at Ms Cumming’s discretion commencing with Saturdays 10a.m. to 12p.m. at Ms Cumming’s home to increase over time in accordance with Aiden’s age and stage of development and ability to bond with Mr. Liu; Ms Cumming is permitted to apply for a passport for Aiden and travel with him without Mr. Liu’s consent; Mr. Liu is not permitted to remove Aiden from Ontario without Ms Cumming’s consent or a court order both parties are to keep each other apprised of current addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses; Mr. Liu was to advise of his current address within 7 days.
[16] In addition, the Minutes of Settlement required that Mr. Liu provide, by October 30, 2011, documentation supporting his current address; visa documents confirming the length and conditions permitting Mr. Liu to remain in Canada documentation supporting his enrolment status and attendance at any post-secondary institute in the last three years; equivalent of income tax returns from the government of China, with English translations; documentation to support all current sources of income or funds(including gifts, loans, scholarships and government funds) from August 1, 2009 ongoing until settlement or trial and documentation to support all bank accounts, savings, securities and pensions inside and outside Canada from August 1, 2009 ongoing until settlement or trial.
[17] Mr. Liu saw Aiden on six occasions after the Settlement Conference and before the Trial Management Conference.
[18] On September 27, 2011 counsel for Ms Cumming e-mailed Mr. Liu reminding him that he was to get independent legal advice in respect of the Minutes of Settlement signed September 20, 2011. On October 24, 2011 she e-mailed Mr. Liu asking if he had consulted counsel.
[19] On October 24, 2011 Ms Cumming also served a formal Request for Information, asking that Mr. Liu provide, within 7 days, documentation supporting his current address; a copy of his visa application for permission to stay in Canada visa documents confirming the length and conditions permitting Mr. Liu to remain in Canada documentation supporting his enrolment status and attendance at Mohawk College, Brock University, Georgian College or any other post-secondary institute in which he was enrolled in the last three years; proof of best efforts to obtain the equivalent of income tax returns from the government of China, with English translations; documents to support the value of all assets and debts listed on Mr. Liu’s financial statement sworn October 19, 2010; documentation to support all current sources of income or funds(including gifts, loans, scholarships and government funds) from August 1, 2009 ongoing until settlement or trial and documentation to support all bank accounts, savings, securities and pensions inside and outside Canada from August 1, 2009 ongoing until settlement or trial.
[20] On November 13, 2011 Counsel for Ms Cumming e-mailed Mr. Liu confirming that she had not received a response from Mr. Liu to date and advising that Ms Cumming would be seeking an order for disclosure at the Trail Management Conference and costs.
[21] On November 15, 2011 Mr. Liu sent Ms Cumming an e-mail with an attachment he referred to as a “legal document”. In this Mr. Liu indicated that as a student he has no income but could pay $270 per month toward Aiden’s support. He proposed access each Saturday or Sunday 3-5 p.m. in Ms Cummings home with a friend or family member present. He proposed a graduated access schedule, allowing for outdoor activities for Aiden between 3-6 years of age and visiting at his home after Aiden was 6 years of age. He proposed taking Aiden to China at age 10. Mr. Liu also proposed that he could take Aiden “out’ no more than 2 months without Ms Cumming’s permission. He proposed paying no spousal support.
[22] In an e-mail November 16, 2011 counsel for Ms Cumming advised that Mr. Liu’s “legal document” terms were not acceptable reminding him that he had not yet provided the documentation ordered January 28, 2011; in the Minutes of Settlement September 20, 2011 and the Request for Information October 24, 2011. She again advised that Ms Cumming would be seeking a disclosure order at the Trial Management Conference.
[23] At the Trial Management Conference November 25, 2011 Mr. Liu was ordered to produce all documents listed in the Request for Information within 45 days. The matter was placed on the trial list for a three day trial the week of March 5, 2011. On consent Mr. Liu was ordered to pay child support at $270 per month commencing December 1, 2011.
[24] Mr. Liu next attended for access with Aiden November 29, 2011. Ms Cumming provided evidence that on that occasion Aiden did not want to play with Mr. Liu and was screaming. Mr. Liu began crying and yelling. When Ms Cumming suggested access at a supervised access centre Mr. Liu agreed that would be preferable and he agreed to pay for it if Ms Cumming would make the arrangements. On that date Mr. Liu also advised Ms Cumming that he had been staying with a friend and the address he had provided to Ms Cumming’s counsel was not accurate.
[25] Ms Cumming made inquiries about supervised access and in an e-mail to Mr. Liu dated December 22, 2011 advised him she had done so and that they would have to attend separately to provide information to the access centre. She provided contact information for the access centre.
[26] December 23, 2011 Mr. Liu was served with a Request to Admit.
[27] December 24, 2011 Mr. Liu sent an e-mail to counsel for Ms Cumming, from the e-mail address authorized for service by the order September 20, 2011, indicating he did not have a lawyer.
[28] Mr. Liu continued to attend for access with Aiden through December 2011 and into January 2012. Ms Cumming provided evidence that Mr. Liu advised her on January 10, 2012 that he would be returning to China but would be back for the trial in March.
[29] December 20, 2011 Mr. Liu gave Ms Cumming: a balance inquiry dated November 24, 2011 for a CIBC account ending in the numbers 0533 showing the balance to be $500.65; a statement dated November 24, 2011 for a Canada Trust $U.S. chequing account showing a balance of $292.04; a letter dated November 23, 2011 on the letterhead of the Canadian International Academy of Business and Technology, Lethbridge College indicating Mr. Liu has been registered as a full-time student in the two year diploma program since September 2011, expected to graduate December 30, 2012; a document written in Chinese characters bearing a photograph together with Notarial Certificate, written in English indicating it is an Unemployment Certificate for Mr. Liu issued by the Department of Labour, Shadong Province November 9, 2011. The certificate indicates the bearer may rely on the certificate in applying for unemployment insurance.
[30] Ms Cumming made copies of the documents then returned them to Mr. Liu, asking him to provide them to her counsel. When she saw him again January 10, 2012 she asked him again to provide the documents to her lawyer. He did not.
[31] Mr. Liu did not respond to an e-mail sent by counsel for Ms Cumming January 11, 2012 asking that he confirm when he would be leaving Canada and returning to Canada and asking that he provide contact information.
[32] As the trial approached, counsel for Ms Cumming sent e-mails to Mr. Liu March 2, 2012; March 5, 2102; March 6, 2012; March 7, 2012 and March 8, 2102. She received no response from Mr. Liu or any indication that the e-mails did not transmit.
[33] Counsel for Ms Cumming also tried to contact Mr. Liu by telephone March 2, 2012 at a number he had provided to her at court November 25, 2011. She received a message that the customer was not available but did not have an option of leaving a voice message. Attempts to contact Mr. Liu using telephone numbers he had provided earlier than November 25, 2011 were also unsuccessful.
[34] March 5, 2012 Ms Cumming served the notice of motion for summary judgment to be heard at the commencement of the trial.
[35] The trial was not able to proceed the week of March 5, 2012 but counsel for Ms Cumming was not able to re-schedule the trial due to a lack of response from Mr. Liu. In her e-mail of March 8, 2012 to Mr. Liu counsel advised that Ms Cumming would be bringing her motion for summary judgment.
[36] Mr. Liu was again served, on March 22, 2012, with the notice of motion for summary judgment to be heard April 4, 2012. He did not respond and did not attend court on April 4, 2012.
Findings
[37] I am satisfied that the matter may proceed as an uncontested trial. I am mindful that Mr. Liu was given notice that the motion was for summary judgment, but in the alternative Ms Cumming would be asking that Mr. Liu’s pleadings be struck. In that an uncontested trial could proceed, where no Answer was filed, without notice, I am satisfied Mr. Liu has been given notice of the substance of the motion and that proceeding as an uncontested trial Mr. Liu is not prejudiced. He clearly had notice of the motion for summary judgment; he was aware that the motion sought, in the alternative, that his pleadings would be struck and the matter proceed as an uncontested trial.
[38] It is clear that Mr. Liu has chosen not to participate in the process. Even if the failure to file the Answer was an oversight, by Mr. Liu and/or his counsel, Mr. Liu has conducted himself in manner since the Trial Management Conference November 25, 2011 which indicates his disinterest in participating in the process. He has failed, in any substantive way, to comply with the orders or requests for disclosure and he has failed to respond to the Request to Admit. He failed to respond to the multiple efforts to engage him in a rescheduling of the trial that did not proceed in March 2012.
[39] I am prepared to indicate as well, that if the matter was to be dealt with as a motion for summary judgment, that I am satisfied that there are no genuine issues requiring a trial, other than the claim for spousal support. In coming to this conclusion I have considered the law as set out in the numerous cases counsel for Ms Cumming referred me to in her factum and Briefs of Authorities.
Custody and Access
[40] I find, on all of the evidence, that it is in the best interests of Aiden that Ms Cumming have sole custody. It is clear she has been Aiden’s primary caregiver since birth and that Mr. Liu has chosen to limit the time he has spent with Aiden. I note that in his unfiled Answer Mr. Liu specifically indicated that he agreed with Ms Cumming’s claim for sole custody.
[41] I find that it is in the best interests of Aiden that Mr. Liu’s access to Aiden shall be at the discretion of Ms Cumming in respect of dates, times, duration and circumstances. This may include, if Ms Cumming feels it is in the best interests of Aiden, the circumstance in which Mr. Liu’s access with Aiden is at a supervised access centre, with the costs to be borne by Mr. Liu.
[42] In addition, I find that it is appropriate that Ms Cumming be permitted to apply for and obtain a passport for Aiden without Mr. Liu’s consent and to travel outside of Canada without Mr. Liu’s consent. In light of the evidence of Mr. Liu’s representations and suggestions that he remove Aiden from Canada, I find it is appropriate that Mr. Liu be prohibited from applying for a passport for Aiden from any country. I find it is appropriate that Mr. Liu be prohibited from removing Aiden from Halton. I find as well that it is appropriate that this order be enforced by appropriate police authorities including but not limited to the Canadian Border Services Agency.
Imputation of Income
[43] Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines (Ontario) provides the Court with a discretion to impute income to a parent where appropriate in circumstances which include that the parent is intentionally unemployed or underemployed; and where the parent has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so.
[44] In Bak v. Dobell 2007 ONCA 304 the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a payor’s lifestyle will often be relevant to whether a court may impute income under s.19 of the Guidelines. In that case periodic support given by the payor’s parent to the payor, was found to be appropriately excluded from calculation of the payor’s income. In that case the evidence established that the payor would have been unable to support himself absent the support from his father.
[45] Mr. Liu is now 30 years of age. There is no indication in the evidence that he is other than healthy and physically and mentally capable. It appears that he may have chosen to pursue serial courses of study but there is no indication that he is unable to earn income. Mr. Liu’s unfiled but sworn Financial Statement indicates he has assets – including cash – of $13,000. In addition, his monthly expenses totaling $3,859 are covered, in their entirety, by his parents. Mr. Liu indicated as well that his expenses – whatever they are – are covered by his parents.
[46] The evidence establishes as well that during their relationship, Mr. Liu gave gifts to Ms Cumming of expensive designer clothing and bags as well as jewellery and regularly paid hundreds of dollars on nights out. I note as well evidence that Mr. Liu gave Aiden in March 2011 a large expensive outdoor play structure and rented an SUV in order to deliver the gift.
[47] It is clear that Mr. Liu has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so by failing to comply with the order for disclosure made November 25, 2011. The documents he did give to Ms Cumming do not come close to compliance with that order.
[48] Ms Cumming argues that the money admittedly received by Mr. Liu from his parents amounts to $46,308 annually which amount should be grossed up to reflect that it is tax free. She asks that income be imputed to him at $61,831 annually.
[49] Taking into account Mr. Liu’s failure to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so; the amounts admittedly received by Mr. Liu from his parents; his apparent ability to earn income and the lifestyle demonstrated during the relationship with Ms Cumming that it is appropriate to impute income to Mr. Liu. I find that it is appropriate to impute income to him at $61,831 annually, that being the amount, by inference, he needs and receives to support his lifestyle, grossed up to reflect that it is not subject to tax consequences.
Child Support
[50] I find that Mr. Liu did not pay any support for Aiden from the separation in August 2009 until February 24, 2010 at which time he paid Ms Cumming $400. I find that Ms Cumming and Mr. Liu came to a verbal agreement on March 5, 2010 that Mr. Liu would pay $400 per month in child support with an anticipated increase in May of that year to take into account Aiden’s daycare costs. I find as well that Mr. Liu only began paying child support following the court attendance November 25, 2011 at which he agreed and was ordered on consent to pay $270 per month commencing December 1, 2011. I find he made only one payment following that order of $280.
[51] I find that in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines and the income I have imputed to him at $61,831 annually, Mr. Liu’s obligation to pay child support is $563 monthly. Taking into account the $400 and $280 payments he has made since separation, I find that he is in arrears of $20,714 as of the date of this order. He will also be required to make payments of $563 monthly commencing June 1, 2012.
[52] I find that since May 2010, when Ms Cumming undertook a course of study to teach English as a second language, she has incurred $3,217 in daycare expenses for Aiden. I find these are extraordinary expenses which the parties should share over and above the monthly child support obligation. $1,608.50 is a 50% share of that expense.
Spousal Support
[53] Ms Cumming claims spousal support, pursuant to section 29, 30 and 33 (8) of the Family Law Act and based on Mr. Liu’s imputed income.
[54] A spouse is defined in section 29 as including either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited, in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child. I find that Ms Cumming and Mr. Liu meet this definition.
[55] Section 30 provides that every spouse has an obligation to provide support for himself or herself and for the other spouse, in accordance with need, to the extent that he or she is capable of doing so.
[56] Section 33(8) provides that an order for the support of a spouse should,
(a) recognize the spouse’s contribution to the relationship and the economic consequences of the relationship for the spouse;
(b) share the economic burden of child support equitably;
(c) make fair provision to assist the spouse to become able to contribute to his or her own support; and
(d) relieve financial hardship, if this has not been done by orders under Parts I (Family Property) and II (Matrimonial Home).
[57] Section 33(9) provides that in determining the amount and duration, if any, of support for a spouse or parent in relation to need, the court shall consider all the circumstances of the parties, including,
(a) the dependant’s and respondent’s current assets and means;
(b) the assets and means that the dependant and respondent are likely to have in the future;
(c) the dependant’s capacity to contribute to his or her own support;
(d) the respondent’s capacity to provide support;
(e) the dependant’s and respondent’s age and physical and mental health;
(f) the dependant’s needs, in determining which the court shall have regard to the accustomed standard of living while the parties resided together;
(g) the measures available for the dependant to become able to provide for his or her own support and the length of time and cost involved to enable the dependant to take those measures;
(h) any legal obligation of the respondent or dependant to provide support for another person;
(i) the desirability of the dependant or respondent remaining at home to care for a child;
(j) a contribution by the dependant to the realization of the respondent’s career potential;
and
(l) if the dependant is a spouse,
(i) the length of time the dependant and respondent cohabited,
(ii) the effect on the spouse’s earning capacity of the responsibilities assumed during cohabitation,
(iii) whether the spouse has undertaken the care of a child who is of the age of eighteen years or over and unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents,
(iv) whether the spouse has undertaken to assist in the continuation of a program of education for a child eighteen years of age or over who is unable for that reason to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents,
(v) any housekeeping, child care or other domestic service performed by the spouse for the family, as if the spouse were devoting the time spent in performing that service in remunerative employment and were contributing the earnings to the family’s support,
(vi) the effect on the spouse’s earnings and career development of the responsibility of caring for a child; and
(m) any other legal right of the dependant to support, other than out of public money.
[58] I find on the evidence before me that Ms Cumming cared for Aiden full-time from his birth until he was six months old, when she returned to university first part-time and then full-time, graduating with an Honours B.A. in Fine Art and Philosophy in May 2010. MS Cumming furthered her education taking training in teaching English as a second language receiving her certification in August 2010.
[59] Ms Cumming found part-time work in November 2010 and continued part-time work while taking further university courses over the summer of 2011. From September 2011 to the present Ms Cumming has been a full-time student in Linguistic program expected to complete that course of study in the Spring of 2012. She and Aiden have been financially supported by Ms Cumming’s parents, with some contribution from Ms Cumming’s current partner.
[60] Applying the criteria set out at section 33 of the Family Law Act I find that Ms Cumming is entitled to spousal support and from separation through to the completion of her course of study as of May 2012. From May 2012 forward I find that it is reasonable to expect that Ms Cumming will be able to support herself at a level roughly equivalent to Mr. Liu’s imputed income.
[61] Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to Mr. Liu’s imputed income from separation and taking into account his obligation to pay child support, I find that Mr. Liu’s obligation to pay spousal support was $758 monthly and $27,288 over the duration I have determined. I find there is no obligation on Mr. Liu to pay spousal support on a go forward basis.
Orders
[62] Alexandra Cumming shall have sole custody of Aiden YunHe Liu-Cumming born […], 2009.
[63] Ming (Ryan) Liu’s access to Aiden shall be at the discretion of Ms Cumming in respect of dates, times, duration and circumstances. This may include, if Ms Cumming feels it is in the best interests of Aiden, the circumstance in which Mr. Liu’s access with Aiden is at a supervised access centre, with the costs to be borne by Mr. Liu.
[64] Ms Cumming is permitted to apply for and obtain a passport for Aiden without Mr. Liu’s consent and to travel outside of Canada without Mr. Liu’s consent.
[65] Mr. Liu is prohibited from applying for a passport for Aiden from any country.
[66] Mr. Liu shall not remove Aiden from the Region of Halton, Ontario, Canada.
[67] This order shall be enforced by all appropriate police authorities including but not limited to the Canadian Border Services Agency.
[68] Mr. Liu is required to pay arrears of child support totaling $20,714 as of the date of this order. In addition Mr. Liu is required to pay $1,608.50 as his 50% share of daycare expenses to date pursuant to s.7.
[69] Mr. Liu is required to make child support payments of $563 monthly commencing June 1, 2012.
[70] Mr. Liu is in arrears of $27,288 in spousal support payments as of the date of this order. Mr. Liu is not required to pay spousal support beyond May 2012.
[71] A support deduction order shall issue. Unless the support order is withdrawn from the office of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under the support order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed. This order shall be filed in the Director’s Office by the registrar forthwith after it is signed.
[72] For as long as child support is to be paid, the payor and recipient must provided updated income disclosure to the other party each year no later than July 1, commencing July 1, 2013 and every year thereafter, in accordance with s.24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.
Costs
[73] Ms Cumming seeks costs of $50,000. I have considered the Bills of Costs submitted and taken into consideration the behavior of Mr. Liu in the course of these proceedings in arriving at a determination that the amount sought is appropriate in all of the circumstances. Mr. Liu is ordered to pay MS Cumming’s costs of these proceedings fixed at $50,000 forthwith.
MILLER, J.
Released: May 28, 2012
Cumming v. Liu, 2012 ONSC 3121
COURT FILE NO.: 5123/10
DATE: 20120528
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDRA CUMMING
Applicant
– and –
MING LIU
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MILLER, J.
Released: May 28, 2012