ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: (Pembroke) FS09-0107
DATE: 20120808
B E T W E E N:
Dianne Lois Verch
M. Peter Sammon, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
Kenneth George Verch
Leonard Levencrown, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: August 7, 2012
RULING ON MOTION
Quigley, J.
[1] This is a motion by the applicant seeking a contempt order against the respondent for his failure to comply with the order and endorsement of Justice D.W. Abrams, dated May 4, 2012, by failing to transfer the matrimonial home as described therein, to the applicant as required under the said endorsement.
[2] The relief being sought by the applicant in this motion is found in Volume 5, Tab 6, page 2 of the Notice of Motion, dated July 27, 2012.
[3] I only propose to deal with Number 1(3) of the Notice of Motion. The other issues raised in the Notice of Motion shall be adjourned to a date to be set by the trial coordinator before me.
[4] At the outset of the motion, counsel for the respondent asked for an adjournment indicating that he had been short served on this motion and did not have an opportunity to prepare responding materials since he had only been able to confer with his client on August 2 nd , 2012.
[5] Counsel for the respondent further submitted that he had filed a Notice of Appeal of the temporary order with Ontario Court of Appeal. Applicant’s counsel’s submission on that point was that the Ontario Court of Appeal was the wrong forum for the appeal and, in any event, the respondent was out of time and the applicant would not consent to a late filing of an appeal.
[6] Counsel for the respondent further submitted that some of the back taxes in the approximate amount of $7,000 had been paid since the date of Justice Abrams’ endorsement. That amount does not pay the taxes entirely on the property, however, it removes the property from an imminent tax sale.
[7] In addition, counsel for the respondent advised the court that he was in possession of a cheque of the respondent for $8,000 to bring the child support arrears up to date. Counsel acknowledged that the cheque was not certified and judging from the respondent’s compliance with passed orders of this court in this action and previous assertions by the respondent that he is impecunious, I must proceed on the basis that he is currently in arrears for child support payments for four children.
[8] Counsel for the respondent further submits that this court at this time has no jurisdiction to deal with this issue because counsel for the applicant had failed to provide a draft order for approval by the respondent pursuant to the relevant Family Law Rules.
[9] Counsel for the respondent further asserts that the applicant, herself, is in contempt of previous orders of this court, going back to 2009, to present herself for questioning. In that regard, counsel for the applicant admits that his client has not been available for questioning. The main objection by counsel for the applicant to the questioning is the respondent’s failure to comply with court orders.
[10] This family litigation has a history dating from 2009. It has not advanced passed the case conference stage. This protracted litigation is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Family Law Rules.
[11] The concerns that Justice Abrams expressed in his May 4, 2012 order was the preservation of the matrimonial home, which was in danger of being sold for taxes and the lapsed home insurance policy.
[12] The tax issue has been resolved for now. However, the lapsed home insurance policy is still a live issue.
[13] I received no assurance from counsel for the respondent on this motion that the lapsed home insurance policy would be reinstated.
[14] Therefore, an order shall go directing the Registrar to transfer the property into the name of the applicant, in trust for the parties, pending the final resolution of this case, or a further order of this court.
[15] A further order shall go permitting the applicant to encumber the property to a maximum of $15,000 and to ensure that the property is properly insured.
[16] A further order shall go permitting the applicant to take $8,000 out of the $15,000 for the purpose of bringing her existing child support order up to date.
[17] A further order shall go requiring the applicant to present herself for questioning pursuant to the earlier orders of the court on a date to be agreed by counsel. If no agreement can be reached, I will set the date in a telephone conference call with counsel in the week of September 10 th , 2012. This conference call may be arranged through the Brockville trial coordinator, Elaine Armstrong, at 613-341-2821.
[18] All other matters in this motion shall be adjourned before me on a date to be set by the trial coordinator in consultation with counsel.
MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL J. QUIGLEY
Released: August 8, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: (Pembroke) FS-09-0107
DATE: August 8, 2012
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Dianne Lois Verch Applicant - and – Kenneth George Verch Respondent RULING ON MOTION Quigley, J.
Released: August 8, 2012