ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 28484/06
DATE: 20120913
BETWEEN:
KRYSTYNA HELENA WILK; DANIEL WILK and JANUSCZ WILK Applicants – and – MAREK GOLEC; MONIKA GOLEC; MADELAINE GOLEC; THE WILK-GOLEC FAMILY TRUST; BOZENA KLESZCZ and WACLAW PAUL GOLEC Respondents
K. Laverick and W. Pazulla, for the Applicant, Krystyna Wilk
G. Wells and K. Maurina, for the Respondent, Marek Golec
TRIAL HEARD: November 15-26,December 13-17 2010; February 8-9, March 14-17, April 5-6, May30-31, June 6-9, 2011
COSTS SUBMISSIONS: April 20, June 26 and July 13, 2012
COSTS
MILLER, J.
[ 1 ] Krystyna Wilk and Marek Golec met in 1996 and married in 1998. They each have two children from previous marriages who are all now adults. The parties separated in 2005. During their relationship the parties invested, lost and recovered through litigation, money in a business venture with Dr. Malinowski. During the marriage they began and carried on two physiotherapy businesses, High Tech Physiotherapy and Physiotherapy Active Rehab. Part of High Tech Physiotherapy was owned by the Golec-Wilk Family Trust. Prior to separation the parties owned a residence at 5012 Guildwood Way which they sold before purchasing the matrimonial home. At separation, in addition to the businesses, the parties had a matrimonial home and ownership interests in two other residences, one in London and one in Hamilton, they had purchased for use by their children. At the time of trial the London property had been sold and Mr. Golec was residing in a house in Mississauga. Ms Wilk alleged Mr. Golec assaulted her; Mr. Golec alleged that Ms Wilk falsely and maliciously accused him of assault and assisted in a scheme to extort money from him and to defame him. They both sought damages in recompense.
[ 2 ] The respective positions of the parties on various issues changed over the course of the litigation, and indeed over the course of the trial, which began November 15, 2010 and ended on receipt of the final written submissions August 27, 2011. Both parties sought a divorce, which was granted.
[ 3 ] In her final submissions, Ms Wilk asked that Mr. Golec’s pleadings be struck for his conduct over the course of the litigation. In the alternative she asked that a negative inference be drawn against Mr. Golec in his failure to make complete and timely disclosure, in support of her claim that Mr. Golec fraudulently diverted funds from the Golec-Wilk Family Trust to his exclusive use. Ms Wilk also asked that the entire amount of reported dividends from the Trust be deposited into a trust account for Daniel and Januscz Wilk, less monies already received by Daniel from the sale of the London property. In addition Ms Wilk sought the sale of the Hamilton and Mississauga properties and asked that the proceeds, together with the proceeds of sale of the London property, be divided between Daniel and Januscz Wilk. Ms Wilk asked that $50,000 of the proceeds of sale of the Guildwood property be paid to her; that half of the down payment on the London property be paid to her and that she be paid $62,350 in lost rental income from that property. Ms Wilk sought 25% of $48,600 in lost rental income from the Hamilton property. Ms Wilk sought lost rental income for the Mississauga property in the amount of $97,200. Ms Wilk asked that the businesses be valued at $805,319 for High Tech Physiotherapy and $356,864 for Physiotherapy Active Rehab and she be declared the owner of High Tech Physiotherapy. Ms Wilk sought $121,892 in spousal support from the date of separation and ongoing support of $1,966 per month until 7.5 years from the date of separation (to June of 2013). Ms Wilk sought an unequal division of property due to Mr. Golec’s conduct; she sought an order that she be paid half of the accounts receivable for High Tech Physiotherapy at the date of separation and that Mr. Golec be paid half of the accounts receivable for Physiotherapy Active Rehab as of that date. Ms Wilk sought credit for half her payments for expenses of the matrimonial home totalling $76,894. Ms Wilk sought a declaration that Mr. Golec was in loco parentis toward Daniel Wilk and $55,776 in child support. Ms Wilk sought $75,000 in damages for assault.
[ 4 ] In her final written submissions, Ms Wilk made reference to attached documents that were not in evidence on the trial. In my findings on the judgment, I did not rely on any material that was not in evidence on the trial. I indicated that the propriety of the Applicant’s attempt to put additional material before the court after the trial had completed might be addressed in costs submissions.
[ 5 ] In his final submissions, Mr. Golec asked for orders that he is the 100% owner of 1607445 Ontario Ltd. operating as High Tech Physiotherapy and that Krystyna Wilk is the 100% owner of 1607446 Ontario Ltd. operating as Physiotherapy Active Rehab; an order for the immediate listing for sale of the matrimonial home giving him complete carriage of the sale and dispensing with Ms Wilk’s consent to the sale and that Ms Wilk give vacant possession of that property to him within 30 days; $10,000 in occupation rent for the matrimonial home; an equalization payment from Ms Wilk of $125,000; dismissal of Ms Wilk’s claims for spousal support and for child support for Daniel Wilk; an order for sale of 2103-150 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, with a division of sale 50% to Madelaine Golec and 25% to each of the parties; an order releasing to Monica Golec her 48% share of the net proceeds of sale of 929 Blythwood Road, London; reimbursement of $19,000 for losses incurred on the Blythwood property; an order directing Krystyna Wilk to reimburse $20,006.50 to High Tech Physiotherapy; an order that Krystyna Wilk pay $7,131 as her share of interest payments on the $65,000 line of credit dispersed to the parties during the litigation; damages for extortion and defamation of $15,000; and costs.
[ 6 ] There was evidence on the trial that Waclaw Golec was at one time a trustee of the Golec-Wilk Family Trust but had been removed. Bozena Kleszcz was called as a witness on the trial by Ms Wilk. There was no evidence on the trial to establish any claim against Waclaw Golec or Bozena Kleszcz. The claims against them were dismissed.
[ 7 ] Ms Wilk brought a claim against the Golec-Wilk Family Trust which was not defended. I found insufficient evidence to establish a claim against the Golec-Wilk Family Trust. The claim against the Golec-Wilk Family Trust was dismissed.
[ 8 ] In respect of the claim against Monica Golec, I found no basis for the claim that she deliberately lost money on the London property or that she assisted her father in secreting funds taken from the Golec-Wilk Family Trust or High Tech Physiotherapy or Physiotherapy Active Rehab. The claim against Monica Golec was dismissed.
... (continues exactly as in the source)
MILLER, J.
Released: September 13, 2012
Wilk v. Golec, 2012 ONSC 5158
COURT FILE NO.: 28484/06
DATE: 20120913
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KRYSTYNA HELENA WILK; DANIEL WILK and JANUSCZ WILK Applicants – and – MAREK GOLEC; MONIKA GOLEC; MADELAINE GOLEC; THE WILK-GOLEC FAMILY TRUST; BOZENA KLESZCZ and WACLAW PAUL GOLEC Respondents COSTS DECISION MILLER, J.
Released: September 13, 2012