Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-373469
DATE: 20121101
RE: Mark Alexander Silver, Applicant
AND:
Lesley Ann Bazinet, Respondent
BEFORE: Czutrin J.
COUNSEL:
Valois P. Ambrosino, for the Applicant
Lorna M. Yates, for the Respondent
HEARD: October 11, 2012
ENDORSEMENT
[ 1 ] I first considered this motion on September 27, 2012 and directed counsel to agree on a draft order dealing with disclosure and requiring the Applicant to pay property taxes on the matrimonial home and costs of pool closing.
[ 2 ] What remained outstanding was the request for an advance on equalization payment or interim disbursements requested by the Respondent.
[ 3 ] I adjourned the motion to allow the Applicant to file responding material. Costs and advance on fees and disbursements were to be addressed on return.
[ 4 ] The Applicant is a self-employed person operating various businesses. The value of his assets and his income are in issue.
[ 5 ] The Applicant produced a business valuation and the wife retained her own expert to critique the valuation.
[ 6 ] The Respondent, wife’s expert requested certain disclosure in February and June 2012.
[ 7 ] The parties jointly retained an expert to prepare an expert report (income analysis) of the Applicant’s income.
[ 8 ] The report is not yet available, as the Respondent takes the position that her expert first needs to complete the critique of the Applicant’s business valuation.
[ 9 ] Further disclosure was produced after my September 27, 2012 order and the Applicant’s October 10, 2012 affidavit purports to provide answers to disclosure requests of Respondent’s expert.
[ 10 ] On January 30, 2012, the parties consented to and order jointly retaining an expert to do the income analysis; required the Applicant to make timely disclosure as requested by the expert; allowed the Respondent to encumber the matrimonial home up to $50,000 against her interest in the matrimonial home to cover legal and accounting fees as needed; provided that each party be responsible for one half of the costs of income analysis, but subject to reapportionment.
[ 11 ] The consent order that also required the Applicant to maintain the financial status quo, (maintaining certain expenses without a specified support order) but the expectation was that once the critique of the business valuation and income analysis was done a settlement conference would be scheduled and no motions would be brought unless there was a breach of the January 30, 2012 order.
[ 12 ] The Applicant was to produce any documents relied on by the Applicant’s expert for the business valuation.
[ 13 ] Having reviewed the January 30, 2012 order and made the further order I made September 27, 2012, the issue of disbursements and advance appear to have been covered and addressed for now .
[ 14 ] I make no further order.
[ 15 ] I expect that the experts can now proceed to complete their reports and the case may proceed as anticipated.
[ 16 ] I will retain case management carriage of this action to ensure compliance and setting next steps.
[ 17 ] Costs of attendances may be addressed by exchange of written submissions to be completed by November 26, 2012 and brought to my attention through the Trial Coordinator.
Czutrin J.
Released: November 1, 2012