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## Background
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.
2What remained outstanding was the request for an advance on equalization payment or interim disbursements requested by the Respondent.
3I 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## Analysis
The Applicant is a self-employed person operating various businesses. The value of his assets and his income are in issue.
5The Applicant produced a business valuation and the wife retained her own expert to critique the valuation.
6The Respondent, wife’s expert requested certain disclosure in February and June 2012.
7The parties jointly retained an expert to prepare an expert report (income analysis) of the Applicant’s income.
8The 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.
9Further 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.
10On 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.
11The 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.
12The Applicant was to produce any documents relied on by the Applicant’s expert for the business valuation.
13## Disposition
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 .
14I make no further order.
15I expect that the experts can now proceed to complete their reports and the case may proceed as anticipated.
16I will retain case management carriage of this action to ensure compliance and setting next steps.
17## Costs
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