ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-720
DATE: 2012/03/30
BETWEEN:
LUISA MARIA GUGLIELMO Applicant – and – ANGELO GUGLIELMO Respondent
Diana Carr, for the Applicant
Angelo Guglielmo, Self-represented
HEARD: January 11, 2012 (Ottawa)
corrected DECISION ON MOTION
KERSHMAN
This is a correction to the Decision on Motion released on January 27, 2012. The correction occurs at para. 12, item 11. [1], whereby the word “Respondent” has been replaced by “Applicant”.
R elief Sought
[ 1 ] The Respondent has brought a motion for various relief including the following:
Rescheduling the settlement conference scheduled for January 30, 2012, to allow his counsel to be present. Counsel is presently on maternity leave until approximately March or April 2012;
That the Applicant provides missing disclosure including relating to assets located in Canada and Portugal.
Factual Background
[ 2 ] The parties were married on August 4, 1984 and separated sometime between September 2009 and November 30, 2009. There is some dispute as to the date of separation. There are two adult children of the marriage, one of whom is working and the other one whom is not.
Request for Adjournment of the Settlement Conference
[ 3 ] The Application was commenced on March 19, 2010. There have been numerous case conferences and motions in this matter. A settlement conference is scheduled for January 30, 2012. The Respondent is seeking an adjournment of that settlement conference.
[ 4 ] The Court notes that the Respondent had previously requested an adjournment of this matter. It was dealt with by Madam Justice Mackinnon who denied the request. The circumstances surrounding the adjournment request were as follows:
(a) Master MacLeod made an Endorsement on April 11, 2011 that a Settlement Conference be scheduled by October 1, 2011;
(b) On September 15, 2011, Applicant’s counsel wrote to the Respondent and asked him to let her know if there were any dates in November, December when he would not be available. He was advised that if he did not respond, the Settlement Conference would be set at a time convenient to Applicant’s counsel;
(c) Mr. Guglielmo did not respond. When the Applicant’s counsel attempted to schedule the conference, the November and December dates had been taken so the counsel scheduled it for January 6, 2012 and advised the Respondent in writing;
(d) Mr. Guglielmo wrote to the Applicant’s counsel to say that he was not available on January 6, 2012. He was offered alternate dates of January 26, 27 or 30 th ;
(e) Mr. Guglielmo did not agree and wrote to Justice Mackinnon on November 29, 2011 requesting that the settlement conference date be withdrawn;
(f) Justice Mackinnon refused the request and ordered that the settlement conference be rescheduled to January 30, 2012.
[ 5 ] As to the Respondent’s argument that he wishes to have his previous lawyer present at the settlement conference, the Court notes that the lawyer in question acted for Mr. Guglielmo from March 2010 to November 2010 inclusive. She has not acted on the file since that time and was removed as solicitor of record. The Court does not believe that it is in the best interest of justice to delay the matter.
[ 6 ] Based on the order of Justice Mackinnon, the settlement conference shall proceed on January 30, 2012. In the event that either party has any concerns with respect to the issue of disclosure, it can be dealt with by the settlement conference judge.
Disclosure
[ 7 ] The outstanding disclosure claimed by the Respondent is set out in a letter dated December 2, 2011 and which is attached to Tab 29 of the Continuing Record. The Respondent acknowledges that some of the disclosure has been provided.
[ 8 ] There is a dispute between the parties as to which property should be included in the calculation of Net Family Property (“NFP”). The Applicant says that there is certain property which formerly belonged to her mother and father and that her father passed away in 2004. Her mother then asked her, the Applicant, to have the property owned in both of their names in order for the daughter (Applicant) to assist in dealing with and managing the property.
[ 9 ] There is an issue as to what property is to be included in NFP. The Applicant argues that when her father died in 2004, her mother asked the Applicant to assist her in dealing and managing the property, partly due to her age and partly due to the fact that she could not speak English well. Property, including real estate and other assets were placed into the name of both the Applicant and her mother.
[ 10 ] The Respondent argues that all property in the Applicant’s name should be included in NFP calculation.
[ 11 ] The Applicant said that she would agree to provide her consent to allow the Respondent to contact institutions to obtain certain items of disclosure which he claims are missing. The Court will indicate when appropriate which items can be obtained by the Respondent with the counsel of the Applicant.
[ 12 ] The following is the Court’s decision with respect to the disclosure sought by the Respondent:
Paragraph of Respondent’s Letter
Order
- (a) and (b)
Applicant to provide names and addresses of the two listing agents for the property and consent to allow the Respondent to obtain the information.
(c)
Respondent has name and address and can contact purchasers on his own.
(d) and (e)
No further information is required to be provided.
Applicant to provide consent for Respondent to obtain information.
Applicant to provide information from December 2009 to February 2010.
Since no such transfer made, not required to be provided.
Amounts provided by Applicant are acceptable. No further production required.
Since no monies owing on credit cards as of date of separation, not required to be produced.
The Family Law Rules do not require these to be produced.
Applicant did not apply for a mortgage. No further production required.
- [1]
Copies of Applicant’s statements from July 2009 to date to be produced within 30 days. Reason for withdrawals is required as well.
- [2]
Appraisal completed by Bytown Auctioneers is satisfactory for disclosure purposes.
Not required to be provided.
Funds went into joint account, which is satisfactory explanation.
Euro funds to remain in safety deposit box until final disposition of matter.
Applicant will file updated financial statements in accordance with the Rules , for the Settlement Conference. Court is satisfied with answer provided by the Applicant.
[ 13 ] The Court is aware there is still the issue to be decided at trial as to ownership of assets in the joint name of the Applicant and her mother.
[ 14 ] Any consents and disclosure required as above are to be provided within 30 days.
Costs
[ 15 ] As success was divided, there will be no order as to costs.
[ 16 ] Order accordingly.
Mr. Justice Stanley J. Kershman
Released: March 30, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-720
DATE: 2012/03/30
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: LUISA MARIA GUGLIELMO Applicant – and – ANGELO GUGLIELMO Respondent CORRECTED DECISION ON MOTION Kershman J.
Released: March 30, 2012