Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-11-2339
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Irina Risto – Applicant v. Paul Marcelais - Respondent

Before: Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger

Counsel:
Julius Dawn, for the Applicant
Kenneth Bickley, for the Respondent

Heard: December 18, 2012

Endorsement

[ 1 ] This was a motion by the applicant requesting further financial disclosure, and a cross-motion by the respondent requesting that the order of September 18, 2012 be varied.

[ 2 ] The parties had a long-standing common-law spousal relationship, the respondent is a businessman with assets and sources of income that are not fixed or easily determined. The evidence demonstrates that he has a history of underreporting his income, and of having the ability to generate and control large sums of money.

[ 3 ] On September 18, 2012, the original return date of this motion, Mr. Justice Minima granted a comprehensive interim order governing aspects of disclosure, the quantum of interim spousal support, and non-dissipation of assets.

[ 4 ] With respect to the applicant's motion, it would appear that counsel representing the respondent all but conceded the relief requested. Regardless of whether he did or did not, I would have granted the order as the relief was clearly supported by the evidence, therefore there will be an order to go as follows:

The respondent shall within 30 days of the date of this order provide to the applicant a detailed accounting, together with all supporting documentation, fully tracing the net proceeds of the sale from the time of sale up to the current date for the properties municipally known as:

a) 1916 Lavergne Street , Ottawa,

b) 1927, 1941, and 2205 Stonehenge Crescent, Ottawa,

c) unit 308-1807 St. Joseph Blvd., Ottawa

d) and unit 1912-1440 Heron Rd, Ottawa.

[ 5 ] Should the respondent fail to provide the accounting, then all of the documentation respecting the sale of the properties and the deposits of proceeds shall be provided to the applicant together with the payment of an interim disbursement of $15,000 to permit the applicant to engage the services of a professional to conduct the accounting.

[ 6 ] The respondent’s cross-motion requested the following: that the terms of the order regarding non-dissipation of assets be less restrictive, that an order go immediately for the sale of all property, and that the current spousal support order be reduced on the basis of an annual income of $90,000 per year instead of 150,000 per year.

[ 7 ] I would deny the respondent's motion for the following specific reasons:

• The history of the respondents activities vis-à-vis his assets including but not limited to: underreporting of income, control over bank accounts, sale of properties, non-arm length transactions, etc. more than support the need for a very strict, unequivocal non-dissipation order. I disagree with counsel representing the respondent's interpretation of the order, the respondent can still use these bank accounts for the purposes of generating income he simply cannot deplete them.

• With respect to the immediate listing and sale of all property in my view such an order is premature in all circumstances, an accounting of what has taken place on the part of the respondent is more pressing than the sale of remaining property. Once that task is been accomplished then a more meaningful dialogue can take place regarding the balance of the real and personal property.

• With respect to the interim spousal support order, there has not been a legitimate material change in the circumstances of the respondent since the granting of the order on September 18, 2012. His decision to resign from his employment was, on a balance of probabilities, planned in advance and more likely than not motivated by the applicant’s entitlement to support. The evidence contained in the file including e-mails sent to individuals in relationship to this issue support this conclusion.

[ 8 ] This is a case where in order for the matter to proceed without any further delay, it is up to the respondent to fulfill all disclosure obligations. The applicants understandable lack of trust will follow the respondent until all aspects of disclosure are fulfilled.

[ 9 ] The parties did not address the court regarding the issue of costs. I will accept one page written argument within 15 days of the release of this decision respecting costs, failing which there will be no order as to costs.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger

Date: December 19, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-2339

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE RE: IRINA RISTO - Applicant AND PAUL MARCELAIS - Respondent BEFORE: Maranger J. COUNSEL: Julius Dawn, for the Applicant Kenneth Bickley, for the Respondent ENDORSEMENT Maranger J.

Released: December 19, 2012