SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: FS-07-60498; 60498-01; 60498-02
DATE: 20140814

RE: Precybon Chin Pang v. Lester Chin Pang

BEFORE: Trimble J.

COUNSEL:
Precybon Chin Pang, self-represented
S. Rio and M. Schlesinger for Lester Chin Pang

HEARD: August 12, 2014.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Parties’ termination of their relationship has been long, acrimonious, and never-ending. On April 8, 2010, Justice Baltman called this a “high conflict, long standing file”. This is an understatement.

[2] The Application for Divorce and corollary relief began on 26 July, 2007. Since then, Ms. Chin Pang has done nothing without a court appearance. On May 10, 2010, Justice Murray made a final order on consent. In 2012, Ms. Chin Pang brought a motion to change Justice Murray’s final order. Justice Murray awarded her time-limited support. She now seeks support based on alleged disability, which is hotly contested. Mr. Chin Pang brought a motion to change, seeking sole custody of the child based on Ms. Chin Pang’s multiple breaches of the access portions of Murray, J.’s order. Thus began anew the battle between the spouses. Since 2007, there have been 34 filings and 8 appearances before this Court made necessary, for the most part, to force Ms. Chin Pang to comply with orders.

[3] This motion, brought by Mr. Chin Pang, is for an order striking the wife’s pleading for failing to comply with Justice Price’s January 24, 2014 cost award of $29,249.30. Alternately, he requests that she post $40,000 as security for costs, or that her access to the Court in this matter be suspended until she pays the cost order.

[4] I order that until the Applicant pays $29,249.30, plus accrued interest pursuant to Price, J.’s January 24 order, the Applicant is prohibited from taking any further steps in this application, without leave of the Court.

[5] The file is replete with comments and findings concerning Ms. Chin Pang’s honesty and her ulterior motives. For example, in his endorsement of May 25, 2012, Justice Sproat found that “There is clear evidence that Applicant lied and evaded service on May 10, 2012”, and “… Applicant is simply disregarding various Court orders.” He admonished her for ignoring court orders and ordered her to comply.

[6] Justice Price said in his June 24, 2013 reasons awarding sole custody of the child of the marriage to Mr. Chin Pang (at paragraph 77), “I find that Ms. Chin Pang’s repeated breaches of Murray J.’s order amount to a material change in circumstances that has affected Jude’s interests, especially by undermining his access to his father, to such a degree as to justify a variation of the Order.” He found her intentional violations of Murray J.’s order so flagrant and damaging to the relationship between the child and his father, that he gave sole custody to Mr. Chin Pang.

[7] In his costs endorsement with respect to his order on custody, Price J. said (at paragraph 20 et seq.) that he found her allegations “vague and unsubstantiated”; he had “substantial doubts as to her truthfulness.”; he found no merit in her complaints against Mr. Chin Pang and he found her complaints and approach lengthened the proceedings, unnecessarily.

[8] More significantly, Justice Price found that Ms. Chin-Pang acted in bad faith by making unfounded allegations of wrongdoing against Mr. Chin Pang and by resisting his requests for disclosure arising from her allegations. Price, J. found that Mrs. Chin Pang’s conduct was “carried out with the intent to inflict financial or emotional harm on the other party or person affected by the behaviour, to conceal information relevant to the issues, and to deceive the other party or the Court.

[9] Ms. Chin Pang’s conduct on this motion reinforces Price, J.’s view. For example:

a) She said that she did not pay the costs because she was impecunious. Her recent Financial Statement supported this position. This Statement is intentionally misleading. It did not include as income or assets approximately $3,100 she admitted withdrew from her RRSP account in July, 2014 or $21,465.20 she received from CPP representing her arrears in CPP Disability Benefits. She had these sums in her possession for at least a week before swearing her most recent Financial Statement. I do not accept that these sums slipped her mind.

b) She did not disclose to the husband that on August 1, 2014 she received the money from CPP. On July 12, 2013 Price, J. ordered her to advise her husband of receiving this money within 5 days of receiving it. The husband found out about the payment when he was served with her August 7, 2014 affidavit in response to his motion to strike.

c) She did not tell Mr. Chin Pang that in July, 2014, she collapsed her RRSP by withdrawing that money. He found out when, pursuant to an authorization signed over a year ago, he called the RRSP holder and enquired as to its value (presumably as he was seeking a security for costs order on this motion).

d) She told the Court that she could not use the CPP money to pay the cost arrears because the CRA told her that it had priority interest in that money. It demanded the money repayment of child tax credits paid to her after the husband gained sole custody of the child. I can only conclude that for the year following Price, J.’s decision awarding custody to Mr. Chin Pang, she failed to tell CRA that she ought not to be receiving the child tax credit. Notwithstanding the submission about CRA having priority over the costs order, she gave no evidence of the priority demand.

[10] Price, J.’s costs reasons also dealt with costs’ role in behaviour modification in this case, and Ms. Chin Pang’s argument, advanced again in this motion, that she was impecunious. He rejected the latter as a defence to the costs order, having considered the costs issue very thoroughly. He held that Ms Chin Pang needed to know that she could not litigate with impunity. She appears to have missed that message. If Price, J.’s order is to have any meaning, Ms. Chin Pang must be required to abide by it.

[11] Ms. Chin Pang’s application to vary Murray J.’s order regarding support is stayed. Ms. Chin Pang shall have no access to the courts in this matter until she purges the contempt by paying the costs order, unless leave is granted otherwise.

Trimble J.

DATE: August 14, 2014

COURT FILE NO.: FS-07-60498; 60498-01; 60498-02
DATE: 20140814

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Precybon Chin Pang v. Lester Chin Pang

BEFORE: Trimble J.

COUNSEL: Precybon Chin Pang, self-represented
S. Rio and M. Schlesinger for Lester Chin Pang

ENDORSEMENT

Trimble J.

DATE: August 14, 2014