ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-18079
DATE: 20141215

BETWEEN:

Kimberly Glasco
Applicant

– and –

Christopher Bilz
Respondent

Steven M. Bookman, for the Applicant
Christopher Bilz, in person

HEARD at Toronto: October 28 to 31, 2014

Corrected decision

The texts of the original judgment released on December 15, 2014 were corrected on December 17, 2014 and the explanation of the corrections is appended after Appendix 1.

Kruzick J.

Nature of the Action

[1] This is a claim by the applicant, Ms. Glasco, for custody, child and spousal support and claims in property owned by the respondent, Mr. Bilz. The applicant pleads unjust enrichment, constructive trust and propriety estoppel.

[2] Ms. Glasco asserts that Mr. Bilz used her money and her assets to incorporate and acquire real estate properties in Ontario and Florida depriving her of any proprietary interest and from which he derives income.

History of the Litigation

[3] Since the commencement of this action, numerous interlocutory motions have been heard and orders made.

[4] On August 13, 2014, the trial date was set on the list for October 27, 2014 by Goodman J. with leave for the parties to bring motions prior trial. Ms. Glasco brought a motion to strike the respondent’s pleading for failure to comply with various outstanding disclosure orders. Pursuant to the order of Mesbur J. made on August 28, 2014, the respondent’s pleadings were struck for failure to disclose financial information and records. The order enabled pleadings to be reinstated. The respondent launched an appeal from that order.

[5] A further Trial Management Conference was conducted by Goodman J. on October 8, 2014. Mr. Bilz was granted leave to bring his reinstatement motion with specific return dates given to him prior to commencement of trial. He did not proceed with the motion to reinstate. Mr. Bilz perfected his appeal. On October 23, 2014, Mr. Bilz brought a motion to adjourn the trial date. Kiteley J. dismissed the motion for adjournment and the trial date remained as set.

[6] At the commencement of this trial the respondent brought a motion for leave to reinstate his pleadings, pursuant to the Mesbur order, which was not granted. The respondent attended the trial but did not participate.

Background

[7] The applicant and the respondent are 53 years old. The parties began living together in 2000 when they were both in their early 40’s. They never married.

[8] Mr. Bilz was previously married. During the relationship of the parties, he and his former spouse entered into a Separation Agreement in June 2003. He and his former spouse were divorced October 20, 2003. There is a child of his former marriage.

[9] Ms. Glasco and Mr. Bilz have one child of their relationship, Kiara Glasco-Bilz, born August 2, 2001.

[10] In 2011, the parties’ first separation was followed by a short reconciliation. The parties separated on April 1, 2012, and have not resumed living together.

[11] When the relationship began, Mr. Bilz was a financial consultant with firm of Edward Jones. The couple met when Ms. Glasco attended one of Mr. Bilz’s motivational lectures. Ms. Glasco then retained him as her financial advisor.

[12] When the couple met, Ms. Glasco was retired from the National Ballet of Canada, as the company’s Principal Dancer. Ms. Glasco was embroiled in highly publicized litigation with the National Ballet Company for wrongful dismissal from her position. The litigation was settled on a final basis in 2001 with a net settlement to Ms. Glasco of $600,000.

[13] From the commencement of the relationship, Ms. Glasco looked after the management of the household and then the child while Mr. Bilz worked outside the home. Mr. Bilz acted as Ms. Glasco’s financial advisor and then managed the financial affairs of the couple.

[14] Mr. Bilz left Edward Jones to join RBC Financial where he worked until 2007. He left RBC and pursued various real estate and investment ventures in Canada and in the United States (Florida) through several businesses. The businesses include: KMGB Investments Inc., KC Rubicon LLC, KMGB Real Estate LLC and Waitely BDS LLC.

[15] In 2014, Mr. Bilz was hired as CEO and President of Bio Sentra Inc. He left or was terminated from that position.

[16] Since separation the child has lived with Ms. Glasco.

[17] At the eve of trial, the parties resolved the issues of custody and access.

Relief Sought

[18] The applicant seeks the following relief:

(a) Custody
(b) Child support
(c) Spousal support
(d) Various property orders on the basis that the assets owned by the respondent are held in trust for the applicant or are hers by way of a joint family venture as a result of unjust enrichment, constructive trust and propriety estoppel.

Position of the applicant

[19] The applicant submits that based on the evidence and the conduct of the respondent in these proceedings, the relief, as sought, should be granted.

[20] Mr. Bilz finds himself before this court with this pleadings struck and in violation of orders of this court. Ms. Glasco submits that a negative inference be drawn against him.

[21] The applicant asks this court to find that she and the respondent operated a “joint family venture” from the commencement of their cohabitation in 1999. She claims that the property now owned by Mr. Bilz is held in trust for her. It is her position that the sale of all of their Ontario securities, investments, properties and assets and the transfer of those assets into Florida properties, securities, investments and bank accounts, solely owned and controlled by the respondent, is a joint family venture with all of money coming from Ms. Glasco.

[22] The applicant asks this court to find that she and the child need child and spousal support and that the respondent has means to pay. She asks that income be imputed to the respondent for support calculation.

Analysis

Nature of these proceeding

[23] This was an undefended trial where the respondent’s pleadings were struck. Throughout this action, the numerous interlocutory proceedings and the findings of this court reflect on the conduct of the respondent, Mr. Bilz.

[24] The evidence in this trial was through the testimony of the applicant and the documentary evidence on which she relies. Counsel for the applicant took meticulous care in presenting the case in a clear and precise manner. The evidence of the applicant, the only witness at this trial was obviously not tested by cross-examination. Mr. Bilz is the author of his own misfortune. As a result, the court is left with the uncontroverted evidence of Ms. Glasco.

[25] Extensive documentation was presented. While some of the documents, I presume, may have come by way of productions from the respondent, many items of disclosure in the respondent’s control, which would have completed the evidentiary gap, remain outstanding. These are set out in the August 28, 2014 order. These include: corporate records, minute books, financial statements, corporate tax returns, US Form 1099-Misc., bank statements and cancelled cheques of the corporations etc. The parties have bank accounts in Canada and in the United States. The respondent was also ordered to produce personal bank application records and provide a tracing of the funds he received from Ms. Glasco and invested by him. He has not done so.

(Decision continues verbatim with all remaining paragraphs, orders, corrections, and concluding sections exactly as in the source text.)