Hnat v. El Sayah, 2015 ONSC 1212

COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-72944

DATE: 20150227

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: ELIZABETH ANNA HNAT – and – MOHINE EL SAYAH

BEFORE: André J.

COUNSEL: Nida Hussain, for the Applicant

Norman Epstein, for the Respondent

HEARD: February 4, 2015

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The applicant, Ms. Elizabeth Hnat (“Ms. Hnat”), brings a motion for court orders for financial disclosure, spousal support, and to set a timetable for questioning. The respondent, Mr. El Sayah, brings a cross-motion for an order to vary the amount of child support he is currently paying to Ms. Hnat. The motion and cross-motion therefore raise the following issues:

(1) Is Mr. El Sayah obligated to provide Ms. Hnat with financial disclosure?

(2) Should the court set a timetable for the questioning of Mr. El Sayah?

(3) Should Mr. El Sayah be required to pay spousal support to Ms. Hnat?

(4) Should the amount of child support which Mr. El Sayah pays to Ms. Hnat be varied?

BACKGROUND FACTS

[2] The parties married on December 31, 2001.

[3] Ms. Hnat maintains that the parties separated on January 31, 2010 while Mr. El Sayah insists that they separated on or about November 2, 2010.

[4] Ms. Hnat and Mr. El Sayah have one child, namely, Yoseph Anton El Sayah (“Yoseph”), born on October 8, 2009.

[5] Ms. Hnat worked as a “System Application and Product Coordinator” for approximately 10 years with a company called UTC Aerospace Systems (“UTC”) where she earned $60,000 annually.

[6] Ms. Hnat was laid off from her position at UTC in 2012. She currently works at a business called Value Village where she earns $11.00 an hour.

[7] Ms. Hnat has been trying to obtain a better paying job without success.

[8] Mr. El Sayah operated a business for many years, providing food to various restaurants.

[9] Mr. El Sayah reportedly “sold” his business in June 2014 for zero consideration. He claims that he is now an employee of his old company where he earned $29,680 in 2014.

COURT ORDERS

[10] On April 3, 2013 Tzimas J. made the following orders:

Disclosure: This remains incomplete and lies at the root of all other difficulties in this case. The Respondent is actively engaged in a “catch me if you can” as it relates to the determination of his income. He has produced paper in “dribs and drabs” and in dumps, leaving it up to the Applicant to decipher and trace the relevant information. This must stop. The Respondent has until April 29, 2013 to complete the table as outlined in TAB F of Mary Nosella’s affidavit sworn January 28, 2013. The Respondent shall also produce an affidavit of documents listing all of his documents that are relevant for his complete disclosure.

Child Support, Imputed Income and Day Care Expenses

The Respondent’s income is imputed at $80,000.00 on an interim and without prejudice basis for a further consideration once the disclosure is completed. The said sum is a conservative estimate based on various payments received by the Defendant of over $220,000.00 for the period of June 2011 – October 1, 2012, substantial payments during the same period by the Respondent, rental income, substantial expenses by the Respondent as reported in his sworn statement, and the Respondent’s carriage of the mortgage for the matrimonial home.

Child support is ordered on an interim and without prejudice basis to the Applicant in the amount of $724.99/month for the child of the marriage, Yoseph Anton El Sayah. The said sum is based on the imputed income of $80,000.00 and the corresponding Guidelines, and shall be payable beginning April 1, 2013. This sum is expressly without prejudice to any determination that may be made regarding a retroactive entitlement of calculation, such determination however to occur once disclosure is complete and there is greater clarity over the Respondent’s true income. Similarly, the Respondent is to assume his proportionate there of the day care expenses based on the imputed income of $80,000.00.

[11] Following a settlement conference on June 26, 2013, Price J. made a number of orders including one “in the terms of the unsigned consent filed”. The consent provides the following:

Consent

(1) The Respondent shall retain a certified business and income valuation to complete a business valuation for ‘Bitarco Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Incorporated’ for January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010 (the parties respective dates of separation). The valuation shall be completed by no later than September 30, 2013;

(2) The Respondent shall retain the same certified business and income valuation to complete an income analysis for the Respondent’s 2010, 2011 and 2012 income. The income analysis shall be completed by no later than September 30, 2013. The Applicant shall return all boxes to the Respondent before commencement of the income analysis. The Applicant shall have access to all the documents in the business valuator’s possession at all times, 60 days after the reports are completed.

a) The valuations to 1 and 2 above shall assume separation on January 10, 2010 and November 2, 2010, subject to the parties’ counsel conferring with each other and the valuator with a view to reaching agreement on the valuation or separation date.

(3) An Order for leave to amend the Applicant’s Application pursuant to Rule 11(3) of the Family Law Rules to make a claim for spousal support.

(4) An Order for questioning, pursuant to Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules;

(5) An Order that the matrimonial home, located at 808 Avonshire Court, Mississauga, Ontario L5V 2P2, be listed for sale, in accordance with Schedule “A” attached hereto;

(6) An Order that both parties shall exchange updated sworn financial statements for January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010 (both parties respective dates of separation) two weeks after receipt of the Respondent’s Business Valuation.

PARTIES’ POSITIONS

[12] Ms. Hnat maintains that Mr. El Sayah has patently failed to provide the disclosure which the court ordered him to do, despite repeated requests from her counsel. Mr. El Sayah, she claims, has repeatedly indicated that disclosure requested by her Business Evaluator is irrelevant. Furthermore, that Mr. El Sayah has unilaterally stopped paying the court ordered child support. He has placed Yoseph in a private school at a cost of $1,900 monthly and has demanded that Ms. Hnat pay one half of this monthly amount.

[13] Mr. El Sayah submits that he has provided all disclosure to Ms. Hnat including financial statements from 2013 and 2014. He maintains that he has been deluged with requests from Ms. Hnat’s lawyer for information he either does not have or other information that he has already disclosed.

[14] Mr. El Sayah further submits that based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAG”) and his income in 2013 and 2014, the amount of child support Tzimas J. ordered him to pay should be significantly reduced and that he should not be obligated to pay any spousal support to Ms. Hnat.

ANALYSIS

Issue # 1 - Disclosure

[15] A review of the evidence presented by both parties indicates that Mr. El Sayah has repeatedly failed to comply with the orders of Tzimas J. and Price J. regarding his obligation to provide disclosure. He has failed to comply with a number of requests for disclosure from Ms. Hnat’s counsel dated October 23, 2012, November 1, 2013, November 18, 2013, December 9, 2013, January 13, 2014, March 4, 2014, March 5, 2014, July 8, 2014, August 21, 2014 and August 26, 2014. Mr. El Sayah has maintained that many of the requests for disclosure made by a Business Evaluator retained by Ms. Hnat is irrelevant although it is simply not his prerogative to determine what is or is not relevant.

[16] Furthermore, Mr. El Sayah has manifested a cursory disregard for the court orders of Tzimas J. and Price J. regarding his obligation to provide disclosure in a timely fashion. For example, his counsel advised the court that he faxed a large amount of the outstanding disclosure during the evening of February 3, 2015, thereby depriving Ms. Hnat’s counsel of a reasonable opportunity to review what has been provided. More telling is the fact that Tzimas J. ordered Mr. El Sayah to provide all the outstanding disclosure outlined in Ms. Hnat’s motion, by April 29, 2013. There is no indication that he has complied with the order.

[17] Another indication of Mr. El Sayah’s dismissive attitude towards his obligation to provide disclosure is that his counsel advised this court that Mr. El Sayah should not be required to provide a Financial Statement with respect to the January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010 separation dates. However, Mr. El Sayah specifically agreed to do this in the consent which formed part of Price J.’s June 26, 2013 order.

[18] Additionally, Mr. El Sayah was obligated to provide Ms. Hnat with a sworn affidavit of documents detailing the documentation he has disclosed to her. His counsel conceded that to date, Mr. El Sayah has failed to do so.

[19] Furthermore, Mr. El Sayah has not provided full disclosure for at least 20 different bank accounts.

[20] It is imperative that Mr. El Sayah provide the necessary disclosure to facilitate an objective analysis of his income. While he claims that he only earned $29,680 in 2014, his financial statement indicates that he had expenses of $85,000 annually and yet there is no indication that his indebtedness is increasing. Second, Mr. El Sayah claims that he sold his business for zero consideration, a fact which strains the bounds of credibility.

Issue #2 – Order for Questioning

[21] Price J. made an order for questioning on June 26, 2013 and yet such questioning has not occurred largely as a result of Mr. El Sayah’s failure to provide the outstanding disclosure in a timely fashion. Given the unseemly delay in this matter I will set a timetable for the questioning of Mr. Sayah.

Issue #3 – Spousal Support (Derived from Kovac v. Kovac, 2013 ONSC 4593)

[22] The factors and objectives the Court must consider in making an order of spousal support are outlined under subsections 15.2(4) and (6) of the Divorce Act:

15.2 (4) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including

(a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;

(b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and

(c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.

(6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

[23] All factors under s. 15.2(4) must be carefully scrutinized by the Court given the objectives of spousal support enumerated in s. 15.2(6). The objectives must be balanced in the context of the facts of the case. The Court must exercise its discretion in order to relieve the adverse consequences and economic hardship that results from marriage or its breakdown. No single objective, including economic self-sufficiency, is paramount. (Kovac v. Kovac, 2013 ONSC 4593, para. 24)

[24] As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Moge v. Moge, 1992 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 at para. 79:

79 The exercise of judicial discretion in ordering support requires an examination of all four objectives set out in the Act in order to achieve equitable sharing of the economic consequences of marriage or marriage breakdown. This implies a broad approach with a view to recognizing and incorporating any significant features of the marriage or [page867] its termination which adversely affect the economic prospects of the disadvantaged spouse. ...

See also Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11, 88 O.R. (3d) 241, Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420, 1999 715 (SCC), and Miglin and Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303, 2003 SCC 24.

[25] The Supreme Court of Canada in Bracklow outlines three conceptual bases for entitlement to spousal support: compensatory, contractual and non-compensatory.

[26] In Bracklow, the Supreme of Court of Canada discussed the concepts of compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support as follows:

39 ...Under the Divorce Act, compensation arguments can be grounded in the need to consider the "condition" of the spouse; the "means, needs and other circumstances" of the spouse, which may encompass lack of ability to support oneself due to foregoing career opportunities during the marriage; and "the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation", which may support the same argument. ...

40 ...To be sure, these factors may support arguments based on compensation for what happened during the marriage and its breakdown. But they invite an inquiry that goes beyond compensation to the actual situation of the parties at the time of the application. Thus, the basic social obligation model may equally be seen to occupy the statutory provisions.

41 Section 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, which sets out the objectives of support orders, also speaks to these non-compensatory factors. The first two objectives -- to recognize the economic consequences of the marriage or its breakdown and to apportion between the spouses financial consequences of child care over and above child support payments -- are primarily related to compensation. But the third and fourth objectives are difficult to confine to that goal. "[E]conomic hardship . . . arising from the breakdown of the marriage" is capable of encompassing not only health or career disadvantages arising from the marriage breakdown properly the subject of compensation (perhaps more directly covered in s. 15.2(6)(a): see Payne on Divorce, supra, at pp. 251-53), but the mere fact that a person who formerly enjoyed intra-spousal entitlement to support now finds herself or himself without it. Looking only at compensation, one merely asks what loss the marriage or marriage breakup caused that would not have been suffered but for the marriage. But even where loss in this sense cannot be established, the breakup may cause economic hardship in a larger, non-compensatory sense. Such an interpretation supports the independent inclusion of s. 15.2(6)(c) as a separate consideration from s. 15.2(6)(a). Thus, Rogerson sees s. 15.2(6)(c), "the principle of compensation for the economic disadvantages of the marriage breakdown as distinct from the disadvantages of the marriage", as an explicit recognition of "non-compensatory" support ("Spousal Support After Moge", supra, at pp. 371-72 (emphasis in original)).

42 Similarly, the fourth objective of s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act -- to promote economic self-sufficiency -- may or may not be tied to compensation for disadvantages caused by the marriage or its breakup. A spouse's lack of self-sufficiency may be related to foregoing career and educational opportunities because of the marriage. But it may also arise from completely different sources, like the disappearance of the kind of work the spouse was trained to do (a career shift having nothing to do with the marriage or its breakdown) or, as in this case, ill-health.

[27] A review of the condition, means, needs of Ms. Hnat and the circumstances of both parties justifies a finding that Ms. Hnat qualifies for spousal support on a compensatory and non-compensatory basis.

[28] First, the parties were married for ten years. They have one child who currently resides with Ms. Hnat. Since separation, Ms. Hnat has incurred considerable debt. She currently earns $11.00 per hour.

[29] By contrast, Mr. El Sayah claims an annual income of $29,980 yet appears to have expenses in excess of $85,000. He has adamantly refused to provide the necessary financial disclosure which would enable an objective assessment of his income. While he claims that he has an income of $30,000, he appears to have sufficient financial resources to be able to afford $1,900 monthly to send Yoseph to a private school. The annual cost of private school would be approximately $22,800.

[30] How can Mr. El Sayah afford this sum on an annual salary of $29,680? In my view, the circumstantial evidence suggests that Mr. El Sayah earns considerably more than he suggests.

[31] Given Mr. El Sayah’s failure to comply with the order of Tzimas J. and Price J. regarding disclosure, I am not persuaded that I should vary Tzimas J.’s imputation of income of $80,000 to Mr. El Sayah.

[32] However, I am only prepared to order that Mr. El Sayah should pay, without prejudice, interim spousal support in the monthly amount of $700, commencing October 1, 2014, subject to retroactive and prospective adjustments pending confirmation of Mr. El Sayah’s income.

Issue #4 – Reduction of Child Support Payments

[33] Mr. El Sayah maintains that given his declared income of $29,680, the monthly child support of $724 he was ordered to pay should be reduced to reflect the material change in his financial circumstances.

[34] As I already indicated, I am not persuaded that Mr. El Sayah earns the amount he presently claims. There are material inconsistencies between his allowed earnings and his declared expenses. In my view, Mr. El Sayah must disclose information about the numerous bank accounts he has had, any investments he may have, and the circumstances regarding the sale of his business. One would assume that Mr. El Sayah would have been eager to disclose this information if only to persuade the court that Tzimas J.’s imputation of his income of $80,000 was unjustified.

[35] Given his failure to do so, I have no option but to dismiss his cross-motion.

COSTS

[36] Ms. Hnat’s counsel has indicated the costs being sought are on a full recovery or substantial recovery basis.

[37] Counsel for Mr. El Sayah has indicated that he is unprepared, either to respond to opposing counsel’s submissions on costs, or to advise the court on the quantum of costs being sought by Mr. El Sayah.

ORDERS

[38] Based on the above, I order that:

1. The Respondent shall provide the following disclosure to the Applicant by the close of business on March 20, 2015:

a) An Affidavit of Documents pursuant to the Order of the Honourable Justice Tzimas dated April 3, 2013;

b) Complete listing of all personal bank accounts of Mr. El Sayah held for anytime during the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

c) Complete listing of all personal credit cards of Mr. El Sayah held for anytime during the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

d) Complete listing of all personal lines of credit/bank loans of Mr. El Sayah held for anytime during the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

e) Complete listing of all business interests of Mr. El Sayah owned directly or indirectly anytime during the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

f) Complete listing of all business bank accounts for any business interests owned directly or indirectly by Mr. El Sayah anytime during the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

g) Complete listing of all business credit cards for any business interests owned directly or indirectly by Mr. El Sayah anytime during the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

h) Complete listing of all business lines of credit/bank loans for any business interests owned directly or indirectly by Mr. El Sayah anytime during the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

i) Copies of any Notices of Reassessments of Mr. El Sayah or any of his business interests for the 2009 to 2012 calendar years;

j) Copies of Mr. El Sayah’s statements of account with CRA for the period from 2009 to date (can be requested from CRA);

k) Copies of all correspondence with any government or taxing authority (i.e. CRA, WSIB, Ministry of Finance (Ontario), etc.) relating to any inquiries regarding the personal or business affairs of Mr. El Sayah, including requests for information, audits, results of audits, etc. from 2009 to date;

l) Authorization for CJA Professional Services Limited to contact Mr. El Sayah’s banking contacts/account managers at RBC, CIBC, TD and Scotiabank (an Authorizing letter prepared and signed by Mr. El Sayah addressed to each respective individual is the preferred form for this item);

m) A copy of Bitarco’s daily sales journal, by customer, for the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

n) A copy of Bitarco’s daily purchases journal, by supplier, for the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

o) Copies of all invoices (or access to the originals for review) for the period from January 1, 2009 to date;

p) Copies of all invoices (or access to the originals for review) for the period from January 1, 2009 to date, for the following suppliers:

i. The Toronto Wholesale Produce;

ii. 1711905 Ontario Inc.;

iii. Best Food Distributors;

iv. Gambles Ontario Produce Inc.;

v. Tomato Town Tony;

vi. Best Food Distributors;

vii. Argo’s Foods Inc.;

viii. Tannous Produce; and

ix. Canadian Fruit and Produce.

q) For all of the accounts listed below, the Respondent shall provide copies of the statements for that time period or confirm with a letter from the bank that the account was not open for that time period:

i. CIBC Personal Credit Card, account number *3074 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to date, save and except December 2009 and March 2010;

ii. CIBC Personal Bank Account, account number 73-73333 from February 2013 to date;

iii. American Express Personal Credit Card, account number *52007 from October 2012 to date;

iv. CIBC Personal Line of Credit, account number 05432-03-46438 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to July 2011; and February 2013 to date;

v. CIBC Personal Credit Card, account number *0794 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to August 2011; September 2012; and November 2012 to date;

vi. Canadian Tire Personal Credit Card, account number *4425 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to March 2010 (save and except February 2010); May 2010 to June 2011 (save and except October 2010); and November 2012 to date;

vii. RBC Personal Credit Card, account number *7731 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to November 2009; February 2010 to December 2010; February 2011 to May 2011; and October 2012 to December 2012;

viii. CIBC Business Bank Account, account number 01722-96-06416 for date of marriage and from February 2013 to date;

ix. RBC Business Bank Account, account number 1000-710 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to August 2009; and January 2012 to date;

x. RBC Personal Bank Account, account number 00143-5029210 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to June 2011; and November 2011 to date account was closed;

xi. RBC Business Line of Credit, account number 74264383-001 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to August 2009; January 2012 to date;

xii. TD Personal Credit Card, account number *4792 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to December 2009; February 2010 to March 2011; May 2011 to July 2011; and November 2012 to date;

xiii. TD Personal Line of Credit, account number 644094561 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to November 2009; January 2010 to February 2010; April 2010 to June 2011; and September 2012 to date;

xiv. Walmart Personal Credit Card, account number *5135 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to September 2011; and November 2012 to date;

xv. RBC Personal Bank Account, account number 00143-5046800 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to August 2011; November 2011 to January 2012; March 2012 to May 2012; and August 2012 to date;

xvi. Home Trust Comp Personal Mortgage Account, account number 372957 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to June 2011; and November 2011 to date;

xvii. American Express Credit Card Account, account number *500 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to date;

xviii. Visa (issuer unknown) Account, account number *3001 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to date;

xix. TD Line of Credit Account, account number *35796 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to date;

xx. CIBC Line of Credit Account, account number *109 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to date;

xxi. Scotiabank Value Visa Account (account number unknown) for date of marriage and from January 2009 to date;

xxii. CPA credit Account, account number *574 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to date;

xxiii. TD Line of Credit Account, account number *109 for date of marriage and from January 2009 to date;

xxiv. Documentation pertaining to the Snap Account, number 524734, on the date of marriage and the proposed dates of separation January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

xxv. Documentation pertaining to the Toronto Wholesale Account, number 1795, on the date of marriage and the proposed dates of separation January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

xxvi. Documentation pertaining to the RBC Visa Platinum Account 4512 1250 1596 6318 on the proposed dates of separation January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

xxvii. Documentation pertaining to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Credit Account, number ***109, on the proposed dates of separation, January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

xxviii. Documentation pertaining to the American Express Credit Account number ***500 on the date of marriage and the proposed dates of separation January 31, 2010 and November 2, 1010;

xxix. Documentation pertaining to the TDCT Credit Account number ***109, on the proposed dates of separation, January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

xxx. Documentation pertaining to the Banque National CDA Credit Account; number ***574 on the proposed dates of separation January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

r) 2013 Reassessment (if any);

s) Updated sworn Financial Statement from the Respondent for both dates of separation: January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

t) Documentation evidencing the value of the 2004 Mercedes 350 ML on January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

u) Documentation evidencing the value of the 2005 Pontiac Wave on January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

v) Documentation evidencing the value of the 2002 Chevrolet Cavalier on January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

w) Documentation evidencing that the Respondent owned the 1991 Chevrolet Cavalier and the 1994 Dodge Shadow on the date of marriage as well as documentation evidencing any relevant sale (including sale price and date);

x) Documentation evidencing the purchase date and price For 2002 E250 and GMC 2004 W5500 vehicles;

y) Proof of the Respondent’s shareholder loan owed to him the proposed dates of separation January 31, 2010 and November 2, 2010;

z) Proof of the $45,000.00 to buy into Bitarco Fruits and Vegetables Incorporated on the date of marriage;

aa) Statement of net worth filed with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for credit account ***109 opened on December 7, 2010 and for credit account number 05432-03-46438;

bb) Statement of net worth filed with Toronto Dominion Canada Trust for credit account ***561, opened on May 14, 2007;

cc) Statement of net worth filed with Home Trust Visa for credit account *** 925 opened on March 01, 2008;

dd) Application for Walmart Visa Mastercard, account number 5434 5078 2585 5135;

ee) Application for American Express Mastercard, account number 3733 813827 52007;

ff) Application for Scotiabank Value Visa Card, account number unknown;

gg) Proof of rent payments received for the basement rental apartment for the matrimonial home. Municipally known as 808 Avonshire Court located in Mississauga, Ontario from January 2009 forward; and

hh) Proof of the expenses associated with the basement rental apartment of the matrimonial home, municipally known as 808 Avonshire Court, located in Mississauga, Ontario, from January 20089 forward.

2. An Order that any further disclosure required in order to complete a critique of Mr. Moran’s Business Valuation and Income Analysis shall be made available within fourteen (14) days of any request made for further documents needed in order to complete the analysis;

a) An Order that should the Respondent fail to provide the disclosure outlined in paragraph 1 by the close of business on March 20, 2015, the Applicant shall conduct a motion to strike pleadings pursuant to Rule 1(8), 1(8.1) and 1(8.3) of the Family Law Rules; and for any other relief pursuant to Rule 31(5) of the Family Law Rules;

and/or

b) An Order that should the Respondent fail to provide the disclosure outlined in paragraph 1 by the close of business on March 20, 2015, the Applicant shall conduct an inspection of all property of the Respondent, pursuant to Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including all real property, leased property, and all personal and business financial and banking records of the Respondent, Mohine El Sayah and Bitarco Fruits and Vegetables Incorporated from January 1, 2009 to present date.

4. An Order that Questioning of the Respondent shall take place within 90 days the disclosure in paragraph 1 is received by the Applicant; and that the disclosure requested and undertakings provided at that Questioning be provided by the Respondent to the Applicant within 14 days of such Questioning;

5. The Respondent Father shall pay interim without prejudice spousal support to the Applicant Mother in the monthly amount of $700.00, commencing October 1, 2014, paid on a strictly without prejudice basis and shall be subject to retroactive and prospective adjustments pending confirmation of the Respondent’s income.

6. The Respondent, Mohine El Sayah’s, cross motion is hereby dismissed.

7. Both parties may file written submissions on costs within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order.

THIS ORDER BEARS INTEREST at the rate of 3% per annum on any payment or payments in respect to which there is a default, from the date of the default.

André J.

DATE: February 27, 2015

CITATION: Hnat v. El Sayah, 2015 ONSC 1212

COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-72944

DATE: 20150227

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: ELIZABETH ANNA HNAT – and – MOHINE EL SAYAH

BEFORE: André J.

COUNSEL: Nida Hussain, for the Applicant

Norman Epstein, for the Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

André J.

DATE: February 27, 2015