CITATION: Yonathan v. Matrook, 2015 ONSC 1984

COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-3092-00

DATE: 2015-03-26

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Evleen Yonathan

Evleen Yonathan, acting in person

Applicant

• and -

Bashat Matrook

Frances Wood, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: July 28, 2014

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Barnes, J.

INTRODUCTION

1Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook were in a lengthy relationship. The parties have ended their relationship. Ms. Yonathan seeks spousal support; a declaration that she has an interest in the residential property known as 6406 Saratoga Way in Mississauga (“the Mississauga Property”); an order for sale of the property and disbursement of the proceeds of the sale in accordance with her share.

2I released an endorsement outlining my judgment on March 11, 2015. These are my reasons for judgement.

3Ms. Yonathan explains that she was in a common law relationship with Mr. Matrook; she contributed financially to the purchase and up keep of the Mississauga property. In 1998, this property was purchased only in Mr. Matrook’s name. Ms. Yonathan submits that if Mr. Matrook maintains sole interest in the Mississauga Property he would be unjustly enriched.

4Mr. Matrook says that his relationship with Ms. Yonathan was never a common law relationship it was characterized by several interruptions. Mr. Matrook described the relationship as “on again and off again”.

5Mr. Matrook explained that he and Ms. Yonathan could not get married because she was legally married to someone else from 2000 to 2008; he and Ms. Yonathan never lived together; the nature of the relationship does not merit spousal support; Ms. Yonathan made no financial contributions to the down payment or the up keep of the Mississauga property, therefore, there is no constructive trust resulting from an unjust enrichment.

6I have concluded that the parties were involved in a common law relationship; Ms. Yonathan is entitled to spousal support; there is insufficient evidence to indicate that Ms. Yonathan contributed to the down payment for the purchase of the Mississauga home, however, she contributed to paying utilities, taxes and the general upkeep of the Mississauga property. The up keep of the Mississauga property was the product of a joint family venture.

BACKGROUND FACTS

7Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook began a romantic relationship in 1997. Ms. Yonathan divorced her first husband in 1998. Ms. Yonathan’s family did not approve of this relationship.

8In 1998, Mr. Matrook purchased the Mississauga property only in his name. In 1999, Ms. Yonathan purchased a residential property in Hamilton, (“the Hamilton Property”) with her brother and sister.

9In 2001, Ms. Yonathan ended the relationship and travelled to Jordan to marry Rami Shahim. This was an arranged marriage. There is overwhelming evidence that Mr. Matrook was saddened and depressed by this fact. After just a few months of the arranged marriage, Ms. Yonathan returned to Canada and resumed her relationship with Mr. Matrook. Ms. Yonathan did not divorce Mr. Rami Shahim until 2006.

10In 2006, Ms. Yonathan suffered a miscarriage. This was a child she had conceived with Mr. Matrook. Ms. Yonathan said that due to complications stemming from the miscarriage she developed a bipolar disorder.

11As a result of her bipolar disorder Ms. Yonathan began to develop violent tendencies, irrational behaviour and grandiose ideas. This required the intervention of the Police and mental treatment personnel on several occasions.

12The couple began to develop some significant differences in their priorities. This included disagreements about whether to have a child; Ms. Yonathan wanted to invest in the United States. In 2004 and 2008, she travelled to the United States to explore investment opportunities. Mr. Matrook was not that keen on the idea and they disagreed on whether the couple should move to Jordan to live. Ms. Yonathan was opposed. Mr. Matrook was in favour. The couple eventually went their separate ways in the summer of 2012.

13Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook were less than forth coming in various aspects of their testimony, perhaps a symptom of the high degree of hostility between them. I approach their evidence with caution.

ISSUES

14The issues in this case are:

(a) Were Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan common law spouses?

(b) Is Ms. Yonathan entitled to spousal support?

(c) Would Mr. Matrook be unjustly enriched if he retains a sole proprietary interest in the Mississauga property?

DISCUSSION

(a) Were Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan Common Law Spouses?

15I have concluded that Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook were common law spouses.

16Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook were not married. Ms. Yonathan’s application for spousal support is grounded in s. 29 of the Family Law Act of Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. F. 3. (“the Family Law Act”). For this section to apply, Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan must qualify as common law spouses under the Act.

17Section 29 defines “Spouse” as:

“Spouse” means a spouse as defined in s.s.1(1), and in addition includes either of a man and woman who are not married to each other and have cohabited.

(a) continuously for a period of not less than 3 years, or…

18Cohabit is defined in s.s. 1(1) of the Act as:

“Cohabit” means to live together in a conjugal relationship whether within or outside marriage.”

19In Molodowich v. Penttinen, 1980 1537 (ON SC), [1980] O.J. 1904 (Ont. Dist. Ct) at para 16, Kurisko D.C.J provides a helpful framework to assess whether a relationship can be classified as common law:

Shelter

a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

d) Sexual and Personal Behaviour

e) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

f) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity towards each other?

g) What were their feelings toward each other?

h) Did they communicate on a personal level?

i) Did they eat their meals together?

j) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness

k) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

Services

What was the conduct of the parties in relation to:

a) Preparation of meals,

b) Washing and mending clothes,

c) Shopping,

d) Household maintenance,

e) Any other domestic services?

Social

a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them towards members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

Societal

a) What was the attitude and conduct of the community towards each of them as a couple?

Support Economic

a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution towards the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)

b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

c) Was there any financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

Children

a) What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

20This analysis is fact driven and the significance of each of these factors will depend on the circumstances of each case: Molodowich, paragraph 16. The onus is on the applicant to prove that there was cohabitation over the requisite period of time and any interruptions were not intended by the parties to be permanent: Boothe v. Gore [1996] O.J. No. 4376 paragraphs 12 and 13.

21Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook lived together between 1998 and 2012, and were common law spouses. The relationship ended for a few months in 2001, when Ms. Yonathan married Mr. Shahim. The relationship was resumed after a brief hiatus in 2001. During the relationship, Mr. Matrook made several trips overseas for business purposes and Ms. Yonathan made trips to the United States and Australia for business and pleasure. Any periods of separation did not represent an intention of the parties to end their relationship.

22Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan began their relationship in December, 1997. The relationship continued until 2001. In 2001, Ms. Yonathan ended the relationship for a few months, married Mr. Shahim in Jordan. Ms. Yonathan returned to Canada the same year and resumed her relationship with Mr. Matrook.

23Ms. Yonathan said she met Mr. Matrook in 1996. Mr. Matrook said they met in August 1997. Nina Khalil is a friend of Mr. Matrook’s sister Fadia. She speculated that Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook met in 1997. Ms. Yonathan’s friend, Nadia Al Jadir, said that in 1996, Mr. Matrook introduced Ms. Yonathan to her as his wife. Amer Kaddura is Mr. Matrook’s friend, he said that he was introduced to Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan together in August 1997.

24Souhail Haddad is a friend of Mr. Matrook. He said that he heard of Ms. Yonathan prior to the fall of 1997. Mr. Kahoo is a friend of Ms. Yonathan. He testified that he met the couple at the Haifa restaurant in the summer of 1995, when they were performing together.

25Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan were introduced to each other as fellow musicians. They formed a musical partnership and performed at various Iraqi, middle eastern events as a musical duo. Mr. Matrook played musical instruments and Ms. Yonathan was a singer. They both agree that their relationship did not become a romantic one until during a trip to Ottawa in December 1997.

26At the time the relationship began Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan lived in separate residences. In October 1998, Mr. Matrook purchased a home at 6406 Saratoga Way in Mississauga (“the Mississauga Property”). The reason for the purchase of this home and how the down payment for this home was assembled is intricately woven into the nature of the parties relationship and I will deal with the house down payment first.

27Ms. Yonathan explained that she and Mr. Matrook decided to buy a house. They approached Mr. Matrook’s brother Nazir Matrook for help in guaranteeing the mortgage. Ms. Yonathan said that she and Mr. Matrook worked as musicians and used a significant portion of the savings from their joint efforts to contribute towards the down payment for the house.

28Ms. Yonathan explained that Mr. Matrook was responsible for handling the proceeds from their joint enterprise as musicians. She explained that in addition to the proceeds from music, she contributed money given to her by her father, $2,000 from other employment earnings, and $4,000 from a Bank of Montreal Line of Credit.

29Ms. Yonathan produced a copy of Mr. Matrook’s Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) bank statement. This statement shows a deposit of $15,853.93 in August 1998. She said this represented part of the contribution she made to the down payment for the house purchase.

30The RBC bank statement seems to indicate that this was a onetime deposit, however, the parties agree that this figure represents the sum total of deposits made into the accounts over a period of time. Mr. Matrook denies receiving these deposits from Ms. Yonathan and there is no other evidence to indicate that she made the deposits.

31Documentation provided from the Bank of Montreal shows that the $4,000 line of credit was in fact a student loan. On the record, it is difficult to determine the purpose of withdrawals Ms. Yonathan said were made by her father and there is no way to determine if these withdrawals were in fact given to Mr. Matrook.

32Ms. Yonathan produced several entries from Mr. Matrook’s personal notebook. She explained that notebook entries were a record of times, dates, venues, and amounts paid for musical events she and Mr. Matrook performed at. Ms. Yonathan did not make any of the entries herself. Mr. Matrook denied that the entries represented monies paid from their musical performances. He said that he did not make some of the notations in the book. Mr. Matrook testified that the couple did not make much money from their musical performances and in fact it was more of a hobby. Ms. Yonathan disagreed. She said they were a very successful and profitable musical duo.

33Both parties called witnesses to bolster their respective positions. These included Nadia Al Jadir, a friend of Ms. Yonathan; she said that musicians in the community could be paid as high as $800 per performance. Souheil Haddad, a friend of Mr. Matrook, said that the remuneration was so low that it was more of a hobby.

34It is unlikely that either position is wholly accurate. I expect that the true state of affairs is that some performances were profitable while others were not. However, based on the record before me it is not possible to determine or even estimate the amount of remuneration obtained from their musical performances. As a result, I cannot estimate or determine what percentage, if any, of the proceeds may have been used towards the down payment of the home.

35Mr. Matrook’s brother, Nazir, testified that he and his family decided to purchase a home where Mr. Matrook could live with their parents. Mr. Matrook explained he was initially reluctant because he wanted to live in the United States but he eventually agreed to purchase the home and live there with his parents.

36According to Mr. Matrook, the down payment for the house was made up of contributions from his parents of approximately $20,104.79; $1,860 from his regular employment; about $1,000 to $1,500 from music, $4,000 from his friends Sohale and Mohamed Aluwazini, and then a contribution from his brother, Nazir.

37Nazir testified that he contributed $20,000 to the down payment of the Mississauga home. Documentary evidence provided showed that Nizar provided $20,590.10 and a cheque for $23,946.50 was issued from Mr. Matrook’s Toronto Dominion Bank.

38Ms. Yonathan explained that Mr. Matrook’s parents were in no position to contribute to the down payment for the Mississauga home because Mr. Matrook’s mother was receiving financial assistance from the Ontario Government. Mr. Matrook and Nazir explained that their parents had money from their previous life in Iraq and Jordan.

39Ms. Yonathan’s account of how the down payment of the Mississauga home was obtained did not account for any contributions from Nazir. The documentary evidence filed indicates that Nazir made a sizeable contribution. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Ms. Yonathan made any contributions to the down payment of the Mississauga home and I accept Mr. Matrook’s version of how the down payment was assembled.

40Ms. Yonathan testified that she was actively involved in selecting the finishing of the Mississauga Home. She explained how she and Mr. Matrook had forgone appliances so that the builder could replace carpet floors with hardwood floors. Nazir and Mr. Matrook dispute this.

41Ms. Yonathan testified that she and Mr. Matrook moved into the Mississauga home together after Mr. Matrook took possession. Mr. Matrook and Nazir dispute this. They say that Ms. Yonathan never moved into the Mississauga home, instead, Mr. Matrook moved into that residence with both the Matrook parents and lived there with the parents. Mr. Matrook further explained that Ms. Yonathan only stayed at the Mississauga home when his parents travelled to Jordan as they were apt to do on an annual basis.

42Salam said that all the mail of the Matrook parents went to her address. She explained that this was because she took care of all their affairs.

43Given my finding that Mr. Matrook’s parents contributed to the down payment for the Mississauga house and the stated purpose of finding a home for Mr. Matrook and his parents to reside, the evidence advanced by Mr. Matrook, his brother, Nazir and sister, Salam appear logical and credible, however, an undated note signed “Rita Manuel” and “Nizar Matrook” states the following:

This is to confirm that Ibrahim Matrook has been our tenant for the year 1999. During 1999 he has paid us 2,400.

44Nizar Matrook is Mr. Matrook’s brother. He never lived at the Mississauga property. Ibrahim Matrook is Mr. Matrook’s father. This note contradicts the assertion by Mr. Matrook, Nazir and Salam that the Matrook parents were living in the Mississauga home.

45The undated note alone does not resolve the issue. Ms. Julie Marchese lives across the street from the Mississauga home, she testified on behalf of Ms. Yonathan. Ms. Julie Marchese, is not a close friend or even an acquaintance of either of the parties, it was clear to the court that she was a witness with no particular interest in the outcome.

46Ms. Julie Marchese was one of the original occupants of homes on the Saratoga Way Street. She moved there in 1998 around the time Mr. Matrook took possession of 6406 Saratoga Way. Ms. Julie Marchese said she saw Ms. Yonathan at the house more often than Mr. Matrook.

47The fact that Ms. Julie Marchese did not observe Ms. Yonathan to be away from the home for extended periods of time does not detract from her testimony. She was not conducting surveillance on the home. I conclude from her overall testimony that although she could not rule out the presence of other occupants in the Mississauga home, she observed that Ms. Yonathan was the most constant occupant of the home.

48In 1999, Ms. Yonathan’s father died. From inheritance received from her father’s estate, Ms. Yonathan and her siblings purchased a residential property with the municipal address 794 Stone Church Road East in Hamilton, Ontario (“the Hamilton property”). In a subsequent Landlord and Tennant dispute with her siblings, Ms. Yonathan described the Hamilton property as her residence. Some of Ms. Yonathan’s mail went to the Mississauga property and some went to the Hamilton property. Despite all of this Ms. Julie Marchese continued to observe Ms. Yonathan as the primary occupant of the Mississauga property.

49I conclude that Ms. Yonathan maintained the Hamilton property as a residence but she was hardly ever there. Irrespective of the original reason for purchasing the Mississauga property, Mr. Matrook’s parents did not move in with him in 1998. It was Ms. Yonathan who moved in with him in 1998.

50When Ms. Yonathan began her relationship with Mr. Matrook she was still married to her first husband in 1998. Therefore, her assertion that she married Mr. Matrook in 1997 simply cannot be true. Ms. Yonathan could not remember whether this marriage occurred in the Dominican Republic or Mexico. This marriage simply did not happen.

51Ms. Yonathan’s family did not accept Mr. Matrook as her partner. Ms. Yonathan was under pressure from her family to marry someone else. In 2001, Ms. Yonathan terminated her relationship with Mr. Matrook and travelled to Jordon to marry Mr. Shahim. Ms. Yonathan married Mr. Shahim.

52At the time Ms. Yonathan left Mr. Matrook to travel to Jordan for the 2001 marriage she had been cohabitating with Mr. Matrook for almost three continuous years.

53Mr. Matrook was severely saddened and depressed by this turn of events. Approximately three months after her marriage to Mr. Shahim, Ms. Yonathan left him in Jordan and resumed her relationship with Mr. Matrook in Mississauga in 2001.

54Ms. Yonathan was still legally married to Mr. Shahim. Her assertion that the marriage to him was not complete and, therefore, she was not legally married to Mr. Shahim is untenable. Ms. Yonathan did not divorce Mr. Shahim until 2006. Ms. Yonathan explained that while in Jordan, Mr. Matrook’s relatives on his behalf purchased jewellery for her, she said Mr. Matrook purchased an engagement ring for her.

55Ms. Yonathan testimony at trial was different from her out court examination account; the receipts for the jewellery were in her name. She explained that this was to make it easier for her to return them if necessary; the jewellery seems to have been purchased on the same date that Ms. Yonathan got married to Mr. Shahim.

56Ms. Yonathan testified that Mr. Matrook bought her engagement rings and had their names engraved in them. Mr. Matrook generally denied purchasing these rings despite photographs filed which show him displaying some rings, this by itself is not conclusive, however, Mr. Matrook was blatantly evasive when asked pointed questions about the purchase of the rings and, therefore, his denials are given little weight and I find that he did purchase the rings for Ms. Yonathan.

57After a three month interruption, Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan resumed their relationship in 2001 until the summer of 2012. The exact date of separation was imprecise. I find that the date of separation was August 1, 2012.

58Ms. Yonathan described various occasions when she visited Mr. Matrook and his family at Mr. Matrook’s previous apartment in 1997. She said she hosted Mr. Matrook’s family at the Mississauga home post 1998. Mr. Matrook’s brother Nizar and sister, Salam denied that this ever happened.

59These witnesses were not impartial witnesses, Nizar and Salam are Mr. Matrook’s siblings. In Nizar’s case in particular, he referred to an incident where he said Ms. Yonathan slapped him. He also alleged that Ms. Yonathan kidnapped his daughter. The degree of the hostility between Nizar and Ms. Yonathan was palpable in court.

60The first photograph of Ms. Yonathan with Nazir’s family is in 1999, when it was New Year’s Eve. Given concerns already raised with Ms. Yonathan credibility I find that Ms. Yonathan’s first full participation at a Matrook family function was in 1999. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that she hosted the Matrook family at functions held at the Mississauga property.

61Ms. Yonathan paid utility, cable, property tax bills relating to the Mississauga property, she bought furniture for the home, made window coverings, paid for landscaping and the building of a fence on the property.

62Medical records of Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook are replete with references to Ms. Yonathan either as Mr. Matrook’s fiancée or common law spouse. These same records refer to Mr. Matrook either as Ms. Yonathan’s common law husband or fiancée. These records span the time period the parties were together.

63Many of these records were prepared from information provided either by Ms. Yonathan or Mr. Matrook, even if the court were to accept Mr. Matrook’s evidence that Ms. Yonathan’s brother Ben provided some of the information, this further confirms that some family members regarded the couple as common law partners.

64Some of the medical record entries capture occasions where Ms. Yonathan was having a mental illness episode; she was visiting her doctor or Mr. Matrook was visiting his doctor.

65In many instances the medical records included biographical information derived from reports of the patient and there was some inaccurate information provided. For instance, in January 2002, Ms. Yonathan told Dr. Euishuck that she had been married for five years. Ms. Yonathan could not have been married to Mr. Matrook for five years by then. She had returned from Jordan after marrying Mr. Shahim who she did not divorce until 2006. Despite such inaccuracies the references to the couple, as “common law spouse and fiancée” are too frequent to be discounted.

66Ms. Yonathan testified that the parties tried to have children. Mr. Matrook denies this. The medical notes contain references to the parties’ efforts to have children. Mr. Matrook says some of these medical notes were made from information provided solely by Ms. Yonathan; she had an abortion in 2004 and did not tell him and references to his use of Viagra are not references to an effort to have children. I find that when the medical notations are considered as a whole it is clear that the parties were trying to have children.

67Mr. Matrook described Ms. Yonathan as his wife during his discussions with his doctor about the use of Viagra. He said he did this because he was embarrassed. When I consider this explanation in the context of the running theme of “common law spouse” and “fiancée” throughout the extensive medical records I conclude that this explanation is untrue.

68Ms. Yonathan had a miscarriage in 2006. She had been working at a Banquet Hall, which she owned and shortly before the miscarriage occurred, she had been carrying heavy boxes on her own. The miscarriage took place in the Mississauga property. The police prepared a report of the incident. The report described the couple as common law spouses. Mr. Matrook said that when asked by the police what the nature of the relationship with Ms. Yonathan was he simply kept quiet. This explanation is rather curious particularly when viewed in the context of the fact that it was provided in circumstances in which his partner had just lost a baby. The child’s death certificate lists Mr. Matrook as the father.

69I am satisfied that there is over whelming evidence that the parties referred to themselves as either engaged or common law spouses.

70There were periods when the utilities bills for the Mississauga property were prepared solely in Mr. Matrook’s name. There were other periods when they were prepared in the joint names of Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan. Mr. Matrook’s assertion that Ms. Yonathan arranged for the joint bills without his knowledge is untenable. I have already expressed concerns with his credibility.

71Ms. Yonathan had mail addressed to the Mississauga property. This mail included mail relating to matters relevant to day to day life at that residence, for example, utility and cable bills.

72As a result of the 2006 miscarriage Ms. Yonathan developed bipolar disorder. Medical and police reports indicate that when Ms. Yonathan was experiencing episodes of the illness she exhibited violence, a break from realty and she had a tendency to have grandiose and unrealistic ideas. She had episodes in Mississauga, Hamilton and the United States. Mr. Matrook was always present to support her.

73Ms. Yonathan tried to invest in the United States and she travelled to Chicago and Detroit to explore investment opportunities. Mr. Matrook was ambivalent about this. Ms. Yonathan also travelled to Australia on two occasions. Mr. Matrook said on one occasion Ms. Yonathan said the relationship was over and said that she wanted to start her life anew in Australia. Mr. Matrook travelled out of Canada, on business, on several occasions. I find that these periodic separations were not an expression by either party of a desire to terminate the relationship.

74I do not accept Mr. Matrook’s evidence that their relationship ended in 2006, and that everything else that followed was an on and off again relationship. He said that Ms. Yonathan just showed up at the Mississauga property whenever she wanted and he did not ask her to leave because he wanted to help her. I have already expressed concerns with Mr. Matrook’s credibility. I do not accept his explanation. In fact, when Mr. Matrook decided to end the relationship he was the one that left the Mississauga residence to live with his sister.

75The evidence, I have previously described indicates that the years from 2007 to 2012 were challenging years for the couple particularly after Ms. Yonathan’s bipolar disorder diagnosis and the death of Mr. Matrook’s father in 2007. It could not have been easy to live with a partner who had developed violent tendencies and the propensity to lose touch with reality when suffering episodes of mental illness.

76I conclude that Mr. Matrook and Ms. Yonathan lived together, in the Mississauga property, from 1998 to 2012. Ms. Yonathan maintained her Hamilton residence but the parties maintained the Mississauga property as their joint residence during this period.

77The relationship was terminated for a few months in 2001, when Ms. Yonathan married Mr. Shahim. The relationship resumed in 2001 to 2012. It ended in the summer of 2012 when Mr. Matrook moved out of the house to live with his sister.

78Considering all of the evidence I am satisfied that Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook were common law spouses.

Is Ms. Yonathan entitled to spousal support?

79I have concluded that Ms. Yonathan is entitled to spousal support.

80Ms. Yonathan submits that as a result of the 2006, miscarriage she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. As a result, she has sold the Banquet Hall business, and is unable to work. She argues that she is entitled to spousal support from Mr. Matrook because she would be unable to support herself without it. Ms. Yonathan stated that she has had to sell her hair salon business. Ms. Yonathan did not provide any documentation to support her assertion that she had sold the banquet hall and the hair salon business.

81The Respondent argues that Ms. Yonathan was able to qualify for a mortgage to buy out her siblings and become sole owner of the Hamilton property; Ms. Yonathan receives rental income from the Hamilton property. The Respondents submits that Ms. Yonathan had failed to submit full financial disclosure and based on the documentation she has provided her annual income should be imputed to be $45,000.

82Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook were unmarried spouses, therefore, the statutory framework for assessing spousal support is governed by provincial legislation. If the couple had been married the statutory framework for resolving the issue of support will be the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c 3.

DISCUSSION

83In determining whether spousal support should be awarded, the first question is whether the spouse is entitled to spousal support: Moge v. Moge 1992 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813, Bracklaw v. Bracklaw [1999] S.C.R. 420. Moge and Bracklaw are currently the leading cases on spousal support from the Supreme Court of Canada.

84The couple in Moge were married and the statutory framework for making a spousal support order was set out in s. 15(4) of the Divorce Act. Bracklaw is authority for the proposition that the same basic analytical framework applies to unmarried spouses under Provincial legislation. In this case the statutory frame work is set out in Part III of the Family Law Act.

85The purposes of spousal support and the framework for determining spousal support is set out in ss. 33 (8) and (9) of the Family Law Act as follows:

Purposes of order for support of spouse

(8) An order for the support of a spouse should,

(a) recognize the spouse’s contribution to the relationship and the economic consequences of the relationship for the spouse;

(b) share the economic burden of child support equitably;

(c) make fair provision to assist the spouse to become able to contribute to his or her own support; and

(d) relieve financial hardship, if this has not been done by orders under Parts I (Family Property) and II (Matrimonial Home). R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 33 (8); 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (5); 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (9).

Determination of amount for support of spouses, parents

(9) In determining the amount and duration, if any, of support for a spouse or parent in relation to need, the court shall consider all the circumstances of the parties, including,

(a) the dependant’s and respondent’s current assets and means;

(b) the assets and means that the dependant and respondent are likely to have in the future;

(c) the dependant’s capacity to contribute to his or her own support;

(d) the respondent’s capacity to provide support;

(e) the dependant’s and respondent’s age and physical and mental health;

(f) the dependant’s needs, in determining which the court shall have regard to the accustomed standard of living while the parties resided together;

(g) the measures available for the dependant to become able to provide for his or her own support and the length of time and cost involved to enable the dependant to take those measures;

(h) any legal obligation of the respondent or dependant to provide support for another person;

(i) the desirability of the dependant or respondent remaining at home to care for a child;

(j) a contribution by the dependant to the realization of the respondent’s career potential;

(k) Repealed: 1997, c. 20, s. 3 (3).

(l) if the dependant is a spouse,

(i) the length of time the dependant and respondent cohabited,

(ii) the effect on the spouse’s earning capacity of the responsibilities assumed during cohabitation,

(iii) whether the spouse has undertaken the care of a child who is of the age of eighteen years or over and unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents,

(iv) whether the spouse has undertaken to assist in the continuation of a program of education for a child eighteen years of age or over who is unable for that reason to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents,

(v) any housekeeping, child care or other domestic service performed by the spouse for the family, as if the spouse were devoting the time spent in performing that service in remunerative employment and were contributing the earnings to the family’s support,

(v.1) Repealed: 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (12).

(vi) the effect on the spouse’s earnings and career development of the responsibility of caring for a child; and

(m) any other legal right of the dependant to support, other than out of public money. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 33 (9); 1997, c. 20, s. 3 (2, 3); 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (6-9); 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (10-13).

Conduct

(10) The obligation to provide support for a spouse exists without regard to the conduct of either spouse, but the court may in determining the amount of support have regard to a course of conduct that is so unconscionable as to constitute an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 33 (10); 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (10); 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (14).

86D. A. Rollie Thompson aptly and succinctly summarised the main principles in Moge and Bracklaw, in his paper Ideas of Spousal Support Entitlement (2015), 34 Can.Fam.L.Q.I. For Moge Professor Thompson writes:

(7) Marriage per se does not automatically entitle a spouse to support and spousal support is “not a general tool of redistribution which is activated by the mere fact of marriage [para. 74]

(8) Spousal support ought to be based primarily upon a compensatory model [para 64-74, 78-85]

(9) This model compensates a spouse for the economic disadvantages and advantages that will result from the roles adopted during marriage [paras 65-74, 78-85]

(10) The compensatory model finds its legislative foundation in the broad language of s. 15.2(6)(a), (b) and (c) of the Divorce Act paras 68, 72,81 The primary source of these disadvantages is the disproportionate obligations of the past and future childcare borne by the spouse, but there are other compensatory reasons too [paras 79-81 and 82-83]

(12) Courts should be careful not to underestimate the depth and duration of the economic disadvantage experienced by the recipient spouse [paras 69-70]

(13) Courts should therefore be slow to grant time – limited orders in compensatory cases based upon “deemed” self-sufficiency [paras 54, 69, 71, 74]

(14) [G]reat disparities in the standard of living that would be experienced by spouses in the absence of support are often a revealing indication of the economic disadvantages inherent in the role adopted by one party [para 84]

(15) As marriage should be regarded as a joint endeavour, the longer the relationship endures, the closer the economic union, the greater will be the presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon its dissolution [para 84]

(16) The grounds for support are not exclusively compensatory, as is indicated by the language of s. 15.2(6)(c). Other considerations are not excluded, “particularly when dealing with sick or disabled spouses’ [para 75]

(17) [T]he real dilemma in most cases relates to the ability to pay of the debtor spouse [para 76]

87In the same article Professor Thompson provides this useful summary of the ratio from Bracklaw:

(1) Compensation is now “the main reason for support”, but not the sole basis for support. [para 49]

(2) There are three conceptual bases for entitlement to spousal support:

i. Compensatory;

ii. Contractual; and

iii. Non-compensatory [para 49]

(3) It is now well settled law that spouses must compensate each other for forgone careers and missed opportunities during the marriage prior to the break down of their union [para 1]

(4) Marriage per se does not create an obligation to pay spousal support, but the obligation may flow “from the marriage relationship itself” [para 44];

(5) “But where need is established that is not met on a compensatory or contractual basis, the fundamental marital obligation may play a vital role”, revived from its underlying “dormant state” [para 49];

(6) Section 15.2 (6)(c) of the Divorce Act refers to economic hardship . . . arising from the breakdown of the marriage”, which is capable of encompassing “the mere fact that a person who formerly enjoyed inter-spousal entitlement to support now finds herself or himself without it [para 41]. “Need alone may be enough” to establish entitlement to support [para 43];

(7) A spouse’s lack of self-sufficiency may be related to compensatory disadvantage, or 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 break down) or, as in this case, ill-health [para 42]

(8) “The same factors that go to entitlement have an impact on quantum” which includes both amount and duration: [para. 50];

(9) “it does not follow from the fact that need serves as the predicate for support that the amount of the support must always equal the amount of the need”. Amount and duration can be inter-related, with a modest amount for an indefinite duration or a substantial lump sum payment [para 54];

(10) “Marriage, while it may not prove to be ‘till death do us part’ is a serious commitment not to be under taken lightly. It involves the potential for life long obligation. There are no magical cut-off dates para 57.

88During their common law union Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook maintained separate bank accounts and pursued different business and employment ventures.

89Mr. Matrook has long term employment which required travel outside Canada from time to time.

90Ms. Yonathan held different types of employment including work at a gas station, she owned the Hamilton property, and Mr. Matrook has no interest in the Hamilton property. Ms. Yonathan rented the Hamilton property and collected the proceeds. Ms. Yonathan was part owner of a Banquet Hall business which she sold. Ms. Yonathan is an owner of a hair salon business.

91During the union the parties maintained separate bank accounts. They had no joint accounts. Although Ms. Yonathan maintained her living quarters in the Hamilton property. She for all intents and purposes lived with Mr. Matrook in the Mississauga property.

92The couple had no children. The union did not give rise to any economic disadvantage to either party. There were no children to be raised and no evidence that either party’s career or other aspirations were adversely affected by the union such as to create some type of disadvantage for either of them.

93The parties worked together as musicians but there is inconclusive evidence that this was a major source of revenue. Each independently pursued other more reliable income generating ventures.

94Ms. Yonathan’s ability to continue to generate sufficient revenue to sustain her life style began to plummet after her miscarriage in 2006. The couple had unwittingly conceived a child.

95The miscarriage resulted in a bipolar diagnosis. A mental illness that was characterised by aggressive, irrational behaviour, a propensity to be divorced from reality and to develop and believe in grandiose ideas and circumstances. This illness has resulted in Ms. Yonathan’s periodic encounter with the police, mental health treatment providers and hospitalisation. It is these unfortunate set of circumstances that has created Ms. Yonathan’s need for spousal support from Mr. Matrook.

96This is not a case in which Ms. Yonathan must be compensated for a career or missed opportunity during her common law marriage to Mr. Matrook: Bracklow at para 1. Ms. Yonathan did not forego any career or other opportunity as a result of the union. Rather this is a case where the entitlement to spousal support is of the non-compensatory variety. It arises from ill health. Ms. Yonathan’s bipolar diagnosis: Bracklow at para 43.

97The Respondent has stated that the Applicant has provided insufficient financial information to enable the court to effectively determine her income. From the documentation provided this court is asked to impute an annual income to Ms. Yonathan of $45,000. I have determined that the Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment Ms. Yonathan has filed is sufficient. They represent her income for the relevant taxation years.

98Based on income tax returns filed, I find Mr. Matrook’s annual income from 2010 to 2014 to be as follows:

i. 2010 – $55,204

ii. 2011 – $63,025

iii. 2012 – $57,173

iv. 2013 – $41,758

v. 2014 and 2015 – imputed to be same as 2013

99Ms. Yonathan’s income for 2010 to 2013:

i. 2010 – $11,675

ii. 2011 – $14,033

iii. 2012 – $14,004

iv. 2013 – no documentations filed. No reason to conclude that her medical status has changed. Ms. Yonathan’s 2013, 2014 and 2015 is imputed to be same as 2012 - $14,004

100Mr. Matrook left the Mississauga home in the summer of 2012. I find the date of separation to be August 1, 2012. Therefore, Mr. Matrook’s support obligations shall be retroactive to August 1, 2012.

101Using the mid-range of Divorce Mate Calculations monthly spousal support calculations are as follows:

i. 2012 $693 per month

ii. 2013 $446 per month

iii. 2014 $446 per month

iv. 2015 $446 per month

102Total arrears is calculated as follows:

i. 5 month period 2012

$693 x 5 = $3,465

ii. 12 month period 2013

$446 x 12 = $5,352

iii. 12 month period 2014

$446 x 12 = $5,352

iv. 3 month period 2015

$446 x 3 = $1,338

103Total spousal support arrears from August 1, 2012, to March 1, 2015, is $15,507 plus pre judgment and prior judgment interest at a rate of 2.5 per cent.

104The Respondent shall pay spousal support in the amount of $446 per month going forward commencing April 1, 2015. The period of cohabitation was 11 years and the duration of support shall be seven years.

105Mr. Matrook went to great lengths, in this trial, to attempt to demonstrate that what was in fact over 11 years of cohabitation never happened. Mr. Matrook has explained that as he gets older he is unable to work at the same pace and his income continues to decrease. I cannot rule out the possibility of future under employment, therefore, after the first monthly payment on April 1, 2015, the Applicant has the option of choosing a lump sum support payment or a monthly payment.

106I have already included support payments over the first three months of 2015 in my calculation of support arrears from August 1, 2012, to March 1, 2015, and ordered that Mr. Matrook make a monthly spousal support payment of $446 on April 1, 2015, therefore, a lump sum payment over the remaining six years and eight months is $35,680.

107I am satisfied that Ms. Yonathan is in need of support, including coverage under Mr. Matrook’s drug plan to help pay for her Bipolar disorder medication. Mr. Matrook shall maintain Ms. Yonathan as a beneficiary on his medical and drug benefits for at least 11 years.

108I outline all the applicable orders at the conclusion of these reasons.

Would Mr. Matrook be unjustly enriched if he retain sole proprietery interset in the Mississauga?

109I have concluded that Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook were involved in a specific joint family venture in the renovation and upkeep of the Mississauga property. I conclude that the Respondent has been enriched and Ms. Yonathan been correspondently deprived. The remedy in this case is a compensatory monetary award.

DISCUSSION

110The leading case dealing with unjust enrichment and constructive trusts for common law spouses is Kerr v. Baranow 2011 SCC 10. The “unjust enrichment” analytical framework as outlined in Kerr can be summarized as follows:

a) Unjust enrichment arises from the couples participation in a joint family venture and not simply from the fact that they were together: paragraphs 60 and 68.

b) There are four main aspects to a finding that the couple participated in a joint family venture;

(i) there were mutual efforts in the venture,

(ii) there was some common integration in the couples economic and financial interests;

(iii) there was a reasonable intention that the parties would share equally in any wealth that was created from the venture; and

(iv) whether the parties actions demonstrate an assumption or expectations that they had a shared future together: paras 87-101.

c) An unjust enrichment is established when three conditions are satisfied:

(i) there is an enrichment;

(ii) there is a corresponding deprivation; and

(iii) there is no juristic reason for the deprivation: paras 38-44.

d) To determine whether there has been an enrichment and a corresponding deprivation the court should determine whether actual money was paid and received with a corresponding deprivation and/or there was a benefit conferred on the defendant which “spares him or her an expense he or she would have had to undertake” also accompanied by a corresponding deprivation: para 38.

e) The absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment requires that there is no reason in law or justice for the defendant’s retention of the benefit conferred by the plaintiff, making its retention unjust in the circumstances of the case”: an example of a juristic reason is the existence of a gift or contract which permits the retention of the enrichment: para 40.

f) A two-step flexible and contextual analysis must be followed under the absence of any juristic reason analysis. Under the first step, if there is no juristic reason then the second step of the analysis involves an assessment of the legitimate expectations of the parties to determine whether the defendant’s retention of the enrichment is unjust: para 44.

g) The remedy for an unjust enrichment is one of restitution. In the context of a domestic partnership the restitution is monetary and/or proprietary in nature: para 46, 50.

DISCUSSION

Joint Family Venture

111Mr. Matrook and his witnesses insisted that his parents moved in with him 1998, when he took possession of the Mississauga property. I have previously concluded that the Matrook parents never lived at the Mississauga property; the couple were in a common law relationship for at least 11 years; there is significant evidence from medical, and psychiatric and police reports that the couple referred to themselves, interchangeably, as common law spouses and fiancée; the couple discussed the possibility of having children and sought medical assistance and Mr. Matrook identified Ms. Yonathan as his spouse under his employer sponsored benefits.

112For all intents and purposes the parties intended to have a shared future. Things began to come off the rails after the couple lost their unborn child in a miscarriage. Ms. Yonathan developed a mental illness with some aggressive and delusional tendencies and Mr. Matrook’s father died. The couple began to argue about several matters for example, whether they should invest in property in the United States. Ms. Yonathan was enthusiastic and Mr. Matrook was not; whether they relocate their lives to Jordan. Mr. Matrook was enthusiastic and Ms. Yonathan was not. These were some of the indications that the couple’s dreams of life together were beginning to deteriorate.

113Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook did not maintain a joint bank account. Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook partnered as a musical duo, however, as I have explained there is insufficient evidence to conclude that this yielded the couple any significant income.

114Ms.Yonathan maintained some sporadic paid employment but operated a banquet hall and hair salon in Hamilton, she owned a home in Hamilton and rented it out. Mr. Matrook was not involved in any of these ventures. Mr. Matrook’s main stable source of employment was an employee of an industrial company. He tried unsuccessfully to set up is a landscaping business. Ms. Yonathan was not involved in the landscaping business.

115Although the couple did not have a joint or common account they pooled their resources together to pay for expenses associated with living in the Mississauga property. I have concluded that Mr. Matrook and his family provided the down payment for the home. It is not disputed that Mr. Matrook made the mortgage payments for the home, however, for many years the utility bills for the Mississauga property were addressed jointly to both parties. Ms. Yonathan paid several of these bills.

116The property tax bills came in Mr. Matrook’s name but Ms. Yonathan also paid for some of these bills, cable and phone bills came in Ms. Yonathan’s name, she paid for many, if not all of these bills. Bills like cable were for the mutual enjoyment of the parties. Ms. Yonathan also paid for Mr. Matrook’s 407 toll bills. Ms. Yonathan paid for and contributed to the payment of some improvements to the Mississauga property such as building a fence on the property and cleaning the deck, Ms. Yonathan made curtains, purchased furniture, and arranged landscaping. These are all activities directly or indirectly aimed at preserving, maintaining and increasing the value of the home.

117Mr. Matrook explained that the joint utility bills were created because Ms. Yonathan arranged for joint bills without his consent and agreement. Either Mr. Matrook was unaware because he was not paying the bills or he agreed to have Ms. Yonathan’s name on the bill, in any event his explanation is untenable.

118Mr. Matrook said that he reimbursed Ms. Yonathan for all Mississauga property expenses that she paid. Mr. Matrook said Ms. Yonathan continued to make these payments even though he told her to stop. The cumulative effect of previously described evidence of an intention to have a shared future together which include: length of cohabitation; Mr. Matrook’s presentation of rings; the recurring description of the couples as common spouses or fiancées in medical and psychiatric reports; the same references in police reports etc. make Mr. Matrook's explanations run hollow.

119The expenses Ms. Yonathan paid for or contributed such as property taxes, fence improvements, and hydro, contributed to the improvement and preservation of the Mississauga property. By paying other expenses such as cable, 401 charges etc. Ms. Yonathan saved Mr. Matrook the financial expense associated with paying of these expenses and by so doing allowed him to free up his financial resources for other purposes. Therefore, by paying these expenses Ms. Yonathan conferred a benefit on Mr. Matrook.

120Although not raised by the parties it is arguable that by having the opportunity to reside rent-free at Mississauga property Ms. Yonathan was also receiving a benefit by having the ability to live in that property rent-free. The parties did not raise or make submissions on this line of reasoning.

121I find that within the context of their intentions for a shared future the parties “informally pooled” their resources to pay for expenses related to the maintenance, perseverations and up keep of the Mississauga home. This was their shared intention and this was the joint family venture.

122It was the party’s intention to have a shared future together and in all the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that during “the good times” the couple expected to share in any wealth generated together through the Mississauga property.

Unjust enrichment

123Mr. Matrook purchased the Mississauga property in his name in 1998. I have already concluded that the down payment for the home came from Mr. Matrook, his brother Nazir and his parents.

124Mr. Matrook purchased the property for $223,900. Mr. Randy Bierworth is a certified Real Estate Appraiser, he concluded that the Mississauga property was worth $490,000 as of January 9, 2014.

125Ms. Yonathan had sole possession of the Mississauga property from August 2012 to August 2013, when Mr. Matrook vacated the home. Mr. Kevin Barwell was retained by Mr. Matrook to inspect the Mississauga property. He concluded that $41,000 in repairs was required to remediate the property.

126I have concluded that Ms. Yonathan and Mr. Matrook occupied the property together from 1998 to summer 2012, with a short interruption in 2001, when Ms. Yonathan moved to Jordan. It is therefore unclear how much of the damage occurred during the period of their period of cohabitation or during the period of Ms. Yonathan’s sole occupation of the home. Mr. Bierworth’s appraisal takes into account the cost of making the repairs to the Mississauga property.

127Mr. Mark Younan, is a Real Estate Agent who testified on behalf of Ms. Yonathan. According to him the market value of the home was between $560,000 to $590,000. His analysis was based on sales of comparative properties in the area and his estimates were based on the assumption that necessary repairs had been made to the Mississauga property. His estimates were made a year earlier and he provided estimates of properties that had sold for under $500,000.

128There is no evidence that the property values in the vicinity of the Mississauga property have plummeted. In reality, the Mississauga property will sell somewhere between the more conservative appraised value and the more speculative market value. Therefore, the value of the Mississauga property will range between $490,000 to $590,000. The appraised value does not accord with the current market value realty of the property and the market value figures proffered are too speculative. I will estimate the market value of the Mississauga property to be $550,000.

129This represents an increase in value of more than double the original purchase price. As of December 2008, the balance of the mortgage on the Mississauga property was $87,224.01. Sole retention of the proprietary interest in the property represents an enrichment of over $200,000. Ms. Yonathan contributed to the preservation, maintenance and growth of the property’s value.

130There is no juristic reason such as a gift, contract or any other agreement either expressed or implied that Mr. Matrook will retain all of the wealth generated by the ownership of the Mississauga property. There was no legitimate expectation between the parties that he will retain the wealth. Mr. Matrook’s enrichment is, therefore, unjust.

131Mr. Matrook made the mortgage payments for the Mississauga property and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Ms. Yonathan contributed to the down payment for purchasing Mississauga property, however, her contributions to the property related expenses is clear. Under these circumstances a monetary compensation is more appropriate.

132Given the state of the record, it is difficult to determine whether she always paid these expenses; whether she paid these expenses alone; how much did she pay; whether Mr. Matrook contributed to the expenses and how much.

133A total of all the receipts filed yield a total of $22,837.64 in expenses paid. I am sure that the expenses paid over course of more then 11 years of cohabitation exceeded this amount, however, due to the deficiencies in the record, I have described, the payment associated with the expenses, related to the property, is divided equally between the parties and Ms. Yonathan shall be compensated for one half of these expenses $11,418.82.

CONCLUSION

134This Court orders that:

(i) The contents of this order shall prevail over any variations/differences with my endorsement dated March 11, 2015;

(ii) On April 1, 2015, Mr. Matrook shall pay Ms. Yonathan monthly Spousal Support in the amount of $446. The duration of spousal support shall be seven years;

(iii) Ms. Yonathan shall inform Mr. Matrook, in writing to him and his counsel, by April 20, 2015, if she wishes to receive a lump sum spousal support payment of $35,680 or whether she wishes to receive monthly support payments of $446 commencing May 1, 2015;

(iv) The spousal support lump sum payment pre and post judgment shall bear interest at the rate of 2.5 per cent per annum;

(v) Should Ms. Yonathan choose to receive the lump sum payments, Mr. Matrook shall pay this amount in full by May 11, 2015;

(vi) Should Ms. Yonathan choose to receive monthly spousal support payments then on July 1, of each year the parties shall provide each other with their most recent and current Notice of Assessment and Tax Return;

(vii) Should Ms. Yonathan choose to receive monthly spousal support payments then on July 1, of each year Ms. Yonathan shall provide Mr. Matrook with written medical evidence of the impact of the Bipolar disorder on her ability to be fully employed;

(viii) Should Ms. Yonathan choose to receive monthly spousal support payments instead of the lump sum payment, a Support Deduction order shall issue and the Family Responsibility Office shall collect the Support payments on Ms. Yonathan’s behalf;

(ix) Mr. Matrook shall pay Ms. Yonathan the compensatory sum of $11,418.82 by May 11, 2015. This sum is subject to pre and post judgment interest of 2.5 per cent;

(x) Mr. Matrook shall retain sole proprietary interest in 6406 Saratoga Way, Mississauga, Ontario;

(xi) Mr. Matrook shall pay Ms. Yonathan spousal support arrears of $15,507 at pre judgment and post judgement interest of 2.5 per cent. This represents spousal support for the period of August 1, 2012 to March 1, 2015;

(xii) Should Mr. Matrook fail to make the payment for a spousal support arrears, the lump sum spousal support payment (if chosen by Ms. Yonathan); and the compensatory payment as ordered by this court and in accordance with the time frame prescribed by this court, Ms. Yonathan is entitled to a charge against 6406 Saratoga Way in Mississauga (Mississauga property) as security against the support and compensation obligations;

(xiii) Any Certificates of Pending litigation in favour of Ms. Yonathan shall remain on the 6406 Saratoga Way Mississauga, until Mr. Matrook has completely paid all lump sum payments in accordance with this order, unless Mr. Matrook provides proof in writing to this Court that vacating the existing Certificate of Pending litigation is necessary to ensure Compliance with this Order;

(xiv) Mr. Matrook shall maintain Ms. Yonathan as a beneficiary on his medical and drug benefits for 11 years. This shall be done by May 15, 2015; and

(xv) Should the parties be unable to agree on costs, the parties shall provide cost outlines no more than 20 days from the date of these reasons. The outline shall be no more than two pages in length.

Barnes, J.