CITATION: Osman v. ElKadi, 2015 ONSC 2604
COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-75533-00
DATE: 20150421
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: GAMAL OSMAN AND MANAL ELKADI
BEFORE: LeMay J.
COUNSEL: Self-Represented, Applicant
Hamza Talpur, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 20, 2015
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] It has come to my attention that there are two outstanding matters relating to this file. First, there are Mr. Osman’s submissions dated March 24th, 2015 relating to calculation errors that I allegedly made in calculating the arrears in this case. Second, there is a handwritten letter from Mr. Talpur requesting that I sign a final Order in this matter, as he has not been able to get consent from Mr. Osman for same. I will briefly address each matter.
[2] I would note at the outset that, because I was sitting in Milton for most of March and the first two weeks of April, I did not see the March 24th, 2015 submissions until after I had released my costs endorsement in this matter. However, for the reasons that follow my decision on costs would have been unchanged.
Mr. Osman’s Calculations
[3] Mr. Osman has raised two issues in his calculations. First, he addressed the Net Family Property calculation and argued that I should have included the Egypt property and excluded the loan from Ms. ElKadi’s family in my Net Family Property calculations. Second, he has challenged a number of the calculations that I have made on arrears.
[4] On the issue of the Net Family Property, I specifically dealt with the Egypt property and concluded that, although Ms. ElKadi continued to have an interest in the property (paragraph 118 of my decision), it was a gift and excluded from the Net Family Property calculations (paragraph 119 of my decision). I am not revisiting that decision. There is no actual error in these calculations. Mr. Osman instead seeks to challenge my decision on this issue. I had only invited submissions on any calculation errors, and my jurisdiction at this point is limited to calculation errors.
[5] On the issue of the arrears calculations, I would note that (with one exception) none of these matters are the subject of a calculation error. Indeed, as I read Mr. Osman’s submission, he is claiming that certain amounts were not included in my calculations. My calculations of utilities, mortgage payments and spousal support were based on the documents that were provided to me by the parties.
[6] In reviewing Mr. Osman’s calculations, I would start by noting that he has presented this information in a different way than the exhibits that he presented at trial. It has made determining the basis for his position more challenging. One of the issues that arises is that Mr. Osman referred to documents in the trial record rather than the actual exhibit filed at trial. I do not know where these documents are in the exhibits, or even whether they exist in the exhibits. As a result, in reviewing these calculations I have returned to the actual trial exhibits. In any subsequent submissions, the parties are directed to do the same.
[7] My observations on each category as follows:
a) The expenses paid in November of 2012. These were addressed by the Order of Donohue J., and were considered in my calculations. I see no errors in these calculations and am not prepared to make any changes to my calculations on this point.
b) The support paid in the summer of 2012 to the Family Responsibility Office. On Mr. Osman’s calculation, there was approximately $3,858.00 paid that I did not account for. It is possible that this amount was not included in my calculations of arrears. I am directing that Mr. Talpur make submissions on this point as set out below.
c) The child and spousal support paid through the Family Responsibility Office in November and December of 2012. The problem I have with this number is that Mr. Osman, in Exhibit 40, paid these amounts directly, while deducting the mortgage payment from them. I see no errors in these calculations and am not prepared to make any changes to my calculations on this point.
d) In terms of the mortgage between January of 2012 and December of 2012, these payments are accounted for in my calculations between the mortgage paid to April of 2012, the payments per Donohue J.’s Order and the payments made in November and December of 2012. I see no errors in these calculations and am not prepared to make any changes to my calculations on this point.
e) In terms of the utilities paid in 2012, those amounts are also considered in the calculations I made for 2012. I see no errors in these calculations and am not prepared to make any changes to my calculations on this point.
[8] I am only prepared to consider approximately $3,858.00 worth of payments for the summer of 2012, and Mr. Talpur is directed to make submissions on whether I did not consider those amounts in my arrears calculations within fourteen days from today’s date. Mr. Osman is directed to file any reply submissions within seven days after receiving Mr. Talpur’s submissions. The reply submissions are to be confined to responding to Mr. Talpur’s submissions on the Family Responsibility Office payments allegedly made in the summer of 2012.
[9] The remainder of my calculations of arrears remain as determined in my original schedule. As a result, the proceeds from the house are to be released to Ms. ElKadi promptly, as the calculations are now final (except for the one point described above), and the entirety of these funds will be owing to Ms. ElKadi on account of arrears regardless of how I resolve this final dispute between the parties. An Order will be necessary and I now turn to that issue.
Mr. Talpur’s Request for an Order
[10] I have received a handwritten note from Mr. Talpur asking me to sign the Order immediately as his client is facing financial issues. I note that Mr. Talpur has served his draft Order on the Applicant. However, it is not clear to me whether the Applicant was served with Mr. Talpur’s handwritten letter to me. All correspondence to the Court should be copied on the other side, and the other side should be given an opportunity to reply to it.
[11] As a result, I am directing the following:
a) Mr. Talpur will serve forthwith his letter of April 15th, 2015 on Mr. Osman.
b) Mr. Osman will have seven (7) days to reply to this letter, and to outline any concerns he has with the Order. He must provide his comments to both Mr. Talpur and the Court Office.
c) If no concerns are raised, then Mr. Talpur is at liberty to take out the Order except for the amount of arrears, which remains open to debate, pursuant to these supplementary reasons.
d) If Mr. Osman raises concerns, Mr. Talpur will have seven (7) days to respond to those concerns, after which I will direct the form the Order is to take.
LeMay J.
DATE: April 21, 2015
CITATION: Osman v. ElKadi, 2015 ONSC 2604
COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-75533-00
DATE: 20150420
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: GAMAL OSMAN – and – MANAL ELKADI
BEFORE: LeMay J.
COUNSEL: Self-Represented, Applicant
Hamza Talpur, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
LeMay J.
DATE: April 21, 2015