ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Karen-Lynn Routly,
Michael Cupello, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
Kevin Scott Routly,
William G. Shanks, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: January 15, 2015,
at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Decision On Motion
[1]
Background
This motion by the respondent, originally returnable October 23, 2014, seeks:
An Order striking out the applicant`s amended Application for failure to comply with the Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice D.C. Shaw dated February 3, 2014, failure to file an affidavit listing documents, and failure to pay costs as ordered April 16, 2014; and
Costs on a solicitor and client basis.
2On November 20, 2014 Pierce J. adjourned the hearing of this motion to January 15, 2015, peremptory on the applicant, and ordered that the applicant's materials be filed by December 19, 2014.
3On December 19, 2014 the applicant served her own motion for production against the respondent.
4Counsel for the respondent requested an adjournment to allow the respondent to file affidavit material on the applicant's motion.
5Counsel for the applicant asked that the applicant's motion be heard today, or, alternatively, that both motions be adjourned to be heard together.
6Because Pierce J. adjourned this motion peremptory on the applicant, I decline to order that the two motions be heard together.
7Therefore it is ordered that the applicant's motion returnable January 15, 2015 is adjourned to January 29, 2015 to allow the respondent to file affidavit material.
Reasons
[8]
Reasons
The Order of Shaw J dated February 3, 2014 provides, among other things, as follows:
“3. Each party shall serve an Affidavit Listing Documents by February 21, 2014.
- The parties shall make the following disclosures:
a. The Applicant shall provide re: her condominium in Sardinia:
i. A copy of any mortgages;
ii. Particulars of any rental accounts and accompanying documents;
iii. Copy of insurance policy;
iv. Copy of listing agreement;
v. Copies of any correspondence with a realtor regarding the listing price.
b. The Applicant shall produce:
i. Copies of loans, grants, bursaries or subsidies for the children, Nadine and Chiara;
ii. Copies of documents verifying the children’s post-secondary expenses and payment of same;
iii. Copies of bank accounts or other financial institutions accounts out of which payments have been made by the applicant for the children’s post-secondary education;
iv. Her resume;
v. Job applications since the date of separation.
c. Both parties shall produce:
i. Particulars of any property owned outside of Ontario, including foreign bank accounts and registered retirement accounts;
ii. Copies of credit card statements within and outside of Ontario for the past 48 months;
iii. copies of bank accounts within and outside of Ontario for the past 48 months;
iv. Receipts for property purchased during the past 48 months.”
9The supplementary affidavit of Norma Badi, sworn October 21, 2014, sets out, at paragraph three, the deficiencies in disclosure.
10The applicant's affidavit sworn December 19, 2014 does not address her production deficiencies but rather addresses deficiencies in the respondent's production. This is not helpful. No acceptable explanation is given for the applicant's failure to comply with the order of Shaw J.
11Counsel for the applicant submitted that a timetable be set which provides that the applicant shall fully comply with the Order of Shaw J dated February 3, 2014 by the end of February, 2015. I therefore order that:
The applicant shall fully comply with the order of Shaw J dated February 3, 2014 by 4:00 pm February 27, 2015;
Failing compliance with paragraph one the respondent may move to strike the applicant's amended application.
[12]
Costs
In the circumstances I also order that the applicant pay to the respondent the costs of this motion in the amount of $1,250 plus HST. Both counsel indicated that this cost award was in the acceptable range for a motion of this sort.
13The applicant's motion for production issues was adjourned to January 29, 2015. I recognize that, depending on the disposition of that motion, there may be an offsetting costs award. Therefore, I further order that these costs are not payable until after the disposition of the applicant's motion returnable January 29, 2015.
14During argument some representations were made with respect to the applicant’s financial circumstances. I do not propose to make any Order with respect to the non-payment of that prior Cost Order. This is without prejudice to the respondent to bring a further motion to enforce payment of those costs.
______”original signed by”
The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Released: January 16, 2015
CITATION: Routly v. Routly, 2015 ONSC 337
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-0354
DATE: 2015-01-16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Karen-Lynn Routly,
Applicant
- and -
Kevin Scott Routly,
Respondent
DECISION ON MOTION
Newton J.
Released: January 16, 2015
/mls