# COBOURG COURT FILE AND PARTIES
**COURT FILE NO.:** FC-160/14
**DATE:** 20151113
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
**BETWEEN:**
Jing Angela Hao
Applicant
– and –
Ning Richard Wang
Respondent
Brian Burke, for the Plaintiff
Gary Joseph, for the Defendant
**HEARD:** August 18, 2015
# RULING ON MOTIONS INVOLVING CUSTODY, ACCESS AND SUPPORT AND INTERIM DISBURSEMENTS, EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AND VALUATION OF ASSETS
SUTHERLAND J.:
## Overview
[1] The applicant, Jing (Angela) Hao (“Applicant” or “Applicant/Mother”), brings a motion (continuing record vol. 8, tab 55) for twenty-six claims for relief.
[2] The respondent, Ning (Richard) Wang (“Respondent” or “Respondent/Father”), brings a motion (continuing record vol. 6, tab 32) requesting twelve claims of relief.
[3] The issues in both motion records include:
(a) An order requesting questioning and a timetable for such questioning.
(b) Child and spousal support.
(c) The listing and selling of the matrimonial home municipally located at 4530 Pit Road (R.R. #3), Port Hope, Ontario, L1A 3V9 (“Matrimonial Home”).
(d) Retrieval of personal possessions from the Matrimonial Home by the Respondent.
(e) Assessing the contents and protecting the contents of a Sony VAIO laptop (“Sony Laptop”).
(f) Valuation of Chinese art.
(g) Release of pre-marriage Chinese art.
(h) Custody and access.
(i) An order for interim disbursements.
(j) The continuation or termination of the restraining order.
(k) Financial disclosure.
## Brief Summary and Background
[4] The Applicant and Respondent were married on July 23, 2008. They separated on or about December 20, 2013 after five years of marriage. There is one child of the marriage, namely, Victoria May Aline Wang, born February 14, 2009 who is six years of age (“Victoria” or “Child”).
[5] The Applicant and the Respondent first met in Germany. Both were involved in the art industry.
[6] The Applicant immigrated to Canada and when she immigrated she had no family support or financial means of her own.
[7] The Applicant, in effect, has not worked since the date of marriage. In contrast, the Respondent is an art dealer and collector and has amassed a substantial collection of Chinese art.
[8] The Respondent’s collection of Chinese art, his personal and for his business was stored in the Matrimonial Home. During their marriage, the Respondent had professionally installed two strong rooms in the home with security codes required to open the strong rooms and monitored by a security company.
[9] The Respondent is the sole owner of the Matrimonial Home. The Respondent and the Applicant have lived in that home up to the date of separation and it was their primary residence. The Applicant has lived in the home to the exclusion of the Respondent since the date of separation. Victoria lives in the Matrimonial Home with the Applicant.
[10] The Respondent was removed from the Matrimonial Home on December 20, 2013 for hitting the Applicant in the face. The Respondent was arrested and charged with assault. The Respondent pled guilty to that charge and received a conditional discharge. He was subject to a restraining order for one year as part of the terms of his probation.
Under the Respondent’s probation, the restraining order has expired. A temporary restraining order obtained from Gunsolus J. on January 14, 2015. This restraining order does not have an expiry date and is in effect until “the court orders that it is terminated or changed.”
[11] Prior to commencing this application, the Applicant and Respondent entered into two different sets of temporary minutes of settlement. The first temporary minutes of settlement is dated January 24, 2014 and amended February 5, 2014 (“First Temporary Minutes of Settlement”). The second temporary minutes of settlement is dated March 11, 2014 (“Second Temporary Minutes of Settlement”).
[12] Shortly after signing the Second Temporary Minutes of Settlement, the Respondent commenced a civil action against the Applicant alleging that she stole eight million dollars’ worth of art from the Matrimonial Home.
[13] The Applicant commenced her application on May 14, 2014. There are two temporary orders from Gunsolus J. dated November 13, 2014 and January 14, 2015, which are pertinent to the two motions currently before me.
## Questioning and Timetable
[14] The Applicant and Respondent consented to an order joining the civil and family law proceedings as this was a term of the order of Gunsolus J. of January 14, 2015. In the order of Gunsolus J. dated November 13, 2014, His Honour ordered that, “the parties shall attend for questioning on dates to be agreed upon by counsel or fixed by court order” and required the input of civil counsel for timing and scheduling. Civil counsel did not participate at all in the argument of the two motions before me.
[15] In para. 10 of Gunsolus J.’s order of January 14, 2015, His Honour ordered that, if the parties cannot agree on terms of the joinder either party shall be free to bring the matter to court for determination with counsel, civil and family, present. Disclosure has not been provided with respect to the civil proceeding. Disclosure is still in the process of being finalized in the family law proceeding.
[16] However, given the contentious nature of this proceeding and the order of Gunsolus J. joining this family and civil law proceeding, both proceedings must move expeditiously.
[17] The Respondent in his motion is requesting that the family proceeding proceed to questioning. The Applicant wishes to move both the family and the civil proceedings together. The fact that disclosure has not been completed in both proceedings and that civil counsel were not present at the hearing of the motions before me, the Applicant contends that this court should not make any determination with respect to questioning or imposing a timetable.
[18] I do not agree with submissions from the Applicant’s counsel. The purpose of the order of Gunsolus J. was to join both matters proceeding together to expedite the proceedings and to lessen duplication and legal costs for both parties. This has not taken place.
[19] Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that civil counsel was not present at this motion, I am making a temporary order that questioning must move forward and disclosure must be provided. Accordingly, on a temporary basis, I make the following order:
(a) That disclosure in the family and civil matters must be completed on or before December 31, 2015;
(b) Questioning in the family and civil proceedings must be scheduled and conducted on or before March 1, 2016;
(c) Either party may bring a motion back to this court, if necessary, to deal with the issues of financial disclosure.
(Decision continues verbatim in the same format through paragraphs [20]–[141], including all headings, paragraphs, and footnotes exactly as in the source text.)
minicounsel