SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
Citation: Smith vs. Schropp, 2015 ONSC 748
Court File No. FC-12-1904
B E T W E E N:
KEVIN SMITH
Applicant
- and -
JOANNE SCHROPP
Respondent
P R O C E E D I N G S
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M. LINHARES DE SOUSA
on THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2015 at OTTAWA, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
K. Smith
Self – Not Present
J. Schropp
Self – In Person
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2015
R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N
LINHARES DE SOUSA, J. (Orally):
This matter comes before me for trial on a number of issues which were as follows: 1) Custody of access to the twin boys, Mason Smith and Marcus Smith, who were born on May 7th, 2008 and who are now six years old. 2) Child support for the two children, both ongoing support and proportional sharing of the Section 7 expenses for the children. And 3) The payment of certain monies owed by Mr. Smith to Ms. Schropp.
This was a very short-lived relationship, the parties began cohabiting in November of 2007 and separated in August of 2011. By the time they separated they were the parents of twin boys who were three years old at the time. The parties sought to resolve their legal family issues by way of mediation sometime in September of 2011 which was unsuccessful and which then became an interim arbitration award pending final order of the Court. This award, dated December 3rd, 2011, was filed as Exhibit 1 on the trial, and as can be seen from the document, the parties were able to agree to certain items of parenting between them such as family counseling for the children, consistency in medical care for the children and their nursery, the intended future school for the children and other parenting matters, in particular see Page 8, Paragraph 8 of the arbitration award Exhibit 1.
The parties were even able to agree to a quantum of child support, Mr. Smith was to pay Ms. Schropp in accordance with the child support guidelines based on an annual income of $71,800.00 at $1,064.00 per month. And the proportional sharing of the Section 7 expenses of the children, Mr. Smith was allotted 67 % and Ms. Schropp, 33 %. The parties also identified those Section 7 expenses on which they were agreed which would be proportionally shared by them such as child care, counselling fees, group insurance premiums to have group extended health medical, prescription, dental, orthodontic and or vision care insurance coverage for the children’s benefit, uncovered health related expenses, and professional counselling or therapy for the children, and extra-curricular activities upon consent of both parents.
The issues the parties were not able to agree on in that arbitration award became the subject of the arbitration award commencing at Page 7 of Exhibit 1. The arbitration award was as follows, there would be: 1) Interim joint custody with joint decision making on such things as the health, education, daycare, religion and spirituality, and general wellbeing of the children with detail of how the parents would work together to make these decisions on and not do anything unilaterally. 2) A detailed parenting timesharing was also set out in the arbitration award and gradual access from December 2011 to May 2012 gradually increasing Mr. Smith’s time with the children from day access to overnight access. The last phase would be the following, which is the parenting time sharing when this matter came to trial – or which was the parenting timesharing when this matter came to trial. And that is on a two week basis with week one Mr. Smith having the children on Tuesday from the time – and I’m going to quote directly from the arbitration award, “On Tuesday from the time Kevin finishes work between 3:30 and 4:00 until 6:30 and 2) On Thursday from the time Kevin finishes work between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m. until 6:30”. Week two would be “On Tuesday from the time Kevin finishes work between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m. until 6:30, and 2) from Friday when Kevin finishes work between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 4:30 p.m.” According to Ms. Schropp the parenting arrangement at this time is going relatively well.
Section F of the arbitration award made interim provision for special holidays and occasions such as Christmas 2011, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Easter Weekend, Mother’s Day – I’m sorry – pardon me, it’s Mother’s birthday, Father’s birthday, Easter Weekend, Mother’s Day and Father’s day, and this can be found on Page 12 and 13 of the Exhibit 1. The arbitration award goes on to deal with many details and conditions that would be respected by both parties during the exchange of parenting and the children’s ongoing care. Future disputes were to be determined by closed mediation or the Court.
By the fall of 2012 the parties commenced these legal proceedings which was followed by multiple court hearings as the endorsement section of this Continuing Record shows. The parties have been disputing issues of monies owed by one party to another, disclosure, quantum of child support, including the payment of Section 7 expenses for the children, and parenting issues. There were also motions to strike Mr. Smith’s pleadings on which Ms. Schropp was partially successful for non-disclosure.
When this – when Mr. Smith first brought this application in 2011 he sought an order – excuse me, was it 2011? 2012 – thank you, I’ll just make that correction. When Mr. Smith first brought this application in 2012 he sought an order for joint custody of the children with an equal sharing of parenting time between himself and Ms. Schropp and he has since abandoned that request. Ms. Schropp is seeking sole exclusive custody of the two children, which I grant as being in the best interest of these two children. I should have also mentioned, which I didn’t at the end, that even though this was placed on a contested list, Mr. Smith did not make an appearance and so the matter proceeded on an uncontested basis. Ms. Schropp is seeking sole exclusive custody of the two children which I grant as being in the best interest of these two children. Based on an examination of this litigation I agree with the arbitrator’s finding in her award at Page 3 that there is here a high degree of conflict between the parties and very strained communication.
The evidence presented at this trial indicated that since the interim arbitration award the parties have continued to be very conflictual to which conflict their children have been exposed. Even items that were the subject of agreement in the arbitration award were not respected and became the subject matter of further disputes and very toxic communications. Police have been involved and the C. A. S. has also been involved with the family during this interim period. I’m persuaded that joint custody and joint decision making is unworkable in this case and not in the best interest of the children because of the continuing parental conflict it will engender. By all counts on the evidence the children are doing well and are thriving in the primary care of their mother. With the assistance of counselling they seem to have come through relatively well the disruption of their parents’ separation. There will therefore be an order for final sole custody of the two children to Ms. Schropp. Ms. Schropp is obligated to consult Mr. Smith in making any major decisions about the children’s health, education, daycare, religion, spirituality, general wellbeing before making any such decision. After a reasonable period of discussion about the decision to be made (30 days maximum) if the parents still do not agree, Ms. Schropp shall have the final decision making power.
There will be an order of regular access to Mr. Smith in accordance with the current access arrangement coming out of the parents arbitration award dated December 13, 2011 and as described by me earlier. This access will remain until further order of the Court or until the parties can otherwise agree. Mr. Smith’s access will include his ability to contact directly and to receive information about his children from any medical, dental, or educational professional involved with his children, as well as any organization or individual relating to his children’s activities or caregiving. Ms. Schropp will sign any consents required to facilitate and realize this line of communication for Mr. Smith.
Holidays: Holiday access shall supersede regular access. Regarding Christmas holidays, the parties will share the children’s Christmas school holidays equally. The dispute between the parents has revolved around the small period of time of the Christmas holidays involving Christmas Eve, Christmas morning and – and Christmas morning and who would be with the children for the Christmas morning gift opening. The evidence showed that Ms. Schropp and her family celebrated their Christmas meal on Christmas Eve and Mr. Smith and his family celebrated their Christmas meal on Christmas Day. Christmas morning gift giving is what could not be agreed upon by the parents, consequently in addition to sharing equally the rest of the children’s Christmas holidays the following shall be ordered relating to the three day period of the Christmas holidays, namely Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day. Commencing Christmas of 2015 Ms. Schropp shall have the children on Christmas Eve until 9:00 when they shall go into the care of Mr. Smith until Christmas Day at 7:00 p.m. and the children will spend Boxing Day with their mother. For the following Christmas, Christmas of 2016, Ms. Schropp shall have the children from Christmas Eve until Christmas Day at 1:00 p.m. and Mr. Smith shall have the children from Christmas Day 1:00 p.m. until Boxing Day at 7:00 p.m. Thereafter this schedule will alternate from year to year until the parties can otherwise agree. With this schedule both parents family’s traditions are respected and the parents shall alternately share the Christmas giving period from – the early morning Christmas giving period from year to year. Furthermore, in the year a parent has the Christmas gift giving period, they shall also have New Year’s Eve day with the children and the other parent shall have New Year’s Day with the children and this will alternate from year to year between the parents unless they can otherwise agree.
Regarding other holidays like Easter and long weekends such as each parents birthday and the children’s birthday access shall be as provided for in the arbitration award unless the parties can otherwise agree. For greater clarity it shall be as follows: Mother’s Day, if the father has access that day the Mother shall be entitled to at least three hours of the day that it is consistent with the children’s schedule to celebrate this day with them. Father’s Day, if the mother has care of the children that day the father shall be entitled to at least three hours of that day that it is consistent with the children’s schedule to celebrate this day with them. Easter weekend whoever does not have the care of the children this weekend as it falls on the regular parenting schedule shall have choice of one day an overnight in the four day weekend to have an Easter celebration with the children unless the parties can otherwise agree. Mother’s day, if Mother’s day falls on an access weekend when the children are with the father the children shall be returned to their mother’s care on Sunday at noon so that they may celebrate the day with her. Father’s day, if father’s day falls on a weekend when the mother has care of the children the children shall have access with their father from Sunday noon until 6:00 p.m. so that they may celebrate the day with him.
Regarding the children’s long summer holidays each parent shall be entitled to have three weeks of summer holidays with the children which will not be exercised in a consecutive way until the parties can otherwise agree. In order for this summer access to be exercised Mr. Smith must advise Ms. Schropp of his intended weeks by April the 1st of each year so that she may make camp and daycare arrangements for the children for the summer. If such advance notice is not given and the parties can not otherwise agree, whatever other prearranged plans have been made for the children or to which the children have been committed, shall take priority.
Finally, there will be telephone access or other electronic communication between Mr. Smith and his children. The children will be permitted to telephone their father when they wish. Mr. Smith may telephone his children when he wishes, within a reasonable time.
Child support - ongoing support. There is no question that Mr. Smith is obligated to pay child support to Ms. Schropp for his two children. Mr. Smith has been noncompliant with the many financial disclosure orders made against him. It is clear that at the time of the separation Mr. Smith was earning approximately $71,800.00 as a qualified electrician. He agreed at that time to pay $1,064.00 per month as support for his two boys in accordance with the child support guidelines, see the – see Exhibit 1, the arbitration award. The evidence showed that since that time Mr. Smith has lost his employment, spent some five months receiving employment insurance and is now reemployed again as of August of 2013. In December 2012 because of his unemployment Mr. Smith unilaterally reduced his support payments to $600.00 per month. His earnings for the following years were as follows, 2011, $68,218.00, 2012, $64,626.00 inclusive of employment insurance, 2013, $55,997.00 inclusive of employment insurance. The matter returned to court and Mr. Smith was ordered to pay by order of Madam Justice Mackinnon dated September 9th, 2013 and commencing May 1st, 2013, $974.00 per month child support for two children which, if in accordance with the child support guidelines, recognizes that Mr. Smith was earning approximately $60,000.00 to $61,000.000 per year. Ms. Schropp is convinced that Mr. Smith can earn more and that he is content to earn what he does in order to limit his child support liability, especially in the face of his threats to quit employment and to declare bankruptcy. Nonetheless, she concedes that the current order of Madam Justice Mackinnon is a fair and appropriate one. There will therefore be a final order obligating Mr. Smith to pay child support to Ms. Schropp of $974.00 per month for the two children and of – for the two children of this union based on a declared income of $62,000.00 per annum in accordance with the child support guidelines.
Mr. Smith shall have an ongoing obligation to inform Ms. Schropp of any material change of circumstance in his financial circumstances. Furthermore, the parties are obligated to exchange their income tax returns and notices of assessment by June 1st of each year commencing June 1st, 2015 in order to determine in what proportion the parties shall share their children’s Section 7 expenses and for determining the ongoing child support in accordance with the child support guidelines from year to year.
Sectoin 7 expenses, the payment of these expenses and the collection of these expenses for the two children continue to be a great source of conflict between the parties even though the parties reached a detailed agreement in their mediation arbitration with respect to the identification and proportional sharing of these expenses, that is 67 % for Mr. Smith and 33 % for Ms. Schropp. Court orders have been required to enforce Mr. Smith’s agreed committed to the payment of some of these Section 7 expenses, such as his one half payment of the children’s education fund. On September 15th, 2014 Madam Justice Mackinnon ordered that Mr. Smith pay his 67 % of the children’s Section 7 expenses which had accumulated as of that date to a total of $12,600.00 at the rate of $400.00 per month. Mr. Smith is currently paying that order. Madam Justice Mackinnon reserved to the trial two items on a list of agreed up on Section 7 expenses on which there was a dispute, see Section – excuse, see Exhibit 7 filed at the trial, which is the list of Section 7 expenses for the children. The first Section 7 expense in dispute concerns a Carleton Montessori daycare expense incurred by Ms. Schropp for a period of seven months. The total amount is $3,769.71 as evidenced in Exhibit 11 filed at the trial and Mr. Smith’s proportionate share would be $2525.70. Mr. Smith did not agree to the cost of this daycare and took the position that since he did not agree he should not be obligated to pay the expense. Ms. Schropp testified that her mother had taken care of the children and became ill and could no longer do it, Ms. Schropp then had to find alternate daycare and she chose one that was close to her home and convenient for her since she was transporting the children. Ms. Schropp also testified that she knew that it would be for a short period of time until the children could start their kindergarten at a regular school. The expense overall is not unreasonable and I find it to be a bonafide Section 7 expense that ought to be shared by the parents on a 67/33 % basis. Mr. Smith is ordered to pay Ms. Schropp for this expense the amount of $2525.70. Ms. Schropp does not need afterschool daycare because she works from her home and is there to care for the children afterschool. The second item concerns the cost of two parking tickets incurred by Ms. Schropp at the CHEO hospital while her son Marcus was hospitalized there with a bone infection. The tickets were purchased so that it could be shared by family members including Mr. Smith and his family so that someone could be with Marcus continually during his hospitalization. The total amount of the tickets are $193.50, Mr. Smith’s proportionate share would be $129.65. Mr. Smith took the position that he incurred his own parking expenses for that period but has not provided any evidence of what these were. Mr. Smith is ordered to pay Ms. Schropp $129.65 as his proportionate share of this Section 7 expense relating to the child Marcus. Ms. Schropp gave evidence relating to summer camp expenses that she has paid for the children. These camp expenses would be in lieu of daycare she would otherwise require for the children during the summer months. Ms. Schropp testified that she has attempted to plan for this by asking Mr. Smith when he would like to have the children for the summer or if he would consent to certain camps. However, according to Ms. Schropp his response is often not to respond to her queries. The details of these camp expenses are found at Exhibit 7 filed by Ms. Schropp. Ms. Schropp, for these camps as alternate daycare, has already paid $2,600.00 with an added payment of $3,400.00 to be paid, inclusive of the March Break period. Ms. Schropp has estimated that Mr. Smith’s proportionate share of the summer camps would be $335.00 per month, see Exhibit 8. Ms. Schropp has also estimated that the other activities in which the two boys have participated and continue to participate, hockey, soccer, swimming, gymnastics or basketball, come to a cost of $2000.00 annually to a total of $166.00 per month. Mr. Smith’s proportionate share of these Section 7 expenses would be $110.00 per month. Ms. Schropp asks that the Court, based on the evidence, fix the Section 7 expenses, inclusive of payments to the education fund, on a monthly basis as a fixed monthly amount payable by Mr. Smith. For this she relies on the evidence showing the difficulty she has had in the past with Mr. Smith in collecting from him his – Mr. Smith’s proportionate share of the children’s Section 7 expenses after she has paid them. Furthermore, Ms. Schropp argues it’s very difficult to discuss expenses with someone who does not respond to your communications. The evidence clearly supports this kind of order, for that reason, in addition to the ongoing support Mr. Smith is ordered to pay $445.00 per month for the two children’s Section 7 expenses commencing January 1st, 2015.
Arrears of support, Mr. Smith continues to be in arrears of the child support and the payment of the Section 7 expenses of the children as ordered by Madam Justice Mackinnon on September 9th, 2013 and September 15, 2014. Ms. Schropp’s calculation of these arrears, giving Mr. Smith credit for payments he has made, are found at Exhibit 16 filed at the trial and show a total child support arrears inclusive of Section 7 expenses and payment into the education fund for the children of $4433.64. To this, should of course, be added the outstanding amounts due by Mr. Smith for the Montessori Daycare and the CHEO parking tickets as ordered by this Court, which brings the total of support arrears to $7088.99. These arrears of child support shall continue to be paid at the rate of $400.00 per month until they are fully paid.
Once last sundry support related issues concerns any medical and dental insurance coverage Mr. Smith may have for the benefit of the children. Mr. Smith is ordered to disclose forthwith all information relation to any such medical dental insurance which he may have.
Monies owed to – owed by Mr. Smith to Ms. Schropp. I heard some detailed evidence relating to certain payments Ms. Schropp made for Mr. Smith’s financial benefit during their co-habitation. There is no question on the evidence that Mr. Smith received a financial benefit in having nearly all of his personal debts with which he came into the short co-habitation, and some personal financial loses which he incurred during the short co-habitation, paid for. There was no juridical reason for such benefit being received by him by Ms. Schropp, finally it would result in an injustice to her if he were not obligated to account for such financial benefit and repay Ms. Schropp for the benefit. On the facts of this case I am persuaded that there has been an unjust enrichment which ought to have a remedy. In my view, this also touches on the wellbeing of the children, Ms. Schropp’s advanced this financial benefit to Mr. Smith by taking on additional debt which she had to pay and continues to be obligated to pay. This debt, which Mr. Smith – which – excuse me, rather Ms. Schropp, this debt which Ms. Schropp carries clearly negatively affects her own ability to provide for herself and the children as she is obligated to do. These monies ought to be repaid to her by Mr. Smith and it is so ordered, because of this I am persuaded that these payments are related to the support issues of this case. With respect to the total amount that ought to be ordered, the financial benefit received by Mr. Smith includes the following categories of monies as proven on the evidence, and for this see Exhibit 14 filed at the trial and supplemented by the testimony of Ms. Schropp. 1) After the separation Mr. Smith withdrew $16,996.51 from the parties joint line of credit. This may have been in retaliation for Ms. Schropp seizing his income tax return of $2,737.86 which Ms. Schropp acknowledges rightfully belonged to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was given credit for his tax refund and has also repaid $3000.00 on the amount his unilaterally withdrew from the joint line-of-credit leaving him owing to Ms. Schropp $11,258.65 in view of the fact that she paid off all of the outstanding balance on the joint line-of-credit. There was also some interest payments made as a result of Mr. Smith’s withdrawal from the joint line-of-credit in the approximate amount of $997.00. 2) Prior to the co-habitation Mr. Smith was heavily in debt on his five credit cards. These debts were consolidated into a low-interest credit-card owned by Ms. Schropp and she came legally responsible for that debt. In her evidence, Ms. Schropp acknowledged that Mr. Smith repaid $2955.00 on that debt during the co-habitation. That total debt was in the amount of $5000.00. Leaving a balance of $2,045.00 owing to Ms. Schropp, Mr. Smith apparently takes the position that during the co-habitation the parties shared their income and expenses and that some of the money he shared with Ms. Schropp must have covered other parts of the debt. Ms. Schropp acknowledged that perhaps 10 % of what Mr. Smith owed her might have been covered that way but the income and expenses they shared were generally for the family to meet their living expenses. Ms. Schropp has factored that 10 % credit or deduction into her calculation of the total amount of debt that Mr. Smith owes her, and this was found in Exhibit 14. 3) In 2008 Ms. Schropp renewed her mortgage, in order to be able to do this and as a result of advice received by her, Mr. Smith became a joint tenant on her property and gave Ms. Schropp and I.O.U. in the amount of $63,500.00 and evidence of this was filed as Exhibit 13. In the course of this litigation the I.O.U. was cancelled and Ms. Schropp is now sole owner of the property. In renewing her mortgage it was the evidence of Ms. Schropp that she took on a higher mortgage and then she needed to in order to pay off some other accumulated debts in the amount of $19,000.00 which have all been documented in the evidence, see Exhibit 14. 4) In November of 2009 Mr. Smith owned a property in Arnprior and sold it at a loss of $13,886.25. The financial loss, according to the evidence of Ms. Schropp, was covered by the parties joint line-of-credit, which Ms. Schropp also paid off with her own money. 5) Mr. Smith transferred to Ms. Schropp, by Court order, an R.R.S.P. belonging to him as partial payment for the debts he owed to Ms. Schropp and has done so. Mr. Smith of course is to be given a credit for this payment. Exhibit 14 in the testimony of Ms. Schropp supports the above findings. I come to the conclusion that Mr. Smith ought to be obligated to reimburse Ms. Schropp for the unjust enrichment he has received in the total amount of $16,953.33 and it is so ordered. As I concluded earlier this obligation to pay is related to support issues of this case and it is ordered that it be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office in the same way as the other portions of this order as relating to child support. Mr. Smith is also ordered to pay post-judgement interest on all the outstanding amounts due by him to Ms. Schropp.
The last issue is costs, having – I’d like to hear your submissions on costs now.
JOANNE SCHROPP: The order dated September 24, 2012 states costs of the conference shall be reserved to the judge disposing of the application.
THE COURT: Was this a settlement conference or a case conference?
JOANNE SCHROPP: Case conference.
THE COURT: And what was the date of that?
JOANNE SCHROPP: September 24th, 2012.
THE COURT: And you had counsel? JOANNE SCHROPP: I had counsel.
THE COURT: And you received the bill for that?
JOANNE SCHROPP: Pardon me? THE COURT: You received a bill for that appearance?
JOANNE SCHROPP: Yes, I’ll just finish and then I’ll give you the amount.
THE COURT: I have a bad habit of interrupting.
JOANNE SCHROPP: The order dated September 9th, 2013 states the costs of the motion are adjourned sine die.
THE COURT: Without a date.
JOANNE SCHROPP: I had counsel for that as well, my counsel also prepared the answers. I....
THE COURT: The answer to the litigation?
JOANNE SCHROPP: Yes.
THE COURT: You mean the answer found in the trial record?
JOANNE SCHROPP: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
JOANNE SCHROPP: And in total I paid $45,000.00 and I’m just looking for $10,000.00.
THE COURT: Do you have a bill of costs somewhere that your lawyer gave you?
JOANNE SCHROPP: I have them somewhere, I have all my bills.
THE COURT: Thank you. Throughout the litigation there was some costs ordered against Mr. Smith.
JOANNE SCHROPP: Yes.
THE COURT: Have those been paid?
JOANNE SCHROPP: In total there was $1000.00, I‘ve only been paid $500.00.
THE COURT: So there was $1000.00 ordered and you’ve only received $500.00?
JOANNE SCHROPP: Yes.
THE COURT: So $500.00 is still outstanding?
JOANNE SCHROPP: Yes.
THE COURT: And you’re seeking $10,000.00? JOANNE SCHROPP: Yes.
THE COURT: This will become the next Exhibit, Madam Registrar, the last exhibit – Exhibit 17.
Exhibit Number 17: Summary of Costs – produced and marked.
THE COURT: You can sit down for the moment.
JOANNE SCHROPP: Okay.
THE COURT: My cost award is the following: The last issue is costs, having heard the submissions of Ms. Schropp she is clearly entitled to costs. She has been substantially successful on this trial, Mr. Smith with his refusal to respect Court orders for financial disclosure and to proceed in a timely way has acted unreasonably and in bad faith. He has chosen not to appear at these proceedings but requiring Mr. Schropp to carry-on to prove her case. Mr. Smith has other cost awards granted against him, part of which he has not yet respected or satisfied, there are $500.00 costs still outstanding. Ms. Schropp ought to be reimbursed all of her costs in this ligation and she has provided some evidence of what these have been, and this was filed as Exhibit 17, and seeks $10,000.00 in costs. It is ordered that Mr. Smith pay Ms. Schropp her costs, that I fix in the amount of $10,000.00, and of course this is – does not include the $500.00 which is still outstanding and still due. Because of the – because a substantial portion of costs in this matter were incurred in over to resolve the question of support, the cost award and all other cost awards made against Mr. Smith by this Court is to be enforced as support by the Family Responsibility Office.
_____________________________________________
ORIGINAL SIGNED COPY FILED WITH REPORTER
FORM 2
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Jaime L. Oliver, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of Smith vs. Schropp in the Superior Court of Justice held Thursday, January 22, 2015 2014 at 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario taken from Recording No. 0411_MR54_20150122_125252__10_LINHARM, Courtroom No. 54, which has been certified in Form 1.
(Date) Jaime L. Oliver
COPIES OF THIS TRANSCRIPT ARE NOT CERTIFIED AND NOT AUTHORIZED UNLESS AFFIXED WITH THE ORIGINAL SIGNATURE OF THE REPORTER
Ontario Regulation 158/03 – Evidence Act
*This certification does not apply to the (Rulings, Reasons for Judgment, Reasons for Sentence, or Charge to the Jury) which was/were judicially edited.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Transcript Ordered: ............................January 27, 2015
Transcript Completed: ..........................January 29, 2015
Transcript Judicially Reviewed and Edited:......February 2, 2015
Ordering Party Notified: .......................February 3, 2015