CITATION: Guan v. Dai, 2015 ONSC 7517
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-18907
DATE: 20151202
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Hui Guan
Applicant
– and –
Jun Dai
Respondent
Evan Chang, for the Applicant
Jason Huang, for the Respondent
READ: December 2, 2015
F.L. Myers J.
[1] The outcome of this trial was recorded by oral reasons dictated in real-time at the end of the trial. The husband respondent succeeded on many issues but success was divided in my view.
[2] The wife’s claim to deny the husband access to the children until they are teenagers was self-serving and unreasonable throughout. Similarly, I found that she carefully orchestrated the events surrounding the parties’ separation and that her evidence in court concerning those events was not reliable. Having said that, the husband’s response was typified by nondisclosure. As he retreated to Peru during the marriage; he equally hid his assets during the litigation.
[3] I have reviewed the settlement positions put forward by each side prior to the trial. In some ways, each party met or beat their offers.
[4] The applicant wife submits that her position on access, “was an attempt to provide a clear break from her relationship with the respondent, in order to start a new life potentially with the new potential partner without the respondent interfering with that new life.” Whether she already has a new partner or is just planning for the future, I can see no positive spin on her decision to deprive her children of their father based upon the her desire to have a new relationship without the father “interfering.” She patently places her own wants ahead of the needs and best interests of her children.
[5] However, the applicant also points out that in light of the respondent’s nondisclosure, it was difficult for her to assess the merits of his positions. He did not make disclosure of his gifts from his father or his affairs in Peru. His business disclosure for the retsuarant was also minimalist. In addition, I note that the parties conducted their affairs - both personal and in their business - so as to evade their income tax obligations. This made the assessment of both sides’ financial positions much more difficult as neither had incentive to make full disclosure. In my reasons, I noted that there is a ledger book available that both parties agreed contained accurate accounts. Yet neither of them produced the accurate ledger book or issued a summons for its production. Both were keen to point fingers at each other, but neither was willing to undergo real scrutiny.
[6] In my view, parties who seek the assistance of courts of justice ought to be held to their obligations to obey the law. The law is not a convenience to be sought out when it suits one’s whim. It is the structural foundation upon which our society is built. Neither party here acted equitably, reasonably, or, lawfully. With hiding on the one side, manufactured positions on the other, and both benefiting from years of living in cash to avoid their obligations as members of the society, I would not reward either party with costs.
F.L. Myers J.
Released: December 2, 2015
CITATION: Guan v. Dai, 2015 ONSC 7517
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-18907
DATE: 20151202
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Hui Guan
Applicant
– and –
Jun Dai
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
F. L. Myers, J.
Released: December 2, 2015