Singh v. Singh, 2017 ONSC 1018

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-477962 and FS -13-388450 DATE: 20170214

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Alka Singh Applicant

– and –

Rajeev Singh Chandel (aka Rajeev Kumar Singh) Shakuntala Singh Respondents

COUNSEL: R. Heft and N. Bekah, for the Applicant/Respondent in FS-13-388450 R. Toor, for the Respondent/Applicant in FS-13-388450 Self-Represented, Respondent in CV-13-477962

HEARD: October 20, 21, 27 (motion by Mr. Chandel) 2015; May 16 (adjourned); June 3, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 27, 29, 30, July 5, August 23, October 14, 2016

KITELEY J.

[1] The parties married on November 22, 1998 or February 14, 2000. They separated in January 2009 (according to Ms. Singh) or June or October 2012 (according to Mr. Chandel). They disagree about the date of marriage and the valuation date and most everything that happened between the end of 1998 and the end of 2012.

[2] As indicated below, there are continuing proceedings in India between Ms. Singh and Mr. Chandel which have resulted in considerable conflict between them. The findings I make are based on the evidence before me that included parts of 5 days of testimony for each of Mr. Chandel and Ms. Singh. I do not expect any court in India or elsewhere to rely on any findings of fact or findings of fact and law that I have made.

Procedural history

[3] On November 27, 2012, in FS-12-382922 (Exhibit 27) Justice Czutrin made an ex parte preservation order at the request of Ms. Singh without an Application having been issued. Czutrin J. ordered that funds held in a bank account at the Royal Bank of Canada in the name of Rajeev Singh Chandel operating as Reflex Global Sourcing and funds held at the Royal Bank, Toronto Dominion Bank and the Steinbach Credit Union in the name of Shakuntala Singh (Mr. Chandel’s mother) were to be preserved pending the return of the motion on notice to Mr. Chandel and Shakuntala Singh.

[4] In a consent order dated March 14, 2013 in FS-12-382922, Goodman J. continued the preservation order but directed that the funds totalling $212,000 be transferred to the trust account of Ms. Singh’s then lawyer Nikolay Chsherbinin. Goodman J. made an order not on consent that, of those funds, $8,000 should be made available to Mr. Chandel so that he could travel to Toronto for cross-examination.

[5] Ms. Singh did not file a family law Application. Instead, in April 2013 she started the civil action (CS-13-477962) in which she asserted claims for fraud and embezzlement. Mr. Chandel’s statement of defence is dated May 16, 2013 and the statement of defence of his mother Shakuntala Singh is dated May 27, 2013.

[6] Mr. Chandel started an action in Brampton in which he sought damages for defamation.

[7] In an endorsement in FS-12-382922 dated July 3, 2013 Horkins J. granted Mr. Chandel the right to file an Application in the Toronto Family Court and she ordered Ms. Singh to file an Answer or have the ex parte order dated November 27, 2012 rescinded. She ordered that once Mr. Chandel issued his Application, FS-13-382922 would merge with that Application.

[8] Mr. Chandel signed an Application FS-13-388450 dated July 30, 2013 in which he asked for a divorce, spousal support, equalization of net family properties, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and contents, an order freezing assets and an order for sale of the matrimonial home. In her Answer, Ms. Singh took the position that jurisdiction should not be exercised in the Toronto Family Court.

[9] On February 6, 2014, a dismissal order was issued in FS-12-382922.

[10] On the jurisdiction motion brought by Ms. Singh, in her endorsement dated July 11, 2014 in FS-13-388450, Backhouse J. held that the Toronto Family Court had personal jurisdiction over Ms. Singh because she had invoked the jurisdiction of the court and in addition, the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. She ordered that Ms. Singh’s civil action, Mr. Chandel’s defamation action[^1] and Mr. Chandel’s Application would be tried together in Toronto commencing November 17, 2014 for 10 days. She gave Ms. Singh leave to amend her Answer. Ms. Singh’s Fresh as Amended Answer is dated September 14, 2014. Backhouse J. also set aside the order made by Goodman J. that set aside funds for Mr. Chandel’s travel to Toronto for cross-examination.

[11] In an endorsement dated November 10, 2014 in FS-13-388450, Stevenson J. noted that the parties were involved in a trial in India and for that reason the trial set for November 17 was vacated. She set March 16, 2015 for a 10 day trial noting that if the trial was still ongoing in India, the parties might seek to vacate that trial date. She scheduled the Trial Management Conference for February 25, 2015.

[12] On February 25, 2015, Horkins J. adjourned the Trial Management Conference to March 9 and directed the Applicant to provide an affidavit explaining why the trial could not proceed in Toronto while the trial in India was ongoing.

[13] In her March 9, 2015 consent endorsement Horkins J. adjourned the trial to October 19, 2015 and directed that it would proceed regardless of the status of the litigation in India. Horkins J. also ordered that all evidence in examination-in-chief would be presented by sworn affidavits (as previously ordered by Backhouse J.). She gave permission for cross-examinations to be conducted using Skype. She ordered the parties to produce documents by August 31, 2015 and ordered that documents not produced by that date would be used at trial only with permission of the trial judge.

[14] Kelly J. heard disclosure motions and made an order dated July 23, 2015. Amongst other things, Kelly J. referred to an issue of the transfer of a sealed package in India. She did not itemize the contents but did indicate that it likely included diamonds and gold. Kelly J. noted that the parties had agreed that those items were in the possession of counsel for husband and he would transfer them to counsel for the wife in India. Kelly J. noted the agreement that counsel for the parties would both view the contents of the package and prepare an itemization which would be present to counsel for both parties in Canada.

[15] On October 7, 2015, I held the Trial Management Conference and confirmed the trial the week of October 19, 2015 for an estimated 10 days. In my endorsements dated October 7 and October 13, I gave detailed directions as to how the trial would proceed. As the October 13 endorsement indicated, at the conclusion of that Trial Management Conference, Mr. Chandel was arrested by the Toronto Police. I was not informed as to the substance of the charges. He was released before the trial started and he later said that the charges were withdrawn before the trial resumed on June 3.

[16] As indicated below, the trial started on October 20 and on October 21 was adjourned with the date to be set at the Trial Management Conference on January 8, 2016. On that occasion, I set the trial to resume on May 16, 2016. It resumed June 3 and evidence was concluded on July 5, 2016 with submissions heard August 23, 2016 (Ms. Heft) and October 14 (Mr. Toor and reply by Ms. Heft).

[17] As indicated above, Shakuntala Singh had filed a Statement of Defence in the civil action. Counsel did serve a copy of the trial record on her. Except for the Statement of Defence, Shakuntala Singh has not participated in the action and was not represented or attended at the trial.

The Trial

[18] On October 20, 2015 I heard submissions and made rulings as to admissibility of documents in briefs filed by counsel and heard submissions as to issues for the trial. It was expected that evidence would begin on October 21.

[19] On October 21, 2015, on oral motion, Ken Wise asked permission to withdraw as counsel for Ms. Singh. I granted leave for him to do so.

[20] Ms. Singh made an oral motion seeking an order pursuant to rule 4 of the Family Law Rules that Zev Wise be permitted to present her. In an endorsement dated October 21, 2016[^2] I declined to permit him to do so. At the request of Ms. Singh, I adjourned the trial to give her an opportunity to retain counsel. I scheduled a TMC on January 8, 2016 at which I would set the date for resumption of the trial. At the request of Mr. Chandel, I scheduled his motion for an order releasing funds from trust to be heard on October 27 and established a timetable for filing affidavits and submissions.

[21] On October 27, 2015 I heard Mr. Chandel’s motion. On December 24, 2015 I released an endorsement[^3] in which I ordered that, of the funds held in the trust account of Ken Wise pursuant to the original ex parte order of Czutrin J. in FS-12-382922 Mr. Chandel would be paid $60,000 and $750 on account of a costs order dated September 3, 2014.

[22] On January 8, 2016 I held the TMC. Ms. Heft did not attend in person but was available by telephone. She agreed to act for Ms. Singh for the trial that I set to resume on May 16, 2016 for 13-14 days. In an endorsement dated March 18, 2016 I summarized the directions I had given at the TMC including: confirmation that on October 27, 2015 Ms. Singh and Mr. Toor had agreed that when the trial resumed, it would not be on the basis of evidence in examination-in-chief by affidavit but would reflect the ordinary approach of oral evidence and the usual rules of admissibility of evidence and documents; by May 13, 2016 counsel were to collaborate and file a list of issues in the family law action and in the civil action that would be the subject of the trial; and that Ms. Singh would lead her evidence first on both the civil action and the family law action.

[23] On March 21, 2016, Myers J. held a settlement conference in both actions.

[24] On April 6, 2016, Sachs J. dismissed Ms. Singh’s motion for leave to appeal the order that $60,000 be released from trust to Mr. Chandel with costs payable by Ms. Singh to Mr. Chandel in the amount of $7,500 payable within 30 days.

[25] Mr. Chandel was not present on May 16, 2016. His counsel asked that the trial be adjourned because his client was in India and had not been able to retrieve his passport so that he could travel to Canada. I adjourned the trial to resume May 31, 2016 and directed that Mr. Chandel be present in Toronto for the duration of the trial. I provided details for that order in an endorsement dated May 19, 2016[^4] including the direction that each party was allocated 35 hours trial time encompassing all enumerated steps in the trial.

[26] In the endorsement dated May 19, 2016 I directed Ms. Singh to pay costs of the motion heard October 27, 2015 in the amount of $3,164 plus HST payable by June 20, 2016.

[27] Mr. Chandel was not present on May 31. Mr. Toor indicated that his client had obtained his passport and would arrive in Toronto on June 2, 2016 and would be ready to resume the trial on Friday June 3. I adjourned the trial to June 3 and I directed Mr. Chandel to pay costs thrown away in the amount of $1100 that would be set off against the costs that Ms. Singh owed in the amount of $3164 plus HST.

Resumption of the Trial

[28] Once the trial resumed on June 3, 2016, the following occurred:

(a) June 3: evidence of David Bending and examination-in-chief of Ms. Singh;

(b) June 6: examination-in-chief of Ms. Singh: cross-examination began in mid-afternoon;

(d) June 14: cross-examination of Ms. Singh;

(e) June 15: cross-examination of Ms. Singh finished late morning; re-examination finished 12:30; evidence of Ajay Kumar Singh (Mr. Chandel’s uncle) in India transmitted using Skype; evidence of Udai Bhan Singh (father of Alka Singh);

(f) June 16: evidence of Udai Bhan Singh; evidence of Priyanka Singh (sister of Alka Singh) began;

(g) June 17: examination-in-chief of Regan Pollard in Guyana transmitted using Skype; cross-examination started;

(h) June 23: cross-examination and re-examination of Regan Pollard using Skype; cross-examination of Priyanka Singh concluded; examination-in-chief of Mr. Chandel commenced at 2:45;

(i) June 27: examination-in-chief of Mr. Chandel;

(j) June 29: examination-in-chief of Mr. Chandel; cross-examination started at 2:20;

(j) June 30: cross-examination of Mr. Chandel;

(j) July 5: cross-examination of Mr. Chandel concluded at 2:00; re-examination; reply evidence of Ms. Singh from 3:40 to 4:35;

(k) August 23: oral submissions by Ms. Heft;

(l) October 14: oral submissions by Mr. Toor; reply submissions by Ms. Heft.

[29] While the parties continued to differ as to the date of separation, on either date, more than a year had gone by. At the conclusion of the evidence on July 5, 2016 I granted the divorce on grounds of separation for one year based on the date of marriage being February 14, 2000 without prejudice to either counsel taking the position that November 22, 1998 was the relevant date.

[30] At the Trial Management Conference on January 8, 2016, as reflected in the endorsement dated March 18, 2016 I had made an order imposing time limits on the parties, namely 35 hours each. The Registrar and counsel kept records as to the duration of evidence of witnesses and of submissions on legal issues. Counsel kept within those constraints.

[31] Counsel filed 107 exhibits many of which were multi-pages. While counsel focused on some specific exhibits in closing submissions, neither counsel provided a compendium of key documents nor did they provide a chronology. In order to assess the evidence I found it necessary to try to create a chronology which was a challenge. If in making findings of fact below I state the sequence of events differently from what the parties believe happen, the differences will be explained by the lack of attention to detail in the evidence and submissions. As Ms. Heft asserted, the documents are key to the outcome of the civil claim and the dates of those transactions are clear in the documents.

Issues in the trial

[32] At the Trial Management Conference on January 8, 2016 I directed counsel to provide a list of issues for trial. A document on which counsel agreed was filed as exhibit C and it indicated that the following issues would be submitted:

In the Family Law Application:

(a) divorce;

(b) date of separation;

(d) each party sought an order pursuant to s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act or, in the alternative, equalization of net family property;

(e) Mr. Chandel’s claim for occupation rent for Ms. Singh’s occupation of former matrimonial home 16 Yonge St. from October 2012 to the present;

(f) Mr. Chandel’s claim for sale of the former matrimonial home;

(g) Mr. Chandel’s claim for spousal support;

(h) Ms. Singh’s claim for a non-harassment order.

In the civil proceeding, claims by Ms. Singh against Mr. Chandel:

(a) civil fraud or in the alternative, breach of contract in the sum of $1.2 million committed by Mr. Chandel against Ms. Singh;

(b) punitive damages of $100,000 for the civil fraud or in the alternative, breach of contract;

(c) defamation and injurious falsehoods made by Mr. Chandel to the detriment of Ms. Singh via an email communication dated December 21, 2012;

(d) damages for defamation punitive and tortuous [sic] of $150,000;

(e) Mr. Chandel to be refrained from directly or indirectly making defamatory statements about Ms. Singh and distributing said statements by electronic, digital or any other means;

(f) return of property including gold, rough diamonds, jewellery of Ms. Singh and Business Name Registration of Reflex Global Sourcing.

In the civil proceeding, claims by Ms. Singh against Shakuntala Singh:

(a) unjust enrichment re: over $54,261 of Ms. Singh’s funds transferred by Mr. Chandel to his mother.

General

(a) costs on a full indemnity basis plus HST;

(b) pre and post judgment interest.

[33] Exhibit C also indicated that the following claims have been abandoned by Ms. Singh in the civil case:

(a) damages in the amount of $1,403,283.41;

(b) tortious damages in the amount of $1,403,283.41;

(d) order requiring access to Mr. Chandel’s computer and an order that he be refrained from destroying said information.

[34] And exhibit C indicated that Mr. Chandel abandoned his claim in the family law proceeding for exclusive possession of the former matrimonial home.

Proceedings in India

[35] As indicated in paragraph 2 above, the parties have been involved in legal proceedings in India. There have been frequent references to those proceedings including the adjournment of the trial set for November 17, 2014 and the delay of the resumption of the trial set for May 16, 2016. From time to time each of the parties and some of the other witnesses made reference to some event happening in court in India. Neither counsel provided details. The absence of detail is appropriate because, without expert evidence as to the legal issues and the consequences of such litigation or the impact (if any) on these proceedings in Toronto, it is not relevant to decisions I must make. I make the decisions that follow on the evidence and the legal submissions without consideration of such proceedings.

[36] The only conclusion I draw from the limited evidence is that Ms. Singh and Mr. Chandel have been engaged in litigation in Toronto and in India since late 2012. Indeed, Ms. Singh said that she has been so preoccupied with litigation since that time that she has been unable to secure full time employment.

Background

[37] Mr. Chandel was born in India on October 18, 1969 and Ms. Singh was born in India on October 25, 1974. They had met when they were kids because their parents knew each other. Mr. Chandel had immigrated to Canada with his family in 1996. In 1998 when he was visiting India, Mr. Chandel and Ms. Singh met a few times, as Ms. Singh said, to see if marriage was viable. Mr. Chandel’s father was also in India at that time and the parents then made the arrangements and Mr. Chandel asked her father for permission to marry her. In November 1998, the Application for Registration of Hindu Marriage was filed. Ms. Singh referred to that as their engagement. She said it was decided that the “social marriage” according to Hindu rituals would take place in February 2000 when all family members would attend.

[38] Between November 1998 and February 2000, Ms. Singh completed her MBA at the Delhi School of Economics and she was living in a hostel. Mr. Chandel was living in Canada and visited India on occasion. She said there was no financial relationship prior to the social marriage and that her father was paying for her education and her hostel fees.

[39] Following the social marriage on February 14, 2000 Ms. Singh moved into Mr. Chandel’s ancestral home that she shared with him whenever he was in Varanasi. She said she had quit her job before the wedding and then started helping him manage a computer training centre in Varanasi while he was also pursuing the business of exporting garments from India to Canada.

[40] In about August 2001, Ms. Singh moved to Winnipeg to the home of Mr. Chandel’s family. She said she wanted to do higher studies outside of India and the only way her parents would allow her to do so was if she was married. From Ms. Singh I heard evidence about her relationship with Mr. Chandel’s parents, none of which is relevant to the issues before me.

[41] Mr. Chandel had been operating his import/export business in Winnipeg before Ms. Singh arrived in Canada.

[42] In July 2002 Ms. Singh moved to Toronto where she began an MBA at York University graduating in 2005 after having taken a semester off. During the three years it took her to complete the MBA, she says she lived off a student line of credit in the amount of $35,000 which was increased to $55,000 plus Canada and Ontario student loans for a total of $75,000 as well as fee waivers for good performance. She provided at exhibit 3 a letter from the Royal Bank of Canada dated October 31, 2013 confirming the increase in the line of credit to $55,000.

[43] Ms. Singh said that the relationship was good at the beginning but by 2004 there were challenges including her report to the police as a result of events that occurred on July 13, 2004. She insisted that in 2005, they separated emotionally and “ceased being a couple”. She says that they did not share sexual intimacy after that while he puts it later in 2007.

[44] From her arrival in Canada in about August 2001 to the fall of 2010 Ms. Singh said that Mr. Chandel was living primarily in India where he was involved in the manufacture and export of clothing. In his evidence he said that between 2001 and 2010, he spent 8 – 9 months each year in Canada and 3 – 4 months in India which consisted of 1 or 2 trips each year.

[45] It appears that Mr. Chandel registered Reflex Global Sourcing in Manitoba as the business name under which he operated his garment import business. He also said that within a year or two of her arrival in Canada, he transferred the business name to her. Throughout the time that she was studying for her MBA at York and thereafter, she was his Canadian agent and carried on the business as a sole proprietorship under the name of Reflex Global Sourcing. He produced invoices for clothing purchases and sales that she identified as reflecting transactions over the period of 2004 to 2007. She said she received the containers of garments and then arranged to send them to whatever Canadian retailers he directed. As exhibit 6 indicates, she showed the revenue from the sole proprietorship on her income tax returns and in each of the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, that reflected a negative net income of $8,976, $26,770 and $28,373 respectively. She said that the business stopped in 2008 because of competition from China. He said that by 2009 he had expanded to household furnishings but he stopped operating that year because he had been working since he was 15 years old.

[46] Following graduation in 2005 and until January 2009, Ms. Singh had various positions in Canada with four financial institutions having started as a mining associate and ending as a senior mining analyst.

[47] In January 2007, Ms. Singh purchased the condominium on Yonge St. at a purchase price of $253,400. According to the registered transfer into her name, (exhibit 8) there was a deposit of $25,000 and the balance was paid by mortgage financing. Exhibit 7 indicates that Ms. Singh took a five year mortgage in the amount of $271,753 that required a monthly payment of $1,612. According to Ms. Singh, she was the sole owner and she was solely responsible for making all payments. According to Mr. Chandel this was the matrimonial home and it was “our property”.

[48] In 2007, Ms. Singh issued an application for divorce which was subsequently dismissed for delay. She said she stopped it because of pressure from her parents who were still friends with Mr. Chandel’s parents. He said he was never served with the Application and only found out about it when he issued his Application in 2013.

[49] In January 2009, Ms. Singh moved to New York City to live and work. She takes the position that that signalled their final separation and that the relationship was over. Ms. Singh’s first job in New York City was with R & R LLC[^5] as a financial analyst. Mr. Chandel agrees that she went to New York City, became employed and lived in rental accommodation. He does not agree that they separated until October 2012.[^6]

[50] The parties agree that in January 2010, they were both at the condo in Toronto and were discussing separation. Unfortunately, it was at that time that Ms. Singh heard from her parents in India that her brother had died in an accident in India. Her sister Priyanka Singh was living in Winnipeg with Mr. Chandel’s brother, having married in 2005. Mr. Chandel left immediately for India and Ms. Singh and her sister left as soon as they obtained emergency visas. Mr. Chandel did participate in Hindu funeral rituals for her brother in India.

[51] Based on exhibit 6, the following is a summary of Ms. Singh’s income:

2008 Canadian Tax Return line 101: $302,362 line 150: $273,988

2009 Internal Revenue Service line 37 adjusted gross income: $625,647

2010 Internal Revenue Service line 37 adjusted gross income: $270,170

2011 Internal Revenue Service line 37 adjusted gross income: $255,222 2011 Canadian Tax Return line 150: $145,770

2012 Internal Revenue Service line 37 adjusted gross income: $ 35,983

Diamond Business

[52] In what follows I have attempted to create a chronology that incorporates key events.

[53] Through her work Ms. Singh was introduced to diamond mining in Guyana. In April or May 2010, on a trip to Guyana, she met the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) and through them met Regan Pollard who was introduced as a diamond miner with whom she might do business. She decided that she could develop a business whereby she would purchase diamonds from Mr. Pollard and ship them to India which she said had the largest diamond polishing industry in the world. She needed an agent who would arrange for the pickup of diamonds in Guyana, and for the delivery to India for polishing and for sale and receipt of revenue. She said that Mr. Chandel was available because he had lost so much of his garment business to competition and was not working. She also said that his manufacturing contacts in India would be useful in identifying an operation that would do the polishing.

[54] Ms. Singh said Mr. Chandel agreed he would act as her agent and she would pay all his business expenses including hotels and airfares and food, as well as pay him 10% of the profit and $10,000 per year. Mr. Chandel agrees with how Ms. Singh introduced him to the business and he agreed that 90% of the world’s diamond cutting was done in Surat, the city in India in which he had made contacts from his garment business. He insists that the diamond business was a partnership 50/50 and that it was “ours” not hers.

[55] Ms. Singh introduced Mr. Chandel to Regan Pollard in Guyana as her agent. Ms. Singh and Mr. Pollard agreed to start with several small shipments of diamonds. She sent or gave to Mr. Pollard small amounts of money that totalled $130,000USD. He shipped diamonds as directed by Mr. Chandel. According to Mr. Chandel he went to Guyana each time Mr. Pollard had diamonds for purchase.

[56] For this cost of $130,000USD, Mr. Pollard provided diamonds which Mr. Chandel, acting as Ms. Singh’s agent, sent to India for finishing and sold for $160,000 for a profit of $30,000. This expenditure and profit becomes relevant in March 2012 when the promissory note (exhibit 19) and the agreement (exhibit 20) were signed.

[57] She said that Mr. Chandel considered that a good profit and he wanted her to send more money. Mr. Chandel said that Mr. Pollard encouraged them to send larger amounts of money to purchase larger quantities of diamonds. It was agreed that she would do so.

[58] Exhibit 16 indicates that she transferred funds in USD to RAP Inc. (Mr. Pollard’s corporation) as follows:

Date/Page	Amount[^7]
Jan. 20, 2011 Page 1270	$ 60,080
Feb. 4, 2011 Page 1271-2	$ 60,080
March 7, 2011 Page 1273-4	$133,083
April 13, 2011 Page 1276	$ 50,052
Total	$303,000

[59] There are many details on which Ms. Singh, Mr. Chandel and Mr. Pollard do not agree but they do agree on the following:

(a) in consideration for that payment of $303,000, Mr. Pollard was to ship diamonds to India under Mr. Chandel’s direction and after cutting and finishing, Mr. Chandel would sell them and deposit the money;

(b) after months of pressing Mr. Chandel for her profit, Ms. Singh eventually contacted Mr. Pollard directly at the end of 2011 and he admitted that he had used her money and had not shipped the diamonds. Ms. Singh and Mr. Chandel accepted Mr. Pollard’s eventual explanation that he did not use the money to buy diamonds for Ms. Singh but he used all of those funds to repair his dredge. According to Ms. Singh, In that telephone conversation Ms. Singh and Mr. Pollard agreed that in consideration for him wrongly using her money and depriving her of the profit, he would pay her back amounts calculated as follows. Over the period August 2010 to October 5, 2010 she had paid him $130,000 and he sold her diamonds that Mr. Chandel arranged for finishing and were sold for $166,000 for a 25% profit. Annually that would mean a 75% profit. Applying that rationale to the cumulative payment of $303,000, Mr. Pollard owed her $531,000. She told him at the end of 2011 that he had to pay that amount by the end of March 2012 and if he didn’t pay, the amount he had to pay was $762,000.

(c) Ms. Singh sent Mr. Chandel to Guyana to secure a written agreement from Mr. Pollard and on March 2, 2012, Mr. Pollard signed two documents:

Exhibit 19: Promissory note

March 2, 2012: I Regan Pollard of . . . Georgetown. . . Guyana promise to pay to Reflex Global Sourcing/Mr. Rajeev Chandel of … Yonge St., Ontario, three months after date the sum of USD$531,000 for value received. [signed and witnessed by 2 persons]

Exhibit 20: Agreement signed by Mr. Pollard and Mr. Chandel that includes the following:

Regan Pollard do hereby agree to repay to Rajeev Chandel Singh the sum of five hundred and thirty one thousand United States of America Dollars ($531,000USD) or the equivalent in Guyana Dollars at the rate of exchange at the Bank of Guyana within three (3) months from the date hereof, for value received.

The FIRST Party (Regan Pollard) further agrees that in default of payment of the sum five hundred and thirty one thousand United States Dollars ($531,000USD) or the equivalent in Guyana Dollars at the rate of exchange at the Bank of Guyana, or any part thereof when same become due and payable, that the sum of seven hundred and sixty two thousand United States of America Dollars ($762,000USD) or the equivalent in Guyana Dollars at the rate of exchange at the Bank of Guyana, shall be the sum immediately due and payable by the FIRST PARTY to the SECOND PARTY ( Rajeev Chandel Singh)

[60] That agreement also provided that Mr. Pollard pledged his interest in his house in Guyana as security. Based on the agreement, Mr. Pollard had to pay $531,000 by June 2, 2012 and $762,000 if he failed to pay that amount.

[61] According to Mr. Chandel, he had Mr. Pollard sign exhibit 19 and then he thought it was insufficient so the same day he met with a lawyer and had a more formal agreement prepared which was signed by both Mr. Pollard and him and it became exhibit 20. Mr. Pollard agreed he had signed both. He said that the amount of $531,000 was the amount Ms. Singh felt she would have made during this period. Mr. Pollard said that the increase from $531,000 to $762,000 was also based on Ms. Singh’s calculation of her loss because of the delay it took him to pay her back and he said that if he didn’t pay the money on time “the interest would basically be double the money”.

[62] According to Ms. Singh, following Mr. Chandel’s return from Guyana she asked him repeatedly for the documents that were signed and he told her the agreement was with the lawyers in Guyana and he would get a copy the next time he went there. She said she finally got them after she obtained the ex parte order on November 27, 2012 and the documents were attached as Exhibit Q to Mr. Chandel’s affidavit sworn January 18, 2013. Mr. Chandel insisted that he gave them to her once they were signed but he offered no corroboration such as an email.

[63] In early 2012, Ms. Singh became involved in negotiations with JH which led to an agreement between P. LLC (owned 90% by JH and 10% by Ms. Singh) and Regan Pollard/Reflex Mining Company Inc. She attended a meeting with JH and Mr. Pollard in New York City in the spring of 2012 and the joint venture agreement (exhibit 65) was signed effective April 17, 2012. Pursuant to that joint venture agreement, Mr. Pollard incorporated Reflex Mining Company Inc. in Guyana. According to Ms. Singh Mr. Chandel was appointed a director but Mr. Pollard owned all of the shares. Mr. Chandel takes the position that he was a 50% owner of the corporation but the documentation before me does not reflect that. It is agreed by Ms. Singh and Mr. Chandel and Mr. Pollard that Ms. Singh paid her 10% or $300,000. It is uncertain whether JH paid all of his 90% ($2.7 million) but that is not an issue in this trial.

[64] In other words in the weeks after he signed the agreements reflected in exhibits 19 and 20, Ms. Singh had sufficient confidence in Mr. Pollard that she entered into a fresh agreement with respect to a joint venture that required her to make another significant payment to him.

[65] Both parties relied on electronic communications primarily emails. Exhibits 12, 13, 24 and 26 were introduced by Ms. Singh and they contained communications between and among Ms. Singh, Mr. Chandel and Mr. Pollard. Exhibit 83 was introduced by Mr. Chandel. Both counsel raised objections to the authenticity of the emails. Ms. Singh said that she or Zev Wise had assembled exhibits 24 and 26; however I understood from Mr. Chandel that he was responsible for bolding in exhibit 24 and the bolding and boxes in exhibit 26. It was apparent that some of the emails in exhibits 12, 13, 24, 26 and 83 were not the same as the original email message that had been sent and received. In addition, there were two versions of some of the emails.

[66] Some of the messages involved Mr. Pollard as sender or receiver. The transcript of June 6 shows that at pages 34 and 39 I ruled that the messages sent to Mr. Pollard by Ms. Singh or Mr. Chandel were admissible if acknowledged as having been sent by Ms. Singh or Mr. Chandel as the case may be. However, I did not accept or allow the parties to rely on those messages ostensibly sent by Mr. Pollard unless he agreed he was the sender. Mr. Pollard testified on June 17 and 23. Neither Ms. Heft nor Mr. Toor asked him about any of the emails in exhibits 24 or 26. For that reason, I do not rely on any of the messages in exhibits 24 and 26 that were ostensibly sent by Mr. Pollard.

[67] At page 1352-3 of exhibit 26 is an email dated June 5, 2012 at 6:18 p.m. from Ms. Singh to Mr. Chandel with this message:

I have asked u for the money. When am I getting the 200,000 back and then after that when does regan plan to give back the 328,000. i don’t have a job and i need money. When am i getting it?

[68] At page 1350 of exhibit 26 is an email dated June 5, 2012 at 19:21 from Mr. Chandel to Ms. Singh as follows:

Alka

Stop talking about money all the time. I have told you this 100 times. I said when I am in Guyana next week I will try to get the maximum out from Regan. I have got some money from diamond sale which I will get it this week and I will transfer it to TD Canada Trust account.

I will be sending money in couple of days from India diamond sale and as far as $328,000 is concern. . . wait till next week let me be in Guyana and I will try to get the maximum out and will transfer that too. Btw. . . you told me hundreds of times that take all that money and divorce me . . . why can’t you do that same thing.

[69] At page 1352 of exhibit 26 is an email with similar text from Mr. Chandel to Ms. Singh dated June 6, 2012 (with no time of sending) and contains the following:

Alka

Stop talking about money all the time. I have told you this 100 times. I said when I am in Guyana next week I will try to get the maximum out from Regan. I have got some money from diamond sale which I will get it this week and I will transfer it to TD Canada Trust account. You don’t have a job because you got fired from [sic] your deeds. Stop blaming others. . . I told you that if you don’t have a job don’t worry . . . stay with me 24/7 and I will take care of you like I did all those years. . . what was your answer. You found another boyfriend to play around and now you are running away from me like you did three other times in past. I told you hundreds of times if you want to fuck around with strangers. . . why don’t you file the divorce paper and do all the fucking legally. You are doing all the cheating with a new partners on a yearly basis so it’s your duty to file for a divorce. Don’t ask me to do it. . . as I don’t want the world to say I filed for divorce. I want the world to know that it was you who filed for divorce because you committed adultery not once but four times which we all know off.

I will be sending money in couple of days from India diamond sale and as far as $328000 is concern. . . wait till next week let me be in Guyana and I will try to get the maximum out and will transfer that too. Btw. . you told me hundreds of times that take all that money and divorce me . . . why can’t you do that same thing.

Btw, the Toronto home is so dirty that its hard to explain. . . and who ordered a new cable box when we already have a $500.00 cable box which we bought.

[70] No explanation was given by either Ms. Singh or Mr. Chandel for the difference in the messages.

[71] At page 1351 of exhibit 26 is an email dated June 12, 2012 at 7:01 PM from Ms. Singh to Mr. Chandel:

I need my 200,000 plus my 328,000 plus interest by end of July

[72] At page 1351 of exhibit 26 is an email dated June 12, 2012 at 19:49 from Mr. Chandel to Ms. Singh with the subject: “looks like u hv too much money these days” and with this message:

Stop being greedy. . . I told you that I will take our money first and then I will try to get more n more money. Stop listening to yours sisters or others. . . if I will get money you will be the 1^st person I will pay. . . like I did few days back. You always gave me what I wanted but you yelled, swear and screamed before you gave it. . . where else I will never do all that and keep giving you money like I did all those years before 2006.

[73] A different email is found at page 1353 of exhibit 26 and is dated June 13, 2012 from Mr. Chandel to Ms. Singh with this text:

Stop being greedy. . . I told you that I will take our money first and then I will try to get more n more money. Stop listening to your sisters or others. . . if I will get money you will be the 1^st person I will pay . . . like I did few days back. You always gave me what I wanted but you yelled, swear and screamed before you gave it. . . where else I will never do all that and keep giving you money like I did all those years before 2006. Samjhi kalo rani.

You keep asking for all money all the time. . . what do I get . . . the Toronto house where you friend stays and abuses the place. How is your new company coming along. . . who are the two partners that you have. Couldn’t you find a better name than Mine2Capital . . you should have named it Reflex something :)

[74] No explanation was given by either Ms. Singh or Mr. Chandel for the difference in the messages.

[75] In March 2012, Ms. Singh lost her employment. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) launched proceedings against her with respect to issues that had started in June 2010. By June 2012, Ms. Singh had no employment and she needed funds to retain a lawyer to represent her in the FINRA matter. On June 18, 2012 at her insistence Mr. Chandel deposited or transferred $100,000 to her account for legal expenses. On June 21, 2012 Ms. Singh signed an agreement and it was accepted by FINRA on August 22, 2012. I will refer below to the terms of that agreement (exhibit 43).

[76] At page 1418 of exhibit 24 and page 1347 of exhibit 26 is an email dated July 11, 2012 8:38 a.m. from Ms. Singh to Mr. Pollard, copy to Mr. Chandel. Subject: money and pictures. The message was:

Regan, how much money have you paid of the $328,000 dollars plus the interest in total till today? Where are the pictures?

[77] At page 1347 of exhibit 26 is an email dated July 11, 2012 from Mr. Chandel to Ms. Singh with the subject: money and pictures. The message was:

U r a bitch . . . now u can go and ask Regan for ur money. Don’t fucking send me emails or even call me. U embarress [sic] me time after time . . . u think everyone is out to cheat u n its u who cheats and lies 24/7. I am also going to send JH an email and asking him how much money u have given him and when will he send the balance and let’s see how u feel. U want to play dirty . . . let’s play.

[78] At page 1418 of exhibit 24 and page 1347 of exhibit 26 is an email dated July 11, 2012 ostensibly from Mr. Pollard to Ms. Singh with this message:

I’m walking in the bush, will call you when I get back . . . but the figure will be more than $328,000 to date. . . I will call you when I get back and the pictures will be then also.

[79] At pages 1346-1347of exhibit 26 the same message appears but dated July 11 at 20:20:44.

[80] Mr. Pollard was not asked by Ms. Heft or Mr. Toor whether he had sent either of those emails. I include that email because it was referred to and because it provides context for the next message. I do not rely on that email.

[81] At page 1345-1346 of exhibit 26 is an email dated July 12, 2012 from Ms. Singh to Mr. Chandel. It may be that Ms. Singh forwarded the penultimate message to Mr. Chandel and it may be that there were two messages to Mr. Chandel. The subject line appears to be: “What have y done with my 150,000 dollars.” The message was:

and why was I not paid back when regan gave the money back. I need the answers please. U thief.

[82] At page 1345 of exhibit 26 is an email dated July 12, 2012 from Mr. Chandel to Ms. Singh addressed to Babbli (which is her nickname) with this message:

You have lost your mind. . . you know how much money you are talking about . . . I am a thief?? Btw, I stole from Sidharth what in the world are you talking about . . . all our life you kept telling me that Sidharth is using me and he is stealing from me and I should dump him . . . now all of a sudden your statement has reversed. What do you want for me . . .

I said you will get paid every month starting 1^st of July . . . that means by 31^st of July and don’t worry you will get paid. . . and I will pay you on next Wednesday anyway. I am off to Dubai and then Tanzania from 18^th till 22^nd with my diamond guy so I will have money for you in August already. . . so what’s your rush. Instead of swearing and accusing me of stupid things. . . why not do some work like I asked you and convince JH to send more funds so I can take the last or [sic] our balance. If you do your work I can get that guy in Guyana and once you get me the land exploration goodies and I can start the exploration on land as well.

Last request stop sending me these kind of emails . . . you’re giving me headache.

[83] At page 1344 of exhibit 26 is an email dated July 12, 2012 13:51:15 from Mr. Chandel to Babbli:

you have the time to write emails . . . and you don’t have the time to call me. You choose to call in late nights so I am always sleeping . . . Regan said that Rajeev took money and he is right. . . I made him give me 200000.00 and I gave it to you.

[84] At page 1344 of exhibit 26 is an email dated July 12, 2012 from Ms. Singh to Mr. Chandel:

No he said I have paid Rajeev 328,000 already.

[85] At some point before July 17, 2012 Mr. Chandel gave to Ms. Singh cheques which he had signed and on which he had inserted Alka Singh as payee, which cheques were numbered 216, 217 and 218 drawn on the account of Rajeev Chandel Singh Operated as Reflex Global Sourcing on the RBC account number ending 1301. In his examination-in-chief on June 27 at page 57 he said he did not remember signing the 3^rd cheque which Ms. Singh dated October 2, 2012 and inserted the amount of $200,000 and he had not given her permission to withdraw funds using that cheque. I will come back to that cheque below. However, he acknowledged that he had signed the other two cheques and that it was expected that she would insert an amount.

[86] They agree that on July 17, 2012, Ms. Singh deposited cheque number 218 to her account in the amount of $50,000. Neither of them quarrels with this transaction.

[87] At page 1353 of exhibit 26 is an email dated August 16, 2012 at 17:32 from Mr. Chandel to Ms. Singh with an incomprehensible subject line: “why can’t u tell ur parents that u are sending all old furniture to prstitute anu house” and this message:

No u can’t . . . u have to wait till 22^nd. Babbli . . . JH hasn’t send a penny in last 2 month. . . whatever money I have given u . . . I have given u from my income.

Stop pushing it. . . you will get ur money every month as I have promised. . . just don’t send me email in regards of money all the time.

[88] They agree that on August 27, 2012, Ms. Singh deposited cheque number 217 to her account in the amount of $20,000. Neither of them quarrels with this transaction.

[89] Throughout Mr. Chandel’s examination-in-chief, there were many instances of breaches of the rule in Browne v. Dunn. At the conclusion of his examination-in-chief on June 29, 2016, at page 39 of the transcript, Mr. Toor took Mr. Chandel to tab 67 of his document brief that contained email exchanges between him and Ms. Singh of 50 or 60 pages. The evidence arising from that tab 67 continued until page 67 of the transcript during which it became clear that there were serious issues about the authenticity of some of the emails and clear breaches of the rule in Browne v Dunn. At page 63 of the transcript, Mr. Toor asked this question:

What else, Mr. Chandel, let’s wrap it up. Let’s try to get to just the most important parts [of tab 67].

[90] In response, Mr. Chandel spoke about emails in September 2012 and, as the transcript shows, Ms. Heft appropriately challenged the authenticity. I ruled that I would not receive all of those emails in evidence and I directed Mr. Toor to make photocopies deleting all of the editorial comments, including only emails to which Mr. Chandel had made reference. I directed Mr. Toor to review every one of them with Ms. Heft and if she was satisfied that the Court had only those pages in tab 67 to which he had referred, then they would be marked as an exhibit. Exhibit 95 was reserved for that purpose. Mr. Toor did not comply and accordingly there are no documents in exhibit 95. The emails to which Mr. Chandel made reference were never made an exhibit. I reference it at this point in the chronology because he did refer to emails in September 2012 but they were not admitted into evidence. There is otherwise no evidence of emails being exchanged in September, although, based on the other emails before and after September 2012, I expect that they exist. Ironically, the emails that Mr. Toor described as “the most important parts” were not received in evidence.

[91] In examination-in-chief of Mr. Chandel on June 29, 2016 Mr. Toor provided exhibit 83 that included several emails that were not assembled chronologically and contained text that was clearly not in the originals. At page 1363 of exhibit 83 is an email sent October 1, 2012 at 21:38 from Mr. Chandel to Mr. Pollard with the subject “Alka” and the message as follows:

I am going to take some pictures and give it to Alka. . . also I am going to give her $200000.00. . . this will cover her $300000.00. As I have given her $100000.00 earlier. I still owe her $100000.00 or more as she wanted more return from you in regards of our old money. This I will give it to her in coming couple of months. . . once I get funds from you. . . from the $800000.00 investment return and my share of the profit from the mining. If she calls and ask you anything. . . talk to me first before telling her anything. This way we both are on the same field. If she ask you tell her that you paid me $250000 cash and rest in stones.. . . as I am going to pick up a parcel from Dar Eslam for the $200000.00.

You have close to 2.85 million.

You told me you have invested close to 2 million in the mining. . . for which you will start putting money in Reflex Mining account in Republican bank starting in 2 weeks time. We will take 50% each of whatever you deposit in the Republican bank. Please make sure there are deposit in that account. . . I don’t want to call the bank after 3-4 weeks and find out the balance is ZERO.

You will stick to our arrangement of 15% per month on the $800000.00 which you have and you are buying diamond/gold or whatever. You will inform me on October 10^th, when you will be making a transfer in my Canadian or Indian account in that regards.

Regan like I have told you million of times. . . I don’t care what you do with all the 2.8 million as long as I get my share on a monthly basis. . . this way I can pay Alka a portion of that and that will keep her quiet.

Just please keep your promise as I have told you hundred of time. . . I only start sending you emails and messages one [sic] I don’t get what you have promised me. You won’t hear from me till October 10^th.

Have a good day . . and make lots of money for both so [sic] us.

[92] At page 1363 of exhibit 83, ostensibly Mr. Pollard responded on October 1, 2012 at 8:51 PM with this message:

Got you . . . take care.

[93] Mr. Pollard was not asked whether he had sent that message. I do not rely on it. I have included it because it was referred to.

[94] As the transcript indicates, Ms. Heft objected on the basis of authenticity because pages 1363 and 1364 clearly were not originals. These two pages became exhibit 83. However, as explained in paragraph 167 below, I do not rely on any of the contents of exhibit 83.

[95] In September 2012, Mr. Chandel retained a lawyer to prepare a draft separation agreement that became exhibit 11. Mr. Chandel produced at exhibit 84 his MasterCard statement that indicates that he paid the lawyer $1000 on September 20, 2012.

[96] Exhibit 23 consists of statements from the RBC account ending 1301in the name of Rajeev Chandel Singh operated as Reflex Global Sourcing. On September 28, the account reflects a transfer credit of $449,990 from Mr. Pollard leaving a balance of $523,131 followed by another transfer credit on October 1 in the amount of $13,971 leaving a balance of $537,087.

[97] The third cheque that Mr. Chandel had given Ms. Singh was #216. On October 2, 2012 Ms. Singh deposited that cheque payable to her in the amount of $200,000 (exhibit 25). There is considerable controversy over this cheque to which I will refer below. After the funds were withdrawn, the balance in account ending 1301 was $327,847. On October 5, 2012, Mr. Chandel withdrew $300,000 leaving a balance of $27,801.

[98] At pages 1418-19 of exhibit 24 (also page 1348 of exhibit 26) is an email Ms. Singh sent to Mr. Pollard dated October 4, 2012 at 13:20:42 with this message:

Regan,

As we discussed today please don’t transfer any money to Rajeev anymore as he takes the money and hides it and I can never get it from him.

As discussed with you on the phone when u called this morning – the 100,000 which u have to pay should be wired to this account. . .

[99] The draft agreement indicated that they had married November 22, 1998 and had lived separate and apart since on or about the 1^st day of January 2009. It indicated that the parties held joint title to the condominium and that Ms. Singh would transfer her rights in the condo and their net family property would be equalized on the basis that Mr. Chandel would pay her $600,000 with a payment of $300,000 prior to execution of the agreement with a further payment of $200,000 forthwith upon execution and the final payment of $100,000 on the signing of the divorce papers. The agreement included mutual spousal support releases.

[100] At page 1354 of exhibit 26 (also at page 1366 of exhibit 12) is an email dated October 6, 2012, in which Mr. Chandel sent to Ms. Singh the draft agreement with this message:

Babblo [sic] where are you. Here is a copy of agreement. . . please ready [sic] through it and let me know when can we meet so you can sign it in front of lawyer.

The money hasn’t come yet. . . I called Republican Bank yesterday and they told me that the money has been send [sic] from there and I would get it in a day or so. She said because the amount is big sometimes Bank of Guyana checks the documents before letting the payment go. Hopefully I will have it on Tuesday as Monday is a stupid holiday.

Babbli please think calmly . . . I don’t want to fight and I have to go to Varanasi ASAP to sign some court paper. . . so I can’t wait and chase after you to sign this paper. If I leave India I won’t pay you a penny till you sign it. Please understand in last few days you have sweated [sic] at me my family, you have insulted me hundred of times on phone and also on phone and on emails. . . when I have agreed to give you your money. I can’t imagine what you will do once I give you the money without you signing the agreement document.

Please understand its you who have been cheating for last 7 years with 4+ different guys. . . I begged and cried to you to come back to me but you laughed at me and insulted me on every chance you get. I in return helped you and your family in possible way in those 7 years. . . come on have some decency. If you fight with me you will loose me forever and imagine without me there would be no one of take care of your mum n dad. When you both sister are having fun out here.

If you are nice and cordial to me at least I can help you in whatever way I can out here and in India when you or your parents need any kind of help. Please understand if you fight you will end up loosing [sic]. . . No one wins in a court of law when that person has committed adultery four times in last 7 years. . . court will screw you so bad as TEHY [sic] always end up screwing Man and when they get their chance on women they really teach them lesson. Both of my lawyers have told me all this and they keep telling me that’s its my loss all the way in this agreement. Please please listen and if you don’t believe me go and talk to a lawyer.

This is not done. . . I am only asking for the house and letting you keep everything and I am not asking for alimony, pension, rasp [sic] and half of your other assets including your new company . . . please think it calmly no point in yelling and shouting.

If you refuse tossing [sic] it, I will tell the lawyer to file for a divorce anyway and I will end up getting it in six months anyway plus I will get half of everything. . . if you want we can clear all this in India as well but there your parents and everyone will come to know what you have done in the past and what you are doing now.

Call me.

[101] Exhibit 14 is an RBC form dated October 9, 2012 headed “Altered, Counterfeit, Forged Drawer/Maker, Forged Endorsement, Intended Payee Not Paid, Other RBC Cheques” that indicated that Mr. Chandel had contacted the RBC with respect to cheque #216 dated October 2, 2012 in the amount of $200,000 and the form, signed by Mr. Chandel, contained the following information:

Type of cheque fraud: Forged Drawer / Maker

Details of fraud: Rajeev stated that he did not issue the cheque to Alka Singh (wife). Signature was forged. Cheques are usually kept in his Laptop Bag. Alka has moved out from a shared apartment approx. 6 months ago. She still has access to the apartment with her key. Rajeev is leaving the country on Thursday and would like to have a feedback asap.

[102] Exhibit 13 is a collection of emails between and among Mr. Chandel (whose nick name is Babbi) and Ms. Singh (whose nickname is Babbli) and her sister Priyanka Singh (whose nickname is Buchun) that have not been assembled in chronological order. Some reflect a 24 hour clock and others do not. I am reproducing them in the order in which they appear in the exhibit.

[103] First is an email sent Tuesday October 9, 2012 10:48 PM from Mr. Chandel to Priyanka and Alka. Subject: RE: divorce and Importance: High

Buchun I never gave her any cheques she is lying . . . whatever cheque I have given her she already took the money legally. This is a fraud which she has committed. I am still telling her that I WONT MAKE A POLICE REPORT AS IF I DO THAT, SHE WILL HAVE A POLICE CASE AGAISNT [sic] HER AND IT WILL AFFECT HER IN SO MANY WAYS.

I came home so I can forward you this agreement. . . if she called me and tells me POLITELY that she will sign the agreement I won’t make any police case against her. The agreement is very simple and I am being very fair. . . . . she doesn’t seem to understand that she can scream, shout and abuse all of us but in the court of law everything will be dived [sic] equally and I will ask for 50% of everything plus alimony. . . she can tell the whole world that the days she was born she became what she is and made all the money all by herself but in a court when two people get divorce . . . the court does what is legal.

She herself found out that she will always loose [sic] in court or with the legal authority. Example: Her case with FINRA . . . she can scream or shout whatever. . . but in the end she had to sign on the dotted line with FINRA. A divorce court will also do the same thing. . . she is the only one who wants to fight this out NOT ME . . . even now I am giving her a chance even after she has committed a fraud. . . and she is screaming and insulting me.

Babbli you have till 2:00 PM to call me and tell me where I can pick you up from so I can take you and you can sign this agreement and after that I will make a police report. . . and then I will fight in court to get a divorce from you and will demand 50% of the assets and plus I will demand alimony. I can’t talk to you calmly for that matter no one can . . . as you have lost your mind.

[104] Next in exhibit 13 is an email dated October 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM from Priyanka to Mr. Chandel and to Alka Singh subject: “Divorce” with this message:

Babbli you need to stop abusing please.

Babbi, she says she got 3 signed cheques from you and she took her money. If that is the case then a police report will do nothing in any case. As I have said before, write down your points and send it to me, we can then discuss each point and get this over with.

[105] Next in exhibit 13 is a message dated Tuesday October 9, 2012 at 11:51 from Mr. Chandel to Priyanka and Alka with the subject: Re; Divorce:

Buchun she just called and as usual she start abusing me and my family . . . . . . I never gave her any cheques. . . she doesn’t understand once I make the police report her career n life will be ruined. She doesn’t understand it. . . On top the money that she stole is on hold and she won’t get it any way. Even RBC will press charged [sic] against her that it want a legal cheque as I have already signed a affidavit in my bank stating she deposited a forged cheque. The funny thing is that she doesn’t understand the seriousness of this issue . . . She thinks everything can be and will be done according to her. She has 10 mins and after that . . . Police report

[106] Next in exhibit 13 is a message dated October 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM from Priyanka to Ms. Singh and Mr. Chandel:

Ok, I see both of your points of view.

Babbi, Babbli says its her money and you have her 3 signed cheques and she used that and got her money back.

Babbli, lets not abuse anyone, lets do this calmly. As i said, why don’t you create a word document and state in bullet points what you want from babbi and babbi will do the same and I can then mediate and work it out to the ebst [sic] of my ability. Dont email each other directly and threaten or abuse each other please. just email me your documents and we can then talk about it.

[107] Next in exhibit 13 is a message dated October 9, 2012 at 11:41 from Mr. Chandel to Ms. Singh and Priyanka Singh with this message:

Babbli please call me ASAP as I am done with my bank and now going to go to the police station. The money will be reversed to me anyway n you will have a police report against you.

I never have [sic] you any cheque. . . I don’t know why you are playing with your life. I was and still am willing to give you what I have offered but you need to sign the agreement. . . this is the reason I wanted you to sign the agreement so u won’t do stupid things. It’s a large amount so the money is on hold . . U won’t get it and n top a police report which will affect you in many ways. Please please think it calmly and CALL ME before I read [sic] the station.

[108] The last in exhibit 13 is a message dated October 9, 2012 at 16:29:32 from Mr. Chandel to Priyanka and Alka:

Fine with me. . . But the police report will be made once I am done with banking thing. I want the money back if she already got it n them we can talk about our future.

[109] On October 9, 2012, RBC reversed the withdrawal by Ms. Singh and re-deposited $200,000 into account ending 1301.

[110] It is not clear whether it was on October 10 or 11, but Mr. Chandel call the police to complain about the forged cheque for $200,000 and two officers attended at the condominium. Ms. Singh was not present when they arrived and they asked her to come home. She presented a different perspective and the officers told Mr. Chandel that he had to leave. The officers gave him a couple of hours to collect belongings and then he left. He was and remains astonished that, having called the police complaining about Ms. Singh’s alleged fraud, he was evicted from the condominium. Mr. Chandel said he stayed in a hotel for a few days and then he left for India. As indicated below, this is the date that Mr. Chandel asserts is the date of separation and the valuation date.

[111] On October 11, 2012, Mr. Chandel withdrew $210,000 from account ending 1301 leaving a small balance.

[112] At page 1423 of exhibit 24 there is an email from Ms. Singh to Mr. Pollard dated October 13, 2012 at 8:46 with this message:

Regan,

I am in a really bad state.

I know that it is not your fault and you didn’t know that Rajeev is such a guy who will run away with all the money but he has. He even took the 250,000 dollars and ran away with that money as well.

He has been blackmailing me to take my house away from me now in return for the 250,000.

Regan you are a smart person you can understand who has helped you do far with the money over the last 2 years. The money never came from Rajeev. All the money – the 328,000 dollars came from my TD Bank account to you and also the 300,000 dollars more went from my bank to JH and to you from there.

I hope you understand that I have been double crossed and I will not see all that money ever.

When are you going to send the 100,000 dollars to my Chase account – I only need an approximate date for that.

Also I don’t want Rajeev to see a single penny from the mining operation in Guyana. I know that he has the signing authority in republic bank so you get all the money deposited in another bank – just go and open another account.

Rajeev can’t go to Guyana and fight legally with you for anything just like I can’t fight for my own money with him. Whatever percentage of the company he owns on paper I don’t care but it is JH and I that put the 3 MM into the operation.

I need your response please.

[113] At page 1423 of exhibit 24 there is an email ostensibly from Mr. Pollard to Ms. Singh dated October 13 at 9:03 with this message:

Alka, I agree with you, and will do as you say. Please stop worrying.

[114] Mr. Pollard was not asked if he had sent that message. I do not rely on it. I have included it for context.

[115] At page 1364 of exhibit 83 there is an email dated October 16, 2012 ostensibly from Mr. Pollard to Mr. Chandel with this message:

Morning, Hope all is well. As the investment stands, its $2,000,000 (Mining) and counting, and $800,000 turning. I will not offer any return on diamonds, as there is no market, the prices are about half of what they were, it just would not be practical, I will review this on a weekly basis for the moment until it improves. For the moment the focus is on mining. I will be in touch properly in a weeks time, as I’m dealing with a death in the family.

[116] Mr. Pollard was not asked if he had sent that message. I do not rely on it. I have included it for context.

[117] At page 1424 of exhibit 24 there is an email ostensibly from Mr. Pollard to Ms. Singh dated October 16, 2012 at 8:30 with this message:

Good Morning, Rajeev has been in contact, he asked me to give him a 15 percent return on the money, monthly, I don’t know if he thinks I’m doing cocaine, but anyways I told him no money is available for the moment, I will keep you informed, I am unavailable until next week. Thank you and have a good week.

[118] Mr. Pollard was not asked if he had sent that message. I do not rely on it. I have included it for context.

[119] At page 1424 of exhibit 24 there is an email dated November 6, 2012 at 17:54, ostensibly from Mr. Pollard to Ms. Singh with this message:

I understand everything, and will be in touch with you soon, the river is extremely dry and their [sic] is very limited access and no work for the moment, I’m going to wait a few days and once we start working again, will return to the city. I will make contact with you then, it appears as though Rajeev is holding us both to ransom, I will avoid him. Take care.

[120] Mr. Pollard was not asked if he had sent that message. I do not rely on it. I have included it for context.

[121] At page 1424 of exhibit 24 the final message is ostensibly from Mr. Pollard to Ms. Singh dated November 21, 2012 at 13:34 with the subject line: “pls get the wire transfer details today. The final one. Thanks,” and contains this message:

He said it was your idea. . . and you needed that money, I had no idea, he did not give you anything. If I did not set up the other bank account, I would not have been able to do anything with regard to the mining. . . he would have stolen that too.

[122] Mr. Pollard was not asked if he had sent that message. I do not rely on it. I have included it for context.

[123] Exhibit 24 includes emails in January 2013 and October 2013 in which Ms. Singh asked Mr. Pollard whether he and Mr. Chandel traded gold and diamonds. These emails were sent after November 27, 2012 with respect to events that occurred prior to November 27, 2012. Mr. Pollard was not asked about emails attributed to him. I will not rely on them.

[124] Ms. Singh commenced proceedings in Toronto action FS-12-382922. On November 27, 2012, Czutrin J. made a preservation order against Mr. Chandel’s account ending 1301 and a preservation order freezing the accounts of Mr. Chandel’s mother at three named financial institutions. As a result of that order approximately $212,000 was subject to a preservation order and was subsequently transferred to the trust account of Mr. Chsherbinin, Ms. Singh’s then counsel.

[125] Exhibit 64 is a collection of copies of wire transfers that Mr. Pollard provided to Ms. Singh in late 2012 that indicate that he or his company Sophdiam wired USD funds from Republic Bank (Guyana) Limited (RBGL) or from Demerara Bank Limited (DBL) to Reflex Global Sourcing (RGS) or Rajeev Chandel Singh (RCS) as directed by Mr. Chandel as follows:

Date	Sending Bank	Receiving Bank	Acct	Beneficiary	Details	Total	Grand Total
Oct 6/11	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Repayment for goods	$10,840
Nov 3/11	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment for goods	$ 1,500
Nov 4/11	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment for goods	$ 4,000
Jan 20/12	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment for goods	$20,000
Feb 2/12	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment for goods	$ 7,254
Feb 27/12	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment for goods	$ 5,000
PAID BEFORE Mar 2/12 Ex. 19, 20						$48,594	$48,594
Apr 20/12	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment for goods	$100,000
May 2/12	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment for goods	$ 60,000
PAID BETWN Mar 2 & June 2 (90 DAYS)						$160,000	$160,000
June 4/12	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment for goods	$110,000
June 5/12	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment for goods	$ 94,628
June19/12	DBL	RBC	1301	RGS	Beneficiary	$250,000
June28/12	RBGL	ICICI Bank, Noida, India	5865	RCS	Payment for diamonds	$ 40,000
Sept. 7/12	DBL	RBC	1301	RGS	Beneficiary	$ 30,000
Sept.17/12	DBL	RBC	1301	RGS	Beneficiary	$ 56,000
Sept. 27/12	DBL	RBC	1301	RGS	Beneficiary	$ 14,000
Sept.27/12	RBGL	RBC	1301	RGS	Payment of consultancy fees	$450,000
PAID AFTER JUNE 2/12						$1,044,628	$1,044,628
TOTAL PAID							$1,253,222

[126] Ms. Heft has arranged the payments in the three times reflected in that table.

[127] It is exhibit 64 on which Ms. Singh relies to demonstrate that Mr. Chandel received a total of $1,253,222. Mr. Pollard confirmed that, on Mr. Chandel’s instructions, he sent all of those amounts. All payments except one were sent to the RBC account 1301 in the name of Rajeev Chandel Singh operated as Reflex Global Sourcing. Mr. Chandel directed Mr. Pollard to transfer the June 28 amount into his account at the ICICI Bank in Noida, India.

[128] Exhibit 23 contains bank statements for the accounts mentioned in the table above. The amounts and dates included in the table above roughly coincide with the Bank statements for RBC ending 1301. I assume that the minor differences are accounted for by transfer fees and currency exchange.

[129] In his evidence in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination, Mr. Chandel acknowledged that he had received the payments in exhibit 64 but insisted that they were on account of the gold business that he and Mr. Pollard did together and not on account of the diamond business between Mr. Pollard and Ms. Singh nor on account of exhibits 19 and 20.

Credibility and reliability of the evidence

[130] Each counsel took the position that the evidence of the other party was not truthful and their evidence was not credible or reliable. In his submissions, Mr. Toor went further in insisting that Ms. Singh had lied repeatedly.

[131] Each of the parties demonstrated frailties that impact credibility and reliability.

Credibility and reliability of Ms. Singh’s evidence

[132] There are several factors affecting the credibility and reliability of Ms. Singh’s evidence.

[133] Ms. Singh has had issues with regulatory authorities, namely the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Ontario Securities Commission and the body that impacts her status as a Chartered Financial Analyst.

[134] As indicated above in paragraph 75, in the spring of 2012 FINRA brought a disciplinary action against her and in June 2012, she entered into an agreement (exhibit 43) in which she acknowledged having “violated FINRA Rule 2010 by attempting to procure a fee from the CEO of a public company in return for her efforts, including her research coverage of the company, and suggesting ways in which the company could conceal the payment of the fee.” In August 2012, FINRA imposed a penalty that included the following: the agreement became part of her permanent disciplinary record and would be available through FINRA’s public disclosure program and FINRA might make a public announcement. The penalty imposed on consent was a six months suspension and a fine in the amount of $10,000. It appears the suspension started in August 2012.

[135] As a result of events that may have occurred between May 2012 and December 2013, the Ontario Securities Commission took disciplinary action against her and issued a Notice of Hearing in early 2014. In a settlement agreement (exhibit 42) dated March 24, 2014 between Ms. Singh and her corporation and the OSC, Ms. Singh acknowledged the failure to comply and she agreed to conditions that would apply for three years including that she and her corporation cease trading in any securities or derivatives and that they were prohibited from acquiring any securities.

[136] As a result of other events that were not detailed her licence as a Chartered Financial Analyst was revoked for 6 months effective July 2015.

[137] With respect to FINRA and OSC, Ms. Singh provided an explanation in which she attempted to minimize the underlying facts that gave rise to the steps taken against her. But in the case of both FINRA and the OSC, she signed agreements in which she admitted to breaches of rules and accepted the penalty imposed.

[138] I have taken all of that into consideration. Because of the view I take of the key documentary evidence, I am not persuaded that any of those circumstances impact her credibility and the reliability of her evidence as it relates to the documentary record.

[139] As a result of some of the events referred to above, Ms. Singh was convinced that Mr. Chandel had cheated her of significant amounts of money. She had contacted the police some time ago but no steps were taken. As indicated at paragraph 15 above, on October 7, 2015 Mr. Chandel was arrested by officers from Toronto Police Services. I was not given a copy of the Information. However, I am satisfied that Ms. Singh was likely responsible for having him arrested at a crucial time on the eve of the trial, from which I infer she was still looking for retaliation and vengeance.

[140] Ms. Singh did exaggerate in parts of her evidence. For example, her description of the treatment she received from her mother-in-law was irrelevant to the case and clearly exaggerated. As a further example, she refused to admit a fact that was obvious such as whether she attended a baseball game with Mr. Chandel in New York City. At times, she was angry and vindictive. Ms. Heft acknowledges this aspect of her evidence but asks that it be excused on the basis that she has been victimized by Mr. Chandel for many years and it is justified. Her anger and retaliatory conduct means I cannot adopt all of her evidence on all issues.

[141] In early 2016 Ms. Singh met with Mr. Pollard in Guyana. This happened after the trial was adjourned in October and after I had set the trial to resume in May 2016. In October 2015 and in January 2016 I had directed that on resumption of the trial all witnesses would be required to give their evidence in examination-in-chief orally. Ms. Singh said that Mr. Chandel had used that direction to advise the court in India that the affidavit that Mr. Pollard had signed in 2013 could not be submitted in the court in India. She said that she met with Mr. Pollard in January 2016 to have his earlier affidavit re-commissioned so that she could file it in court in India. However, as the evidence of Mr. Pollard unfolded, it did appear that she may have given him consideration for his co-operation in being a witness in this case, namely that she confirmed to him that she would not participate in proceedings in Guyana against him brought on behalf of P. LLC, a corporation in which she had a 10% shareholding. The timing of the visit and the circumstances were unfortunate. However, the evidence of Mr. Pollard is that she did not make any commitments that impacted the content of his evidence. While Mr. Chandel does not accept that, I have no basis for rejecting Mr. Pollard’s denial and Ms. Singh’s description of what occurred.

[142] There are reasons to be circumspect about her evidence. However, on balance, I accept the evidence of Ms. Singh in the key issues, including the claim for misrepresentation because important aspects of her evidence are corroborated by documents, particularly business records from financial institutions the authenticity of which was not challenged; and because her evidence largely makes sense.

Credibility and reliability of Mr. Chandel’s evidence

[143] There are many factors relevant to Mr. Chandel’s evidence.

[144] As indicated above, Mr. Chandel had operated a business importing garments from India which he sold to retail operations in Canada. He said that in about 2001, he had had a flood that caused him to lose the records in Winnipeg necessary for the Canada Revenue Agency reporting requirements. He said that without his records, the CRA took the position that the store never existed and imposed a fine of $29,000. He settled the case in 2010 for $32,000 with funds provided by Ms. Singh. From 2001 to 2011 he did not have a bank account or any assets in his name in Canada in order to avoid CRA seizing them. That meant that he had virtually no documentation that supported his evidence. It also meant that he was willing to go to considerable lengths to avoid for 10 years his significant obligation to pay income taxes.

[145] In October 2012 in emails he sent to Ms. Singh and her sister Priyanka, Mr. Chandel was insistent that Ms. Singh sign the separation agreement and then she would start a divorce. He was outraged when she inserted $200,000 on cheque #216 and then she deposited it. He clearly threatened that if Ms. Singh did not sign the separation agreement that he had had drafted pursuant to which Ms. Singh was required to transfer title to the condominium to him in exchange for $600,000 paid in instalments (half of which he insisted he had already paid) that he would go to the police and allege she had forged a cheque for $200,000 with possible significant professional repercussions. She did not sign the separation agreement. So he carried out his threat first by going to the bank where he signed a declaration that the cheque was forged, and, after persuading the Bank to reverse the entry and put the money back into his account, he went to the police. Unfortunately going to the police backfired because it led to him being required to permanently leave the condominium.

[146] The circumstances surrounding cheque #216 lead me to the conclusion that Mr. Chandel’s evidence on that important issue was neither credible nor reliable. At trial, his evidence on this subject changed: I don’t remember giving her a third signed cheque; I may have signed the third cheque; I did give her three signed cheques but she could not present them without my permission; I begged her to return the $200,000 which I would give to her if she would sign the agreement and file the divorce case.

[147] The evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact that he gave her three signed cheques each payable to her because she was pressing him for payment of her money; that when she cashed cheque #216 he was furious; that he misled the Bank when he signed the declaration that the signature of the drawer was forged; that none of the detail in exhibit 14 is true even though in his email dated October 9, 2012 at 11:51 he acknowledged having signed an affidavit to that effect; and that he would stop at nothing to retaliate because he had lost what he thought was his leverage when Ms. Singh deposited the cheque for $200,000 without signing the separation agreement or starting a divorce.

[148] There are aspects of his evidence that defied common sense. For example, in his cross-examination, Ms. Heft spent considerable effort on June 29 and June 30 to get to the bottom of the receipt of $419,000 and the payment to Ms. Singh of $166,500. Ms. Heft persisted in her attempt to arrive at evidence that made sense but she could not succeed because Mr. Chandel kept changing his tune. Her cross-examination with respect to the various versions of whether he was paid a salary by Ms. Singh was equally as unreliable. There is no part of his evidence on those subjects that made sense.

[149] After Ms. Singh had obtained and executed the preservation order dated November 27, 2012, to prevent Ms. Singh from getting her hands on other money he sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Akansha Singh. He had at least 3 explanations for why he did it and what happened to the money after that but the conclusion is obvious that since the account that held those funds was not included in the preservation order - probably because Ms. Singh did not know of it’s existence - that he took those steps to protect himself.

[150] Mr. Chandel persistently resisted fulfilling his obligations to provide financial disclosure. It appears that he did not voluntarily provide any banking documents that supported the position that Ms. Singh took and only belatedly he signed written directions that permitted Ms. Singh and her then counsel to access important documents. At the Trial Management Conference on January 8 and in the endorsement dated March 18, 2016, I directed both parties to serve and file financial statement form 13.1 at both of their valuation dates, namely June 1, 2012 (Mr. Chandel) and January 1, 2009 (Ms. Singh). Mr. Chandel did neither. Based on Mr. Chandel’s failure to provide disclosure pursuant to the Family Law Rules and pursuant to court orders, I infer that he had reason to not produce documents because they would not have supported his position or would have supported her position.

[151] In his examination-in-chief, it was clear he had messages he wanted to bring to the trial. I cautioned him to respond to questions asked, not to questions he wanted to answer but had not been asked. Often his counsel asked leading questions on important evidence which meant that his answers were suspect. He did not lead evidence in examination-in-chief on many subjects (including his claim for spousal support, his claim for an equalization of net family property or a s. 5(6) claim, or his claim for sale of the condominium). And in cross-examination, as Ms. Heft persisted and revisited certain topics, he was resistant and belligerent to suggestions of wrong doing.

[152] Mr. Chandel had an agenda which was to tell me how victimized he has been by Ms. Singh. He used every opportunity to try to communicate his agenda, including inserting it into his answers to unrelated questions. He really wanted to tell me about the legal proceedings in India. On June 29 at the conclusion of examination-in-chief in response to Mr. Toor’s open ended question: “Do you have anything else you want to comment on regarding your matter” Mr. Chandel wanted to “say a few lines about my case in India”. The transcript at page 68 incorrectly attributes to Mr. Toor my comment that it was irrelevant to the matter before me. But he insisted that it was “very much relevant to this case”. I allowed him to tell me about what he considers to be duplication of Ms. Singh’s claims in this court and in India. It is not relevant.

[153] He also feels victimized and blames Ms. Singh for many other transgressions such as: for opposing his attempt to retrieve his passport in May 2016 which caused a delay of the resumption of this trial; without any evidence except his own conjecture, he blames her for having him investigated in South Africa with respect to importing a small quantity of diamonds; and he blames her for causing him to be arrested in October 2015 just days before the trial started and in relation to charges that were subsequently withdrawn. I have found that Ms. Singh was likely responsible for telling the police where he could be found and arrested on October 7, 2015. It would not have been in her interest to postpone the trial and, for that reason, I consider it unlikely that she was responsible for the problems he had in retrieving his passport. As for the episode in South Africa, his vehemence that she was responsible for the investigation does not make it so.

[154] Both of them have demonstrated retaliatory behaviour. However, the documentary evidence and particularly exhibit 64 is reliable notwithstanding Ms. Singh’s motivations. Mr. Chandel cannot rely on equally reliable documentation to support his position.

[155] Early on in his examination-in-chief, Ms. Heft began making objections that Mr. Chandel was giving evidence on which Ms. Singh or Mr. Pollard had not been asked to comment. This led to many exchanges between counsel as to frequent breaches of the rule in Browne v. Dunn. That rule is intended to ensure that evidence is led in a manner that is fair to all witnesses.[^8] The same may have occurred occasionally in the evidence led on behalf of Ms. Singh however there were dozens of instances of significant evidence being led through Mr. Chandel after not raising it in cross-examination of Ms. Singh or Mr. Pollard. In some cases I stopped the evidence from being led. In others I left Ms. Heft with latitude in reply evidence. In others I left it that I would consider it in the context of Mr. Chandel’s evidence. I infer from the egregious breaches of the rule in Browne v. Dunn that Ms. Singh and Mr. Pollard were not given the opportunity to respond to the evidence because their responses would not have supported Mr. Chandel’s version of reality.

[156] The emails in early October reveal the enormous pressure he brought on Ms. Singh to achieve his goals, namely to sign the separation agreement and to be responsible for starting divorce proceedings. He admitted to her that he owed her money. However, he intended to force her into submitting to his demands as indicated in his evidence:

. . . There is no issue at all until 9^th of October, 2012 when Alka took the $200,000 cheque, got it deposited. I begged, I begged, I requested, via e-mail, phone, text messages that please return this money. I will give it to you this money, just file the case, and she didn’t listen and that’s when the case started. Everything was okay.

[157] I infer that he would stop at nothing to achieve those goals.

[158] As a result of the 4 years since the first order was made, there have been several attendances for questioning and many opportunities for each to give evidence under oath. At trial each party was cross-examined at length on prior statements. In general, Ms. Heft’s cross-examination of Mr. Chandel was more productive in securing inconsistencies than the cross-examination of Ms. Singh. Indeed, the highlighted differences between what Mr. Chandel said in questioning, what he said in affidavits filed during the case, and his evidence at the trial caused me to conclude that he was making it up as he went along.

[159] Each party feels victimized over the years for the steps taken by the other here and in India. Each party took whatever opportunities were given to be critical of the other, and unleash a diatribe against the other, although in general Mr. Chandel was less controlled than Ms. Singh. Both demonstrated negative body language while the other was testifying most notably during her reply evidence on July 5, 2016 when I observed each was smirking at the other and Mr. Chandel actually turned his back on her.

[160] Taking all of that into consideration, I am compelled to the conclusion that there is no part of Mr. Chandel’s evidence that is credible or reliable. I do not accept his evidence that the transactions documented in exhibit 64 that resulted in Mr. Pollard transferring $1,253,222 to his accounts were on account of gold business and unrelated to the business in which Ms. Singh was involved with Mr. Pollard directly or through P. LLC.

Credibility and reliability of the evidence of Regan Pollard

[161] Regan Pollard is involved in diamond mining in Guyana. His evidence figures prominently in the allegation of civil fraud. When the trial was scheduled to begin in October 2015, Ms. Singh intended to rely on an affidavit that had been signed by Mr. Pollard earlier in the proceedings. As indicated above, on consent of the parties at the conclusion of the proceedings in October 2015 and in the endorsement following the Trial Management Conference in January 2016, I directed that all witnesses must provide all of their evidence orally, not by affidavit.

[162] Ms. Singh arranged for Mr. Pollard to be a witness and he participated via Skype for parts of June 17 and 23. He too has provided prior written statements in emails and in a letter that were the subject of cross-examination. He appears to support Ms. Singh’s theory of the civil fraud but his involvement in taking hundreds of thousands of dollars and then using it without consent of Ms. Singh to fix his dredge instead of supplying her with diamonds for shipping to India means that his integrity is suspect. Furthermore, his willingness to enter into what should be considered a usurious agreement as reflected in exhibits 19 and 20 reinforces that there was a great deal going on that did not emerge in this trial.

[163] Not only does Mr. Pollard appear to support Ms. Singh’s theory of the civil fraud, he denies that he and Mr. Chandel had any business together other than the diamond business in which Ms. Singh, Mr. Chandel and Mr. Pollard agree that Mr. Chandel was acting as Ms. Singh’s agent. He agreed that Ms. Singh and JH were participants in the P. LLC joint venture agreement with him as a result of which Ms. Singh paid $300,000 and JH was to pay the remaining $2.7 million. He agreed that Mr. Chandel was Ms. Singh’s agent with respect to that joint venture. He insisted that he and Mr. Chandel did not have any business together in buying and selling gold.

[164] Ms. Heft’s examination-in-chief took about an hour and focused on exhibit 64 which Mr. Pollard had provided to Ms. Singh. He confirmed that he was responsible for each of the transfers in exhibit 64 to accounts identified by Mr. Chandel. Mr. Toor explored other subjects for the balance of June 17 and for about 2 hours on June 23. Mr. Pollard continued to maintain that he had no gold business with Mr. Chandel.

[165] In his cross-examination, Mr. Pollard could not be precise about dates of events. It was clear from his evidence that he thought he was participating in the trial to deal with the transactions in exhibit 64 but Mr. Toor was entitled to and did approach other subjects some of which were a cause of annoyance and frustration to him. He acknowledged and attempted to explain what looked like prior inconsistent statements in exhibits 66 to 70. He said that Ms. Singh had come to see him earlier in the year and they had discussed the $300,000 that she had advanced pursuant to the P. LLC joint venture agreement and he said that he was able to satisfy her that he had returned it to her through Mr. Chandel. He said that she had “exempted herself” and she had given a “deed of release from any civil or criminal matters against” him from P. LLC leaving P. LLC to continue the lawsuit against him in Guyana. He later said that she had withdrawn the criminal charges with the police based on her knowledge that he had paid the $300,000. Understandably, Mr. Toor pressed this subject in cross-examination on the basis that it might be relevant to whether she had influenced his testimony in this case. As the cross-examination continued, Mr. Pollard became frustrated and annoyed.

[166] As indicated in paragraph 141 above, Ms. Singh gave evidence as to her visit with Mr. Pollard earlier in 2016. Ms. Singh also said that Mr. Pollard had satisfied her as to what had happened with the $300,000 she had sent as her P. LLC contribution and that, on that basis of him showing her what had happened, she had decided to “step back and not sue him for the $300,000”. She pointed out that she personally was not suing him but it was P. LLC. She insisted that she had not made any deal in consideration of his evidence. The timing of Ms. Singh’s meeting in January 2016 with Mr. Pollard was unfortunate because of the possibility that she had influenced his evidence. However, I am not persuaded that it should impact on the credibility and the reliability of his evidence, the essential component of which was the transactions listed in exhibit 64.

[167] As indicated above, several of the exhibits contained emails: exhibits 12, 13, 24 and 26 were introduced by Ms. Heft before Mr. Pollard gave evidence. Exhibit 83 was introduced by Mr. Toor in the examination-in-chief of Mr. Chandel. A few other emails were put to Mr. Pollard, but none of the contents of exhibits 12, 13, 24, 26 and 83 were put to him even though some of those emails contained messages to or from Mr. Pollard. I have included the messages ostensibly sent by him for purposes of context only. It would be unfair to draw inferences against him based on messages he appears to have sent but which he was never asked to identify. I do not rely on the contents of any of those exhibits to the extent they appear to be from Mr. Pollard. To the extent that they include messages that either Ms. Singh or Mr. Chandel sent to Mr. Pollard, I have considered them. With respect to exhibit 83, the contents of emails attributed to Mr. Chandel are suspect. I find that exhibit 83 is neither credible nor reliable and I disregard it.

[168] On the morning of Mr. Pollard’s examination-in-chief, Mr. Toor sought leave to introduce two categories of documents: certain newspaper articles and a collection of emails. I heard submissions from Mr. Toor and Ms. Heft and made a ruling allowing the newspaper articles for purposes of credibility only and not allowing the collection of emails.

[169] When Mr. Toor introduced the request for leave, at page 7 of the transcript of June 17 he described them as “new emails that go – that are – include Regan Pollard as a party to the e-mails” and at page 17 he said that they were “vitally relative” to the case. He said that there were 21 pages including 41 emails but that there might be duplication and he said in essence it would be 25 to 30 emails of which 5 to 6 included Ms. Singh. That left 20 to 25 emails between Mr. Chandel and Mr. Pollard between June 15, 2012 and September 16, 2015. As an alternative position, Mr. Toor asked at page 19 of the transcript that the 5 or 6 emails in which Ms. Singh had been a party ought to be admitted. Ms. Heft objected to the admissibility of those emails.

[170] In her endorsement dated March 9, 2015 Horkins J. ordered that the parties exchange document briefs by the end of August 2015 and that no further documents would be permitted at trial without permission of the trial judge. Mr. Chandel did not produce these emails by the end of August 2015 but they may have been included in briefs disclosed after that deadline. Following the Trial Management Conference on January 8, 2016 I released an endorsement dated March 18, 2016 summarizing the decisions made on January 8 including that Mr. Pollard had to attend (in person or by Skype) to give his evidence and that, without leave from me at trial, neither party could introduce any document that was not included in the briefs each had filed at the commencement of the trial on October 20, 2015.

[171] By June 17, 2016, exhibits 12, 13, 24 and 26 had been introduced and there were issues about authenticity. None of the new emails Mr. Toor wanted to introduce that included Ms. Singh had been put to her in cross-examination on June 6, 14 or 15. Ms. Heft took the position that it would be prejudicial to her client if Mr. Chandel were allowed to introduce and rely on emails that Mr. Toor described as “vitally relative” to this matter because Ms. Singh would have been deprived of the opportunity to consider and digest the significance before she gave evidence. Furthermore, the allegation of fraud made in the civil case did not extend beyond the end of 2012 although some of the proposed emails covered a period up to 2015.

[172] My ruling is found at page 134 of the June 17 transcript and on the subject of the emails was as follows:

The second category is a series of e-mails, 25 or so of which five or six include Alka Singh. The evidence at this trial indicates that throughout the period in question, the parties and this witness used e-mails extensively for communication. Indeed, we already have as exhibits many such e-mails. E-mails were included in document briefs of both parties. There is no reason why these e-mails could not have been included in prior tranches of e-mail disclosure. I do not grant leave to use them in this trial.

[173] Prior to Mr. Pollard giving evidence, I had heard from Ms. Singh about the emails in exhibits 12, 13, 24 and 26, some of which included messages from Mr. Pollard. While I refused leave to introduce additional messages, even those exhibits that had been admitted were not brought to Mr. Pollard’s attention.

[174] There may have been other emails in which Mr. Pollard was a sender or a receiver that would have supported Mr. Chandel’s position. However, if they were as “vitally relative” as Mr. Toor described, they ought to have been properly disclosed in a timely way.

[175] Mr. Chandel’s explanation for the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars reflected in exhibit 64 was that it was the profit from the gold business. However, on the basis of Mr. Pollard’s evidence there was no gold business. While I have some hesitation about Mr. Pollard’s evidence, on this point he was unequivocal. I accept and rely on Mr. Pollard’s evidence that he did not engage in gold business with Mr. Chandel.

Credibility and reliability of the evidence of other witnesses

[176] One of Ms. Singh’s witnesses was Ajay Kumar Singh who lives in India and is Mr. Chandel’s uncle. He was called as a witness primarily to speak about the farming operation that Mr. Chandel carried out and the renovations Mr. Chandel had done to his “ancestral home”, for which Mr. Chandel had not provided disclosure. Ajay Singh said he stopped having a relationship with Mr. Chandel because of his “anti-social activities” which appears to be “illegal relations” with a woman, meaning Akansha Singh. In cross-examination, he went further and said he had stopped talking to Mr. Chandel and his family for almost three years because “it was a big crime. It was my social boycott. I hate him.” And at the conclusion of the cross-examination, he was asked if he still has animosity towards Mr. Chandel and his family and he answered, “I have hatred”. His antagonism was palpable from which I infer that the credibility and reliability of his evidence is suspect. In describing the ancestral home Mr. Chandel occupied in Varanasi, he said it was “like a five star hotel” which is the same expression that Priyanka Singh used which is too unique to be a coincidence and from which I infer collaboration that taints that evidence of Ajay Singh and Priyanka Singh.

[177] Priyanka Singh is married to Rajeev Chandel’s brother. Between her relationship with her sister and the family of her husband, she was in inevitable conflict. Her evidence with respect to the separation agreement emails in October 2012 was helpful and confirmed by the documents. I did not find other evidence from her to be significant.

[178] Another of Ms. Singh’s witnesses was her father Udai Bhan Singh. He came with his wife from India and gave evidence about several subjects such as when Mr. Chandel squired them around in the summer of 2010 and whether Alka and Rajeev were separated at that time. Much of his evidence was hearsay based on what Alka had told him. He too is angry with Mr. Chandel which may have had an impact on his evidence. In cross-examination, Mr. Toor confronted him with the contents of an affidavit that he had signed with respect to his daughter Priyanka’s immigration status in Canada and the role his daughter Alka played in opposing it. It served to show that the family has had considerable conflict and that his daughter Alka can act in a retaliatory manner. Neither point was determinative of any issue in the case.

[179] The first witness called on behalf of Ms. Singh was DB. I have no reason not to accept his evidence. However, looked at closely, his evidence did not support her claims with respect to damages arising from the defamatory email (exhibit 28).

Conclusion as to credibility and reliability of testimony

[180] In conclusion, the evidence of all of the witnesses is challenged. In general, I will make findings of fact on specific subject matters as opposed to relying on all of the evidence of one party over the other. I agree with Ms. Heft that the prudent approach is to “follow the paper trail”, particularly exhibit 64, and I agree that in the key area of where money went in 2012, the paper trail generally corroborates the position taken by Ms. Singh.

Analysis:

A. Date of marriage

[181] As indicated above, the parties have provided two dates of marriage. Exhibit 2 is dated November 22, 1998 and is the Application for Registration of Hindu Marriage. They both say that that was the date of their engagement. They did not live together because she continued in school in India and she said her father paid for her educational expense and her living expenses and he continued to live in Winnipeg with his family and came to India from time to time.

[182] The parties agree that February 14, 2000 was the “social marriage” held in India and that she moved into his ancestral home in Varanasi at that time while he continued to go back and forth between India and Winnipeg.

[183] As indicated above, on July 5, 2016 I granted a divorce based on the marriage having occurred on February 14, 2000 without prejudice to either party taking a different position for purposes of the other issues at this trial. Neither party took a different position.

[184] I did not receive any expert or other evidence about the legal impact of the Application for Registration of Marriage or of the “social marriage”. The only issues that would be impacted by one date over the other is Mr. Chandel’s claim for spousal support and their claims for an equalization of net family property. For the reasons set out below, I have dismissed those claims and accordingly there is no need for me to draw any legal conclusions as to the date of marriage, other than establishing the date for purposes of the divorce.

B. Date of Separation and Valuation date

[185] Section 4 of the Family Law Act defines “valuation date” as the date the spouses separate and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation”.

[186] As indicated in the list above taken from exhibit C, one of the issues was “date of separation” and the other was “valuation date”. Valuation date includes the date of separation in conjunction with the criterion that there is no reasonable prospect of the resumption of cohabitation. I will focus on valuation date.

[187] Ms. Singh’s position and evidence was that the relationship was over when she moved to New York City without him in January 2009.

[188] Mr. Chandel gave hours of evidence on the subject in which he pointed to events and circumstances that he said demonstrated that they were a couple until October 2012. Those events included: whether he was involved in rental of an apartment in New York in which he said that he and Ms. Singh lived; whether they went together on the trip that included Dubai partly to explore the diamond business and partly to celebrate their wedding anniversary (his allegation) or solely to explore the diamond business with this trip on the side (her allegation); whether they attended the wedding of his cousin in Oklahoma as a couple (his allegation) or separately because she happened to be in Oklahoma for business and added time to attend the wedding (her allegation); whether she purchased eye glasses for him because she knew it was something he enjoyed (his allegation) or he contacted her and asked her to pick them up for him in New York City (her allegation); whether he was covered as a spouse under her workplace insurance and as a result he was able to have dental work done in New York City (his allegation) to which I have not located her response; whether in January 2010 his urgent flight to India and his participation in the funeral rights for the death of her brother was because the relationship was still intact (his allegation) or because neither she nor her sister had a visa and could not leave Canada quickly enough and it would be expected that even an estranged brother-in-law would participate in funeral rights (her allegation); whether touring with her parents to Montreal and Ottawa in the summer of 2010 indicated that the relationship was intact (his allegation) or because he was not working and had time on his hands (her allegation); whether Ms. Singh paying thousands of dollars to retire his long outstanding debt with CRA indicated that their relationship was intact (his allegation) or it meant that she had the money and they were collaborating on the diamond business (her allegation): whether her arrangement for football and baseball tickets for him in New York City meant that the relationship was intact (his allegation) or because the workplace tickets happened to come available at a time that he was in New York City (her allegation).

[189] In cross-examination, Ms. Singh responded to that evidence and provided her explanations.

[190] I need not make findings of fact with respect to all such evidence. I find that the date of separation for all purposes is January 2009 for these reasons:

(a) they agree they discussed separation before she went to New York City;

(b) they agree that she moved to New York City in January 2009 with the expectation that she would live and work there indefinitely and that he was not expected to be living with her;

(c) he said that in 2009 “we were on talking terms but we weren’t on the best of terms” from which I infer that the relationship was not intact;

(d) Mr. Chandel sent an email dated December 18, 2009 (exhibit 10) to Ms. Singh in which he indicated that he wanted “to start a new life with someone else”. He accused her of having committed adultery. He begged her to sit like an adult and discuss matters;

(e) they agree that within weeks of that email, in January 2010, they met in the Toronto condominium and were discussing separation when Ms. Singh heard the tragic news about the death of her brother in India;

(f) on his own initiative, and not responsive to questions he had been asked, Mr. Chandel repeatedly insisted that Ms. Singh was having affairs and he named RM as the key person with whom she was involved. He was incensed that she had become involved with someone else even as early as while she was pursuing her MBA. His vehemence about her alleged infidelity means that it was unlikely that the relationship was intact until October 2012. In her evidence Ms. Singh said she had no relationships “while married to Rajeev” or words to that effect. In her mind, she stopped being married to him in January 2009 when she went to New York City from which I infer that she probably was involved with someone else at least after she moved to New York City, reinforcing her belief that she was at liberty to do so because they had separated;

(g) in the fall of 2012, the lawyer he retained prepared a draft separation agreement indicating that the date of separation was January 1, 2009. At page 9 of his counsel’s written submissions, albeit in error in that it referred to January 2010 although the separation agreement was not provided to Ms. Singh until October 2012, Mr. Toor took the position that Mr. Chandel had not given the date of January 2009 to the lawyer but that the “mall lawyer” he retained had included a “random separation date chosen by the lawyer”. That makes no sense and is not credible evidence. I infer that he did advise the lawyer that the date was in January 2009 and, when confronted with a significant piece of evidence, he made a feeble attempt to rationalize it;

(h) in his email dated October 6, 2012, Mr. Chandel said that he had “begged her to come back” corroborating her position that the relationship had been over for a significant period of time by then;

(i) at page 8 of his counsel’s written submissions, Mr. Toor dismisses her claim that it is 2009 because “she made the majority of her earnings between the years of 2009 and 2012 and a valuation date of January 1, 2009 would mean that she would not have to equalize any of her earnings during this time”. There is no legal basis upon which Mr. Chandel could claim an “equalization” of Ms. Singh’s earnings from which I infer that he is motivated to advocate a later date to suit his unjustified claims;

(j) Mr. Chandel is similarly motivated by increasing his entitlement to an equalization of net family property. As his counsel pointed out, in January 2009, the condo that she owned had a mortgage but by June 2012, it was unencumbered and valued at $370,000 according to Ms. Singh. I infer that he is motivated to advocate a later date to increase his claim for an equalization of net family property;

(k) His explanation for advancing his date is unrelated to the definition of valuation date. At page 9 of his counsel’s written submissions appears the following:

The date of separation is nearer to October 2012 because this was the time when the Applicant [Mr. Chandel] was able to reverse a cheque for $200,000 which the Respondent [Ms. Singh] had illegally deposited into her account without permission from the Applicant. This is the major incident which triggered the current court proceedings and nothing else. It was when the Respondent was not able to get money from the Applicant that these proceedings began. Again, the recurring theme in all of this is the Respondent’s greed.

Mr. Chandel did not say that in so many words but that written submission is consistent with what he did say. I refer to the written submission because it demonstrates that the date that he advocates does not meet the definition of “valuation date” for purposes of Part 1 of the Family Law Act. Notwithstanding the hours of evidence trying to demonstrate that the relationship was intact until October 2012, he picked the date when she deposited a cheque which coincided with the police attending at the condominium at his request because of his allegation that she had stolen $200,000 and, while present at the condominium, the police directed him to leave. Those circumstances have no impact on whether they separated on that date with no prospect of the resumption of cohabitation;

(I) In contrast, Ms. Singh’s consistent evidence was that the relationship was over in January 2009 when she moved to New York City. As indicated in paragraph 44 above, they disagreed as to the extent to which he was living in Toronto or India but I accept her evidence that he was residing more in India than he was in Canada from 2001 when she arrived to 2010 when his garment business ended. He did agree that the reason why she introduced him to the diamond mining business in 2010 was that he was not working after 2009 when his garment business disappeared and she suggested he act as her agent. In effect they both said that he had been a “couch potato”, that she had this diamond opportunity and didn’t have time (on top of her professional day job) to look after the operations side, and he had contacts in India for polishing and finishing. They both say she had developed experience in the diamond business and she would tell him what he needed to know in order to be her agent and that included her giving instructions and him following through including trips to Guyana as she required. I am persuaded that her evidence that she was on amicable terms with him until she realized in October 2012 that he had been deceiving her and that all of that evidence does not undermine the more persuasive evidence that in January 2009 they both knew that the marital relationship was over.

[191] I agree with the thrust of her evidence that after January 2009, there was no reconciliation, no prospect of reconciliation, and their collaboration on the diamond business was business.

C. Net family property: equalization pursuant to s. 4 of the Family Law Act

[192] At the Trial Management Conference on January 8, 2016 and in the March 18, 2016 endorsement that followed, I directed both parties to prepare form 13.1 financial statement at his date of June 2012 and her date of January 2009. Ms. Singh complied but Mr. Chandel did not. I also directed counsel to collaborate and by May 13, 2016 to prepare a comparative net family property statement. Since Mr. Chandel had not prepared his form 13.1 financial statement, counsel could not collaborate. Ms. Heft did prepare form 13B net family property statements based on Ms. Singh’s evidence and what she could glean from Mr. Chandel’s evidence.

[193] I have accepted January 2009 as the valuation date and hence I will not deal with his dates in June 2012 (which he seemed to abandon during the trial) and October 2012.

[194] According to Ms. Singh, she produced evidence of each of the items on her form 13.1 financial statement on which she relied for the preparation of her net family property statement. There was documentation to support the most important entries.

[195] In her form 13B at January 2009 (which was based on exhibit 35), Ms. Singh took the position that the condominium was valued at $300,000 with a mortgage principal of $256,413.

[196] As indicated above, in January 2007, Ms. Singh purchased the condominium and registered title in her name. She did not provide an appraisal by a professional but she did provide a copy of the MPAC confirmation (exhibit 30) that indicated that as of 2009 the assessed value was $266,342 and in 2012, the value was $312,000. Exhibit 7 includes the closing documents on the transaction that indicates that she took a five year mortgage in the principal amount of $271,753 and was required to pay monthly $1,612. I was not given a mortgage statement close to valuation date. However, in an email dated July 1, 2010 (exhibit 41) she told Mr. Chandel to “deposit all the 40 in my usd account – the rate was 6 percent higher today – us vs can. Pay off house.” in other words, by July 2010, the principal owing on the mortgage was less than $40,000. Given her significant income in 2008 and what appears to be a final payment in 2010, as well as monthly payments starting in 2007, I infer that in January 2009, the mortgage was considerably less than $256,412.

[197] Ms. Singh continued to show an unsecured line of credit at $53,526 at January 2009 on account of her MBA studies. Given the income she had earned in 2008 I doubt that the line of credit remained so high.

[198] Ms. Singh indicated that her wedding jewellery should be valued at valuation date at $32,000 but she took an exclusion as a gift of that entire amount. There is no evidence of the items or their value or whether they were pre-marriage deductions or post-marriage exclusions but they are likely one or the other. It is reasonable to consider the value at valuation date in January 2009 to be consistent with the date of acquisition in which case the value is neutral to the calculation of net family property.

[199] In her form 13B, Ms. Singh’s counsel attributes $150,000 to the value of Mr. Singh’s ancestral home in Varanasi which he inherited in 1996, before either date of marriage. The form 13B also reflected the value of $25,000 as “Varanasi property prior to renovation” under part 6 which is the value of property at date of marriage. In his evidence, Mr. Chandel referred to payments between February 2012 and October 2012 that he sent to India ($30,000, $50,000 and $300,000) that were partly or wholly with respect to renovations he did to that property.

[200] Mr. Chandel provided no evidence of the value of Varanasi although, based on the video of the home, and Mr. Chandel’s evidence that the renovations were significant, I infer that he deliberately did not properly disclose because it would have reflected considerable value in his net family property.

[201] Based on the form 13B net family property statement as at January 2009, Ms. Singh owes Mr. Chandel an equalization payment of $57,193. However, that may be higher because of the likely reduction in the principal of the mortgage. It may be lower because of the value of the Varanasi property at valuation date that Mr. Chandel did not disclose.

[202] This is a case where it is impossible to make a reliable calculation of the net family property and the reason for that likes squarely with Mr. Chandel: his failure to provide financial disclosure. That failure to comply with the Family Law Rules and the evidence that he owns an asset of some value leads me to conclude that I should draw the negative inference against him, namely that, had he properly disclosed, he would have owed Ms. Singh an equalization payment. Such failure to disclose should not be rewarded with any order for an equalization of net family property. If Ms. Singh does owe him an equalization payment, I am not persuaded that she should be required to pay it.

[203] I dismiss his claim for an equalization of net family property.

D. Claims pursuant to s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act

[204] Each party asserted a claim pursuant to s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act for an order other than equalization. Neither party provided any evidence upon which such an order might be made from which I conclude that neither party took it seriously and left it on the table for leverage. Given the conclusion I have drawn above about the equalization of net family property, the inevitable decision has to be that there is no basis for an order pursuant to s. 5(6) in favour of either party.

[205] I dismiss the claims each makes for a payment that is other than equal.

E. Claim by Mr. Chandel for sale of the former matrimonial home

[206] Ms. Singh has always been the registered owner of the condominium. She is the legal and beneficial owner. Mr. Chandel made no claim that he was an owner on any trust principles. The authorities on which counsel relies for sale pursuant to the Partition Act do not apply.

[207] As I indicated during Mr. Toor’s submissions, the claim for sale is without evidentiary or legal foundation.

[208] I dismiss the claim for sale of the former matrimonial home.

F. Occupation rent claim by Mr. Chandel

[209] Ms. Singh was the registered owner of the condominium and accordingly he had no basis to make a claim for occupation rent. He was required to leave because of the police intervention that he had invited. He provided no evidence of rental value.

[210] I dismiss the claim for occupation rent.

G. Claim by Mr. Chandel for spousal support

[211] It appears that Mr. Chandel has made a claim for spousal support pursuant to the Divorce Act on a compensatory analysis based on his alleged contribution to Ms. Singh obtaining her MBA. In general terms, he said he had contributed to her tuition and living expenses. He pointed to exhibit 60 which included pages reflecting entries in a bank account of Reflex Global, (which was the export/import business in her name) from which payments were made for expenditures including car lease and insurance. Other than pointing to such categories of expenditures, he did not document or quantify the basis of his claim.

[212] At page 21 of his written submissions, Mr. Toor listed amounts for tuition fees ($30,000); books, laptop and school supplies ($5,000); rent at York campus for 5 years ($60,000); food ($60,000); car lease and insurance for 5 years (approximately $55,000); CFA fees (nearly $18,000); CFA books ($2,900); trip to India for Alka ($5,000) for a total of nearly $235,900. Other than the evidence referred to above, there is no evidence to corroborate his claim of making such contributions. The closing submission bore no resemblance to the evidence at trial and was exaggerated.

[213] On the subject of Mr. Chandel’s claim that he supported Ms. Singh throughout her MBA program, I do not accept his evidence. I do accept her evidence that is sufficiently documented and explained to be reliable which indicates that she had sufficient resources to provide her own education and living. I accept her evidence denying that he made contributions other than paying for dinner occasionally when he was in Toronto and other such expenses.

[214] Mr. Chandel has failed to provide any basis upon which this court could find that he is entitled to spousal support.

[215] On the issue of the amount of spousal support, he provided little evidence of his personal financial circumstances since 2012 and none of that evidence was documented or otherwise corroborated. He did not comply with the Family Law Rules and with my order at the TMC in January 2016 that he deliver a form 13.1 financial statement by April 25, 2016. A party who fails to comply with the Family Law Rules and with court orders as to disclosure ought not to be rewarded by an order for spousal support. On his evidence, it is not possible to consider what amount, if any, would be appropriate assuming he had established he was entitled.

[216] The evidence from Ms. Singh was that she had not been employed since March 2012 and accordingly she had no income on which a spousal support order could be made. Her evidence was not seriously challenged in cross-examination except to raise speculation that she had resources available to her other than her stated debts.

[217] During cross-examination, Ms. Heft began asking questions of Mr. Chandel on the subject of spousal support and I pointed out to her that he had given no evidence in examination-in-chief with respect to his claim for spousal support and she need not explore that subject.

[218] I dismiss Mr. Chandel’s claim for spousal support.

H. Non-harassment orders and restraining orders

[219] Exhibit C indicates that Ms. Singh sought a “non-harassment” order in the Family Law Application and a “refraining order” in the civil proceeding that would prohibit Mr. Chandel from making disparaging or defamatory remarks about Ms. Singh. Mr. Toor also asked for either a non-harassment order or a restraining order.

[220] Neither party gave any evidence that might be the basis for such an order. It is not clear where Ms. Singh lives now. It is clear that Mr. Chandel does not live in Ontario. If an order were made, the prospects of enforcement are limited, if any.

[221] I dismiss the claims for all such orders.

I. Ms. Singh’s claim based on civil fraud

[222] As indicated in paragraph 180 above, I have held that the key to the disposition of this claim is exhibit 64. Mr. Pollard identified all of the transactions in which he wired funds as Mr. Chandel directed. Mr. Chandel acknowledges he received those funds. He insists that they were unrelated to the diamond business that Ms. Singh had with Mr. Pollard or with P. LLC and Mr. Pollard. He insists that he received those funds on account of the gold business in which he and Mr. Pollard were engaged. Mr. Pollard repeatedly denied that he was engaged in any gold or diamond business with Mr. Chandel. As indicated in the conclusion at paragraph 160, I do not accept or rely on Mr. Chandel’s evidence as to the explanation for the receipt of the funds.

[223] The issue before me is whether the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Chandel should be found to have committed the civil tort of fraud.

[224] Ms. Heft devoted considerable effort in her written submissions and time in her oral submissions. Mr. Toor’s written submissions do not deal with the legal and factual issue except to assert that it is all lies. I do not have the benefit of his response to the legal framework advocated on behalf of Ms. Singh.

[225] The Statement of Claim left much to be desired in its lack of clarity. In order to ensure that Mr. Chandel and his counsel and the court was informed in advance of the trial as to the causes of action, I directed Ms. Heft to articulate it and she did in exhibit C as described above. Ms. Singh claims “civil fraud or in the alternative, breach of contract in the sum of $1.2 million committed by Mr. Chandel against Ms. Singh” as well as her claim for “punitive damages of $100,000 for the civil fraud or in the alternative, breach of contract”.

[226] Ms. Heft relies on the decisions in Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak and Hryniak v Mauldin[^9] for the four elements of civil fraud which must be proven on the balance of probabilities:

a false representation by the defendant;
some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representation on the part of the defendant (whether knowledge or recklessness);
the false representation caused the plaintiff to act; and
the plaintiff’s actions resulted in a loss.

False Representations to Regan Pollard and Mr. Chandel’s Knowledge

[227] Ms. Heft argued that Mr. Chandel made two false representations to Mr. Pollard. The first false representation to Mr. Pollard was that the money Mr. Pollard owed to Ms. Singh should be paid to Mr. Chandel and that would be payment to Ms. Singh.

[228] Second, he made a false representation to Mr. Pollard that Mr. Pollard should make deposits to an account provided by Mr. Chandel, namely Royal Bank of Canada 1301 in the name of Reflex Global Sourcing and that would be payment to Ms. Singh.

[229] Mr. Pollard agreed that Mr. Chandel has said what is alleged in paragraphs 227 and 228. On the evidence, I find that he made those representations and, on the basis of receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Mr. Pollard but not paying it to Ms. Singh, I find that Mr. Chandel had knowledge of the falsehood of the representations. However, he did not make either of those representations to the plaintiff, i.e. Ms. Singh. The false representations made by Mr. Chandel to Mr. Pollard did not cause Ms. Singh to act and accordingly did not result in a loss to her. For that reason, false representations made to Mr. Pollard cannot be the subject of a claim for fraud.

False Representations to Alka Singh and Mr. Chandel’s Knowledge

[230] Ms. Heft argues that Mr. Chandel made two false representations to Ms. Singh. As indicated at paragraphs 68 and 69 there are two versions of the email, one dated June 5 and one dated June 6. For purposes of this analysis, I repeat the second one:

Alka

Stop talking about money all the time. I have told you this 100 times. I said when I am in Guyana next week I will try to get the maximum out from Regan. I have got some money from diamond sale which I will get it this week and I will transfer it to TD Canada Trust account. You don’t have a job because you got fired from [sic] your deeds. Stop blaming others. . . I told you that if you don’t have a job don’t worry . . . stay with me 24/7 and I will take care of you like I did all those years. . . what was your answer. You found another boyfriend to play around and now you are running away from me like you did three other times in past. I told you hundreds of times if you want to fuck around with strangers. . . why don’t you file the divorce paper and do all the fucking legally. You are doing all the cheating with a new partners on a yearly basis so it’s your duty to file for a divorce. Don’t ask me to do it. . . as I don’t want the world to say I filed for divorce. I want the world to know that it was you who filed for divorce because you committed adultery not once but four times which we all know off.

I will be sending money in couple of days from India diamond sale and as far as $328000 is concern. . . wait till next week let me be in Guyana and I will try to get the maximum out and will transfer that too. Btw. . you told me hundreds of times that take all that money and divorce me . . . why can’t you do that same thing.

Btw, the Toronto home is so dirty that its hard to explain. . . and who ordered a new cable box when we already have a $500.00 cable box which we bought. emphasis added

[231] The second false representation by Mr. Chandel was contained in his email dated October 6, 2012 referred to in paragraph 100 above of which this is an excerpt:

the money hasn’t come yet. . . . I called Republican Bank yesterday and they told me that the money has been send [sic] from there and I would get it in a day or so. . . .

emphasis added

[232] On a balance of probabilities, I am persuaded that those representations bolded in the above emails were made to Ms. Singh and that Mr. Chandel had knowledge that they were false for the following reasons.

[233] The first reason relates to the table at paragraph 125. The thrust of Ms. Singh’s argument is that Mr. Pollard had paid Mr. Chandel the funds required pursuant to exhibits 19 and 20 as well as the $300,000 she had advanced on the P. LLC joint venture. In the following table, I have summarized the payments made by Mr. Pollard in time frames related to those exhibits and the dates of the false representations. I have omitted the payments in the total amount of $48,594 that preceded exhibits 19 and 20 because they could not have been on account of those exhibits or on account of the P. LLC payment.

Date	Amount	Total
April 20/12	$100,000
May 2/12	$ 60,000
June 4/12	$110,000
June 5/12	$ 94,628	$364,628
June 19/12	$250,000
June 28/12	$ 40,000
Sept. 7/12	$ 30,000
Sept. 17/12	$ 56,000
Sept. 27/12	$ 14,000
Sept. 27/12	$450,000	$840,000

[234] By the time Mr. Chandel made the first false representation on June 6, he had received $364,628 and by the time he made the second false representation on October 6, he had received an additional $840,000. There is no evidence that he disclosed that to Ms. Singh. The evidence is to the contrary because she kept bugging him for money.

[235] Second, at some point before July 17, Mr. Chandel had given Ms. Singh three signed cheques from which I infer that he did that to try to keep her satisfied. She cashed the first on July 17 in the amount of $50,000 and the second on August 27 in the amount of $20,000 for a total of $70,000 that was about 10% of what he had received from Mr. Pollard by August 27. I infer that he was trying to assuage her with modest amounts while he was hoarding hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[236] Third, his evidence that the diamond business was “ours” (i.e. his and Ms. Singh’s) while the alleged gold business was between him and Mr. Pollard does not have the ring of truth. And, as indicated above, Mr. Pollard denied that there was any business, gold or otherwise, between him and Mr. Pollard and I have accepted his evidence on that point. In addition, notwithstanding persistent efforts by Ms. Heft in cross-examination, Mr. Chandel provided no evidence of any contributions to a business involving him and Mr. Pollard independently of the business involving Ms. Singh and Mr. Pollard. I do not accept that he received money from Mr. Pollard that was not on account of Ms. Singh’s investments in the diamond business.

[237] Fourth, his insistence that Ms. Singh had knowledge of all transactions between him and Mr. Pollard and that she had the password and access to all of the accounts, does not ring true. As she said in her reply evidence, if she had had access to account ending 1301 she would not have needed the November 27, 2012 court order to get the documents. I infer that he kept her in the dark about account 1301 and the Noida account.

Did false representations cause Ms. Singh to act?

[238] The third element of the tort of fraud is that the false representations caused the plaintiff to act. As indicated in paragraph 76 above, in an email dated July 11, 2012 Ms. Singh contacted Mr. Pollard in an attempt to find out from him what he had paid. Mr. Pollard was not asked whether he received that message but I have accepted Ms. Singh’s evidence that she sent it to him. As indicated in paragraph 78 above, he ostensibly responded by indicating that it was more than $$328,000 and he would get back to her. Mr. Pollard was not asked whether he had sent that message and I do not rely on it. For purposes of determining whether the false representations caused her to act, the important emails are the abusive messages that Mr. Chandel sent to her dated July 11, July 12 and August 16 all of which served to reinforce the false representation contained in his email dated June 6. It was only in her emails to Mr. Pollard dated October 4 and October 13, 2012 that she had reached the point that she could not rely on anything Mr. Chandel was telling her. The last payment Mr. Chandel received was on September 27, 2012. The false representations caused her, notwithstanding her increasing concern, to trust Mr. Chandel and not to pursue the source of the money, Mr. Pollard.

Did Ms. Singh suffer a loss as a result?

[239] The fourth element of the tort of fraud is that the actions of the plaintiff caused her damages. As indicated above, from the time of the first false representation on June 6 to October 4 and 13 when she told Mr. Pollard not to send any more money to Mr. Chandel, Mr. Pollard had transferred $1,204,628 ($364,628 and $840,000). All of those funds belonged to her and most of that money was out of her reach by October 13.

[240] On that basis, I am satisfied that the loss suffered by Ms. Singh as a result of the false representations amounts to $1,204,628.

[241] In her submissions, Ms. Heft acknowledged that Ms. Singh had received payments totalling $170,000: cheque #218 cashed July 17, 2012 in the amount of $50,000; cheque #217 cashed August 27, 2012 in the amount of $20,000; and $100,000 which he gave her on June 18, 2012 as indicated in paragraph 75 above. However, Ms. Heft took the position that the amount of $170,000 ought not to be subtracted from the damages Ms. Singh incurred.

[242] I disagree. The theory of the case is that Mr. Chandel received hundreds of thousands of dollars that belonged to her. Based on that theory, if she has received some of that money, he should receive a credit. Accordingly, $170,000 should be subtracted, leaving damages in the amount of $1,034,628. As indicated below, there will be a further adjustment to reflect the credit of the amount held in Ms. Heft’s trust account pursuant to the order dated November 27, 2012.

[243] In addition to these damages, Ms. Singh claimed punitive damages of $100,000. However, she did not provide a legal basis for adding punitive damages to the actual damages and I dismiss that claim.

[244] On October 14, 2016, Ms. Heft asked to re-open her submissions. Notwithstanding Mr. Toor’s objection, I heard her submissions that constituted a modest reframing of the theory of the case in fraud. I then heard Mr. Toor’s submissions and at the conclusion of the day I indicated that I would not ask Mr. Toor for his submissions on the reframing of the theory of the case and I would give him an opportunity to reply before I considered relying on the fresh submissions.

[245] On further reflection, I have concluded that Mr. Toor ought not to be given that opportunity. On August 23, 2016 he brought with him and gave to me written submissions. After Ms. Heft’s lengthy submissions on August 23 that included a significant focus on the allegations of fraud, I pointed out to Mr. Toor that I would expect him to respond to the allegations. His written submissions make no reference to the claim based on fraud. His oral submissions on October 14 contained no reference unless I raised it. The position taken on behalf of his client was that it was all lies. Since Mr. Chandel chose not to respond to the legal submissions on this critically important issue, his client could not be prejudiced if I entertained a refinement of the theory of the case and accordingly I see no reason to afford him an opportunity now as to whether the theory of Ms. Singh’s case should be refined.

[246] Having said that, I have not considered Ms. Heft’s refinement because I have accepted the theory of her client’s case that had been advanced in the list of issues in exhibit C.

J. Ms. Singh’s alternative claim for breach of contract

[247] As indicated above, Ms. Singh claimed the same amounts in damages for breach of contract as she claimed for civil fraud. The alternative claim was listed in exhibit C and Ms. Heft included reference to it in her closing submissions. When I observed that I had heard no evidence of the existence of a contract that would support such a claim and had received no legal submissions on the point, Ms. Heft nonetheless indicated that her client would not abandon that aspect of her claim.

[248] There is no evidence to support that claim. It is dismissed.

K. Ms. Singh’s claim for “defamation and injurious falsehoods”

[249] As indicated in exhibit C, Ms. Singh asserted a claim for “defamation and injurious falsehoods made by Mr. Chandel to the detriment of Ms. Singh via an email communication” as well as “damages for defamation punitive and tortuous [sic] of $150,000”. The submissions focused on the tort of defamation.

[250] The email is dated December 21, 2012 and was marked exhibit 28. Mr. Chandel’s defence is that he had nothing to do with that email. Having taken that position, Mr. Toor appropriately did not take a position on whether it was defamatory.

[251] The test is whether the words used in the email were defamatory in the sense that they would tend to lower Ms. Singh’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.[^10] I will not quote from the email but will refer to paragraph numbers. The first 12 words in paragraph 2, and the first 8 words in paragraph 5 are not defamatory. The balance of the numbered paragraphs go beyond offensive, rude and insulting and are defamatory particularly because of the assertions relative to her profession.

Was Mr. Chandel the author or distributor?

[252] I turn to whether Mr. Chandel was the author and or distributor and, if he was, whether the defamatory email caused damages to Ms. Singh.

[253] The email was sent from a gmail account that included reference to Guyana mining. It was sent to Ms. Singh’s yahoo and hotmail accounts. There is no evidence associating Mr. Chandel with the email address from which it was sent. Mr. Toor argued that Ms. Singh could have obtained an order that would have required the disclosure of the ISP of the email. I agree that that was a possibility but the fact that it was not pursued means that authorship and distributorship must be found on other evidence.

[254] Ms. Heft takes the position that, based on the subject matters in the email and the vocabulary used, the court should infer that he was the author and distributor. Ms. Heft refers to the similarity of vocabulary that leads to that inference, such as: “you bitch” and “lets play bitch” which is language used by him in his email dated July 11, 2012 (page 1347 of exhibit 26); the reference to Ms. Singh having committed adultery with 4 different guys over the last 7 years which is language used by him in his email dated October 6, 2012 (page 1354 of Exhibit 26 and page 1366 of exhibit 12); the reference in paragraphs 1 and 10 of exhibit 28 to employment and regulatory issues with which he was familiar and to which he referred in his email dated June 6, 2012 (page 1352 of exhibit 26). The introduction in exhibit 28 is in Hindi which is consistent with his use of Hindi in his email dated June 13 (page 1353 of exhibit 26). Mr. Chandel acknowledged that his written English is not very good as demonstrated in some of his emails above. The language including the errors in exhibit 28 is in keeping with emails that he did author. The closing paragraph of exhibit 28 invites the recipient to contact her husband who would “love to give all the information to anyone who wants to teach Alka a lesson” which is consistent with the retaliatory messages in many of his emails referred to above.

[255] In his examination-in-chief he said nothing about exhibit 28. In cross-examination he denied that he was the author or the distributor. Given my conclusions above about his credibility and his vengeance and retaliation and the fact that this email is less than 4 weeks after the November 27, 2012 order preserving some of his assets and those of his mother, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that he is both the author and the distributor.

Did Ms. Singh suffer damages as a result of the defamatory email?

[256] Exhibit 28 includes a statement that it was being sent to 250+ emails and Ms. Singh relies on that to argue a fairly wide distribution.

[257] In cross-examination, Mr. Chandel said that he and his brother received it while they were in a movie theatre but he did not produce either the version he said he received or the version he said his brother received.

[258] Ms. Singh provided her own evidence as to the extent to which others had received it as did her father. All of that evidence was hearsay but was offered for the truth of the contents. It did not satisfy the burden of proof of a sufficiently wide distribution that it would have an impact. I am not satisfied as to the extent of the alleged distribution.

[259] Defamation is a strict liability tort and damages are presumed. In this case, Ms. Singh took the position that she had been unable to obtain employment as a result of the email. Indeed she called DB as a witness for that purpose.

[260] DB is a geologist and mine developer who has been working seriously in Guyana for several years. He met her when she was an advisor and analyst for an investor interested in one of his projects. He described her as a professional colleague and a friend.

[261] DB said he had received exhibit 28 and he said it had been copied to one of his colleagues. DB said that while he was discouraged by the email, he did not give it much credence because he had respect for Ms. Singh who was at that time a candidate for a position in the investor company. DB said that he had failed to recruit her because of the email. However in cross-examination he said that the company involved was insolvent later in 2013 from which I infer that any employment would have been short lived. His evidence was well-intentioned but mostly hearsay.

[262] In the spring of 2012, Ms. Singh had lost her job and the FINRA had started proceedings against her. In August 2012, she agreed to a settlement (exhibit 43) that included a six month period of suspension which had not been completed at the time of the defamatory email in December 2012. In March 2014 she entered into the settlement agreement (exhibit 42) with the Ontario Securities Commission. The basis for her claim for damages is her loss of employment opportunities. While the email was defamatory and while I have found on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Chandel is both the author and the distributor, I am not persuaded that the distribution was sufficiently widespread to have any impact on her employment opportunities. The regulatory infractions would likely have impacted on her ability to get employment. Furthermore, in her evidence she said she had not been employed since October 2012 because she had been so preoccupied with lawsuits in India and in Canada from which I infer she was not actively looking for employment.

[263] The claim for damages for defamation and “injurious falsehoods” is dismissed.

L. Ms. Singh’s claim for return of property

[264] As indicated above, Ms. Singh asks for an order that Mr. Chandel return to her property “including gold, rough diamonds, jewellery of Ms. Singh and Business Name Registration of Reflex Global Sourcing”. This claim is asserted in the civil action and Ms. Heft did not refer me to any statute or rule on which she relied.

[265] As indicated at paragraph 14 above Kelly J. made an order dated July 23, 2015 with respect to the return of personal property. Mr. Chandel said that he had possession of the items in India. He also said that he had called her lawyer in India many times to arrange for the transfer to her lawyer and her lawyer had not responded.

[266] That was a consent order. I see no reason to add to it. The property is in India and this court would have no jurisdiction to oversee the enforcement of the return of items of personal property.

[267] Ms. Heft provided no authority for this court to order the transfer of a business name and accordingly I decline to do so.

M. Ms. Singh’s claim against Shakuntala Singh

[268] As indicated above, Ms. Singh claims that her former mother-in-law has been unjustly enriched to the extent of “over $54,261” of Ms. Singh’s funds. The evidence on which counsel relies is found in exhibit 81 which includes a cheque dated July 3, 2012 drawn on account 1301 payable to Shakuntala Singh signed by Mr. Chandel in the amount of $100,000. Mr. Chandel admitted that he provided that cheque to his mother and he had explanations that were inconsistent and did not have the ring of truth.

[269] I am satisfied that the funds in account 1301 on July 3, 2012 belonged to Ms. Singh. The evidence is not contradicted: Shakuntala Singh received $100,000 to which she had no claim. She has been unjustly enriched. There is no juristic reason for the enrichment.

[270] In closing submissions, Ms. Heft pointed out that the amount transferred exceeded $54,261 but that was the amount in the statement of claim and was the basis for including Shakuntala Singh as a defendant in the civil case. Having not amended to include a claim for $100,000 Ms. Heft conceded that a higher amount could not be claimed.

[271] I agree that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $100,000 but she is limited to the amount claimed in the statement of claim.

[272] The question is whether the amount of the judgment should be subtracted from the damages for fraudulent misrepresentation. Shakuntala Singh did not participate in the trial and Mr. Chandel had no standing to take a position on the issue. Absent such input, I see no reason to give him credit for any amount that his mother may pay with respect to the judgment issued against her.

N. Abandoned claims

[273] As indicated in paragraph 33 above, in exhibit C, Ms. Singh abandoned her claim for damages in the amount of $1,403,283.41; for tortious damages in the amount of $1,403,283.41; for an accounting of all monies received from Sophdiam or Regan Pollard; and for an order requiring access to Mr. Chandel’s computer and an order that he be refrained from destroying said information.

[274] As indicated in paragraph 34 above, Mr. Chandel had also abandoned his claim for exclusive possession of the former matrimonial home.

O. Funds held in trust pursuant to the order of Czutrin J. dated November 27, 2012

[275] As indicated above, on November 27, 2012 Czutrin J. made an ex parte order as a result of which approximately $212,000 was preserved and was subsequently transferred into the trust account of Ms. Singh’s then lawyer Nikolay Chsherbinin and subsequently to the trust account of Roy Wise. Pursuant to my order dated December 24, 2015, $750 (on account of an outstanding costs order) and $60,000 was paid to Mr. Chandel. At the conclusion of the evidence in this case I made an order transferring the balance to Ms. Heft’s trust account. There is approximately $154,000 remaining.

[276] Mr. Toor raised a concern that at some point the funds in US dollars had been converted into Canadian dollars, resulting in a loss to Mr. Chandel. He also raised the possibility that while Mr. Wise was on the record, funds may have been transferred to his general account with respect to legal fees and that that transfer was likely not authorized. I left it with counsel to sort out those details which will impact the credit to which Mr. Chandel is entitled.

[277] All of the funds seized pursuant to the preservation order belonged to Ms. Singh. She is entitled to recover the balance. Indeed, having been held in trust for over 4 years, she is entitled to take possession as soon as possible and for that reason I have segregated the judgment on that issue and will authorize that order to be taken out forthwith. However, the balance held in the trust account should be credited against this judgment.

P. Prejudgment Interest

[278] Ms. Singh is entitled to interest on the amounts owing to her from the date she asserted her claim in either the family law proceeding or the civil proceeding.

Q. Costs

[279] Ms. Singh has been far more successful than has Mr. Chandel. On this record, she is presumed entitled to costs. The only factor which might affect that entitlement is whether Mr. Chandel made an offer to settle in a timely way that exceeds the judgment. Given the attitude Mr. Chandel demonstrated throughout the case and his evidence, I am confident that that did not occur. For that reason, in my view the presumption of entitlement to costs cannot be challenged.

[280] It will be difficult for Ms. Singh to prepare a bill of costs and for Mr. Chandel to challenge it given the extensive proceedings and the fact that each has had counsel other than their trial counsel. I encourage the parties to reach an agreement as to an aggregate amount, failing which they will be required to make written submissions.

[281] Shakuntala Singh did not participate in this trial. The evidence with respect to the claim against her was insignificant in the overall scheme of things. The conflict was between Mr. Chandel and Ms. Singh. I see no reason why Shakuntala Singh should be ordered to pay any costs.

ORDER TO GO AS FOLLOWS:

[282] The name of the case in both actions will be changed to refer to Rajeev Singh Chandel (aka Rajeev Kumar Singh).

[283] The following claims made on behalf of Mr. Chandel are dismissed: an equalization of net family property; an order pursuant to s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act; occupation rent; sale of the matrimonial home; spousal support; restraining order.

[284] The following claims made on behalf of Ms. Singh are dismissed: an order pursuant to s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act; damages for defamation including punitive damages; damages for breach of contract; non-harassment, restraining or refraining order.

[285] The following claims made on behalf of Ms. Singh are dismissed as abandoned: damages in the amount of $1,403,283.41; tortious damages in the amount of $1,403,283.41; an accounting of all monies received from Sophdiam or Regan Pollard; and order requiring access to Mr. Chandel’s computer and an order that he be refrained from destroying said information.

[286] The following claim made on behalf of Mr. Chandel is dismissed as abandoned: exclusive possession of former matrimonial home.

[287] Declaration that the date of separation/valuation date is January 1, 2009.

[288] Declaration that Alka Singh is the sole legal and beneficial owner of Suite 1707, 16 Yonge St., Toronto Ontario.

[289] Declaration that Mr. Chandel made false representations to Ms. Singh that caused her to suffer loss calculated as follows:

(a) loss $1,204,628

(b) less amount received by Ms. Singh $ 175,000

(d) less any amounts pursuant to para. 292

BALANCE OWING BY RAJEEV CHANDEL $ 875,628

[290] Judgment to issue that Rajeev Singh Chandel (aka Rajeev Kumar Singh) shall pay to Alka Singh the amount of $875,628 plus prejudgment interest at the rate in the Courts of Justice Act from the first of the month in which the claim was issued, namely April 1, 2013.

[291] Alka Singh is entitled to all of the funds seized pursuant to the order of Czutrin J. dated November 27, 2012 and specifically entitled to the balance of funds held in the trust account of Reesa Heft. Order to issue immediately in accordance with this paragraph. Approval as to form and content of this order on behalf of Mr. Chandel is dispensed with.

[292] The payment in paragraph 289 is on these conditions:

(a) Ms. Heft shall, to the extent possible, forthwith provide to Mr. Toor a trust ledger reflecting all transactions in the trust account of Nikolay Chsherbinin and Roy Wise and her trust account;

(b) by March 20, 2017 counsel may make submissions in writing on a schedule to which they agree if there are outstanding issues as to the currency conversion of the funds in trust and/or as to unauthorized payments from the trust funds.

[293] Declaration that Shakuntala Singh has been unjustly enriched to the extent of $54,261.

[294] Judgment to issue that Shakuntala Singh shall pay to Alka Singh the sum of $54,261 together with interest at the prejudgment rate pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act on November 27, 2012 when the preservation order was made.

[295] If by March 31, 2017 the parties are unable to reach agreement as to the amount of costs to be paid by Mr. Chandel to Ms. Singh, then the parties shall make written submissions not exceeding 5 pages plus costs outline on this timetable:

(a) by April 3, 2017 Ms. Singh

(b) by May 1, 2017 Mr. Chandel.

Kiteley J.

Released: February 14, 2017

[^1]: Mr. Chandel did not pursue the defamation action. [^2]: Singh v. Singh 2015 ONSC 6648 [^3]: Singh v. Singh 2015 ONSC 8060 [^4]: Singh v. Singh 2016 ONSC 3347 [^5]: In evidence, witnesses referred to names of corporations or businesses. In most cases, full names are not required and I have initialed. [^6]: At the outset of the trial his counsel took the position that the separation was in June or October 2012. Mr. Chandel did not give evidence about events in June 2012. [^7]: In this and other evidence, figures are rounded. [^8]: Jackson v. Arthur 2015 ONSC 1140 [^9]: 2014 SCC 8 and 2014 SCC 7 [^10]: Best v. Weatherall 2010 BCCA 202 para 34