Court File and Parties

CITATION: Ouslis v. Ouslis 2017 ONSC 3267

COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-38845-00

DATE: 20170526

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: CHRIS OUSLIS, Applicant

AND:

MARCIA LEBOU OUSLIS, Respondent

BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE VALLEE

COUNSEL: L. Liquornik, for the Applicant M. Ouslis, self-represented

HEARD: May 15, 2017

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The trial of this matter commenced in January and concluded in June, 2016. The Reasons for Decision were released on October 25, 2016. The Costs Endorsement was released on April 12, 2017.

[2] Ms. Ouslis brings two motions found at Tabs 8 and 10, Volume 14 of the Continuing Record. Both notices of motion are dated April 23, 2017. Both motions are brought pursuant to Rule 25(19).

[3] Ms. Ouslis requests that the court “void” the judgment. She makes a number of allegations in support of this request which can be broadly grouped into three categories:

a) Mr. Ouslis’ conduct prior to trial

[4] Ms. Ouslis states that prior to trial, Mr. Ouslis failed to satisfy his disclosure obligations and failed to answer undertakings. Accordingly, some of the findings at trial were based on false misrepresentations.

b) Errors and Omissions

[5] Ms. Ouslis states that the judgment contains a number of errors and omissions. Some of the amounts listed for bank accounts and investments on Mr. Ouslis’ net family property statement are wrong. He had certain assets on the date of separation that are not listed.

c) Life Insurance

[6] The current beneficiaries of Mr. Ouslis’ Manulife life insurance plan are Ms. Ouslis as to 50% and N.O., the eldest daughter as to 50%. Ms. Ouslis states that she should be the sole irrevocable beneficiary because the policy should insure Mr. Ouslis’ support obligations. Furthermore, he has two other policies. Ms. Ouslis states that she should share in the cash surrender value of them. Mr. Ouslis should provide an actuarial assessment of the amount of life insurance required to insure his support obligations. He should be ordered to purchase additional life insurance because the existing policy of $250,000 is inadequate.

Rule 25(19)

[7] The purpose of Rule 25(19) is to allow for an order to be changed if it contains a mistake, if it needs to be changed to deal a matter that was before the court but that it did not decide or if it was obtained by fraud. Rule 25(19) does not allow findings of fact or law to be revisited. Arguments regarding the correctness of the order can only be made on appeal. Rule 25(19) does not allow for errors in law to be corrected nor does it permit an order to be set aside. It does not provide an opportunity for a party to re-litigate the matter.

Disclosure

[8] Ms. Ouslis states that Mr. Ouslis did not comply with his disclosure obligations prior to trial and did not comply with certain related orders made at conferences. Prior to trial, Ms. Ouslis had a remedy. As I noted in para. 58 of my Reasons for Decision, the minutes of settlement dated November 19, 2014, reserved Ms. Ouslis’ right to bring a motion to strike the applicant’s pleadings if he failed to produce the required disclosure. She did not bring such a motion nor did she bring a motion against third parties for production.

Discrepancies in Bank Balances and Investment Accounts

[9] I addressed this issue in paras. 88 to 90 in my Reasons for Decision. Mr. Ouslis’ evidence at trial was that his bank accounts, investments, LIRA and his 50 percent share of certain corporate accounts totalled $600,962.17 on the date of separation. Ms. Ouslis challenged this amount on cross-examination and suggested that he had certain investments that he had not included. His response was that he had not listed all of them separately. Rather, he provided a total and attached supporting documents for each one to his net family property statement. Ms. Ouslis did not pursue this issue. If she had documents that showed otherwise, she ought to have put them to him. He should have had an opportunity to comment on them. The documents upon which she now relies do not appear to be newly discovered. Ms. Ouslis’ cross-examination of Mr. Ouslis focused primarily on certain corporate transactions that significantly preceded the date of separation.

Life Insurance

[10] At trial, Ms. Ouslis agreed that there were two life insurance policies. She also agreed on the value of them. She now alleges that Mr. Ouslis had two additional insurance policies at the date of separation which he did not disclose. She refers to a Royal and Sun Alliance policy and an Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada policy. Mr. Ouslis’ evidence at trial and on this motion is that the Royal policy was an investment vehicle which was rolled over into a LIRA. It was included on his net family property statement. He states that the Equitable Life policy is a disability policy. He did disclose that policy. It continues to exist.

[11] If Ms. Ouslis was concerned that the Manulife life insurance policy was inadequate to insure Mr. Ouslis’ support obligations, she should have provided evidence of this at trial to support her position. She did not obtain an actuarial opinion. A summate calculation on Divorcemate would show a lump sum for the support order. Ms. Ouslis did not provide me with any Divorcemate calculations.

[12] If Mr. Ouslis dies and the life insurance amount is insufficient, his support obligation remains a first charge on his estate.

Fraud

[13] The test for fraud is onerous. Based on the record before me, Ms. Ouslis has not satisfied me that Mr. Ouslis made any representations at trial which he knew to be false nor did he produce any documents which he knew were false or misleading.

Beneficiary of Life Insurance Policy

[14] With respect to the Manulife policy, at one point, all of the children were beneficiaries, despite the fact that three of them are minors. Ms. Ouslis states that she should be named the sole irrevocable beneficiary. According to Mr. Ouslis, after the Reasons for Decision were released, he designated Ms. Ouslis as a 50% beneficiary and the eldest daughter N.O. as a 50% beneficiary. His logic in doing so is that the two younger children reside primarily with Ms. Ouslis whereas the eldest son, S.O., resides with him. N.O. is an adult attending university. Ms. Ouslis is estranged from S.O.. She has very little contact with N.O.. In the event of his death, the Mr. Ouslis wants N.O. to receive 50% of the insurance proceeds to benefit herself and S.O..

[15] Given the living arrangements of this family and the strained relationship that Ms. Ouslis has with N.O. and S.O., I find that the Mr. Ouslis’ designation of beneficiaries on his life insurance policy to be appropriate.

[16] Several other issues were raised during submissions which I will address below.

Group Benefits

[17] With respect to Mr. Ouslis’ group benefits pursuant to his employment, his evidence on this motion is that after trial, he provided a group benefits card to Ms. Ouslis. His evidence is that she and the children are covered under this plan.

[18] Ms. Ouslis states that she has provided to Mr. Ouslis receipts for certain medical expenses for submission to the insurer; however, Mr. Ouslis has not reimbursed her for them. I am unable to determine credibility on this issue in the absence of better evidence.

RESP

[19] Ms. Ouslis has not yet reimbursed Mr. Ouslis in accordance with the judgment. Ms. Ouslis maintains that she has not yet been provided with proof of enrolment for N.O. which is required for funds to be released from the RESP. Mr. Ouslis states that he has provided her with statements showing the various expenses incurred with respect to N.O.’s education. I suggested that a statement is not the same as a proof of enrollment document. I directed Mr. Ouslis to obtain a proof of enrolment document and forward it to Ms. Ouslis to satisfy this issue. Once Ms. Ouslis has the proof of enrolment document, she shall take steps to ensure that the amount payable, as set out in the judgment, is paid to Mr. Ouslis from the RESP.

Funds in Trust

[20] According to a trust statement provided by Mr. Ouslis, Mr. Cirillo holds $915,391.81 in trust. He shall pay $178,480.45 to Ms. Ouslis and $736.911.37 to Mr. Ouslis. The calculations for these amounts are set out in Schedule ‘A’.

Divorce

[21] Ms. Ouslis states that Mr. Ouslis cannot proceed with a divorce because he is in arrears regarding support. Reasonable arrangements are in place for the support of Ms. Ouslis and the children. Upon filing a FRO statement that there are no arrears, Mr. Ouslis may proceed with a divorce on an uncontested basis.

Further Motions

[22] Ms. Ouslis stated in submissions that these two motions will be followed by many more on other issues. Ms. Ouslis is not permitted to bring any further motions without prior judicial approval.

Filing Documents

[23] This application was issued in Newmarket. Any further documents relating to this court file shall be filed in Newmarket. Ms. Ouslis is prohibited from sending any documents to the Barrie court office, the Barrie trial co-ordinator or my assistant unless specifically invited to do so.

Costs

[24] If the parties cannot agree on the costs of these motions, they may make submissions in writing. The text of the submissions shall be no longer than five pages with 1.5 spacing, regular margins and 12 point font. The applicant shall serve and file submissions within two weeks of the release date of this endorsement. The respondent may file responding submissions within a further week. The applicant may file reply submissions within a further week.

VALLEE J.

Date: May 26, 2017

SCHEDULE ‘A’

MR. OUSLIS OWES TO MS. OUSLIS

2014 7,464 child support

2015 5,458 child support 768 spousal support $ 13,690

2016 11,242 child support 11,522 spousal support 22,764

• 1,032 c/s owed by Ms. Ouslis $ 21,732

2017 – January to June inclusive 1,478 child support x 6 8,868 1,147 spousal support x 6 6,882 $ 15,750

13,690 21,732

• 15,750 A: $ 51,172

MS. OUSLIS OWES TO MR. OUSLIS

Equalization payment $ 123,839.73

Costs 206,547.73 B: $ 330,387.46 -A: $ 51,172.00 $ 279,215.46

Held in Trust $ 915,391.81 ÷ 2 $ 457,695.91

MS. OUSLIS	MR. OUSLIS
$ 457,695.91	$ 457,695.91

• 279,215.46 | + 279,215.46 $ 178,480.45 | $ 736,911.37