CITATION: Korn v. Korn, 2017 ONSC 4934
COURT FILE NO.: 08-FD-336159-0002
DATE: 20170818
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HELENE KORN
Applicant
– and –
JERRY KORN
Respondent
Leonardo Mongillo, for the Applicant
Ken Younie & Serena Lein, for the Respondent
Rosemary Gallo, for Lynx Equity Limited
HEARD: April 13 & 18, 2017 and May 8, 2017
M. D. FAIETA j.
reasons FOR DECISION
introduction
[1] Both parties ask this Court for an order requiring the other party to provide disclosure.
[2] For the reasons described below, I have granted the relief sought by each party.
BACKGROUND
[3] The parties were married in June 1980.
[4] They have three adult sons. One son, Charles, is married and works in New York for a hedge fund. Another son, Jordan, is a lawyer. Their youngest son, David, is about 23 years old and is completing his undergraduate studies.
[5] During their marriage, the Respondent, Jerry Korn (“JK”) owned and operated a beef and pork import and distribution business called Continental Agra International Foods Inc. (“Con Agra”).
[6] The parties separated in February, 2008.
[7] On June 25, 2009, following a two day special appointment before Justice Gertrude Spiegel, signed Minutes of Settlement the parties agreed they would sign a Separation Agreement and that JK would pay HK the sum of $4.1 million in instalments during the period July 2009 to October 2010 as “support payments”.
[8] The Applicant, Helene Korn (“HK”), subsequently refused to sign a Separation Agreement until the Minutes of Settlement were amended. Once again, the parties attended before Justice Spiegel and signed the Separation Agreement in her presence on February 25, 2010. In the interim, HK received $500,000.00 and, as a result, the Separation Agreement provides that she is to receive $3.6 million from JK as follows: 1) $ 1 million by July 18, 2009; 2) $1 million by January 18, 2010; 3) $1 million by July 18, 2010; 4) $600,000 by October 18, 2010. It also provides that interest at the rate of 5% per year shall be paid on all amounts outstanding.
[9] The parties’ divorce was granted by Justice Spiegel by Order dated April 30, 2010 (the “Divorce Order”). The terms of the Separation Agreement were incorporated into the Divorce Order.
[10] JK did not pay the July 2010 and October 2010 instalments to HK.
[11] On January 28, 2011 the parties entered an Amending Agreement which confirmed that JK owed HK the sum of $1,639,917.81 as of January 14, 2011 and whereby the parties agreed that JK’s obligation to make the final two instalment payments described above would be replaced with an obligation to: (1) pay HK the sum of $15,000.00 per month until April 2012; (2) list his house for sale and pay the net proceeds of sale to HK; (3) make best efforts to obtain financing to pay HK any unpaid balance by May 14, 2012 failing which the monthly instalment would increase to $40,000.00 until the amount owed to HK was paid in full. By Order dated May 13, 2011 by Justice Jarvis, the Divorce Order was amended to reflect the terms of the Amending Agreement (the “Final Order”).
[12] JK has paid HK about a further $730,000.00 as he paid the sum of $15,000.00 per month from February 2011 until April 2012 and $40,000.00 per month from May 2012 until June 2013.
[13] JK submits that he has suffered a “severe catastrophic change” in financial circumstances: (1) his annual income dropped from $5.4 million in 2010 to $1.7 million in 2011; (2) he financed the monthly payments described in the Final Order by receiving taxable dividend payments from Con Agra which both increased his tax liability and negatively impacted Con Agra; (3) In July 2013, the Royal Bank of Canada demanded that Con Agra repay a commercial loan of about $1.2 million and he was unable to find a lender to provide alternate financing; (4) to avoid a receivership, all of the shares of Con Agra was sold to Lynx Equity Limited on July 12, 2013.
[14] On March 31, 2014, JK states that he filed for personal bankruptcy as a result of having a significant debt load (about $2 million claimed by the Canada Revenue Agency, about $1.4 million owed to HK, $150,000.00 owed to RBC Royal Bank VISA and lesser amounts owed to others that totaled about $70,000.00) and a substantially diminished employment income (about $200,000.00 per year).
[15] JK also paid to HK the sum of $239,792.17, which represents the net proceeds of the sale of the house, in September 2013.
Motion to Change Spousal Support
[16] In October 2014, JK brought a motion to change the spousal support provisions of the Final Order as follows: 1) terminate and rescind all arrears of spousal support; 2) reimbursement for any support payments after June 1, 2013; 3) require HK to pay him spousal support from June 1, 2013.
[17] JK states that he has paid HK about $2.7 million of the $3.6 million that was owed to her. He also that his financial circumstances are much different from what they were when he entered the Amending Agreement in 2011 and no longer has the capacity to meet his support obligations in that: (1) he was forced to sell his company in 2013; (2) he filed for personal bankruptcy in 2014. JK submits that HK is not in not of support as she lives in an unencumbered mansion and unencumbered cottage. He also states that: (1) HK received $5 million from the sale of undisclosed family owned buildings after he signed the Amending Agreement; (2) Helen holds an undisclosed interest in a rental property in Mississauga with a value of more than $10 million.
[18] On November 24, 2015, Justice Matheson found that the amounts owed by JK were spousal support and could be the subject of a motion to change under section 17 of the Divorce Act.
[19] A Case Conference was held on June 22, 2016. On consent, the court ordered that JK undertake to deliver to HK or request from Lynx Equity: (1) all schedules to his employment contract with Lynx; (2) financial statements for the company for 2014, 2015 and 2016; (3) confirmation from Lynx of the EBITA for the company for 2014, 2015 and 2016; (4) expense reports and records submitted by JK as well as expense payment schedules if they exist or cheques issued to JK for the period from 2013 to the present; (5) a copy of the agreement reached with the CRA concerning payment and court order concerning the discharge condition and all evidence of payment; (6) detail of all expenses paid by Continental Agra International Foods Inc to JK’s benefit since 2013, if not already produced; (7) an accounting of money paid by JK and Continental Agra to each of his children, including expenses on behalf of children, money paid to all trusts or entities JK or his children have an interest from January 2013 to date; (8) a list with supporting documents of all Continental’s employees since 2013and value of all payments to each employee; (9) an accounting of all meat sales by JK other than by Continental Agra from January 2013 to date. Also, on consent, the court ordered that JK will make a request for any additional disclosure from HK within 10 days. The parties were to provide answers to the disclosure requests by July 15, 2016.
[20] A Trial Management Conference was held on October 17, 2016. Justice Corbett found that the parties were not ready for trial and ordered:
(1) Each side shall, in writing, demand production of any additional evidence they require by October 25, 2016;
(2) Each side shall respond to the other side’s request for disclosure, in writing, by November 25, 2016;
(3) The parties may conduct questioning, limited to three hours each, on a date to be agreed between counsel, no later than January 20, 2017;
(4) Any issues respecting disclosure or questioning shall be addressed at a 9 am appointment before Justice Corbett no later than February 10, 2017; and
(5) TMC (trial management conference) shall proceed before any judge February 27, 2017, 10 am, a date available for both parties and their counsel. It is anticipated that a trial date will be set at the TMC for a trial requiring 3-4 days. No costs today.
[21] The parties did not address any disclosure or questioning issues with the court prior to February 10, 2017 as directed by the court.
[22] A further Trial Management Conference was held on February 27, 2017. Justice Corbett issued the following endorsement:
The parties are still not ready for trial. Each side wishes to move on disclosure issues. For reasons that appear to relate to good faith scheduling difficulties, neither side sought to bring these matters before me pursuant to [paragraph] 4 of my endorsement of October 14, 2016.
Each side shall deliver their own motion materials by March 10, 2017. Each side shall deliver responding motion materials to the other side’s motion by March 24, 2017. The motions shall proceed on April 13, 2017 for an estimated 2 hours in total for both motions. Factums delivered by April 6, 2017.
The parties are anxious to have this matter tried and seek a trial date in the fall. I am prepared to give them their trial date now, with a substantive TMC to be held after the disclosure issues have been decided. The applicant intends to deliver an expert report after disclosure is completed, and so it is premature to fix a deadline now.
Trial shall proceed starting September 25, 2017 for an estimated six days. …
Substantive TMC shall be held on a date to be fixed by the motions judge at the return of the disclosure motions on April 13, 2017. Note that the motions judge will have the discretion to vacate the trial date if in his/her opinion the case will not be ready for trial by that time. No costs today.
[23] By Notice of Motion dated March 10, 2017, both parties brought a motion for, amongst other things, an Order requiring the other party to deliver documentary disclosure responses to all requests and undertakings related to, amongst other things, earlier Orders of this court and the their questioning on December 12, 2016.
[24] The hearing of the motions for disclosure commenced on April 13, 2017. Despite their agreement, the two hours allotted was far from enough for the parties. The hearing of the motion continued for a further 90 minutes at 4:30 pm on April 18, 2017 and again for a further 90 minutes on May 8, 2017.
ANALYSIS
General Principles related to Disclosure
[25] The primary objective of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, is to enable the court to deal with cases justly – by ensuring procedural fairness, by saving expense and time; by dealing with a case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity, and by giving appropriate court resources to the case: see Rules 2(2), 2(3). The court is required to apply the rules to promote this primary objective and the parties and their lawyers are required to help the court promote this objective: see Rule 2(4).
[26] The duty to disclose a party’s financial circumstances is automatic. It is governed by Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules. In this case, the most relevant aspects of Rule 13 are as follows:
(4.2) Subject to subrule (1.3), the following rules respecting financial statements apply if a motion is made under rule 15 requesting a change to a final support order or a support agreement:
The party making the motion shall serve and file a financial statement (Form 13 or 13.1) with the motion to change (Form 15).
The party responding to the motion shall serve and file a financial statement within the time for serving and filing the response to motion to change (Form 15B) or returning the consent motion to change (Form 15C) to the party making the motion, as set out in subrule 15 (10). Any response to motion to change (Form 15B) shall be served and filed at the same time as the financial statement.
Parties who bring the motion by filing a consent motion to change (Form 15C) shall each file a financial statement with the form, unless they indicate in the form that they agree not to do so.
Parties who bring the motion by filing a consent motion to change child support (Form 15D) do not need to serve or file financial statements. …
(5.0.1) A party who is required under subrules (4) to (4.3) to serve and file a financial statement shall serve with the financial statement the following information, unless the court orders otherwise:
The documents referred to in subrule (3.1).
A current statement of arrears from the Family Responsibility Office.
One of the following for each year for which the party is seeking to change or cancel arrears, as proof of the party’s income:
i. The party’s income tax return and,
A. the party’s notice of assessment and, if any, notice of reassessment, or
B. if a notice of assessment and a notice of reassessment are unavailable for the year, a copy of the Income and Deductions printout provided by the Canada Revenue Agency for the party.
ii. If the party is not required to and has chosen not to file an income tax return because of the Indian Act (Canada), some other proof of income.
(11) If a party believes that the financial disclosure provided by another party under this rule, whether in a financial statement or otherwise, does not provide enough information for a full understanding of the other party’s financial circumstances,
(a) the party shall ask the other party to give the necessary additional information; and
(b) if the other party does not give it within seven days, the court may, on motion, order the other party to give the information or to serve and file a new financial statement. …
(12) Before any case conference, motion, settlement conference or trial, each party shall update the information in any financial statement that is more than 30 days old by serving and filing,
(a) a new financial statement; or
(b) an affidavit saying that the information in the last statement has not changed and is still true. …
(13) A party may be questioned under rule 20 on a financial statement provided under this rule, but only after a request for information has been made under clause (11) (a). [Emphasis added.]
[27] In Manchanda v. Thethi [2016] O.J. No. 6290, 2016 ONCA 909, at para. 13, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that:
… the most basic obligation in family law proceedings is the duty to disclose financial information. The requirement is immediate and ongoing: Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6, at para. 11.) In 2015, Family Law Rule 13 was amended to emphasize a party's financial disclosure obligations. A party's non-compliance must be considered in the context of this strict financial disclosure obligation. Rule 1(8) provides the court with the authority to strike claims. Those who choose not to disclose financial information or to ignore court orders will be at risk of losing their standing in the proceedings as their claims or answers to claims may be struck.
[28] Rule 19 imposes a duty on a party to disclose relevant documents on the following terms:
- (1) Subject to subrule (1.1), every party shall, within 10 days after another party’s request, give the other party an affidavit listing every document that is,
(a) relevant to any issue in the case; and
(b) in the party’s control, or available to the party on request.
(1.1) Subrule (1) does not apply,
(a) to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or to children’s aid societies; and
(b) in respect of documents required to be served under rule 13 (financial disclosure). …
(10) If a party does not follow this rule or obey an order made under this rule, the court may, in addition to any power to make an order under subrule 1 (8) or (8.1),
(a) order the party to give another party an affidavit, let the other party examine a document or supply the other party with a copy free of charge;
(b) order that a document favourable to the party’s case may not be used except with the court’s permission; or
(c) order that the party is not entitled to obtain disclosure under these rules until the party follows the rule or obeys the order.
(11) If a document is in a non-party’s control, or is available only to the non-party, and is not protected by a legal privilege, and it would be unfair to a party to go on with the case without the document, the court may, on motion with notice served on every party and served on the non-party by special service,
(a) order the non-party to let the party examine the document and to supply the party with a copy at the legal aid rate; and
(b) order that a copy be prepared and used for all purposes of the case instead of the original. [Emphasis added.]
[29] Similarly, under Rule 20(5), a court may make an order for questioning or disclosure if the following conditions are met:
(a) It would be unfair to the party who wants the questioning or disclosure to carry on the case without it;
(b) The information is not easily available by any other method; and
(c) The questioning or disclosure will not cause unacceptable delay or undue expense.
[30] Under Rule 20(16), an order for questioning may also require the person to bring any document or thing that is relevant to any issue in the case and in the person’s control or available to the person on request.
[31] The test under Rule 19(1) and Rule 20(16) is narrower than the “semblance of relevance” test traditionally applied given that the Rules require disclosure when the question or request for production is "relevant to any issue in the case" rather than the former, broader test of whether the question is one “relating to any matter in issue”: Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. [2011] O.J. No. 1896, 2011 ONSC 2504, para. 129; Eva v. Eva [2010] O.J. No. 2316, 2010 ONSC 2088, at para. 4. The focus on “relevance” as opposed to the “semblance of relevance” is also consistent with the primary objective of the Family Law Rules described in Rules 2(2) and 2(3), particularly on promoting the saving of expense and time.
[32] Relevance depends on the facts in issue. For evidence to be relevant it must tend to “increase or diminish the probability of the existence of a fact in issue”. There is “…no minimum probative value required for evidence to be relevant.” R. v. Arp 1998 CanLII 769 (SCC), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339, [1998] S.C.J. No. 82, at para. 38.
[33] Proportionality must be considered in assessing the appropriateness of a request for disclosure. In Boyd v. Fields [2006] O.J. No. 5762, at para. 12, Justice Perell stated:
Full and frank disclosure is a fundamental tenet of the Family Law Rules. However, there is also an element of proportionality, common sense, and fairness built into these rules. A party's understandable aspiration for the outmost disclosure is not the standard. Fairness and some degree of genuine relevance, which is the ability of the evidence to contribute to the fact finding process are factors. I also observe that just as non-disclosure can be harmful to a fair trial, so can excessive disclosure be harmful because it can confuse, mislead or distract the trier of fact's attention from the main issues and unduly occupy the trier of fact's time and ultimately impair a fair trial. [Emphasis added.]
[34] Referencing this approach, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Kovachis v. Kovachis 2013 ONCA 663, [2013] O.J. No. 4954, at para. 34, stated:
Although full and frank disclosure is a necessary component of family law litigation, exhaustive disclosure may not always be appropriate. Courts and parties should consider the burden that disclosure requests bring on the disclosing party, the relevance of the requested disclosure to the issues at hand, and the costs and time to obtain the disclosure compared to its importance: … . Disclosure orders must be fair to both parties and appropriate to the case. [Emphasis added.]
[35] If a person being questioned refuses to answer a question, the court may, on motion, decide whether the question is proper and give directions for the person’s return to the questioning: see Rule 20(19).
[36] If a person fails to follow the above rules, then the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including an order for costs or, in exceptional cases when no other remedy would suffice, an order to dismiss a claim: see Rule 1(9); Van v. Palombi 2017 ONSC 2492, [2017] O.J. No. 2288, para. 30 (Ontario Divisional Court).
[37] Accordingly, a person may refuse to answer a question or to produce a document if: (1) the question or requested document is not relevant to any matter in issue in the proceeding; or (2) the question or the demand for disclosure is not proper.
Test for Variation of a Spousal Support Order
[38] A court may make an order varying, rescinding, or suspending, prospectively or retrospectively, a support order if it is satisfied that a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse has occurred since the making of the spousal support order or the last variation order made in respect of that order: Divorce Act, ss. 17(1), (4). This means that such change, if known at the time of the making of the order for spousal support, would have likely resulted in different terms: Willick v. Willick 1994 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1994] S.C.J. No. 94, at para. 21.
[39] The objectives of an order varying a spousal support order should: (a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the former spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; (b) apportion between the former spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage; (c) relieve any economic hardship of the former spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and (d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each former spouses within a reasonable period of time: Divorce Act, s. 17(7).
JK’s Undertakings and Refusals
[40] HK’s Notice of Motion appends the affidavit of Natasha Neiva, a law clerk, which outlines her view of the outstanding disclosure in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “H” which outlines undertakings and refusals given at JK’s questioning. Many items included in Exhibit “A” are repeated in Exhibit “H”.
[41] My assessment of the relevance and propriety of the requests for information made by HK found in Exhibit “A” is set out below:
Item
Date of Request
Document or Information Requested
Response
Finding
1
Jan. 25, 2016 letter
Copies of the company’s financial statements from 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 to establish the company’s EBITDA [and] Mr. Korn’s bonus entitlement, together with all accompanying correspondence.
Lynx agrees to provide the company’s financial statements for 2014-2016 and calculation of EBITDA for those years on a confidential basis only to be used for this proceeding.
The response is sufficient.
2
Jan. 25/16 letter
All documents, correspondence and other information relating to Mr. Korn’s bonus entitlements in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 any further bonuses or other amounts that were accrued or paid to others for Mr. Korn’s benefit.
Same response as Item 1.
The response is sufficient.
3
Jan. 25/16 letter
Copies of all bank accounts, investments and credit card statements that Mr. Korn had or has a direct or indirect interest in, or signing authority over, from January 1, 2013 to the present.
JK’s Equifax Credit Report produced confirming accounts in collections or included in bankruptcy and closed by credit grantor
To be produced.
4
Jan. 25/16 letter
Con Agra’s January 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessments.
Not in JK’s power and control.
Lynx served with Applicant’s motion.
The response is sufficient.
5
Jan. 25/16 letter
Con Agra’s General Ledger for the year endings January 31, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.
Not in JK’s power and control.
Lynx served with Applicant’s motion.
The response is sufficient.
6
Jan. 25/16 letter
A list, with supporting documents, of all Con Agra’s employees since 2010 and the value of all payments to each employee.
Letter from Lynx: “To protect the privacy of [Con Agra]’s employees, we are not prepared to provide the names or value of payments made to each employee or any documentation to that effect”
The response is sufficient.
7
Jan. 25/16 letter
All adjusting entries which cause Con Agra general ledger to agree with it financial statements for all years January 31, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017.
Not in JK’s power and control.
The response is sufficient.
8
Jan. 25/16 letter
All minutes, agreements, and documents relating to the dividends paid or payable by Con Agra to JK and Lynx Equity Limited in the period between January 31, 2010 and today, including a detailed explanation with all supporting documents, concerning which the dividend was paid to, how it was paid and when it was paid.
Part of undertakings/answers. See #37 below.
To be produced in respect of payments to JK.
9
Jan. 25/16 letter
All supporting documents, available to JK, on request or otherwise, to the extent that they are relating to Debbie Davos “purchase”, including proof of payment, of the condominium in London, Ontario formerly owned by Con Agra and all documents and explanations relating to the condominiums legal and equitable ownership.
Answered in case conference brief dated June 22, 2016 – page 17, paragraphs 79 to 83 and Tab X. Company ledger from February 2010 showing the $250,000 payment being made to Debbie Davos on Feb. 15/10 and the $250,000 payment being returned to the company on Feb.25/10.
The response is sufficient.
10
Jan. 25/16 letter
All documents provided to or created by the Royal Bank of Canada on account of the financing of Con Agra from January 31, 2011 to date.
Not in JK’s power and control.
The response is sufficient.
11
Jan. 25/16 letter
A complete accounting of JK’s possession or disposition of his wine collection, art, watches and all other chattels including any replacement chattels, together with all related documents related to the disposition and all resulting proceeds.
Answered in case conference brief dated February 18, 2015, page 16 and Tab U. JK does not have any documentary disclosure of any sales as there were none. He did not have many of the items that JK lists in her Affidavit following the parties’ separation. A Bill of Sale referred to by JK in her Affidavit sworn December 12, 2014 showing that the sale of this boat occurred years ago immediately following the parties’ separation.
The response is sufficient.
12
Justice Chiappetta Order Item 7, June 22/16
Accounting of money paid by JK to the children or any trust or entity for JK and the children.
Lynx letters and schedules produced showing expenses paid on childrens’ behalf.
The response is sufficient.
13
Aug.11/16 letter
An accounting of all meat sales by JK other than through Con Agra from January 2013 to date.
None. There is nothing to provide. No basis for this request.
The response is sufficient.
14
A copy of the schedules attached to the Lynx purchase of shares from Con Agra.
Schedules produced on October 14, 2016.
Letter from JK’s lawyer dated November 25, 2016: “You are referring to purported schedules attached to a draft Agreement that was never signed. The draft agreement was inadvertently sent. Schedules (if they even exist) to an unsigned, draft Agreement are not relevant.”
Apparently these schedules were not in the material sent on October 14, 2016 to HK.
To be produced.
15
October 25/16 letter
All documents which support all funds paid by Lynx to Con Agra and JK (other than salary) including cancelled cheques.
Letter from Lynx dated July 14, 2016 stating: 4. JK does not provide expense reports so there are no records to submit; 5. Expenses paid by Con Agra to JK’s benefit are his life insurance, the lease of his car, and his car insurance.”
The response is sufficient.
16
October 25/16 letter
All agreements signed by JK, the JK Korn Childrens’ Trust and Lynx which has not been provided.
Letter from S. Mitchell: “We have no records for the Jerry Korn Family Trust since 2010”.
The response is sufficient.
17
October 25/16 letter
A copy of the Securities Pledge Agreement made July 15, 2013 between Lynx Equity Limited, JK Korn and the JK Korn Childrens’ Trust (this trust agreement must be different than the Share Purchase Agreement you client provided in his disclosure) and says was dated July 12, 2013.
Securities Pledge Agreement dated July 15, 2013 was produced by email.
The response is sufficient.
18
October 25/16 letter
All agreements entered into either by JK, Con Agra or Lynx concerning Con Agra’s payment to JK’s insurance, vehicle lease, vehicle insurance, David Korn’s vehicle lease and vehicle insurance. This request extends to other perquisites or expenses paid by the company for JK.
Letter from Lynx dated July 14, 2016 confirming: “For the benefit of JK’s children, Con Agra currently pays for an Audi lease and insurance, and previously paid for a Mercedes lease and insurance” There are no written agreements. Please see my client’s Employment Contract.
Letter from Lynx dated March 9, 2017 states that there are no formal agreements with JK concerning Con Agra’s payments, JK’s insurance, vehicle lease or those relating to David Korn.
The response is sufficient.
19
October 25/16 letter
A breakdown of all other payments for tax withholding purposes for each employee of Con Agra, or failing that, any contractual obligations of any individual who is performing duties for Con Agra that tie back to the financial statements of the company.
Not in JK’s power and control. JK is not privy to this information. JK is not a shareholder of the company. He is an employee.
Letter from Lynx dated July 14, 2016: “To protect the privacy of [Con Agra]’s employees, we are not prepared to provide the names or value of payments made to each employee or any documentation to that effect”.
The response is sufficient.
20
October 25/16 letter
All evidence of source deduction payment for tax withholding purposes for each employee of Con Agra, or failing that, any contractual obligations of any individual who is performing duties for Con Agra that tie back to the financial statements of the company.
Not in JK’s power and control.
The response is sufficient.
21
October 25/16 letter
Details and accounting of all funds transferred between Lynx and Con Agra for the years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.
JK does not have this information. Please direct your request to Lynx.
The response is sufficient.
22
October 25/16 letter
Details and accounting of funds transferred between Lynx and any party related to Con Agra or JK or any person employed by or contracted to Con Agra.
Please direct your request to Lynx.
The response is sufficient.
23
October 25/16 letter
The nature and details of the employment agreement between Con Agra and David Korn.
No employment contract.
The response is sufficient.
24
October 25/16 letter
Documentary evidence to support the date when JK’s employment contract with Con Agra was signed
It was not signed.
Complete.
25
October 25/16 letter
All resolutions of the Trustees of the JK Korn Childrens’ Trust from January 2010 to date.
See email from Stacey Mitchell dated November 21, 2016: No records for the Jerry Korn Family Trust since 2010, there have been no financial statements or tax returns prepared since 2010.
Resolution of the Sole Direction and the Shareholders of Con Agra dated July 19, 2013 and the Resolution of the Trustees of the Jerry Korn Children’s Trust dated July 19, 2013 have been delivered.
Complete.
26
October 25/16 letter
The JK Korn Family Trust’s records, financial statements, income tax returns and Notices of Assessment for 2010 to date, together with a detailed description of the trust’s activities, if any, in this period.
This does not exist. See email from Stacey Mitchell dated November 21, 2016: no records for the Jerry Korn Family Trust since 2010. There have been no financial statements or tax returns prepared since 2010.
Complete.
27
October 25/16 letter
The letter from Lynx dated June 14, 2016 at tab 12 of JK’s disclosure brief dated June 17, 2016 states that Jerry did not qualify for a bonus for the fiscal year ends 2013, 2014 and 2015. We require an updated confirmation for the fiscal 2016 year end of January 31, 2016 which has passed.
Letter from Lynx dated March 9, 2017 states that JK did not qualify for a bonus as of January 31, 2016.
Complete.
28
October 25/16 letter
Details of the calculations of EBITDA set out in the Lynx letter dated July 14, 2016 including the calculation for 2013 and 2016.
Request referred to Lynx. Letter from Lynx dated March 13, 2017 states: Please see item 6 above – Con Agra is a privately owned corporation and does not wish to share its financial information.
Complete.
29
October 25/16 letter
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To provide JK’s affidavit of Document by February 1, 2017.
Affidavit of Documents sworn March 15, 2017.
Complete.
30
Ordered by Justice Chiappetta June 22, 2016
October 25/16 letter
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To comply with J. Chiappetta’s Order and produce all schedules attached to JK’s employment contract and Share Purchase Agreement between Con Agra and Lynx; to ask Lynx for a copy of all the schedules.
On October 14, 2016 produced: (1) Letter from Lynx dated July 8, 2013 re Acquisition of Con Agra with Schedule A terms and conditions; (2) Promissory Note in the amount of $32,055.97 dated July 24, 2013; (3) Form Security Agreement; (4) Employment Agreement; (5) Promissory Note in the amount of $400,838.52 dated July 12, 2013; (6) Guarantee dated July 19, 2013; (7) Securities Pledge Agreement dated July 15, 2013; (8) Resolution of the Sole Director and the Shareholders of Con Agra dated July 19, 2013; (9) Security Agreement dated July 24, 2013; (10) Share Purchase Agreement No. 2, July 13, 2013; (11) Share Purchase Agreement Draft, July 17, 2013.
Letter, November 26, 2016, from JK’s lawyer: “You are referring to purported schedules attached to a draft agreement that was never signed. The draft agreement was inadvertently sent. Schedules (even if they exist) to an unsigned, draft agreement are not relevant”.
Letter, February 21, 2017, from JK’s lawyer: “JK has asked Lynx for this information and is awaiting a response”.
Complete.
31
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To advise and provide proof of whether or not Lynx paid the $1.2 million debt to RBC re: loan.
Answered on February 21, 2017: Lynx has advised JK that they will not release this information.
The response is sufficient.
32
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To ask Lynx for copies of letters exchanged between Lynx, Aird & Berlis and the bank re: the RBC $1.2 million debt.
Letter from Sanjeev Mitra at Aird & Berlis LLP dated July 12, 2013 with Notice of Intention to Enforce Security was delivered February 21, 2017.
Complete.
33
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To advise of the date that JK alleges the shares (Con Agra) were sold to Lynx
Answered February 21, 2017. The Share Purchase Agreement is dated both July 12, 2013 and July 18, 2013. The shares were sold for $1.00. Lynx assumed Con Agra’s debt to RBC. Provided: Share Purchase Agreement.
JK to advise of date that the shares were sold.
34
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To check records and ask accountant in order to provide bank records, credit card statements for Con Agra from January 31, 2013 to the date that JK says he no longer had control of the company.
Answered. JK has requested the banking and credit card records from his accountant. Provided: trial balance and general ledgers for Con Agra year end July 31, 2013.
To be provided.
35
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To produce all promissory notes where JK signed on behalf of Con Agra.
Provided:
Promissory Note dated July 14, 2013: $32,055.97;
Security Agreement dated July, 2013;
Promissory Note $159,026.12 dated July 31, 2013;
Email showing breakdown for payments made by Lynx in July 2013;
several invoices;
Email dated July 22, 2013 confirming wire payment of $31,034.32.
Apparently $4 million in financing provided by Lynx. Promissory note in relation to this transaction to be provided as well as confirmation that no further promissory notes signed by JK on behalf of Con Agra.
36
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To check records and advise how much JK paid HK in 2010.
On or about February 21, 2017 counsel for JK advised that JK requested this information from his accountant
To be produced.
37
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To check records to determine what the 2010 dividends were paid for.
On or about February 21, 2017 counsel for JK advised that JK requested this information from his accountant
To be produced.
38
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To ask the accountant and advise how the 2010 dividends were calculated.
JK’s accountant advises that they were based on funds withdrawn by the shareholder
Answered.
39
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To ask the accountant to provide all schedules or ledgers that indicate how the $5,000,000 dividend in 2010 was calculated.
JK’s accountant advises that they were based on funds withdrawn by the shareholder.
Answered.
40
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To check records and ask accountant in order to advise how much JK says he has paid to HK, if there was a dividend claimed in each of those years, how the dividend was calculated and how it was used (2011, 2012 and 2013).
JK’s accountant advises that he does not have this information.
Answered.
41
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To check records and provide a detailed accounting of JK’s debt to CRA and the payments made toward it, other than source deductions from 2010 to the discharge order and what funds were used to make the payment.
JK’s accountant advises that he does not have this information.
Answered.
42
Undertaken December 12, 2016
Further to undertaking numbers 14-17 (relating to the calculation of dividends), to correspond the calculation of the dividends to the corporate financial statement and correlate the dividends on JK’s income tax returns with the financial statements for those years (2010-2013).
JK’s accountant advises that the dividends on the financial statements are on JK’s income tax returns based on calendar years.
Answered.
43
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To produce JK’s 2015 Income Tax Return and Notice of Assessment upon receipt.
2015 Income tax return dated February 9, 2017 and 2015 T4 delivered. Notice of Assessment not received as of February 2017.
Answered.
44
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To check with accountant and advise if the year-end 2013 was better than 2012 for Con Agra
Con Agra financial statement as at January 31, 2013 showing 2012 and 2013
Answered.
45
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To ask the bank for a letter that shows the card (#8148…) is no longer able to access accounts at RBC.
Letter from Alan Page dated February 14, 2017.
Letters from RBC dated March 28, 2016 and February 17, 2017 confirming that JK has no personal bank accounts at RBC.
See item 3 above.
46
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To ask the bank whether the bank account, credit cards (see list below) is active and if not, provide a letter proving so
RBC Wealth Management Private Banking Card
Visa Avion – ending 5229
Black Amex – ending 2006
Amex – ending 1009
RBC Platinum Avion Visa - ending 3692
Bank Card Client ID – ending 0297 – for Con Agra
Letter from Alan Page, dated February 14, 2017, delivered.
RBC cannot produce account statements. Amex 1009 expired 04/14 and does not exist. Amex 2006 expired 02/17 – is in collections and not accessible. It was included in bankruptcy.
See item 3 above.
47
Undertaken December 12, 2016
To ask the bank to provide the statements for each of the cards (see list above) from January 2013 to present; and provide their response to the requests.
See letter from Alan Page dated February 14, 2017.
See item 3 above.
48
Under advisement December 12, 2016
To review motion record and advise whether Mr. Mongillo responded to Ms. Roy’s issues with the separation agreement.
Under advisement
No answer required.
49
Under advisement December 12, 2016
To advise how many square feet [are in] the basement of JK’s rental home.
The square footage of JK’s home is not relevant. The business continues to run out of my home office as it did previously. The living room and basement of my home are offices for the employees of Con Agra. There are desks and cubicles. I use my dining room as a boardroom to host meetings.
To be answered.
50
Under advisement December 12, 2016
To provide photocopy of the six bank/credit cards (see list above).
Letter from Alan Page dated February 14, 2017.
To be provided.
51
February 1, 2017
All documentary disclosure concerning the costs of the flight and the Fontainebleau Hotel, Miami Beach, how the vacation was booked, booking confirmation and the credit card to secure the booking.
Provided. See paragraph 48 of JK’s affidavit sworn March 24, 2017 and exhibit “FF”.
Answered.
52
March 10, 2017
An Equifax report.
Delivered on March 15, 2017.
Answered.
53
March 10, 2017
A direction to each of the major banking institutions to permit HK to confirm the bank account status and obtain statements for all the bank and credit card accounts which JK has signing authority over, including those owned by the corporate entities.
No accounts exist.
Answered.
54
March 10, 2017
Copies of all requests for disclosure that JK or his counsel delivered to third parties, including the bank, trustees in bankruptcy, Lynx Equity and accountants to seek responses to the disclosure requested of and undertakings given by JK.
Email from JK’s lawyer to Stacey Mitchell, accountant, dated November 21, 2016. Email from JK to Joanna Lipfield dated March 8, 2017; Joanna Lipfield’s letter dated March 9, 2017.
To be provided.
HK’s Undertakings and Refusals
[42] JK seeks an order compelling HK to provide answers outstanding undertakings described below given at her questioning and to re-attend to answer questions arising from the answers given.
Item
Page & Question Number
Undertaking
Answer
Finding
1
9-53
To check records regarding the amount of income received from Charleston during the marriage.
HK checked records and does not have documents to support the amount of income received from Charleston Realty during the marriage. HK understands that the income received from her inherited companies was received by Con Agra during the marriage. These values are found in Con Agra’s corporate financial statements. HK’s income also included an amount over and above what Con Agra paid her which was a result of income from Charleston.
Parties agree that HK is to make best efforts to obtain from Charleston any payments made to Con Agra beneficially for HK for the final five years of their marriage.
2
96-572
To provide another estimate of the value of the Mastercraft boat.
Not in Notice of Motion. Estimate provided $35,000.
Request is not proper. No need to provide a second estimate. JK can obtain his own estimate if he wishes.
3
98-580
To produce the 2016 tax assessment for her house (Forest Hill house) once received.
HK has not received it. HK will provide the next tax assessment when it becomes available.
HK to provide MPAC assessment.
[43] JK seeks an order compelling HK to provide answers to the questions, described below, that she refused to answer at her questioning.
Item
Page & Question Number
Undertaking
Reason for Refusal
Finding
4
6-28
To check records and undertake to let us know the income for the jobs Ms. Korn has applied for post-separation.
HK does not have this information. She did not retain documents. Since 2008, HK has had two job interviews: 1) Hospital for Sick Children; 2) Heart and Stroke Foundation. No documents for these interviews. HK has not ability to work nor training. She continues to live off her capital and the compensatory support that she receives from JK. Currently cannot work due to caring for her mother.
HK advises she has no recollection regarding the income for these positions.
This question was sufficiently answered.
5
43-268
To provide proof of $180,000 used to buy the condo (a copy of the draft).
Con Agra RBC transaction documents after the purchase date of condo will show the transfer of funds from HK to Con Agra. Stacy Mitchell, accountant, suggested so that family could write off expenses if purchased by the corporation. This request is irrelevant to the motion to change.
No documents exist but the records of Con Agra which are in JK’s possession.
Answer is sufficient.
6
71-425
To provide her passport pages since January 1, 2013.
Irrelevant. HK travels frequently to Florida and New York. This is not a case of need.
To be produced.
7
87-524
To provide receipts confirming she pays $1,200 per month for clothing for the children.
Refused – it is a make work project. HK does not have receipts as this amount is an estimate and receipts were not kept. However she makes various purchases for the children.
Provide an explanation of how she arrived at the figure of $1,200 per month.
8
88-525
To provide proof of the gift that she makes to the children of $3,200 per month.
Refused. HK does not have receipts as this amount is an estimate and receipts were not kept. However, she makes various purchases for the children.
Provide an explanation of how she arrived at the figure of $3,200 per month.
9
123-718
To provide a copy of Bella Robinson’s (HK’s mother’s) will.
Refused. Irrelevant. Not in HK’s possession or control.
Agreed. Answer is sufficient.
10
132-776
To provide the complete file of the real estate lawyer for the sale of 1257 Lakeshore.
Refused. Produced statement of adjustments and reporting letter without enclosures. HK has provided those documents which she has control over. We have requested a copy of the reporting letter and trust ledger on March 24, 2017 which has been provided. This request remains irrelevant as HK has shown that the sale occurred after settlement and has provided all documents supporting the sale.
To be provided.
11
153-896
To provide a copy of HK’s will.
Refused. Irrelevant. We have provided sworn statement that shows HK’s assets, her bank account records, property details, etc.
Answer is sufficient.
[44] Finally, JK seeks an order compelling HK to provide answers to questions asked by letter.
Item
Date of Request
Document or Information Requested
Response
Finding
12
July 4, 2016; October 25, 2016
Complete copies of HK’s bank statements from 2011 to present to the extent not already delivered.
Irrelevant as there is no claim of need. It is a costly, fishing expedition. This case relates to a lump sum settlement which has not been paid.
If available, then HK shall produce the documents.
13
July 4, 2016
Corporate structure of any company in which HK has/held an interest from 2008 forward, including but not limited to any and all corporate minute books, documentary proof of her interest(s), locations of the companies.
All documents provided in the original litigation. No change has occurred except for the sale of the building owned by Charleston Realty Inv. Inc. – HK does not own any other shares or interests in any other companies. She was a trustee of the JK Korn Children’s Trust, however she was removed. Documents have already been provided relating to her shares in these corporations. These documents were concerning her interests in the company were provided during the litigation. JK’s expert also provided an estimated value. Further documentation is not relevant.
The documents are relevant. JK shall provide particulars of the corporate structure of any company in which she owns or has owned shares or has or has held an interest since 2008 and shall provide proof of her interest, location of the company(s), and all corporate minute books, except to the extent that she has already delivered such documents to JK.
14
July 4, 2016
2016 Income Tax Return and Notice of Assessment
Outstanding.
Documentary proof of all sources of HK’s income in 2015 and 2016. Breakdown of HK’s income in 2013 and 2014 including documentary proof.
Particulars regarding HK’s employment income from Charleston Realty and explanation as why HK no longer receives this income.
HK has not received a completed income tax return. It will be provided once it is completed. On April 17, 2017 HK provided her 2016 T-4 slips.
To be produced.
15
July 4, 2016
Documentary proof confirming HK’s position with Charleston Realty and any and all numbered companies and interests or trusts created to date and ongoing to settlement or trial.
See response above in #13.
The documents are relevant. HK shall provide requested except to the extent that she has already delivered such documents to JK.
16
July 4, 2016
Item 1: Details with documentary proof of the numbered companies listed in HK’s tax returns under “statement of investment income” and documentary proof that they were inherited or gifted.
Item 2: Documentary proof confirming Ms. Korn’s position with Charleston Realty, and any and all numbered companies, and interests or trusts created to date and ongoing to settlement or trial.
117554 Ontario Ltd. is Charleston Realty which HK inherited shares in from her late father. 360571 Ontario Limited which HK inherited shares from her late father. These documents were already provided. HK presented affidavits from her mother and sibling. Her siblings were questioned in the initial proceedings. The fact of the gift was never proven as the parties settled. Ms. Bella Robinson affirmed an affidavit dated November 27, 2008. The fact of the inheritance and lack of perfect documents was acknowledged in the Minutes of Settlement and Separation Agreement signed.
Documentary proof that HK’s shares were inherited from her father has not been produced.
Item 1: Documentary proof that HK’s shares in 117 and 360 were inherited from her father shall be delivered to JK.
Item 2: To be produced.
17
July 4, 2016
Documentation supporting the values and expenses listed in HK’s financial statements sworn in this proceeding including the most recent February 22, 2017.
Bank statements above and some receipts provided but supporting documentation to February 22, 2017 financial statement not provided.
Documentary proof of the values listed in HK’s financial statement not provided.
Documentary proof, beyond bank statements, that supports the values listed in HK’s financial statement shall be provided.
18
July 4, 2016
Tracing with documentary proof of the sale proceeds received by HK and her partners on the sale of any buildings and the Lakeshore building. In particular, a tracing of the portion of the sale proceeds that HK did not receive and any and all taxes paid to date with respect to any of her properties.
JK is aware of the sale of the building. He provided a report of the sale. He is aware of the value of the buildings and HK’s ownership interests. The real property and buildings were valued and your client had Mr. Hobcraft value the properties. The valuation of the business interests were prepared by Mr. Newton and Mr. Debresser also provided valuation schedules. HK claimed the revenue she received in her income tax returns. The valuation and engineer reports and other documents were delivered to your client. The remaining requested documents are irrelevant. The value of HK’s interest paid to date is set out in her tax returns. The building sold for $16,250,000.00 in March 2010. An email confirming the sale and distribution of proceeds is attached.
Requested is relevant, however information regard the sale proceeds received by HK has been produced.
19
July 4, 2016
Documentary proof of the $800,000 in shares in the company which owns 2353 Hurontario as listed in HK’s financial statement.
The financial statement stated that Charleston – 2353 Hurontario – based on 1/3 of book value minus 30% tax – value ascribed was $400,000. This is an estimate which considers the valuation calculations provided in the initial litigation. The shares have not been valued. The Charleston Realty financial statements were delivered which includes this building.
Request denied. Question answered.
20
July 4, 2016
A certified valuation of any shares of any company in which HK held or holds an interest from 2008 and ongoing to trial or settlement.
Overreaching, overly broad and irrelevant. HK is not having valuations of properties prepared on a continuing basis from 2008 of times which were agreed to in value and valued by JK’s own experts in 2008/2009. These properties were equalized in accordance with the parties’ agreement and valued at the date of separation by each party’s valuators.
The response is sufficient.
21
July 4, 2016
Purchase and sale documents for the cottage located at 1017 Sniders Bay Road, Gravenhurst and any documentation to support that this cottage was allegedly gifted.
To be produced.
21
July 4, 2016
Confirmation as to whether HK holds/held any other shares or interests in any companies, holding companies, trusts, numbered companies from 2008 to 2016 inclusive.
Wife’s chart March 24, 2017 disclosure chart – wife does not have any interest in any other trust or corporation.
Answered.
23
July 4, 2016
A certified appraisal of 2353 Hurontario and a valuation of HK’s interest in it, and any and all of HK’s valuations for the Lakeshore Properties and all other properties owned solely or in party by HK.
Irrelevant. The Morassutti Group provided an estimate valuation which was provided to JK. Mr. Hobcroft provided a valuation for JK which has never been produced by JK. Mr. Newton and Mr. DeBresser provided draft valuations of JK’s shares. A brief valuation was not done.
HK to provide any valuations of any the referenced properties, and of her interest in those properties, in her possession or control unless already produced.
24
July 4, 2016
Particulars of the sale of HK’s buildings (including 1257 Lakeshore) including date of sale, all purchase and sale documents, etc.
Sale documents provided. See HK’s Affidavit March 24, 2017.
HK to produce any of the additional documents requested that are in her control.
25
July 4, 2016
Details and supporting documentation of disposition of any assets since separation.
All dispositions shown on T1 forms which have been produce.
Answer is sufficient.
26
July 4, 2016
Particulars and supporting documentation of HK’s shares in Charleston Realty, 117554 Ontario Inc., and/or any other business.
All documents provided in original litigation. No change has occurred except for sale of the building owned by Charleston Realty Inv. Inc. The company 117 is Charleston Realty which HK inherited shares from her late father. HK also inherited shares in 360571 Ontario Limited from her late father. All requested documents provided.
Question answered however in the event that JK cannot find the documents making best efforts, then HK to produce.
27
July 4, 2016
Particulars and supporting documentation of any property she holds interest in and documentary proof of the acquisition of that interest.
HK has sworn a financial statement setting out her assets and liabilities. This is an irrelevant make work project.
Answer is sufficient.
28
October 25, 2016
HK’s 2015 Notice of Assessment and documentary proof of all her income sources from January 1, 2016 and ongoing to settlement or trial.
2015 Notice of Reassessment provided. 2016 tax slips provided.
HK will provide a tax return for 2016 once it is complete.
Answer is sufficient.
29
October 25, 2016
Full documentary particulars regarding the parking lot collapse with respect to the Lakeshore properties including but not limited to documentation pertaining to insurance, engineering, ministry and environmental issues.
Irrelevant. Provided in initial litigation. The parking lot collapse occurred prior to the transfer of the corporate interests to HK and her siblings which was during the marriage in 1998.
HK set out the chronology of her share ownership in the settlement conference brief before Justice G. Spiegel.
Answer is sufficient.
30
October 25, 2016
Copies of the 2008 to 2012 tax assessments for 1257 Lakeshore Road East; and all other properties owned solely or in part by HK
These documents are not relevant. The 2008 and 2009 documents were provided in the initial litigation. The Lakeshore building was sold in early 2010. HK only owns a building through a corporate interest and not solely nor in part personally. She is not aware of whether these documents even exist.
Answer is sufficient.
31
March 10, 2017
The original Bill of Sale with respect to the sale of her buildings.
Provided purchase and sale agreement in HK’s answers to undertakings delivered in February 2017. We do not know what a Bill of Sale is with respect to property.
Answer is sufficient.
32
March 10, 2017
Financial statements for 360571 Ontario Limited from 2008 to 2016.
HK produced copies of the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 financial statements for Charleston Realty not 360571 Ontario Limited.
Previous financial statements were provided for 2008 and 2009 in the initial proceeding. The remaining statements are irrelevant however 2012 is included with the 2013 as a comparable year. The motion to change was delivered in 2014.
Outstanding financial statements for 2008-2016 for Charleston and 360 to be delivered.
33
March 10, 2017
Confirmation with supporting documentation of HK’s interest in 360571 Ontario Limited and Charleston Realty Investments Inc.
The minute books were provided in the initial application. HK has ten shares in 360 and 10 shares in 117544 Ontario Limited which owns the common shares of Charleston Realty Investments Inc.; There was a butterfly transaction and estate freeze undertaken by HK’s parents and uncle which resulted in 1175544 Ontario Limited receiving the one common share of Charleston Realty. 1175544 Ontario Limited has no other transactions or assets.
Question answered.
34
March 10, 2017
Disclosure of the total dividends issued by Charleston Realty Investments Inc. annually from 2008 to 2016 to its three apparent shareholders (being HK, her brother Sheldon Robinson and her sister Marilyn Lubelsky).
This form of request continues to be irrelevant. The motion to change was brought in late 2014, the previous years are not relevant. Corporate financial statements to 2013 (2012 comparison) and personal tax returns were provided.
The other shareholders are not parties to this motion. Mr. Robinson advised by email that the distribution of dividends were equal. The previous three years of corporate financial statements will correspond to issuing of dividends by the companies to HK on her income tax returns.
Answer is sufficient.
CONCLUSIONS
[45] Success on each motion is divided. Should the parties wish to make submissions, then they may do so in writing (three pages maximum) within five days, and deliver responding submissions (two pages maximum) within eight days. If such submissions are not delivered within five days, I order there be no costs awarded in respect of these motions.
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
Released: August 18, 2017
CITATION: Korn v. Korn, 2017 ONSC 4934
COURT FILE NO.: 08-FD-336159-0002
DATE: 20170818
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HELENE KORN
Applicant
– and –
JERRY KORN
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
Released: August 18, 2017