CITATION: Fatahi-Ghandehari v. Wilson, 2017 ONSC 6034

COURT FILE NO.: FS-15-83320-00

DATE: 2017-10-10

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

SARA FATAHI-GHANDEHARI

Self-represented

Applicant

• and -

STEWART WILSON

Paul Robson, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: February 6, March 27, April 27, June 12, July 12, July 14, and July 25, 2017, at Brampton, Ontario

Price J.

Reasons For Order

NATURE OF MOTION

[1] Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari has sought financial disclosure from her former spouse, Stewart Wilson since beginning the present proceeding in April 2015. She submits that the disclosure will enable her to establish her entitlement to an equalization payment arising from their 7 year marriage. To that end, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari obtained orders from Miller J. on July 23, 2015, and from me on July 7, 2016, (collectively “the disclosure orders”), requiring Mr. Wilson to disclose financial information, including tax returns, bank, credit card, and Pay Pal statements, as well as to provide a tracing of the sale proceeds of a home in Burlington, and a valuation of a business that he had operated, which rented exotic cars to the public.

[2] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari made the present motion on July 26, 2016, for a finding that Mr. Wilson was in contempt of the disclosure orders (“the contempt motion”). The contempt motion was adjourned to enable Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari to examine non-parties, including Mr. Wilson’s mother, Elizabeth Wilson, and Mr. Wilson’s friend and business associate, Jason Bradimore. Mr. Wilson alleged that his mother had given him the funds to buy a Burlington home. Mr. Wilson also alleged that he had transferred the exotic cars from the business he had previously operated to Mr. Bradimore.

[3] At the hearing of the contempt motion, the parties disputed the authenticity of the tax returns Mr. Wilson produced, and the justifications he offered for producing the wrong tax returns. They also disputed his various failures to produce other information as required by the disclosure orders, including:

• The failure to retain a business valuator to value his business interest. Mr. Wilson alleged he could not retain a valuator firstly, because the business records were taken by Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari and secondly, because he had transferred the exotic cars, which had belonged to him and not the business, to the joint venture, which he does not control, or were now the property of his trustee in bankruptcy;

• The failure to produce the records of the Pay Pal account which he operated on behalf of his joint venture with Mr. Bradimore. Mr. Wilson alleged this was because he did not control the joint venture;

• The failure to produce the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the Burlington home. He alleged this was because he had been unable to find it.

[4] For the reasons that follow, Mr. Wilson’s multiple failures to comply with the disclosure orders, and the improbability of his explanations and justifications, both individually and collectively, leave me with no doubt that he has wilfully breached the orders.

BACKGROUND FACTS

[5] Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari and Stewart Wilson met each other in 2005, when she was 25 and he was 42. At the time, Mr. Wilson operated a business under the name GTA Exotic Car Rental and owned a home at Unit 211, 3400 Lakeshore Boulevard West, Toronto (“the Lakeshore home”). Mr. Wilson says that he bought the Lakeshore home with his own funds.

[6] The parties were married on August 12, 2007. Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari asserts that prior to the marriage, Mr. Wilson asked her to enter into a marriage contract, which provided that in the event they separated, Mr. Wilson would have no obligation to support their children. She states that the terms were unacceptable to her, but that on August 9, 2007, three days before their wedding, she caused her lawyer to send a letter to Mr. Wilson, agreeing to some of the terms he had requested. The lawyer stated that the agreement could not be finalized in time for the wedding, but that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari had instructed him to prepare an agreement afterward on her behalf with the terms she was prepared to accept.

[7] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s letter, which she and her lawyer signed, stipulated that she would not make any claim against Mr. Wilson’s businesses, GTA Exotic Car Rental Inc. and GTA Motorcycle Rental, or 2126818 Ontario Inc., or the physical assets used in the businesses. It additionally stipulated that each of the parties would continue to own, as their own property, all of the property that he or she owned before they married, or acquired during their marriage, and would not be required to share that property upon a termination of their marriage. The letter further stated:

The only property that would be divided would be any asset acquired jointly, including the current intended Matrimonial home at 3400 Lakeshore Boulevard West, Toronto, and any replacement thereof.

[8] Mr. Wilson says that he sold the Lakeshore home in 2009, when the parties had been married for two years, realizing a profit of $80,000. He says that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari matched that amount, and they used the combined amount to purchase a new home at 3329 Delfi Road in Mississauga, which they paid for equally (“the Mississauga home”).

[9] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari has produced a Trust Ledger from a lawyer, Lawrence Shapiro, who assisted the parties in the sale of the Lakeshore home. The ledger, apparently part of a reporting letter the lawyer sent to Mr. Wilson, shows that $224,307.05 was realized from the sale, of which $165,925.52 was used to discharge the first mortgage, presumably on the Lakeshore home. An amount of $5,677.50 was paid to the Real Estate Broker, $15,122.33 was allocated as “funds used towards Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari’s purchase of 3329 Delfi Road, Mississauga,” and $37,188.50 was “Paid to you following closing”.

[10] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari states that after the Lakeshore home was sold, she wished to buy another home, and used money gifted to her by her family to make that purchase. In her Application, she states:

Since Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari was the only one contributing money towards the purchase of the home, and because she did not trust Mr. Wilson, she requested that the parties enter into a Marriage Contract protecting her interest in the home purchased by her, and also to document that in the event of the breakdown of the marriage, the parties would not equalize their net family properties but, instead, divide their properties in accordance with title ownership.

Accordingly, on July 24, 2009, the parties entered into a Marriage Contract. Mr. Wilson refused to obtain independent legal advice with respect to the terms of the Contract. He initialed the bottom of each page of the Contract and he signed the end of the Contract, without a witness.

[11] Mr. Wilson states that he never signed the marriage contract, and received no financial disclosure or independent legal advice in connection with it. The agreement contains what purports to be Mr. Wilson’s signature, but the signature is not witnessed and the contract is undated.

[12] On July 31, 2009, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari bought the Mississauga home for $385,000. In her application, she states that she made a down payment of $200,000 for it, and obtained a mortgage in her own name for $184,000.

[13] A corporation, 2246519 Ontario Inc. (“224”), was registered on June 8, 2010, to operate as Exotic Car Tours. 224 was registered in the name of Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s mother, Farzaneh Yaghinali, who Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari says financed the purchase of the cars the business rented to the public. Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari says she operated 224’s bank accounts under Bank Powers of Attorney from her mother. Mr. Wilson alleges that Ms. Yaghinali owned 224 in trust for him, pursuant to a trust agreement of the same date between him and Ms. Yaghinali (“the Trust agreement”). Fatahi-Ghandehari and her mother say that Ms. Yaghinali’s signature on the trust agreement was forged.

[14] The parties separated after 7 years on December 4, 2014, when Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari reported that Mr. Wilson returned from a trip to Montreal, accused her of infidelity with an employee of their business, and physically assaulted her. The police charged Mr. Wilson with assault and removed him from the business. The Crown withdrew the assault charge on August 14, 2015.

[15] There is a dispute between the parties as to what became of 224’s financial records and a computer on which its financial information was stored. Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari asserts that she turned them over to Mr. Wilson; Mr. Wilson asserts that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari disposed of them.

[16] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari says that her mother returned from Europe prior to Mr. Wilson’s assault, saw the assault on a security video that had captured it, and resumed control of 224, as Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari was in and out of hospital and in shock. She further states that her mother removed Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s Powers of Attorney and, with them, her signing authority over 224’s bank accounts.

[17] Mr. Wilson alleges that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari staged the reported assault on her in order to remove him from the business. He says that on the following day, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari tried to sell 224’s entire 13 car inventory. Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari asserts that she ceased to be involved in the business when Mr. Wilson assaulted her on December 4, 2014, and did not try to sell any of the vehicles, although she applied to the court for leave to have them sold.

History of the parties’ litigation

(i) The Milton action

[18] Mr. Wilson retained a lawyer, Mr. Robson, who began a civil action on his behalf in Milton against Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, her mother and sister, and 224, under court file no. 118/15 (“the Milton action”). Mr. Robson obtained an injunction in the Milton action, preventing the sale of the cars. Justice Gray later made an Order dated March 3, 2015, in the Milton action, in which he held that certain exotic cars that 224 had leased to the public, (“the Gray cars”), were owned by Mr. Wilson. Justice Gray’s order states:

2. THIS COURT DECLARES that the Plaintiff [Stewart Wilson] is the owner of the vehicles in issue, namely:

2006 Aston Martin VIN SCFBBO3BX6GC01781,

2005 Aston Martin – VIN SCFA001A55GA01955,

2008 Audi – VIN WUAAU34218N001634,

2005 Bentley – VIN SCBCR63W55C024227,

2005 Chevrolet Corvette VIN 1G1YY24U755126217,

2005 Ferrari VIN ZFFEW58A35014302,

2002 Ferrari VIN ZFFYT53AX20128178,

2000 GMC VIN 1GKDM19W1YB502524,

2004 Lamborghini VIN ZHWGU11S84LA00299,

2003 Lamborghini VIN ZA98BC10U13LA12517,

2009 Nissan VIN JN1AR54F49M250405,

2008 Porsche VIN WPOC029928S78788150,

2001 Suzuki VIN JS1GW71A112100069,

and he is entitled to do with them what he wishes. Any orders that prevent him from doing so are discharged.

3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the vehicles be transferred to him, as well as any other corporate assets.

4. THIS COURT ORDERS that the sum of $100,000.00, paid into court by the Plaintiff, is to be paid out to him forthwith.

5. THIS COURT ORDERS that a CPL may be registered on the title of the matrimonial home, namely, the property municipally located 3329 Delhi Road, Mississauga and registered under the Land Titles Act, as PCL 14-3 SEC M24; PT LT 14 PL M24; PTS 4 & 9 43 R2281; Mississauga. PIN No. 13392-0019 LT.

6. The motion for a Mareva injunction is dismissed.

[19] The motion for a Mareva injunction that Gray J. refers to in paragraph 6 of his Order, and which he dismissed, was made by Mr. Wilson, not by Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari.

[20] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, her mother, and 224, appealed unsuccessfully from Gray J.’s order. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal on April 5, 2016.

(ii) Mr. Wilson’s bankruptcy proceeding

[21] Mr. Wilson made an assignment in bankruptcy on April 29, 2011. He failed to disclose the trust agreement, or his beneficial interest in the exotic cars listed in Gray J.’s Order to the trustee or his creditors. At a hearing on April 10, 2015, in the bankruptcy proceeding, Pattillo J. made the following finding:

In my view the evidence clearly establishes that through the June 8, 2010 Trust Agreement, Mr. Wilson had a beneficial interest in some of [the Gray exotic] vehicles; that his interest remained as of the date of bankruptcy on April 29, 2011, and that he failed to disclose his interest in his statement of affairs. Further the remaining vehicles were acquired on his behalf between the date of the bankruptcy and his discharge. [Emphasis added]

[22] Pattillo J. made a preservation order on April 10, 2015, requiring Mr. Wilson to deliver up possession of certain of the Gray Order exotic cars to Mr. Wilson’s trustee in bankruptcy or, if he no longer had possession of them, to deliver up particulars of their sale and of any bank accounts into which any monies received from the sale were deposited. Justice Pattillo ordered that Mr. Wilson’s bank accounts be frozen, and provided that he could return to court to rescind or vary that order once he provided the trustee with the requested information.

[23] In his endorsement accompanying the April 10, 2015, Order, Pattillo J. made the following additional comment:

This motion was scheduled by me at a 9:30 a.m. appointment with counsel on March 27, 2015. Mr. Robson was present. In his affidavit filed in response to the Trustee’s motion, Mr. Wilson says, at paragraph 15, “In any event on or about April 4, 2015, I disposed of my interest in all vehicles awarded as permitted by Justice Gray’s order.” Mr. Wilson’s actions in selling the vehicles, if in fact he has, in the face of a scheduled motion by the Trustee to preserve them, smacks of contempt. It is consistent, in my view, with his actions in failing to disclose his interest in the vehicles at the time of his assignment in bankruptcy. [Emphasis added]

Deposits made into Mr. Wilson’s personal bank account at TD Canada Trust amounted to over $249,000.00 in 2015.

[24] Mr. Wilson appealed Patillo J.’s Order unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal, arguing that Pattillo J. had erred in finding, based on the June 8, 2010, trust agreement, that Mr. Wilson had a beneficial interest in the vehicles at the time of his bankruptcy. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. In a decision dated November 19, 2015, the Court noted that the trust agreement provided that the assets of 224 were “the sole and exclusive ownership of [Mr. Wilson] and although held in the name of [224] has no right or ownership of the said assets.”

[25] The Court of Appeal further noted that Gray J. had found, on March 3, 2015, that the trust agreement was valid, and that Mr. Wilson was the beneficial owner of the vehicles, that he had directed, in his endorsement, that a copy of the endorsement be sent to the trustee, who then brought the motion before the motion judge for preservation of the vehicles and ancillary relief. The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge’s finding that Mr. Wilson had a beneficial interest in the vehicles at the time of his bankruptcy was “unassailable”.

(iii) The family law proceeding

[26] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari began the present proceeding against Mr. Wilson by Application issued on April 23, 2015 (“the Family Law proceeding”). In her Application, she claimed a divorce, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and its contents. She additionally requested a freezing of assets, and a declaration that the Marriage Contract dated July 24, 2009, is valid or, in the alternative, an Order for unequal division of the net family property in her favour.

[27] Mr. Wilson failed to deliver his Answer and Financial Statement in the Family Law proceeding in a timely manner. On June 10, 2015, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari moved for an order requiring him to deliver his Answer and Financial Statement, and to pay spousal support, and for an order requiring him to obtain and produce a valuation of the business, Exotic Cars.

Justice Miller’s Order dated July 23, 2015

[28] At a Case Conference on July 23, 2015, Justice Miller ordered Mr. Wilson, within 45 days, or by September 6, 2015, to do the following:

• deliver his Answer and Financial Statement;

• produce his bank statements for an account at T-D Canada Trust from January 2012 to the date of the order;

• produce his Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment for 2012, 2013, and 2014.

[29] In her endorsement of July 23, 2015, Miller J. noted that there was a dispute as to the whereabouts of documents required for a valuation of Mr. Wilson’s business, Exotic Car Tours, and that a contempt motion in relation to the disclosure of those records would be heard on August 26, 2015. She granted the parties leave to bring motions for disclosure, and for business valuations in respect of Exotic Car Tours, once the contempt motion was heard and determined.

My Order dated July 7, 2016

[30] On June 10, 2016, more than 9 months after the deadline that Miller J. imposed, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari brought a motion, to be heard June 17, 2016, for an order requiring Mr. Wilson to comply with Miller J.’s Order.

[31] The record of Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s motion was confused by the fact that the Notice of Motion states, on its face, that the motion is made by Mr. Wilson. This impression was additionally conveyed by page 2 of the Notice of Motion, which gives the name and address of Mr. Wilson’s lawyer, Paul Robson, as the lawyer of the moving party. However, it was evident, from the relief requested, that the motion was made by Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, and the signature on it, which was the same as on her Application, was that of her then-lawyer, Ursula Cebulak.

[32] The motion was also confusing as it sought spousal support based on the income stated in Mr. Wilson’s Financial Statement, but then asked that Mr. Wilson be required to serve and file, among other things, his sworn Financial Statement and an undated Form 13.1 Financial Statement, leaving it unclear whether or not he had, in fact, served a Financial Statement up to that point.

[33] In Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s motion on June 10, 2016, she sought a further order requiring Mr. Wilson to serve and filing his Form 10: Answer and Claim, and sworn Financial Statement, “an updated Form 13.1 Financial Statement”, his 2012, 2013, and 2014 Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment, and the bank statements for TD account 6346257. She additionally requested an Order requiring him to produce the following additional financial disclosure:

• 2015 General Income Tax Return and Notice of Assessment;

• Bank account statements for any and all accounts owned by him from 2013 to present;

• PayPal account statements for the Respondent, Exotic Car Tours or any other business owned by him from 2014 to present;

• Agreement of purchase and sale for 1350 Niels Avenue, Burlington, Ontario;

• Summary and tracing off (sic) funds that were used to purchase 1350 Niels Avenue, Burlington, Ontario;

• Business financial statements for Exotic Car Tours for 2014 and 2015;

• T2 Corporation Income Tax Return of Exotic Car Tours for 2014 and 2015.

• Corporation Notices of Assessment for Exotic Car Tours from 2014 to 2015;

• General Ledger statements for Exotic Car Tours from January 2014 to present; and

• Business bank account statements for Exotic Car Tours from January 2015 to present;

[34] Additionally, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari sought an Order:

• requiring Mr. Wilson to pay interim without-prejudice spousal support in the amount of $1,000 per month, pending the determination of his true income, or $630 per month, based on his declared income of $54,000, as set out in his sworn Financial Statement and the mid-range of SSAG, and

• requiring Mr. Wilson to obtain an income report for spousal support purposes and “a business valuation of the value of his business, Exotic Car Tours and any other business interests owned by him on the date of separation”; and

• restraining Mr. Wilson from dissipating, depleting, or disposing of any assets of Exotic Car Tours or any other business owned by him.

[35] The motion, with supporting affidavits of Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari and of her lawyer’s Legal Assistant, Sonia Masih, were served on Mr. Wilson on June 10, 2016. Ms. Masih’s affidavit attaches a copy of Mr. Wilson’s Financial Statement sworn June 25, 2015, and a copy of his affidavit sworn May 9, 2016, in the Milton action.

[36] On June 17, 2016, Donohue J. made an endorsement in which she notes that the parties had attended until 2:15 p.m. to argue a contested adjournment request. Justice Donohue informed them that two urgent motions took precedence over Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s motion, and adjourned that motion to June 21, 2016. On June 21, the motion was further adjourned, on consent, to July 7, 2016.

[37] In my endorsement on July 7, 2017, I noted that Mr. Wilson sought leave to file responding material which Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari submitted was, in fact, a cross-motion for separate relief, including sale of a property in which Mr. Wilson had no registered interest, but in which he claimed a constructive trust. I did not permit that material to be filed, as Mr. Wilson had been served with the motion almost month earlier, on June 10, 2016, and had only served it on Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari at 3 p.m. on the day before the hearing.

[38] The parties consented, on July 7, 2016, to an order that required Mr. Wilson:

• To serve and file his Answer and Form 13.1 Financial Statement within 10 days (that is, by Monday, July 18, 2016, being the first juridical day after July 17, 2016), without his Income Tax Returns or Notices of Assessment for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, which he would serve and file within 30 days;

• To produce, within 14 days (that is, by July 21, 2016):

(i) His bank statements for his TD account no. 6346257 from January 2012 to the present;

(ii) His PayPal statements for himself or any business owned by him or a letter advising when the PayPal account was closed;

(iii) The Agreement of Purchase and Sale for 1350 Niels Avenue, Burlington, when it was purchased by Greg Wilson;

(iv) A summary and tracing of funds that were used to purchase 1350 Niels Avenue, Burlington, along with the Trust Ledger Statement.

[39] In my Order dated July 7, 2016, I directed that an Order issue in the terms of the parties’ consent. The Order required Mr. Wilson to produce to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, within 14 days, the documents specified in the Consent, including the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for 1350 Niels Avenue, Burlington, which Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari asserted was bought with family property, together with the trust ledger statement in connection with that purchase, and a tracing of the funds that were used to purchase the property.

[40] In my endorsement of July 7, 2016, I noted that the parties had narrowed the issues to the following:

• Whether the obligation that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari sought to impose on Mr. Wilson, requiring him to produce evidence from the five Chartered Banks as to what accounts he held with them, should also be imposed on Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari:

• Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari preferred to obtain and produce her bank records herself rather than authorize the banks to produce them directly to Mr. Wilson’s lawyer.

• Having regard to the allegations Mr. Wilson had made of fraudulent conduct by Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, I concluded that it was more likely to avoid controversy regarding the authenticity and accuracy of the records for the banks to produce them directly to Mr. Wilson’s lawyer.

• Which party should be obliged to pay for the valuation of Mr. Wilson’s business, Exotic Cars:

I concluded that, as the business was owned by Mr. Wilson and he was earning the higher income and was therefore better resourced to pay for the valuation, he should pay for it, subject to a later order of the court re-apportioning the cost.

[41] In my endorsement on July 7, 2016, I noted that Mr. Wilson was the owner of the Exotic Cars business and that, as such, he was presumptively obliged to produce a valuation of the business. As his income was approximately twice that of Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, I found that he was better resourced to obtain the valuation and therefore ordered Mr. Wilson, for that purpose, by August 7, 2016, to retain a Chartered Business Valuator, whose selection and terms of reference the parties were to agree upon. I directed Mr. Wilson to pay the costs of the valuation initially, without prejudice to his right to seek re-apportionment of those costs at the trial of the proceeding.

[42] For the reasons stated, the court made an Order on July 7, 2016, on the following terms:

• Mr. Wilson would, by August 7, 2016, retain a Chartered Business Valuator, whose selection and terms of reference the parties were to agree upon, to be paid initially by Mr. Wilson, who could later seek re-apportionment of those costs at the end of the trial.

• Each of the parties would, by July 17, 2016, [that is, by Monday, July 18, 2016] produce to the other a signed direction to all of Canada’s Chartered Banks, authorizing and directing them to identify all accounts held in the name of the either of the parties.

• The balance of the motion was adjourned, to be returned on five days’ notice, to be arranged by either party, in consultation with the other as to availability. Mr. Wilson was granted leave to file his responding material and to bring his cross-motion.

The Contempt Motion

[43] Mr. Wilson delivered his Answer in the Family Law proceeding on July 18, 2016. On July 26, 2016, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, who was by then self-represented, made a motion for a hearing on August 4, 2016 for a finding that Mr. Wilson was in contempt of court by reason of his failure to comply with the following disclosure orders:

• Order of Miller J. dated July 23, 2015; and

• Order of Price J. (My Order) dated July 7, 2016.

[44] On August 17, 2016, I adjourned the contempt motion, and granted Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari leave to bring a further motion, on notice to Mr. Wilson’s mother, Elizabeth Wilson, Mr. Wilson’s brother, Gregory Wilson, and Mr. Wilson’s friend and business associate, Jason Bradimore, for an order permitting her to examine them as non-parties, and for the production of records from them, and requiring Mr. Wilson to deliver further evidence with regard to the ownership of Exotic Car Tours and the funds used to purchase the property at 1360 Niels Avenue, Burlington.

[45] On October 7, 2016, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari made her motion, for hearing October 18, 2016, for leave to examine Elizabeth Wilson, Gregory Wilson, and Jason Bradimore, as non-parties, and for production of documents from them, in order to “ascertain Stewart Wilson’s real net family property along with his personal and business assets and/or income….”

[46] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari filed a supporting affidavit in which she states that:

• Mr. Wilson funded the purchase of home at 1360 Niels Avenue, Burlington, with $120,000 of the parties’ family property. She denies that the money came from Mr. Wilson’s mother, Elizabeth Wilson, whose bank statements, she says, disclose that she had minimal amounts in her accounts at the time of the purchase.

• On July 12, 2016, Mr. Wilson’s brother, Gregory Wilson, and their mother, Elizabeth Wilson, sold the Niels Avenue property for $465,000, without notice to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, and made misrepresentations in the documentation for the sale, in that Gregory Wilson falsely declared that he was not a spouse.

• Mr. Wilson and his mother know the whereabouts of Gregory Wilson, but would not disclose them.

• Since the parties’ separation, the car rental business has been “switched and sheltered” between Stewart Wilson, Elizabeth Wilson, Jay [Jason] Bradimore, and Mr. Bradimore’s two companies, Straight Forward Auto Service Inc. and 244.

• The disclosure provided by Mr. Wilson to her is incomplete.

• She registered liens on the Gray Order exotic cars, which she said are “tied up in litigation in both civil and family court.” She states that the vehicles were transferred to Jay [Jason] Bradimore and his company, Straight Forward Auto Service Inc., the day after Justice Gray’s Order of March 3, 2015.

• Mr. Wilson’s lawyer improperly registered a discharge of the liens on September 29 and 30, and October 6, 2016.

[47] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari made a further motion, for a hearing October 18, 2016 on the following issues:

• an order instructing the Registrar of Personal Property Security to remove financing change statements;

• a Mareva injunction to preserve certain business records of Elizabeth Wilson, Gregory Wilson, Jason Bradimore, 224, and Mr. Bradimore’s company, Straight Forward Auto Service Inc.;

• requiring disclosure from the owners or managers of 9860 Highway 20, Hamilton, regarding arrangements whereby Stewart Wilson was allowed to reside there;

• an order for the sale of certain vehicles owned by Exotic Car Tours, GTA Exotics, 224, or Stewart Wilson personally, or owned by Jason Bradimore or his company, Straight Forward Auto Service Inc., and for the payment of the proceeds into court to the credit of the present proceeding.

[48] On October 18, 2016, the court granted Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari leave to examine Elizabeth Wilson and Jason Bradimore, and granted the parties leave to cross-examine each other on their affidavits on October 31, 2016.

[49] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s motion to have Mr. Wilson found in contempt was heard at intervals over the course of five days from February 6 to July 25, 2017.

ISSUES

[50] The court must determine whether Mr. Wilson wilfully breached Justice Miller’s Order dated July 23, 2015, or my Order dated July 7, 2016, requiring him to produce records and retain a Chartered Business Valuator to value his business and, if he committed a breach, what penalty should be imposed on him.

PARTIES’ POSITIONS

[51] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari asserts that Mr. Wilson failed to do the following within 45 days of Justice Miller’s Order, or at all:

• He failed to produce his Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment for 2012, 2013, and 2014. In her affidavit sworn August 10, 2016, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari asserts that her lawyer in the Milton action, Mr. Siddiqui, received from Mr. Wilson’s lawyer, Mr. Robson, what purported to be Mr. Wilson’s tax returns for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, but that the returns, all dated July 2, 2016, were not copies of the actual returns filed with the Canada Revenue Agency, as required by Justice Miller’s Order. The copies produced by Mr. Robson were unsigned, bore no stamps of the CRA nor proof of transmission to the Agency, and the returns for 2012 and 2013 were inconsistent with Mr. Wilson’s actual tax returns for those years, which 224’s book-keeper produced to the parties pursuant to an Order made in the Milton action.

• He failed to deliver his Answer and Financial Statement within the time required by Miller J.’s Order; and

• He failed to produce his statements from the TD account 63462 from January 2012 to the date of the order.

[52] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari further asserts that Mr. Wilson failed to do the following, required by my Order dated July 7, 2016:

• Serve and file his Answer and updated Financial Statement within 10 days;

• Serve and file his Notices of Assessment within 5 days of receipt;

• Produce the statements of the TD Canada Trust account 634627, or of the Pay Pal account he operates;

• Produce the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for 1360 Niels Avenue, Burlington or a tracing of the funds used to purchase that property, within 14 days, or at all;

• Retain a Chartered Business Valuator.

[53] Mr. Wilson asserts the following:

• That my Order dated July 7, 2016, dealt fully with his failure to comply with Miller J.’s order, and that the court should not now entertain Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s motion for a finding that he breached Miller J.’s Order;

• That he fully complied with my order dated July 7, 2016, except that he had been unable to locate a copy of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for 1360 Niels Avenue, Burlington, and therefore, had instead produced a copy of the lawyer’s reporting letter and trust ledger; and

• That he filed his Tax Returns, and was awaiting his Notices of Assessment, which he would produce within 5 days after receiving them.

[54] Mr. Wilson acknowledges that he did not retain a Chartered Business Valuator. He states that it would have served no purpose to do so, as he alleges that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari took 224’s financial records, which a valuator would require to value the business.

ANALYSIS AND EVIDENCE

The legislative framework

[55] Rule 31 of the Family Law Rules provides, in part:

WHEN CONTEMPT MOTION AVAILABLE

31. (1) An order, other than a payment order, may be enforced by a contempt motion made in the case in which the order was made, even if another penalty is available. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (1).

NOTICE OF CONTEMPT MOTION

(2) The notice of contempt motion (Form 31) shall be served together with a supporting affidavit, by special service in accordance with subrule 6 (4), unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (2); O. Reg. 322/13, s. 19.

AFFIDAVIT FOR CONTEMPT MOTION

(3) The supporting affidavit may contain statements of information that the person signing the affidavit learned from someone else, but only if the requirements of subrule 14 (19) are satisfied. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (3).

WARRANT TO BRING TO COURT

(4) To bring before the court a person against whom a contempt motion is made, the court may issue a warrant for the person’s arrest if,

(a) the person’s attendance is necessary in the interest of justice; and

(b) the person is not likely to attend voluntarily. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (4).

Jurisprudence

(i) The test for civil contempt

[56] The test for civil contempt where breach of a court order is in issue is three-fold:

(a) the order that is said to have been breached must be clear and unequivocal;

(b) the party who is alleged to have breached the order must be found to have done so deliberately and wilfully; and

(c) the evidence must prove contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.[^1]

[57] The Alberta Court of Appeal, in Litterst v. Horry (1995), held that it is not necessary that the alleged contemnor be found to be in breach of a specific term in a court order. It is sufficient if his actions are designed to obstruct the course of justice by thwarting or attempting to thwart an order.[^2]

(ii) Intention required for contempt

[58] The court does not require proof that an alleged contemnor intended to put himself in contempt in order to make a finding of contempt. It must only be established that he deliberately, wilfully, or knowingly did some act which amounted, objectively, to a breach of a court order of which he had knowledge.[^3]

[59] Proof of recklessness satisfies the necessary intent to disobey a court order and supports a finding of contempt. Wilful intent or malice, i.e. a deliberate intent to defy an order, is not necessary to establish civil contempt, though the existence of such an intent may be relevant to penalty. It is enough that a party knew of the terms of the order and intended to do those things that, objectively speaking, constituted the breach.[^4]

[60] A finding of contempt does not require the court to find that the defendant intended to disobey or flout an order of the court: “the offence consists of the intentional doing of an act which is, in fact, prohibited by the order. The absence of the contumacious intent is a mitigating, but not an exculpatory, circumstance.”[^5]

[61] The standard of intention is knowledge of the terms of the order and knowingly or intentionally doing an act which is, objectively speaking, in contravention of those terms. In Brooks v. Vander Muelen, in 1999, the Manitoba Queens Bench stated, concerning contempt:

An individual need not be found in breach of a specific term in a court order. It is sufficient if the actions are “designed to obstruct the course of justice by thwarting or attempting to thwart a court order”. Evidence of contempt in family matters should be “clear and unequivocal”. Restraint is appropriate in making such findings. If a custodial parent can show that she acted at all times in the best interests of the child and not with the intention of disobeying the court’s order out of self-interest, the courts have been reluctant to make findings of contempt even if custodial parents can be said to be acting only out of spite and hostility.

The standard of proof is that a breach be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of intention is knowledge of the reasons for the order and contravention of the order. Direct intention to disobey the order is not required. Wilful disregard is sufficient. “Wilful” is intended to exclude only casual, accidental, or unintentional acts of disobedience.[^6] [Emphasis added.]

Applying the legal principles to the facts of this case

a) Procedural fairness

[62] Mr. Wilson initially asserted that he was not personally served with the notice of the contempt motion and supporting materials. This is not fatal to the motion, as it is evident that the motion came to his attention and he responded to it. The court has authority under rule 2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dispense with full compliance with the rules where the interests of justice require it, and I do so in the present case, as it is in the interests of justice to do so.

[63] Although strict procedural compliance is generally required in contempt proceedings where committal is sought,[^7] this principle is not always determinative. For example, the party moving to have another found in contempt of an order must generally prove that the Order the alleged contemnor breached was personally served on him. In Dickie v. Dickie, (2006), Laskin J.A., in dissent, would have refused to hear Dr. Dickie’s appeal from a contempt finding until he had purged the contempt, but noted that, if the appeal were heard, as the majority concluded, he would have dismissed it, in spite of the absence of proof of personal service.[^8] Mrs. Dickie appealed to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal’s decision allowing Dr. Dickie’s appeal, and the Supreme Court allowed her appeal, stating that “[o]n the appeal from the decision on the contempt motion, we are in substantial agreement with the reasons of Laskin J.A.”.[^9]

[64] In Bhatnager v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1990), the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that proof of personal service of the order the contemnor had allegedly violated on the contemnor was not required where actual knowledge was proven or could be inferred.[^10]

[65] I am satisfied that the proceedings leading to the hearing of the contempt motion afforded Mr. Wilson procedural fairness.

b) Was Mr. Wilson in contempt of Justice Miller’s order dated July 23, 2015?

(i) Was the order clear and unequivocal?

Justice Miller’s endorsement states, in part:

Both parties are to provide ITR and NOA (Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment) for 2012, 2013 and 2014 within 45 days (the Applicant has already provided her NOAs). Mr. Wilson is to produce his bank statements for TD account 6346257 from January 2012 to date within 45 days.

The Respondent [Mr. Wilson] must serve + file his Answer and a sworn Financial Statements within 45 days.

I find that Miller J.’s order was clear and unequivocal.

(ii) Did Mr. Wilson breach the order deliberately and wilfully?

1. Order to deliver his Answer by September 6, 2015

[66] Justice Miller’s Order required Mr. Wilson to serve and file his Answer and Financial Statement, together with his Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment for 2012, 2013, and 2014, and his bank statements for TD account 6346257 from 2012 to July 23, 2015, by September 6, 2015 (45 days after the Order, which was dated July 23, 2015).

[67] In his affidavit sworn August 15, 2016, Mr. Wilson states that he personally served and filed his Answer and updated Financial Statement on Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s then-lawyer, Ursula Cebulak, on July 18, 2016, and filed them in court on the same date. Ms. Ursula Cebulak served a Notice of Change of Representation dated July 18, 2016, on behalf of Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, on Mr. Wilson on July 20, 2016, notifying him that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari intended to represent herself.

[68] Mr. Wilson’s Answer dated July 18, 2016, which is signed by him and certified by his lawyer, and his Financial Statement, whose date has been modified and is illegible, and which is unsigned and unsworn, were filed on July 18, 2016, as appears from the date stamp of the Court. The documents were accompanied by Mr. Wilson’s affidavit of service, which the Court stamped the same day.

[69] Based on the foregoing, I find that Mr. Wilson did not serve and file his Answer by September 6, 2015, as required by Miller J.’s Order. He served and filed it on July 18, 2016, more than ten months after Miller J.’s deadline.

[70] Mr. Wilson stated, in his affidavit sworn July 6, 2016:

On July 23, 2015, the Honourable Justice Miller made an order requiring me to file my Answer. I attempted to do so but was precluded from doing so because I did not file it within the required 30 days’ time period. Notwithstanding Her Honour’s order, court intake refused to allow me to file my Answer. I therefore request an order allowing me to file my original Answer.

[71] I do not accept Mr. Wilson’s explanation for not filing his Answer within the time required by Miller J. He does not state when he served the Answer, or attempted to file it. If, in fact, the Court Office refused to accept his Answer for filing beyond May 23, 2015, being 30 days after the Application was filed, and continued to refuse it after July 23, 2015, notwithstanding Miller J’s Order of that date, directing him to file it by September 6, 2015, (45 days after the date of her Order), it was incumbent upon him to move at that time for an Order directing the Court Office to accept it, or further extending the time for filing it. Instead, he waited until July 6, 2016, almost a month after Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s motion was served on him, and more than ten months after the deadline imposed by Miller J., to request leave to file his Answer.

2. Order requiring Mr. Wilson to deliver his Financial Statement by September 6, 2015

[72] Sonia Masih’s affidavit, sworn June 9, 2016, which Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari filed in support of her motion, discloses that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari received a Financial Statement from Mr. Wilson sworn June 25, 2015. Ms. Masih’s affidavit does not specify when the Financial Statement was received. However, based on the fact that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, in her Notice of Motion dated June 9, 2016, requested an Order requiring Mr. Wilson to serve and file “an updated Form 13.1 Financial Statement”, I infer that the Financial Statement sworn June 25, 2015, which was not an up-dated Financial Statement, but the initial one, was not served in compliance with Miller J.’s Order dated July 23, 2015.

[73] The Financial Statement that Mr. Wilson filed on July 18, 2016, was not signed or sworn. Based on that evidence, I find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Wilson wilfully breached the term of Miller J.’s Order requiring him to serve and file an updated Financial Statement by September 6, 2015, and find that he has not complied with that term of her Order to this time.

3. Order to produce tax returns and Notices of Assessment by September 6, 2015

[74] Justice Miller, in her endorsement dated July 23, 2015, ordered both parties to produce their Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment for 2012, 2013, and 2014 within 45 days (that is, by September 6, 2015).

[75] Ten months later, on July 6, 2016, Mr. Wilson delivered an affidavit stating:

19. In the process of stealing from me, the Applicant left me virtually penniless. Furthermore due to the Applicant’s intransigence in refusing to provide the Company financial disclosure, I have not been able to file my tax returns for 2012-2015. It is only within the last two weeks that as a result of further court order in the civil proceedings, that I was able to obtain full banking records. The Applicant did not comply with her court ordered obligations in these proceedings. The records she provided were materially incomplete and for the most part useless. [Emphasis added]

[76] Mr. Wilson’s explanation for not producing his Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment is vague and unsatisfactory. He does not specify what financial disclosure from the business Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari failed to provide, or what the “full banking record” was that he required, or why he could not obtain it directly from the bank. Additionally, he offers no evidence that he pursued his remedies, either in the Milton action or in the Family Law proceeding, to obtain the disclosure he required from Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, or from non-parties, in order to file his Income Tax Returns and produce them in accordance with Miller J.’s Order.

[77] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari tendered the Affidavit of Andrew Pak, sworn January 20, 2016, in the Milton action. Mr. Pak states that he is a Police Officer with the Toronto Police Service, currently attached to 23 Division. He has been an Officer with the Toronto Police Service for over 13 years.

[78] Mr. Pak states that he was with Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari and Sahel Tahvildari (Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s sister) on November 4, 2015, when they dropped off boxes at the Exotic Car Tours address, 1058 South Service East, in Oakville, and helped them deliver the documents to Exotic Car Tours. He states that there were more than 30 boxes and 2 large black garbage bags full of documents. The boxes were of different sizes and included banker’s boxes. Before they loaded the two cars full of the boxes and two bags, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari and Ms. Sahel took photographs of the boxes and even took out documents to take photographs of them. He attaches some of the photographs of the boxes and documents taken that evening.

[79] Mr. Pak states, in part:

6. I suggested they number the boxes to keep track of them. After that, we loaded two cars and were able to fit everything into the two cars. Sara Sahel, and I, drove to Exotic Car Tours to drop off all the documents. We parked right in front of the business and Sara and I unloaded all the boxes and the bags of documents. While we were unloading, Sahel took a video with a video camera of Sara and me unloading and delivering the documents.

7. It was dark, we left everything at the front door of Exotic Car Tours. While we were there unloading, a guy drove up and watched us finish unloading. He was there until we left. There were other vehicles that were driving up to Exotic Car tours and parking on the main road in front of the business.

8. Before we left, I noticed there were security cameras outside of the building.

[80] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, in her testimony, confirmed that she delivered the boxes and bags of 224’s records to Mr. Wilson at the head office of 224 on November 4, 2016, in compliance with the Order that Gibson J. made in the Milton action. She stated that Mr. Wilson was called to the shop to receive the files in the presence of the police.

[81] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari additionally tendered an affidavit of 224’s book-keeper, Johanne Boyce, sworn November 20, 2016, upon which Mr. Wilson’s lawyer had an opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Boyce at the hearing of the contempt motion. In her affidavit, Ms. Boyce states, in part, the following:

15. I have provided all document hard copies in my possession to Sara [Fatahi-Ghandehari] and do not have any further documents to offer up. The cardboard box labelled as “R-Kive” with my name on it was delivered to Sara. This box specifically contained all bank statements including government forms and remittances and monthly accounting printouts. I was advised that all the boxes were provided to Stewart Wilson as required by Court Order. I reviewed the picture evidence that the boxes were provided and noticed that the box from my office was included in the delivery.

16. I was never contacted by Mr. Robson or Stewart Wilson to relinquish any documents in my possession. I received a request from a third party, Rudy Brugnerotto, CPA/CA, who was the company accountant who filed the corporate tax returns for the business at year-end. Rudy requested me to e-mail all info to Mr. Robson and this was done. Attached to this affidavit and marked as Exhibit “A” are the emails. [Emphasis added]

[82] I found Ms. Boyce to be an independent and reliable witness. I accept her evidence and that of Officer Pak with regard to the business records of 224, and find that the business records of 224 were, in fact, returned to Mr. Wilson on November 4, 2015, in compliance with the Order made in the Milton action. I do not accept Mr. Wilson’s evidence that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari took all of the business records and did not return them to him.

[83] Ms. Boyce testified that she retained the data from 224’s books on a lap-top computer belonging to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, which she returned to her with the box containing her paper records. When Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari testified at the hearing of the motion, she stated that she still had the lap-top in her possession. I made an Order that her lawyer, Mr. Siddiqui, accompany her to her home and take possession of the computer and hold it for a period of time to enable Mr. Robson, an information retrieval expert, if he wished, and Ms. Boyce, to attend, to inspect the computer and extract 224’s data from it. Mr. Robson did not arrange for any attendance to inspect the computer. When asked, at the hearing, why he had not attended, Mr. Wilson replied that initially, he thought Mr. Robson was doing it, and stated “I was under the impression everything was done that needed to be done.”

[84] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari, who was not present when Ms. Boyce testified, testified that she believed Ms. Boyce had prepared 224’s accounts on one of 224’s desk-top computer because she was near sighted and found the screen of the lap top too small. Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari testified that the desk-top computers were left in, or returned to, 224’s offices pursuant to the Orders made in the Milton action, which held that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s mother was holding 224 in trust for Mr. Wilson.

[85] Mr. Wilson stated that Ms. Boyce did 224’s books on a laptop for only a week. When asked to describe the laptop, he stated that there was a 16” laptop, and that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari later bought a 21” laptop. Mr. Wilson testified that the desktop computers were given away. He stated that after December 4, 2014, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari had the office cleared out. He could not say that she sold the computers, but he says that she stored “a bunch of stuff in the U-Haul” and gave one of the computers away. Mr. Wilson stated that the day after she said I had no right to it, she cleared out the storage. He stated that he was not allowed in the office, as there was a restraining order against him for the next 6 months.

[86] I am unable to determine, from the evidence given in the motion, to what extent there was data from Ms. Boyce’s bookkeeping on a computer and, if so, which computer it was on and what became of it. Mr. Wilson stated that if Ms. Boyce had 224’s financial information, all she had to do was bring it. He stated, “I know that she has that documentation. She has a back-up on a disk.” Mr. Wilson stated that he does not know whether he called her. Ms. Boyce testified that neither Mr. Wilson nor Mr. Robson ever requested information or documents from her, apart from the tax returns, which she sent to Mr. Robson, as appears from her e-mail correspondence with him.

[87] Having regard to Ms. Boyce’s testimony, in Mr. Wilson’s presence, that she kept her data for 224 on Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s lap top, Mr. Wilson’s failure to have a retrieval expert attend to examine it, when the court made an order giving him the opportunity to do so, is consistent with my finding that the paper copy of 224’s financial records were returned to him and that he had no need to have recourse to computerized data.

4. Order to produce bank statements

[88] In his affidavit sworn August 15, 2016, Mr. Wilson states:

9. Up until today, I believed that I had provided Ms. Cebulak with all required bank statements at the same time that I served her with my Answer and Up-dated Financial Statement. I personally attended at the subject TD Bank shortly after Justice Price issued the Order. I asked TD to provide me with all statements from the date of the opening of the subject account in 2011 to present. They subsequently provided me with statements from April 25, 2011, to July 31, 2015, copies of which I attach as Exhibit “E”, which I immediately provided to Ms. Cebulak. Until today, I was not aware that they did not provided me with statements to present and upon being informed of that fact by my counsel only on this day, I went to the TD to request the balance of the statements and now provide them. Copies of the missing statements are attached hereto as Exhibit “F”

[89] Mr. Wilson has not satisfactorily explained why he failed to produce his banking records by September 6, 2015, as required by Miller J.’s Order, or why he waited until after my Order dated July 6, 2016, to request them from the bank. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that he wilfully breached Miller J.’s Order in that regard.

(iii) Was contempt proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

[90] I find that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wilson was in contempt of Miller J.’s Order dated July 23, 2015, in the following respects:

• Mr. Wilson did not serve and file his Answer or Financial Statement by September 6, 2015, as required by Miller J.’s Order. He did not serve and file his Answer until July 18, 2016, more than ten months beyond Miller J.’s deadline, and has never served or filed an up-dated sworn Financial Statement.

• Mr. Wilson did not produce his Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment for 2012, 2013, and 2014 within 45 days of Miller J.’s Order (that is, by September 6, 2015).

• Mr. Wilson did not produce his banking records by September 6, 2015, as required by Miller J.’s Order dated July 23, 2015. He did not request the bank statements from the Bank until after my Order dated July 6, 2016.

c) Is Mr. Wilson in contempt of my order dated July 7, 2016?

(i) Was the order clear and unequivocal?

[91] My order dated July 7, 2016, stated, in part:

1. Order shall issue in the terms of the Consent filed.

[92] The parties’ Consent, which was filed and was attached to my endorsement, states, in part:

(2) Mr. Wilson shall serve and file an Answer and Claim and form 13.1 Financial Statement within 10 days without his three years of Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment.

(3) The Respondent [Mr. Wilson] shall forthwith file his 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 Income Tax Returns and he shall serve and file his Income Tax Returns within 30 days. He will serve and file his Notices of Assessment within 5 days of receipt.

(6) Within 14 days, the Respondent shall produce bank account statements for account no. 6346257 with TD Canada from January 2012 to present;

(7) The Respondents shall produce to the Applicant within 14 days disclosure as follows:

(a) Pay Pal Statements for Mr. Wilson or any business owned by him or a letter advising when the Pay Pal Account was closed;

(b) Agreement of Purchase & Sale for 1350 Niels Avenue Burlington, ON when it was purchased by Greg Wilson;

(c) Summary and tracing of finds that were used to purchase 1350 Niels Avenue Burlington along with the Trust Ledger statement.

2. Mr. Wilson shall within 30 days (that is, by Aug. 7, 2016) retain a Chartered Business Valuator, the selection of which and terms of reference of whom shall be agreed upon by the parties and provide proof to the Applicant that he has done so. He shall initially pay the costs of the valuation, without prejudice to his right to seek re-apportionment of the costs in a costs order made at the end of the trial of the proceeding.

[93] The terms of my Order were clear and unequivocal. Mr. Wilson has not suggested that they were otherwise or offered any basis for so concluding. The Order consisted mainly of terms that the parties had consented to. Apart from the fact that the terms themselves are clear and unequivocal, I infer from the parties’ consent that Mr. Wilson understood the terms fully.

(ii) Did Mr. Wilson wilfully breach the order of July 7, 2016?

1. Order to serve and file Answer and Financial Statement

[94] Mr. Wilson states, in his affidavit sworn August 15, 2016:

I served and filed my Answer and Updated Financial Statement within 10 days of the Order [dated July 7, 2016]. I personally served Ms. Ursula Cebulak, the Applicant’s former counsel, and filed same on July 18, 2016. Attached as exhibit “D” is a copy of my Answer and Up-dated Financial Statement as served and filed.

[95] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari served a Notice of Change in Representation dated July 18, 2016, on Mr. Wilson on July 20, 2016, and filed it the same day. I therefore find that when Mr. Wilson served his Answer on Ms. Cebulak on July 18, 2016, he served it in compliance with my Order of July 7, 2016. He filed the Answer on July 18, 2016, also in compliance with the Order.

[96] For the reasons stated above, in relation to Miller J.’s Order, I find that Mr. Wilson did not serve or file a sworn up-dated Financial Statement in compliance with my Order.

2. Order to serve and file tax returns

[97] The Order dated July 7, 2016, directed Mr. Wilson file his Income Tax Returns for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, forthwith, and to serve and file them within 30 days, or by August 7, 2016.

[98] Mr. Wilson never served his income tax returns for 2012 and 2013, as filed with the Canada Revenue Agency. His lawyer, Mr. Robson, sent draft unsigned income tax returns prepared by Mr. Wilson’s accountants, WhiteGold Financial. Despite Mr. Wilson’s initial position that those returns did not have to be signed, and that they were filed with the Canada Revenue Agency in the form in which Mr. Robson sent them to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s lawyer, he later acknowledged that WhiteGold Financial did not, in fact, file the returns for 2012 to 2015 which he had produced. I noted this in my endorsement in 2016.[^11]

[99] The income amounts recorded in the unsigned, unfiled, tax returns that WhiteGold Financial prepared for 2012 and 2013, and that Mr. Robson sent to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s lawyer in purported compliance with my Order, do not correspond to those recorded in his actual tax returns for those years, as filed with the Canada Revenue Agency.

[100] 224’s book-keeper, Ms. Boyce, produced the actual tax returns, some with proof of transmission to the Canada Revenue Agency, in the Milton action, pursuant to Gray J.’s Order dated January 6, 2015, which directed both parties to obtain Mr. Wilson’s returns from Ms. Boyce. Mr. Wilson asserts that Ms. Boyce never produced his actual tax returns to him. I reject his evidence in that regard. Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari tendered an e-mail from Ms. Boyce dated April 2016, attaching four tax returns, and an e-mail from Mr. Wilson’s lawyer, Mr. Robson, thanking her for them.[^12]

[101] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari was able to obtain Mr. Wilson’s actual tax returns for 2012 and 2013. They differ in the following respects from the draft unsigned tax returns that WhiteGold Financial prepared, and that Mr. Robson sent to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s lawyer:

• The draft unsigned 2012 tax return prepared by WhiteGold Financial, which Mr. Wilson attaches as Tab C of his affidavit sworn August 15, 2016, and which Mr. Robson sent to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s lawyer in purported compliance with my Order dated July 7, 2016, reports his annual net income as $7,541.00. Mr. Wilson’s actual 2012 tax return, produced by Ms. Boyce, and entered as exhibit 1A at the hearing of the contempt motion, reports his annual net income as $19,217.29.

• The unsigned tax return for 2013, prepared by WhiteGold Financial, which Mr. Robson sent to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s lawyer, and which is attached at tab C of Mr. Wilson’s affidavit sworn August 15, 2016, shows his net income as $7,749.00. Mr. Wilson’s actual 2013 tax return, with confirmation of transmission to the CRA on April 29, 2014, and produced by Ms. Boyce, which Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari attaches as exhibit H to her affidavit sworn October 7, 2016, shows Mr. Wilson’s net income, on p. 3, as $7,333.00.

[102] Mr. Wilson produced only the unsigned drafts of his Income Tax Returns for 2012 to 2015. He was asked why he has not produced his actual income tax statements for 2014 and 2015. He had no response other than that he had produced the unsigned drafts in his responding affidavit. He was clearly able to obtain his tax returns as filed, because he produced his Notices of Assessment for every year from 2012 to 2015.

[103] The amounts that flowed through Mr. Wilson’s bank account, summarized in Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s affidavit sworn October 7, 2016, at columns 1 and 2 of para. 11, and Mr. Wilson’s affidavit sworn August 15, 2016, in exhibit “E”, do not correspond to the information contained in the unsigned drafts of Mr. Wilson’s tax returns, or the information in his Financial Statement. They disclose the following discrepancies between the draft income tax returns produced by Mr. Wilson, and the deposits to his account:

Year Deposits to Tax Returns prepared Tax Returns filed with CRA

Mr. Wilson’s acct by White Gold Financial Inc.

2011 $108,906.25 N/A $17,941.71

2012 $8,070.00 $7,541.00 $19,217.29

2013 $16,192.14 $7,749.00 $7,333.00

2014 $136,057.58 $15,115.00 Notice of Assessment,

but not tax return as filed

with CRA produced

2015 $249,172.35 $29,541.00 Notice of Assessment,

but not tax return as filed

with CRA produced

2016 $4,336.00

As of July 31/16 N/A N/A

[104] In the first six months of 2016, and coincident with Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s commencement of the Family Law proceeding, only $4,336 was deposited to Mr. Wilson’s account. In his affidavit sworn August 15, 2016, Mr. Wilson states that he was unemployed, not self-employed, and not the beneficial owner of assets he transferred to Mr. Bradimore for nil value, or of any other business or property. Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari notes that Mr. Wilson caused his own company, 2446818 Ontario Inc., to transfer its assets to Mr. Bradimore’s companies, Straight Forward Auto Service Inc. and 2448083 Ontario Inc. The President and Director of 2448083 Ontario Inc. are Mr. Wilson’s mother and Mr. Bradimore, respectively.

[105] I find that Mr. Wilson is concealing his assets from Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari in order to impede her efforts to establish her claim to an equalization of their net family property. Mr. Wilson’s conduct in the Family Law proceeding, in failing to produce his tax returns and Pay Pal statements and to obtain a valuation of his exotic car business, is consistent with his failure to disclose the existence of the exotic cars in the Statement of Affairs he filed in his bankruptcy, and his conveyance of the cars to Mr. Bradimore or his companies after setting a date for the hearing of the Trustee’s motion for an Order preserving them, which Pattillo J. observed “smacks of contempt”.

[106] I do not accept Mr. Wilson’s explanation for his failure to produce his actual tax returns in compliance with my order. In para. 4(b) of Mr. Wilson’s affidavit sworn October 11, 2016, he states that at the time he swore his earlier affidavit on August 15, 2016, he had no knowledge of having filed earlier returns for 2012 and 2014. He states that on August 18, 2015, upon following up with his accountants, WhiteGold Financial, to confirm that his tax returns had been filed, they advised him that, contrary to his strict instruction to them, and contrary to what they had led him to believe, his 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 returns, which they had prepared, had not been filed.

[107] Mr. Wilson’s earlier affidavit, sworn August 15, 2016, attaches an e-mail that Jade Lynd, at WhiteGold Financial, sent to Mr. Wilson in July 2016, asking him to sign the return on the page marked “signing page” and return it so that she could send it to the Government. He stated that he does not remember talking with Jade Lynd. The e-mail, he said, could have gone into spam. He stated that he did not see it. However, he apparently forwarded it to Mr. Robson.

[108] If it is not self-evident that Mr. Wilson knew he had to sign his returns before they could be filed, WhiteGold brought the fact to his attention by Jade’s Lynd’s e-mail. Mr. Wilson never signed the returns and therefore must have known that they were not filed with the Canada Revenue Agency. Yet, Mr. Robson, upon receipt of the returns, sent them to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s lawyer, Mr. Siddiqui, in purported compliance with my Order dated July 7, 2016.

[109] The transmission date on Mr. Wilson’s actual tax return for 2013 to the CRA is April 29, 2014. This contradicts Mr. Wilson’s affidavit of July 6, 2016, in which he states that he was unable to file his returns owing to the lack of bank records that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari had taken, and copies of which he said he had only received from the Bank two weeks before swearing his affidavit.

[110] Based on the foregoing, I find that Mr. Wilson wilfully failed to comply with my Order requiring him to produce his Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment for 2012, 2013, and 2014, by August 7, 2016.

3. Order to retain a Chartered Business Valuator to value the Exotic cars business.

[111] Owing to the discrepancies in Mr. Wilson’s tax returns and bank statements, the valuation of his business is especially relevant. Justice Czutrin, as he then was, noted, in Blaney v. Blaney, in 2012:

…where a party is self-employed, or is a shareholder of a company and works for that company, they should know that, for support purposes, their Income Tax Returns may not be enough to establish income and that the value of their interests in a company will need to be established by the use of and need for experts in many instances.[^13]

[112] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari asserts that she bought the cars that were used by Exotic Car Tours and GTA Exotic Cars in their businesses. In my endorsement dated July 7, 2016, I held that Mr. Wilson was the owner of the Exotic Cars business and, was presumptively obliged to produce a valuation of the business.

[113] No appeal was made from that Order, nor was leave to appeal sought. Mr. Wilson may not collaterally attack the Order now by questioning the relevance of the valuation.

[114] In my endorsement dated November 3, 2016, I stated:

It is clear from the foregoing that Mr. Wilson is and always has been the beneficial owner of the exotic cars and the directing mind of the corporations in whose name their title is nominally held. He has failed, to this point, to have the cars and the business which holds title to them valued, as required by the order made on July 7, 2016. It appears, from Mr. Wilson’s own statements to the court at the hearing, and the evidence filed, that he is transferring the cars to Straightforward for the purpose of disposing of them.[^14]

[115] Justice Myers, in Manchanda v. Thethi, (2016), made the following observation regarding the obligation to make financial disclosure in a family law proceeding:

Early, voluntary, and complete disclosure of financial information is essential to family law proceedings. This has been said and written by judges over and over again. It is the duty of parties to establish their incomes, expenses, assets, and liabilities as at the various valuation dates depending on the specific relief claimed in the proceeding. Even where valuing one’s property may be inconvenient or expensive, the duty to obtain all necessary valuation expertise required to do so lies on the party who owns the particular property.[^15]

[116] In his March 3, 2015, Order, Gray J. found that the exotic cars listed in his Order were beneficially owned by Mr. Wilson. Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari is entitled to claim equalization of the parties’ net family property based on the value of those cars, or of Mr. Wilson’s interest in 224, which Gray J. found that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s mother owned in trust for Mr. Wilson. Alternatively, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari is entitled to claim an unequal division of the parties’ net family property based on how Mr. Wilson acquired his interest in 224, or the cars registered to it, which would render an equal division of property unconscionable.

[117] In Mr. Wilson’s affidavit sworn May 9, 2016, in the Milton action, he states that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari staged the alleged assault on her in order to have him removed from the business, and that on the following day, she entered into an agreement to sell the business’ remaining inventory of 13 cars for $500,000. Mr. Wilson states that he retained Mr. Robson and with his assistance, obtained the Order dated March 3, 2015, which declared him to be the beneficial owner of the company and its assets. Mr. Wilson has failed to adduce evidence that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari entered into an agreement to sell 13 cars, although she applied to the court unsuccessfully for leave to sell the cars and to have the proceeds of sale paid into court.

[118] In Mr. Wilson’s affidavit sworn May 9, 2016, in the Milton action, he acknowledges that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari bought the 2006 Lamborghini and states that he sold the car, but that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari kept the proceeds:

3. In response to paragraph 4 of her affidavit, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari forced me to sign an agreement saying that she owned the matrimonial home 2 years after we married. I signed the agreement, without legal advice or financial disclosure, only because Sara had bought a 2006 Lamborghini, at a cost of $117,000 plus tax. We agreed that the car would belong to my company. The car was put into Exotic Car Tours’ name and even though the business was in Sara’s mother’s name we had an agreement the company and its assets belonged to me. In November 2014, I sold the Lamborghini but Sara took all of the proceeds of the sale. [Emphasis added]

4. On December 5, 2014, she entered into an agreement to sell the Company’s remaining vehicle inventory of 13 vehicles for $500,000.

[119] Two months later, in his affidavit sworn July 6, 2016, in the family law proceeding, Mr. Wilson denies that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari bought any of the cars for the company. He states:

12. There is no truth whatsoever to the Applicant’s claims that she bought the Company cars with proceeds from her and her mother. They never had any such proceeds. The money that was used to buy the subject cars as well as the BMW that the Applicant is currently driving and the Chevy Cruze that her sister is driving came from my Company. [Emphasis added]

[120] In his affidavit sworn July 6, 2016, Mr. Wilson states, contrary to the assertion he made in the Milton action two months earlier, that it was Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari who sold the 2006 Lamborghini. He states:

22. Between August 1, 2014, and November 30, 2014, she unilaterally sold 3 of the company’s vehicles and pocketed the proceeds from those sales. She sold a 2006 Lamborgini for $86,000.000 USD, a 2003 Dodge Viper for $32,000.00 USD, and a 2002 Ferrari for $72,000.00 USD for a total of $190,000.00 USD.

[121] The Gray Order exotic cars were registered in the name of 2246519 Ontario Inc., which rented them to the public under the names Exotic Car Tours and GTA Exotics. They included two Lamborghini cars, a 2003 Lamborghini VIN ZA9BC10U13LA12517 and a 2004 Lamborghini VIN ZHWGU11S84LA00299.

[122] Mr. Wilson’s assertion that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari did not buy any of the cars that his businesses used is contradicted by the bills of sale which Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari produced to the court for 5 of the cars listed in Gray J.’s Order, with the corresponding records from her bank account. These included the following:

• The records of her purchase of the 2003 Lamborghini listed in Gray J.’s Order. She produced the Buyers Order/Bill of Sale dated December 14, 2011, by which 2246519 Ontario Inc. bought the 2003 Lamborghini Murcielago, VIN ZA9BC1OU13LA12517, for $99,200. Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari additionally produced a Canada Trust debit memo for a wire payment she made the following day, on December 15, 2011, in the amount of $103,347.20, to Afford a Car Auto Sales LLC, for the payment of $99,200 USD.

• The records of her purchase of the 2009 Nissan GT-R listed in Gray J.’s Order. She produced a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale dated November 3, 2010, from Caliber Automobiles Ltd. for the sale to her of the 2009 Nissan GT-R, VIN JN1AR54F49M250405, as listed in the Order, for a purchase price of $82,611.05, consisting of a deposit of $30,000 and a balance of $52,611.05, due on delivery. She additionally produced the corresponding debit memo dated November 3, 2010, from TD Canada Trust in her name, for a bank draft in the amount of $30,000, corresponding to the deposit amount, to Caliber Automobiles Ltd.

• The records of her purchase of the 2001 Ferrari, VIN ZFFYT53A010123635, listed in Gray J.’s Order. She produced the Used Vehicle Bill of Sale from Caliber Automobiles Ltd. dated May 29, 2012, showing a purchase price of $91,530, consisting of a selling price of $81,000, P.S.T. of $10,530, and incidental fees, with the notation “Paid by Sara 5/29/12”, and a corresponding debit memo dated May 29, 2012, from her G.I.C. account #6295035, in the amount of $80,000 for a Bank Draft in that amount, and a copy of the Bank Draft of the same date, to the order of Caliber Auto Ltd, and a corresponding Receipt for an AMEX card payment of the same date in the amount of $11,530.00.

• The records of her purchase (from persianmoosh@hotmail.com) of the Aston Martin Vantage, corresponding to a car of that make and model listed in Gray J.’s Order, for $44,000 from E-Bay on November 10, 2011, from a seller in Highland Park, Texas, and a corresponding debit memo in Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s name from TD Canada Trust dated November 12, 2011, in the amount of $44,000 USD for a Wire Payment to George A. Pelletier in Texas.

• The records of her purchase on May 29, 2012, from Caliber Automobiles Ltd. of a 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo, VIN ZHWGUII584LA00299, listed in Gray J.’s Order, for a purchase price of $114,000 plus P.S.T., for a total of $128,820, with the handwritten notation “5/29/12 Paid by Sara”.

[123] In his Financial Statement sworn June 25, 2015, Mr. Wilson states that on the date of marriage, the vehicles owned by GTA Exotic Car Rentals Inc. were worth 1,200,000, that the company’s bank accounts contained $60,000, and that its liabilities were $900,000. He therefore states that the net value of the business was $330,000. His Financial Statement further states that the vehicles that 224 had owned, which had recently been disposed of, had a value of $372,000, and that his business interests had no value, either on the date of marriage or on the date of separation, (December 4, 2014).

[124] Beginning March 4, 2015, Mr. Wilson began to transfer the assets of Exotic Car Tours and GTA Exotics from 244 to Jason Bradimore’s business, Straightforward Auto Service, by means of a joint venture, for nil value, and to Mr. Wilson’s mother. On April 4, 2015, a month after Gray J. made his Order, and a year before the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s appeal from the Order, Mr. Wilson transferred the Gray exotic cars from 224 to Straightforward Auto Services Inc., owned by Mr. Bradimore.

[125] An Ontario Verification Statement, filed as exhibit “P” to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s affidavit sworn October 7, 2016, and a Used Vehicle Information Package dated October 3, 2016, filed as exhibit “Q” to the same affidavit, assign a nil value to one of the vehicles for purposes of the registration of 224’s sale or transfer of the vehicle to Mr. Bradimore’s company. In particular, the Used Vehicle Information Package contains the following information:

A 2-door, 12 cylinder 2003 LAMO (short for Lamborghini Murciélago), with an odometer reading of 47,689 kilometers on April 4, 2015, and an odometer reading of 40,000 kms on September 30, 2016, is assigned a nil value for purposes of the registration of the transfer from 224 to Straight Forward Auto Service Inc. on April 4, 2015.

[126] Mr. Wilson initially asserted that he tried to hire someone at WhiteGold Financial to value his business but that he had no records that would be required to perform such a valuation. There is no evidence that there is anyone at WhiteGold who is a Chartered Business Valuator. There is also no evidence that Mr. Wilson retained anyone at that firm to conduct a valuation, and no evidence supporting his assertion that he tried to do so.

[127] Mr. Wilson provided little detail in that regard. He said that he spoke to Jacob Abecassis, an owner of WhiteGold, who passed his request down to his assistant, Jade Lynd. He said that he hired Jade to do “substantial work” for the company, but that Jade was not privy to his conversation with Mr. Abecassis.

[128] Mr. Wilson does not know what work WhiteGold does, and whether they have anyone qualified to perform a business valuation. He states that he spoke to Jacob Abecassis. He was shown Mr. Abecassis’ Linkedin profile, which says nothing about his ability to do a business valuation. Mr. Wilson testified that Mr. Abecassis told him he could do it. On July 12, 2016, Mr. Wilson gave evidence that Mr. Abecassis “did the work on the accounting side”.

[129] An e-mail from Mr. Abecassis dated November 6, 2016, stating, “I’m not the one you need to speak with”. Jade Lynd took over the work from a past employee who did the work on his file at the office. Mr. Abecassis suggested that Mr. Wilson book a time with Jade to go over all the information he had available.

[130] Mr. Wilson stated that he does not have anything in writing about hiring a business valuator, no correspondence from WhiteGold stating that they could not do a valuation or hire a valuator to do one. He does not know if his request was in writing. He says he assumed that every time he came to court, what he needed would be on record.

[131] Mr. Wilson was shown Jade’s e-mail to him dated August 15, 2016. He stated that when he spoke to Jade, she was filing tax returns.

[132] Mr. Wilson states that he received his bank statements a year and a half after he consulted WhiteGold. He states that they looked at the bank statements and tried to determine how much was taken out of the accounts. He states that “A bank statement does not tell you what the assets of the company are. All it says is what was in the bank accounts.” He stated that he could tell us what was taken out of the bank accounts.

[133] Mr. Wilson did not obtain an affidavit from WhiteGold as to his compliance with the Order requiring him to retain a Valuator. He states that he understood that “it was done by WhiteGold. I was assuming the affidavit was put in place.”

[134] I find that Mr. Wilson hired WhiteGold for the sole purpose of preparing his income tax returns. I reject his testimony that he asked Mr. Abecassis about performing a business valuation and that Mr. Abecassis told him he could do one.

[135] Mr. Wilson offers two justifications for failing retain a Chartered Business Valuator. With regard to the business he owned on December 4, 2014, when the parties separated, he states, in his affidavit sworn July 6, 2016:

18. Furthermore, I do not believe it is my responsibility to value the subject business. The Applicant was in complete control of the Company until March 3, 2015, and she denied me access to all its records.

[136] Even if Mr. Wilson believed that, without the business records, a Valuator would be unable to value the business, he was required to retain the Valuator and obtain his/her opinion as to what records were required. Mr. Wilson could then have moved, if necessary, for an Order for the production of the records.

[137] I reject Mr. Wilson’s allegation that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari was in “complete control” of 224, and withheld its financial records from him. The evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. In her affidavit sworn November 20, 2016, 224’s book-keeper, Ms. Boyce, states, in part:

6. During my contract, every now and then Stewart Wilson would come to me with questions regarding the accounting and book-keeping of the business. I always answered the questions. One particular time he and I went over the financial statements because he had a few specific questions regarding the depreciation of the cars and they were answered.

7. I worked at the 1058 South Service Road East office on a monthly basis for 3 to 4 days out of the month. Most times the office was occupied by Sara, Stewart and myself, as it was one open room for all accounting records i.e.: bank statements, credit card statement, bank reconciliations, printouts from accounting and bills paid were kept in a two drawer filing cabinet behind my desk which was not locked. It was a shared office-space and I never restricted access to the business documents from either Sara or Stewart. Instead, I would advise them that when others are in the office that they should put away their documents so that information could be kept confidential from low-level employees or the prying eyes of customers.

8. I understand that there are allegations against Sara that she controlled Stewart Wilson to the point that he didn’t have access to the financials of the business but in all of the time working thee I did not witness such a thing.

9. In terms of having control of the business, Stewart Wilson was regularly involved on the day-to-day business including, client intake, quoting the clients, accepting payments from clients, dealing with the mechanics regarding the maintenance of the vehicles. I have personally witnessed times where Sara would suggest certain maintenance on the vehicles but Stewart Wilson would say no to her.

10. When Sara was on vacation in 2013, in my presence, Mr. Wilson quoted a client over the phone for a rental for the long weekend in the amount of $7,000.00 specifically in cash. [Emphasis added]

[138] I accept that evidence, as well as Ms. Boyce’s and Mr. Pak’s evidence that following the parties’ separation, 224’s records were returned to Mr. Wilson.

[139] The justification that Mr. Wilson offers for failing to retain a Business Valuator is that in 2015, the exotic cars, which were his business’ principal assets, were no longer owned by him, because he had transferred them to the joint venture or, through it, to Mr. Bradimore and his company. He states that he owns 10% of the new [joint venture] company. He states that he has not valued the company because it is not Exotic Car Tours and was not the subject of the Order. As he put it, “New company, new life. The only thing the same is the vehicles.”

[140] I do not accept Mr. Wilson’s justifications for not retaining a Business Valuator. I find that he had access to 224’s financial records and could have provided them to a Valuator for the purpose of valuing his business on the date of separation. I also find that, after transferring the cars to the corporation by which he operated his joint venture with Mr. Bradimore, Mr. Wilson had access to the records of that company, whether his interest in the venture was 10% or a greater percentage, and could have provided them to the Valuator for the purpose of valuing the present value of his interest.

[141] I find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Wilson deliberately and wilfully breached my Order of July 7, 2016, requiring him to retain a Business Valuator to value the exotic cars business.

(iv) The Agreement of Purchase and Sale for 1360 Niels Avenue

[142] Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari asserts that the property at 1360 Niels Avenue, Burlington, was bought with $120,000 of funds that were family property of Mr. Wilson and Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari. The property was registered in the names of Mr. Wilson’s mother and brother. It was sold without notice to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari on July 12, 2016, for $465,000.

[143] Mr. Wilson was ordered to produce the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for 1360 Niels Avenue, the lawyer’s client trust ledger, and a tracing of the funds used to purchase the property. This evidence was required in order to establish whether the funds derived, as Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari alleges, from her and Mr. Wilson’s family property.

[144] Neither Mr. Wilson nor his mother, Elizabeth Wilson, produced the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the purchase of 1360 Niels Avenue, which would have identified who signed as purchaser, and detailed the amounts of the deposit and the balance required. Mr. Wilson states that he contacted the lawyer who acted in the purchase, and that he did not have the Agreement of Purchase and Sale in his file. He provided no evidence of efforts to obtain the Agreement from the realtor or broker who assisted in the purchase.

[145] Mr. Wilson and his mother also failed to produce a tracing of the funds used for the purchase, which my Order required. The Lawyer’s reporting letter, with a paragraph entitled “trust ledger statement”, shows a down-payment of $108,110 for the purchase of the property on July 24, 2009. A three-page print-out from 2016 of Elizabeth Wilson’s bank account in July 2009, shows that she had only $1,584.66 in her account until July 23, 2009, the day before the purchase, when two sums for the combined amount of $90,082.25 were deposited, and, $83,110.00 withdrawn from the account on the day of the purchase.

[146] There is no tracing of the funds used for the purchase the property, showing the source of the two amounts deposited to Ms. Wilson’s account the day before the purchase, nor the source of the $25,000 difference between the withdrawal amount of $83,110.00 from Ms. Wilson’s account and the down payment of $109,110, shown in the lawyer’s reporting letter. Mr. Wilson states that he provided $10,000 cash as a deposit for the purchase, and Elizabeth Wilson testified that she provided $25,000 cash toward the purchase, but neither produced any record of those funds, nor gave any satisfactory explanation for their failure to produce such evidence.

[147] I find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Wilson wilfully failed to produce the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and failed to produce a tracing of the funds used to purchase the property.

(v) Pay Pal statements

[148] In the absence of a valuation of Mr. Wilson’s interest in his exotic car business, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari sought an Order requiring Mr. Wilson to produce the Pay Pal Statements he used in his exotic car business. By disclosing his spending, those statements would provide indirect evidence of his income. My Order dated July 7, 2016, required Mr. Wilson to produce the Pay Pal Statements or, if the account was closed, evidence confirming that fact.

[149] Mr. Wilson failed to produce those statements. He produced only page 1 of a two-page Pay Pal statement from December 7, 2016, showing that the Pay Pal account was opened on December 1, 2014, in the name of GTA Exotic Cars, a “Vehicle service and accessories” company owned by Stewart Wilson and operating at 1360 Niels Avenue, Burlington.

[150] In Mr. Wilson’s affidavit sworn August 15, 2016, he swears that he has not had a Pay Pal account since the parties’ separation. He did not produce evidence that the Pay Pal Account for GTA Exotic Cars was closed.

[151] Mr. Wilson testified at the hearing of the contempt motion. He acknowledged that he has operated a Pay Pal account for the exotic car business since the parties separated but stated that he was not able to produce the statements because the account was owned by Mr. Bradimore’s company.

[152] Mr. Wilson stated that he opened the account because Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari had closed the bank account of 244, and that the only way he was able to generate revenue from the cars was by means of the business’ website, which employed Pay Pal as a means by which customers paid for their rentals.

[153] Mr. Wilson stated that Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari “had the house and the bank account.” He stated that the only reason 224 paid him was that he had to show, in the bankruptcy proceeding, that he was employed, but that he did not earn more than $500 per month. He stated that during the years of his bankruptcy, Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari “siphoned the company dry.”

[154] Mr. Wilson stated that the reason his personal account had $136,000 was that when 224’s account was closed, he no longer had a business account. When Gray J. directed that the $100,000 from 224’s account, which had been paid into court pursuant to an order made in the Milton action, be paid out to Mr. Wilson, he had to put it into his personal account. He stated, “So the sales went into my personal account. And to Jay’s business account.”

[155] Mr. Wilson states that he transferred the Pay Pal account to a corporation owned by his friend and business associate, Mr. Bradimore. He stated that he did not know the number of the corporation. He stated, “I had to get Jay to register a business in order to be a dealer. In order to operate a car rental business legally, you have to be dealer. I got fined in the past. I had no way to get business insurance. I was on street with nothing in the bank. In order to continue the business, I had to put the business in Jay’s name.”

[156] Mr. Wilson explained that he had been charged in the past for selling vehicles without a dealer’s license, which he said is also required in Ontario for operating a car rental business. Mr. Bradimore had a car dealership license and business insurance.

[157] Mr. Wilson initially testified that he opened the Pay Pal account for Mr. Bradimore. When asked why his own name and address appear on the Profile, he replied that the Pay Pal web site asks for information when the account is set up, so Mr. Wilson provided his own information. Later, he stated that he set up the Pay Pal account in January 2015 and that Mr. Bradimore “came on” in March 2015.

[158] At the examination by Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s lawyer, Mr. Siddiqui, on May 11, 2017, Mr. Bradimore, who has known Mr. Wilson for 16 years, and attended his and Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari’s wedding, was asked about the Pay Pal account and gave the following testimony:

271. Q. Okay. What about the Pay Pal account? That’s in Stewart’s name with his address and his phone number and at the top of the paper account, it says “info at gtaexotics.ca.” Why is that?

A. I believe it had probably because he’s always had – I actually don’t know how Pay Pal works. I don’t use Pay Pal.

272. Q. So, does he have full control on the Pay Pal?

A. The money goes into the numbered company.

273. Q. Okay. But it’s all run through Stewart Wilson?

A. I believe it’s the say it was originally set up. I haven’t ventured into it.

274. Q. Do you have any control over the Pay Pal?

A. We have all the statements and I have Erin, who is my bookkeeper, looking through things, and she has been for quite a while now, to try to get our taxes up to date and caught up.

275. Q. Does the Pay Pal statement still have all of Stewart’s personal information on it?

A. I cannot tell you what it does or doesn’t have.

276. Q. What protections do you have as far as the Pay Pal account is concerned from Stewart taking that money and running?

A. I guess at this point in time probably none other than blind trust that the money goes into the account as we make sales. When those numbers start to come out of balance, then I would have a serious concern.

[159] When asked, at the hearing of the motion, about the evidence Mr. Bradimore had given at his examination, Mr. Wilson replied, “I don’t know what he’s saying. It [the Pay Pal account] belongs to the numbered company that was set up after we separated, and transferred to Jason.”

[160] I reject Mr. Wilson’s explanation for not producing copies of the Pay Pal statements to Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari. It is evident from Mr. Bradimore’s testimony that Mr. Wilson controls the Pay Pal account, operates it freely and exclusively, and that Mr. Bradimore, at best, has a copy of the statements for the purpose only of having his bookkeeper review them for tax purposes. It is clear that Mr. Wilson has access to the statements, Mr. Bradimore has not prevented him from producing them, and that he is using Mr. Bradimore and his company simply as a means of concealing the requested information.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

[161] For the foregoing reasons, I find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Wilson deliberately and wilfully breached both Miller J.’s Order dated July 23, 2015, and my Order dated July 7, 2016.

d) What penalty should be imposed?

[162] Rule 31 of the Family Law Rules provides, in part:

31. CONTEMPT ORDERS

(5) If the court finds a person in contempt of the court, it may order that the person,

(a) be imprisoned for any period and on any conditions that are just;

(b) pay a fine in any amount that is appropriate;

(c) pay an amount to a party as a penalty;

(d) do anything else that the court decides is appropriate;

(e) not do what the court forbids;

(f) pay costs in an amount decided by the court; and

(g) obey any other order. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (5).

WRIT OF TEMPORARY SEIZURE

(6) The court may also give permission to issue a writ of temporary seizure (Form 28C) against the person’s property. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (6).

LIMITED IMPRISONMENT OR FINE

(7) In a contempt order under one of the following provisions, the period of imprisonment and the amount of a fine may not be greater than the relevant Act allows:

1. Section 38 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

2. Section 49 of the Family Law Act.

3. Section 53 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (7); O. Reg. 235/16, s. 6.

CONDITIONAL IMPRISONMENT OR FINE

(8) A contempt order for imprisonment or for the payment of a fine may be suspended on appropriate conditions. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (8).

ISSUING WARRANT OF COMMITTAL

(9) If a party, on a motion with special service (subrule 6 (3)) on the person in contempt, states by an affidavit in Form 32C (or by oral evidence, with the court’s permission) that the person has not obeyed a condition imposed under subrule (8), the court may issue a warrant of committal against the person. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (9).

PAYMENT OF FINE

(10) A contempt order for the payment of a fine shall require the person in contempt to pay the fine,

(a) in a single payment, immediately or before a date that the court chooses; or

(b) in instalments, over a period of time that the court considers appropriate. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 31 (10).

[163] Mr. Wilson will be given an opportunity to make submissions as to the penalty to be imposed. For this reason, it is ordered that:

1. The motion is adjourned to October 31, 2017, at 9 a.m. before me.

2. Mr. Wilson shall attend court on that date.

3. The parties shall submit written arguments on the issue of penalty, by October 20, 2017, together with their written submissions on costs, not to exceed four pages, and a Costs Outline.

Price J.

Released: October 10, 2017

CITATION: Fatahi-Ghandehari v. Wilson, 2017 ONSC 6034

COURT FILE NO.: FS-15-83320-00

DATE: 2017-10-10

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

SARA FATAHI-GHANDEHARI

Applicant

• and –

STEWART WILSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

Price J.

Released: October 10, 2017

[^1]: Hobbs v. Hobbs, 2009 ONCA 598, at para. 26; Susin v. Susin, 2014 ONCA 733, para. 21, citing Prescott-Russell Services for Children and Adults v. G.(N.) (2006), 82 O.R. (3d) 686 (C.A.), at para. 27; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Torroni, 2009 ONCA 85, 94 O.R. (3d) 614, at para. 21.

[^2]: Litterst v. Horrey (1995), 1996 ABCA 13, 178 A.R. 216, at para. 14

[^3]: Kassay v. Kassay, 11 R.F.L. (5th) 308, [2000](Ont. Sup. Ct.), at paras. 15 and 18.

[^4]: Morrison v. Charney, 2007 MBQB 47, [2007] M.J. No. 68 (Man. Q.B. (Fam Div.)), at para. 33.

[^5]: Re Sheppard and Sheppard (1976), 67 D.L.R. (3) 592 (Ont. C.A.) at 595-596; iTrade Finance Inc. v. Webworx Inc. (2005), 255 D.L.R. (4th) 748 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), at para. 8.

[^6]: Brooks v. Vander Muelen (1999), 141 Man. R. (2d) 25 (Q.B.) cited in A.G.L. v. K.B.D. (2009), 65 R.F.L. (6th) 182 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), at para. 31.

[^7]: Susin v. Susin, above, at paras. 33 to 35

[^8]: Dickie v. Dickie (2006), 78 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at paras. 119-23

[^9]: Dickie v. Dickie, 2007 SCC 8, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 346, at para. 7.

[^10]: Bhatnager v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217, at pp. 225-26. See also Scaffidi v. Scaffidi (1998), 41 R.F.L. (4th) 166 (Gen. Div.), at paras. 12-14

[^11]: Fatahi-Ghandehari v. Wilson, 2016 ONSC 6863, at para. 26

[^12]: Fatahi-Ghandehari v. Wilson, 2016 ONSC 6863, pat para. 76.

[^13]: Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONSC 3776, at para. 5, citing Blaney v. Blaney, 2012 ONSC 1777.

[^14]: Fatahi-Ghandehari v. Wilson, 2016 ONSC 6863, at para. 75

[^15]: Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONSC 2776, at para. 4