Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-518629 MOTION HEARD: 2018-06-22 REASONS RELEASED: 2018-07-27 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

EVGENIYA CHERNUKHINA Plaintiff

- and-

SOFIA GUREVICH, SABRINA GUREVICH, BORIS GUREVICH and ANATOLY GUREVICH, also known as ANDREW GUREVICH, also known as ANDY GUREVICH Defendants

BEFORE: MASTER M.P. McGRAW

COUNSEL: H.K. Juriansz, for the Plaintiff A. Bouchelev, for the Defendants

REASONS RELEASED: July 27, 2018

Reasons For Endorsement

I. Background

[1] The Plaintiff brings 3 motions pursuant to my Endorsement from the telephone case conference held on April 13, 2018:

i.) a motion for costs of the Plaintiff’s motions (the “TD Motions”) for the production of documents by the non-party TD Canada Trust (“TD Bank”) and the examination of Christine Hodgkinson of TD Bank (the “Costs Motion”);

ii.) a motion to compel the Defendants to deliver outstanding productions (the “Productions Motion”); and

iii.) a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim (the “Pleadings Motion”).

[2] These are protracted and contentious proceedings involving serious allegations of fraud among family members. The facts are set out in greater detail in my Reasons For Endorsement dated January 2018 from the Defendants’ unsuccessful motion to have Plaintiff’s counsel removed from the record (Chernukhina v. Gurevich, 2018 ONSC 330)(the “Removal Motion”).

[3] The Plaintiff is an 81-year old retiree who moved to Canada from Russia in 2008. In this action, she claims $537,640 which she alleges was misappropriated by the Defendants including for the purchase of a condominium in Toronto (the “Toronto Property”). The Plaintiff alleges that she transferred the funds to the Defendant Sofia Gurevich (“Sofia”), her cousin, who agreed to hold them in trust until the Plaintiff arrived in Canada. The transfers were initiated in Russia and made with the assistance of Sabrina Gurevich (“Sabrina”), Sofia’s daughter-in-law and a former employee of TD Bank. The Defendant Boris Gurevich (“Boris”) is Sofia’s husband. The Defendant Anatoly Gurevich (“Anatoly”) is the son of Sofia and Boris and Sabrina’s husband.

[4] The Defendants deny that they received any funds from the Plaintiff and in the alternative, state that any funds received were a gift. In an affidavit sworn September 21, 2015 in response to a motion by the Plaintiff to compel the Defendants to produce financial information, Anatoly alleges that funds deposited into a TD Bank account controlled by the Defendants were not transferred by the Plaintiff but by a “secret investor” pursuant to a “secret investment agreement” which the Defendants are required to keep confidential. Anatoly further stated that the Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain financial disclosure were “nothing more than a fishing expedition”.

[5] Since this matter first came before me on April 12, 2017, the parties have appeared before me 10 times including 5 in person attendances and 5 telephone case conferences. This has included issues related to the Plaintiff’s health and participation in these proceedings; an aborted examination for discovery; the Removal Motion; the significant production issues addressed below; and the costs of every step. This is in addition to significant case management and appearances before other Judges and Masters including Master Short, whose orders, some outstanding for over 2 years, are the subject of the Production Motion.

II. The Motions, the Law and Analysis

The Costs Motion

[6] The Plaintiff seeks costs of the TD Motions from the Defendants on a full indemnity scale in the amount of $23,614.69. The Plaintiff has resolved costs of the TD Motions as against TD Bank for an undisclosed amount.

[7] As with most steps in these proceedings, those leading to the TD Motions were protracted, arduous and opposed at every juncture. On April 13, 2016, the Defendants served a Fresh Affidavit of Documents producing a document allegedly prepared by the TD Bank Wire Transfer Department which included details of 6 wire transfers to accounts controlled by Anatoly and Sabrina (the “Redacted Document”). Due to numerous irregularities including apparent redactions, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to confirm the authenticity of the Redacted Document with TD Bank whose in-counsel subsequently produced copies of the complete details for the wire transfers referred to in the Redacted Document (the “Wire Transfer Documents”).

[8] Among other things, the Wire Transfer Documents included certain information which had been redacted or excluded from the Redacted Document including the Plaintiff’s name. It is the Plaintiff’s position that the existence of her name in the Wire Transfer Documents and exclusion from the Redacted Document produced by the Defendants supports her conclusion that she is the source of the funds deposited by the Defendants and calls into question the Defendants’ allegations of a secret investor and agreement.

[9] Pursuant to his Endorsement dated April 20, 2016 (the “April 2016 Endorsement”), Master Short ordered the Defendants to produce a substantial amount of financial documentation, much of which remains outstanding and is the subject of the Production Motion. At pages 5 and 7-12 of the April 2016 Endorsement, Master Short stated:

“I am satisfied that proportionality and the need for clarity in a case involving banking account records demands further precision.

“ I am satisfied that the most expeditious way to a fair resolution in this case is to have all parties know where the wire funds ended up. This is a complex matter where the Plaintiff asserts that the proceeds arising on the sale of her home in Russia were wired to relatives in Canada to be held by them for her benefit. In particular she asserts that a condo unit at 133 Torresdale Ave in North York was purchased with the funds. The registered owners are however two of the Defendants (one of whom works for the TD Bank). On earlier attendances I applied a “show me the money” test. I directed the Defendants to produce a flow of funds statements for various 2008 wire transfers. The Defendant has now obtained from TD Canada Trust an unsigned, undated cover letter with what appears to be at least part of the details of six wire transfers that seem to have visited places such as Nassau, Cyprus, The British Virgin Islands, on their way to Canadian accounts at the Branch that employed Sabrina. A copy of that exhibit is annexed hereto as exhibit c. Documents previously produced by the Plaintiff when taken with the Agreement of Sale of her Moscow property for $480,000 USD raises concerns.”

[10] The Plaintiff commenced the TD Motions on February 23, 2017 seeking any relevant documents from TD Bank which might authenticate the Redacted Document; the identify the TD Bank employee who prepared the Redacted Document and requested the wire transfer details; the dates on which this information was accessed by the TD Bank employee; an examination of this employee; and internal records and policies regarding the creation of documents for clients, correspondence with clients and the retention of records.

[11] As set out in my Endorsement from the telephone case conference held on May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff initially expected that the TD Motions would proceed unopposed. However, as set out in my Endorsement from a telephone case conference held 5 days later on May 30, 2017, the Defendants subsequently filed correspondence with the Court submitting that TD Bank had provided all relevant documentation and information such that the Plaintiff’s motion was unnecessary advising that the Defendants would oppose the TD Motions. By letter dated May 19, 2017, Defendants’ counsel further advised that “my clients will not support the Plaintiff’s motion. In fact, I may have instructions to oppose the motion as it appears unnecessary and amounts to a fishing expedition.” Similarly, in their responding affidavit on the TD Motions, the Defendants took the position that since TD Bank had already provided written answers to their questions and the requested documents, the TD Motions were unnecessary.

[12] On the May 30, 2017 telephone case conference, TD Bank advised that it had provided the relevant wire transfer documentation and answered the necessary questions and did not understand the purpose of further documentary production and the examination of a TD Bank employee.

[13] The TD Motions proceeded on June 5, 2017. My Endorsement dated June 5, 2017 states:

“…After considerable discussion and submissions from counsel, it is apparent that there is likely additional information and documentation in the possession or control of TD Bank with respect to wire transfers which are relevant to matters at issue in this action. In my view, the production of this documentation would advance the issues in this action such that an examination of a representative of TD Bank may not be necessary. Accordingly, in the circumstances, it is appropriate that an order compelling TD bank to produce the records, documentation and information set out at paragraph 23 of the affidavit of Jason Tang sworn May 25, 2017 (“Paragraph 23”) is appropriate. TD Bank does not oppose this relief. The Defendants may wish to suggest amendments. Counsel for the Plaintiff will draft a form of order substantially on the terms as set out in the Paragraph 23 for review by counsel for the Defendants and TD Bank (including with respect to a deadline date for TD Bank to provide the records requested). The form of order may be filed with me for final approval.”

[14] Although the Defendants ultimately did not oppose the TD Motions, they did so only after submissions were made at the motion. The Plaintiff’s Rule 31.10 motion to examine Ms. Hodgkinson of TD Bank was adjourned together with the Removal Motion, the Production Motion and the Pleadings Motion.

[15] On July 31, 2017, TD Bank produced the following documents and information: i.) descriptions and information regarding all data fields included in the wire transfer details; ii.) confirmation that Ms. Hodgkinson, a Financial Services Advisor at the TD Bank branch in question had obtained the wire transfer details on behalf of the Defendants and prepared a letter for the Defendants containing this information; iii.) internal correspondence between Ms. Hodgkinson and the TD Wire Transfer Department; and iv.) TD Bank policies and procedures regarding customer requests and document retention.

[16] Not surprisingly, the parties were unable to agree on the terms of an order and an additional telephone case conference was held on August 2, 2017 for this purpose and to speak to other outstanding issues. On the August 2, 2017 case conference, the Plaintiff advised that it wished to proceed with an examination of Ms. Hodgkinson. TD Bank did not oppose Ms. Hodgkinson’s examination but insisted that the Plaintiff pay the reasonable costs of having external counsel attend. The Plaintiff refused and this led to yet another motion which proceeded before me on August 30, 2017. As set out in my Endorsement dated August 30, 2017, TD Bank was unsuccessful.

[17] On August 21, 2017, TD Bank delivered an affidavit of Ms. Hodgkinson sworn August 18, 2017 (the “Hodgkinson Affidavit”) in which she confirmed that, at Anatoly’s request, she created the Redacted Document by obtaining the wire transfer details; redacting specific information; putting the wire transfer details on TD Bank letterhead; and not signing her covering letter.

[18] At her examination on October 16, 2017, Ms. Hodgkinson further stated that Anatoly attended in her office while she prepared the Redacted Document and that she provided him with the email she received from TD Bank Wire Transfer Department. Ms. Hodgkinson also deposed that she was not advised of these proceedings and that Anatoly returned approximately 30 days after his first attendance at the branch and requested a further altered document which she refused to provide.

[19] Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario) states:

“ Subject to the provisions of an Act or rules of court, the costs of and incidental to a proceeding or a step in a proceeding are in the discretion of the court, and the court may determine by whom and to what extent the costs shall be paid.”

[20] Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

“In exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to award costs, the court may consider, in addition to the result in the proceeding and any offer to settle or to contribute made in writing,

(0.a) the principle of indemnity, including, where applicable, the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged and the hours spent by that lawyer;

(0.b) the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;

(a) the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;

(b) the apportionment of liability;

(c) the complexity of the proceeding;

(d) the importance of the issues;

(e) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;

(f) whether any step in the proceeding was,

(i) improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or

(ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;

(g) a party’s denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted;

(h) whether it is appropriate to award any costs or more than one set of costs where a party,

(i) commenced separate proceedings for claims that should have been made in one proceeding, or

(ii) in defending a proceeding separated unnecessarily from another party in the same interest or defended by a different lawyer; and

(i) any other matter relevant to the question of costs.”

[21] Costs rules are designed to advance five purposes: (1) indemnify successful litigants for the costs of litigation, although not necessarily completely; (2) facilitate access to justice, including access for impecunious litigants; (3) discourage frivolous claims and defences; (4) discourage the sanctioning of inappropriate behaviour by litigants in their conduct of the proceedings; and (5) encourage settlements (394 Lakeshore Oakville Holdings Inc. v. Misek, 2010 ONSC 7238 at para. 10; Deonath v. Iqbal, 2017 ONSC 3672 at para. 20; Elbasiouni v. Brampton (City), 2017 ONSC 2088 at para. 12).

[22] The principle that costs follow the event should only be departed from for very good reasons such as misconduct of the party, miscarriage in procedure, or oppressive or vexatious conduct of proceedings: 1318706 Ontario Ltd. v. Niagara (Regional Municipality) (2005), 75 O.R. (3d) 405 (C.A.); 394 Lakeshore at para. 14). In determining costs, the overriding principles are fairness and reasonableness (Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.); Deonath at para. 21). The general rule is that costs on a partial indemnity scale should follow the event (394 Lakeshore at para. 12).

[23] Costs on a full or substantial indemnity scale are reserved for rare and exceptional cases where the conduct of the party against whom costs are ordered is reprehensible or where there are other special circumstances that justify costs on the higher scale (394 Lakeshore at para. 17). The situations in which costs on a substantial indemnity scale are awarded are rare, including where one party to the litigation has behaved in an abusive manner, brought proceedings wholly devoid of merit, and unnecessarily run up the costs of the litigation, having regard to Rules 57.01(e) and (f) with respect to the conduct of any party and the steps taken (Standard Life Assurance Co. v. Elliot, [2007] O.J. No. 2031 (S.C.J.) at paras. 9-10).

[24] Rule 1.04(1) also applies to the exercise of the court’s discretion on costs and provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits. Further, Rule 1.04(1.1) requires the court to make orders and give directions, including costs awards, that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved, in the proceeding (Deonath at para. 21).

[25] The Plaintiff submits that because she was entirely successful on the TD Motions she is entitled to costs. The Plaintiff takes the position that the evidence obtained from Ms. Hodgkinson confirms that the Defendants produced a fraudulent document that was intended to mislead the Court, entitling her to costs on a full indemnity scale after April 16, 2016 when it was produced. The Plaintiff asserts that, based on Ms. Hodgkinson’s evidence: the wire transfer details “suggesting” that the Plaintiff was the source of the funds at issue in this action were removed at Anatoly’s request; and that the Defendants “perpetrated a fraud” by producing the Redacted Document and resisting the production of the Wire Transfer Documents and additional information from TD Bank required to authenticate it.

[26] The Defendants dispute Ms. Hodgkinson’s evidence submit that the Redacted Document is another “version” of the Wire Transfer Documents and other relevant TD documents and that they never had in their possession or control the Wire Transfer Information which TD Bank ultimately produced. The Defendants submit that given the disputed issues and conflicting evidence, any costs related to the TD Motions as against the Defendants should be reserved to the trial Judge.

[27] There are numerous difficulties with the Plaintiff’s position that the Defendants should pay costs on a full indemnity scale. The primary issue is that the Plaintiff is asking this Court, on a costs motion arising from an interlocutory motion, to make evidentiary findings of fraud on material documents which are central to the ultimate determination of this action on the merits.

[28] Master MacLeod (as he then was) stated the following in Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Co. v. Canada Attorney General, 2016 ONSC 29:

“ 18 …….Where a different master or judge is hearing the main motion, the concern must be that the judicial officer hearing the preliminary motion not usurp the role of the judicial officer hearing the merits. If the same person is hearing both then the concern must be not to inappropriately form opinions about the weight to be given to evidence that may bias the hearing on the merits. In addition, treating the preliminary motion as a separate motion opens the possibility of two sets of appeals, one an appeal of the preliminary motion and the other an appeal on the merits. This should generally be avoided in my view.

20 In summary, with respect to interlocutory motions for production of documents, a preliminary motion will generally not be the preferable approach. Any issues of admissibility, relevance or weight should generally be dealt with by the judicial officer hearing the main motion. . ”

[29] In my view, to make the determinations requested by the Plaintiff on this costs motion arising from the TD Motions would be usurping the role of the trial Judge. In order to conclude that the Defendants perpetrated a fraud, I would have to make findings of fact and credibility and weigh evidence all central to the ultimate determination of this action on its merits. I would also be doing so based on an incomplete record containing the Hodgkinson Affidavit and the transcript of her examination, and in the face of the Defendants’ position disputing this evidence. These determinations include whether the Redacted TD Document prepared by Ms. Hodgkinson at Anatoly’s request is authentic; the credibility of Ms. Hodgkinson’s and Anatoly’s contradictory evidence and the weight to be given each; and the effect of the Wire Transfer Documents and additional information subsequently produced by TD Bank. These determinations are all central to the ultimate determination of this action on the merits and properly within the role and jurisdiction of the trial Judge, not a Master on a costs motion arising from interlocutory motions.

[30] The Plaintiff relies on Elbasiouni, a costs decision arising from a motion to reopen an appeal and introduce new documentary evidence with respect to the granting of a building permit. On the original motion, Barnes J. found that an exhibit attached to the Appellant’s affidavit (which would have resolved the dispute if it was authentic), was not authentic. In awarding costs on a full indemnity scale, Barnes J. concluded, based on his earlier findings that the document was not authentic, that the Appellant sought to mislead and perpetrate a fraud on the court by producing a fraudulent document causing the Respondents to expend considerable time and expense to determine if it was authentic. Elbasiouni is distinguishable from the present cases in numerous respects. This includes the fact that a Judge made a separate finding, on a full record on a motion to reopen an appeal on the ultimate determination of the matter, that the document proffered by the Appellant was not authentic. Further, unlike the present case, there was no involvement of a non-party like TD Bank with respect to the fraudulent and authenticating documents.

[31] The Plaintiff’s claim for costs from the Defendants is further undermined by TD Bank’s central role in the TD Motions. This includes the cooperation of Ms. Hodgkinson in preparing the Redacted TD Document and acceding to Anatoly’s requests; TD Bank’s resistance to produce the Wire Transfer Documents and additional information and to produce Ms. Hodgkinson for examination. Further, the Defendants’ evidence is that they did not have possession of the Wire Transfer Documents which, if true, the Plaintiff would have been required to obtain from TD Bank in any event. All of this added time and cost to the TD Motions which cannot be attributed to the Defendants. This is further complicated by the fact that the Plaintiff and TD Bank have settled the costs of the TD Motions for an unknown amount.

[32] Having considered the above factors and circumstances I conclude that it would not be appropriate for me to award any costs, on any scale, on the basis that the Defendants produced a fraudulent document and perpetrated a fraud on the Court. I make no finding or determination in this regard and reserve all costs of the TD Motions against the Defendants on this basis to the trial Judge.

[33] However, although I decline to award costs to the Plaintiff on the basis that the Defendants produced a fraudulent document, I am satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances to award the Plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale as a result of the Defendants’ conduct which added unnecessary time and costs to the TD Motions.

[34] Specifically, although the Defendants ultimately did not oppose the TD Motions, they only did so at last possible moment after attending on June 5, 2017 and after their opposition throughout the process had already unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings. This includes contributing to additional and longer court appearances, telephone case conferences, court materials and correspondence. In the circumstances, I conclude that the Defendants should pay costs of the TD Motions fixed in the amount of $3,000 to the Plaintiff within 30 days, without prejudice to the parties’ rights to speak to further costs of the TD Motions before the trial Judge as set out above.

The Production Motion

[35] The Production Motion arises from outstanding documents which Master Short ordered the Defendants to produce in the April 2016 Endorsement. Most of the outstanding productions were resolved by case management, directions and agreement between the parties, all of which is set out below (the numbers correspond to the productions listed under “outstanding” in the chart at paragraph 16 of the Affidavit of Jason Tang sworn May 17, 2018 (the “Chart”). In providing directions and case management, I have considered and applied the factors under Rule 1.04 set out above.

[36] Productions #1-#7: These productions relate to the Defendants’ tax returns and corresponding schedules for various years from 2008-2013. To satisfy these outstanding productions, the Defendants shall within 60 days produce correspondence from their accountant confirming that he is their accountant and that he is not in possession of any documents set out in the Chart, and if so, the Defendants shall produce them.

[37] Production #8: These productions are the Defendants’ bank statements for accounts to which funds were transferred from a joint bank account of Anatoly and Sofia. In order to satisfy these outstanding productions, the Defendants shall produce within 60 days: i.) correspondence from TD Bank confirming that TD Bank does not have copies of any bank statements for Account No. 329M66A held by Sabrina and/or, if available, copies of any such statements; ii.) statements for Line of Credit Account No. 1076-3272930 held by Sofia and Boris; iii.) statements for HELOC account (Account No. unavailable) held by Sabrina and Andrew.

[38] Production #9: These productions include a HELOC Application with respect to the purchase of the Toronto Property and all correspondence related to the approval of the mortgage. The Defendants have advised that they do not have a copy of the HELOC Application for the purchase of the Toronto Property and have been unable to obtain one from TD Bank. In order to satisfy these outstanding productions, the Defendants shall within 60 days produce correspondence from TD Bank confirming that it does not have possession of any of these documents and/or if available, the Defendants shall produce copies of any such documents.

[39] Production #10: These productions are bank statements evidencing alleged rental income received from the Plaintiff when she resided at the Toronto Property. The Defendants have produced the Plaintiff’s bank statements but not their own which they advise are no longer available. The Defendants shall within 60 days produce any of their own bank statements evidencing rental income received from the Plaintiff and any related correspondence and confirm by documentation what requests and best efforts were made to locate any such statements.

[40] Production #11: These productions include a HELOC Application related to the Defendants purchase of a property located in Keswick, Ontario (the “Keswick Property”) and all related correspondence including approval of the mortgage. The Defendants state that they no longer have of copy of the HELOC Application nor does TD Bank. In order to satisfy this outstanding production, the Defendants shall within 60 days obtain and produce correspondence from TD Bank confirming that it does not have possession of any of these documents and/or if available, the Defendants shall produce copies of any such documents.

The Pleadings Motion

[41] On the Pleadings Motion, the Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiff’s proposed amendments to paragraphs 1(k) and 1(l) of the Statement of Claim in which the Plaintiff seeks to increase her claims for both aggravated and punitive damages to $100,000.

[42] The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff’s proposed amendments to paragraphs 1(l)(l.a), 1(l)(l.b), 23.a, 23.b and 23.c. These amendments relate to the Plaintiff’s claim for legal expenses of $150,000 she incurred for her unsuccessful request to re-open Sofia’s application to the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board (the “LTB”) and appeal pursuant to which the Plaintiff was evicted from the Toronto Property. The Plaintiff also seeks damages of $150,000 for rental fees and moving expenses arising from her eviction. It is the Plaintiff’s position that her eviction was fraudulent given that she was not a tenant, the misappropriation of funds to purchase the Toronto Property and the fact that she did not have counsel during the LTB proceedings.

[43] Due to timing issues related to the exchange of positions, neither party filed written legal submissions on the Pleadings Motion. Further, given the significant time consumed by the Costs Motion and the Productions Motion, there was insufficient time for submissions. Accordingly, the balance of the Pleadings Motion is adjourned sine die to be spoken to at an upcoming telephone case conference or court attendance.

III. Disposition

[44] Order to go as follows:

i.) the Defendants shall pay costs of the TD Motions fixed in the amount of $3,000 to the Plaintiff within 30 days, without prejudice to the parties’ rights to speak to further costs of the TD Motions before the trial Judge;

ii.) the Defendants shall within 60 days produce correspondence from their accountant confirming that he is their accountant and that he does not have possession of any documents set out in the Chart, and if he does, the Defendants shall produce them;

iii.) the Defendants shall produce within 60 days: i.) correspondence from TD Bank confirming that TD Bank does not have copies of any bank statements for Account No. 329M66A held by Sabrina and/or, if available, copies of any statements; ii.) statements for Line of Credit Account No. 1076-3272930 held by Sofia and Boris; iii.) statements for HELOC account (Account No. unavailable) held by Sabrina and Andrew;

iv.) the Defendants shall within 60 days produce correspondence from TD Bank confirming that it does not have possession of a HELOC Application and related correspondence with respect to the purchase of the Toronto Property and/or if available, the Defendants shall produce copies of any such documents;

v.) the Defendants shall within 60 days produce any of their own bank statements evidencing rental income received from the Plaintiff and any related correspondence and confirm by documentation what requests and best efforts were made to locate any such documents;

vi.) the Defendants shall within 60 days obtain and produce correspondence from TD Bank confirming that it does not have possession of a HELOC Application and related correspondence with respect to the purchase of the Keswick Property and/or if available, the Defendants shall produce copies of any such documents;

vii.) the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend paragraphs 1(k) and 1(l) of her Statement of Claim in the form attached to her Notice of Motion with the balance of the Pleadings Motion adjourned sine die to be spoken to at a future telephone case conference or court attendance.

[45] The costs of the Production Motion are reserved to be spoken to at a future case conference or court attendance.

Released: July 27, 2018 Master M.P. McGraw