Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 923/17 DATE: 2020-01-02 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Lesley Frances Palkowski, Applicant AND: Edward Stanley Palkowski, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice L. Bale

COUNSEL: Ms. V. Mendes Da Costa, Counsel, for the Applicant Respondent, Self-Represented

HEARD: December 10, 2019

Addendum to Endorsement dated December 20, 2019

1. There is a typographical error in my endorsement dated December 20, 2019.
2. At paragraph 48(a) it reads: TAB A: Redbook values or appraisals of all vehicles in the Respondent’s name, specifically including his BMW, Cadillac SRX, and Honda vehicle (sold in the Dominican Republic in 2017) as at June 30, 2016 and August 15, 2018;
3. This paragraph should read: TAB A: Redbook values or appraisals of all vehicles in the Respondent’s name, specifically including his BMW, Cadillac SRX, and Honda vehicle (sold in the Dominican Republic in 2017) as at June 30, 2016 and August 15, 2016;
4. I apologize for any confusion this error may have caused.

Endorsement

Overview

[1] On or around July 25, 2019 the Applicant mother brought a motion to strike the Respondent father’s pleadings for failure to comply with various court orders. The motion was originally returnable on July 30, 2019. It was argued by way of long motion before me on December 10, 2019.

[2] The Respondent father is opposed to the relief requested by the Applicant. He does not request a further adjournment; he simply argues that he is in compliance with the multiple orders of the court to the extent he is able.

Facts

[3] The parties commenced cohabitation in or around June 1973. They married on May 27, 1982. The Applicant asserts that the parties separated on August 15, 2016. The Respondent asserts they separated on June 30, 2016. Nothing turns on this issue except that there are two potential valuation dates, in close proximity, for purposes of financial disclosure.

[4] In July 2017 the Applicant commenced a family court proceeding by way of Application dated July 4, 2017, claiming inter alia spousal support and equalization of net family property.

[5] On October 20, 2017 the court made a finding that “it appears that the Respondent is evading service”. An Order was made permitting substitute service upon the Respondent by way of mail to his known address. The date upon which service was effected is unknown.

[6] The Respondent filed an Answer and Financial Statement on December 7, 2017. The Respondent, in his Answer, claims a significant exclusion from his net family property, asserting that funds received by way of inheritance can be traced into real property owned by him in the Dominican Republic.

[7] Since July 2017 the matter has appeared before the court on multiple occasions. At times, the Respondent has appeared in person. At other times, he retained lawyer Mr. Dupre to attend court on his behalf as his agent. It appears that Mr. Dupre is assisting in the background on the file by way of a limited scope retainer to some extent.

[8] The following excerpts from Orders/endorsements of the court are relevant to this motion:

[9] June 14, 2018 Order of Chappel J. (Case Conference):

1. The Respondent shall by June 29, 2018 submit all necessary documents required to obtain valuations of his two pensions to the appropriate pension valuators;
2. The Respondent shall by July 31, 2018 serve and file an Affidavit attaching and addressing the following information materials: a. A draft NFP statement with known value as of that date, and NFP brief including documentary proof of all values set out in the NFP Statement; b. A copy of his insurance policy through America Life Insurance and proof of the current dependent beneficiary or survivor; c. A summary of the details regarding the purchase of the condominium in the Dominican Republic and documentary evidence relating to the purchase including but not limited to: i. A translated copy of the certificate of title; ii. Documentary proof relating to when the Respondent advanced funds for the purchase of the property, to whom the funds were advanced, and the source of those funds; iii. Any other documentary evidence relating to his claim that the property was purchased in part with inheritance monies;
3. Documentary proof of any bank accounts or other assets in his name either solely or jointly anywhere in the world, including but not limited to investments in the Dominican Republic.

[10] October 11, 2018 Order of Chappel J. (Settlement Conference):

1. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant costs of the Settlement Conference in the amount of $750.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

[11] November 15, 2018 Order of Chappel J. (Settlement Conference):

1. The Respondent shall serve and file the Affidavit referred to in the order dated June 14, 2018 by November 30, 2018.
2. The Respondent shall by February 28, 2019 serve and file an affidavit attaching the following: a. Any medical records which he intends to rely on in this proceeding; and b. Any documents covered by the June 14, 2018 order which he is unable for any reasonable reason to produce by November 30, 2018.

[12] April 16, 2019 Order of Pazaratz J. (Settlement Conference):

1. The Respondent shall pay costs to the Applicant fixed in the sum of $500.00.
2. The Respondent shall provide to the Applicant’s counsel copies of his passports (Canadian, Dominican and any other) including all pages for the past 12 months.
3. The Respondent shall also provide written confirmation of his travel arrangements since November 15, 2018, including airline documentation confirming all flight dates.
4. This disclosure is to be provided by May 3, 2019.

[13] May 16, 2019 Endorsement/Order of Pazaratz J. (Settlement Conference):

1. “There is now significant reason to believe that the Respondent is not taking his obligations to this court and to the Applicant and her counsel very seriously” ;
2. “The Respondent has not produced all the disclosure I ordered on April 16, 2019. For example, I ordered that he provide to the Applicant’s counsel copies of all of his passports (Canadian, Dominican, and any others) including all pages for the past 12 months. The Respondent has only produced approximately two pages from a passport, not including the dates required in my order”.
3. “Ms. Mendes da Costa requested that I consider striking the Respondent’s pleadings so that the Applicant could proceed. But I have two concerns about this. Firstly, I agree with Mr. Dupre that his client should receive formal notice of this, and be given an opportunity to respond. Secondly, even if the Applicant were to be allowed to proceed on an uncontested basis, it is unclear if the Applicant has all the information and disclosure necessary to fully address her claim. I have a suspicion that this is precisely why the Respondent is stalling with respect to attending court and making disclosure”.
4. The Respondent shall pay costs fixed in the sum of $2,000.00 payable by May 31, 2019.
5. All outstanding disclosure orders remain in effect.
6. Commencing June 3, 2019, for every day that goes by that the Respondent has not entirely satisfied all disclosure previously ordered; all disclosure required by the rules; and all reasonable requests for disclosure by the Applicant’s counsel – for every day that goes by that any disclosure is missing, the Respondent shall pay a penalty of $100 per day. The calculation of such penalty shall be determined on the return date, based upon my determination as to whether required disclosure was missing. The daily penalty will continue until further order, even beyond July 30, 2019 – unless specifically otherwise determined by the court.
7. The Applicant’s counsel is to provide Mr. Dupre with a summary of all disclosure still being requested by May 27, 2019. Unless the May 27, 2019 summary includes a new request, the Respondent will be presumed to have plenty of time to fulfill his disclosure obligations.

[14] July 30, 2019 Endorsement/Order of Pazaratz J. (TBST Appearance)

1. “ Today the Respondent indicated he didn’t produce certain documentation (a complete copy of his passport, for example) because Mr. Dupre told him he didn’t need to ”.
2. “ I do not accept that there is any legitimate explanation or excuse for the Respondent’s absolute non-compliance with disclosure orders for such for such an extended period of time ”.
3. Effective August 1, 2019 the daily penalty [re: non-compliance] increases to $200.00 per day.
4. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant costs of today’s completely wasted attendance in the sum of $1,000.00 inclusive of HST.

[15] August 15, 2019 Endorsement/Order of Pazaratz J. (TBST Appearance)

1. “Despite my very clear endorsement of July 30, 2019, Ms. Mendes Da Costa advises that she has received no disclosure from the Respondent or anyone on his behalf since that last court date”.
2. “Mr. Dupre apparently acknowledged that [the Respondent] has not complied with previous disclosure orders, but he would be prepared to do so “if necessary”. It is astonishing that either Mr. Dupre or the Respondent could have even the slightest doubt about whether production is “necessary”.
3. “While courts are always loathe to strike pleadings, and while the Applicant and the court would both prefer to have the Respondent participate in the process, there is absolutely no point in everyone’s time being wasted because the Respondent refuses to comply with necessary disclosure obligations”.
4. Given the fact that disclosure remains outstanding (and Mr. Dupre appears to have acknowledged that it remains outstanding), the previously identified $200.00 per day penalty for non-disclosure shall be increased to $300.00 per day effective August 23, 2019.
5. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant costs of today’s wasted attendance in the sum of $1,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable forthwith.

The Law

[16] The Applicant’s motion to strike is brought pursuant to rule 1.(8) of the Family Law Rules:

1.(8) If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including,

(a) an order for costs; (b) an order dismissing a claim; (c) an order striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, response to motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party; (d) an order that all or part of a document that was required to be provided but was not, may not be used in the case; (e) if the failure to obey was by a party, an order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise; (f) an order postponing the trial or any other step in the case; and (g) on motion, a contempt order.

[17] The consequences of an order striking a party’s pleadings are severe:

1.(8.4) If an order is made striking out a party’s application, answer, motion to change or response to motion to change in a case, the following consequences apply unless a court orders otherwise:

1. The party is not entitled to any further notice of steps in the case, except as provided by subrule 25 (13) (service of order).
2. The party is not entitled to participate in the case in any way.
3. The court may deal with the case in the party’s absence.
4. A date may be set for an uncontested trial of the case.

[18] A party’s pleadings should be struck only in exceptional circumstances, where no other remedy would suffice: Percaru v. Percaru, 2010 ONCA 92 at para. 47, Chiaramonte v. Chiaramonte, 2013 ONCA 341 at paras. 31-21.

[19] The adversarial structure of a proceeding should be maintained whenever possible. The remedy imposed should not go beyond that which is necessary to express the court’s disapproval of the conduct in issue: Percaru v. Percaru, 2010 ONCA 92 at para. 49, and Marcoccia v. Marcoccia, 2008 ONCA 866 at para. 4.

[20] The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information. This requirement is immediate and ongoing. Failure to abide by this fundamental principle impedes the progress of the action, causes delay and generally acts to the disadvantage of the opposite party: Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450 at paras. 11-12.

[21] In considering a request to strike pleadings for failure to comply with disclosure obligations, the court should:

1. Consider whether substantial disclosure has been made;
2. Itemize the disclosure not provided;
3. Consider whether the breaches are willful;
4. Apply the principle of proportionality. Specifically, in keeping with the importance and complexity of the issues: a. Consideration ought to be given to the importance or materiality of the items of disclosure not produced; b. Although full and frank disclosure is necessary, exhaustive disclosure may not always be appropriate; c. Courts should consider the burden that disclosure requests bring on the disclosing party, the relevance of the requested disclosure to the issues at hand, and the costs and to obtain the disclosure as compared to its importance: Kovachis v. Kovachis, 2013 ONCA 663 at paras. 26-34.

[22] A review of the appellate cases on this issue suggests that the offending party’s location on the ‘spectrum of compliance’ should be considered; from good faith but unsuccessful efforts, to ‘token’ compliance, to exceptional and egregious conduct: Chiaramonte v. Chiaramonte, 2013 ONCA 341 at paras. 37-38, Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONCA 909, Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450 at para. 15.

Analysis

[23] An itemized review of the disclosure: (1) required by the Family Law Rules, (2) ordered by the court, (3) produced by the Respondent, and (4) alleged to be outstanding at this time, is necessary for purposes of this motion.

A. Financial Disclosure Required by the Family Law Rules

Income Information re: Support Claim

[24] The Applicant has claimed spousal support in this proceeding. The requisite financial disclosure required in cases wherein support is claimed is outlined in Rule 13(3.1) of the Family Court Rules. This court did not hear evidence that the Respondent has failed to produce the income information as required. He is presumed to be in compliance with same.

Additional Information re: Property Claim

[25] The Applicant has made an equalization claim under Part I of the Family Law Act. The additional disclosure required of the Respondent as a result of this claim is outlined in Rule 13(3.3) of the Family Law Rules. The portions thereof, which are relevant to this action are:

a. The statement issued closest to the valuation date for each bank account or other account in a financial institution, pension, registered retirement or other savings plan, and any other savings or investments in which the party had an interest on that date. b. A copy of an application or request made by the party to obtain a valuation of his or her pension benefits, deferred pension or pension as the case may be, if any, as of the valuation date. c. If the party owned a life insurance policy on the valuation date, the statement issued closest to that date showing the face amount and cash surrender value, if any, of the policy and the named beneficiary. d. (10) Documentation showing the value, on the valuation date, of any property not referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 in which the party had an interest on that date. e. (11) Documentation that supports a claim, if any, for an exclusion under subsection 4(2) of the Family Law Act. f. (12) The statements or invoices issued closest to the valuation date in relation to any mortgage, line of credit, credit card balance or other debt owed by the party on that date.

[26] Under the Family Law Rules this disclosure was to be made within 30 days following the day by which the Respondent’s Financial Statement was required to be served. In this case, the Respondent’s Answer and Financial Statement were filed on December 7, 2017. At the latest, the disclosure required by Rule 13.(3.3) should have been produced by January 6, 2018.

[27] It is clear on the record before me that none of the requisite financial information required by Rule 13.(3.3) was produced by the Respondent before the Case Conference held in June 2018 and the majority of same remains outstanding today.

B. Financial Disclosure Ordered by the Court

Order of Chappel J. dated June 14, 2018 (Case Conference)

[28] On June 14, 2018 a Case Conference was held and a disclosure order was made. Much of the financial disclosure ordered by Justice Chappel was a reiteration of the financial disclosure automatically required of the Respondent pursuant to the Rules as outlined above.

[29] With respect to the Order made by Justice Chappel on June 14, 2018, I make the following findings of fact:

1. The Respondent has had his two pension assets valued to the satisfaction of the Applicant.
2. The Respondent did not file a Net Family Property Statement with the court, however counsel for the Applicant concedes that an NFP Statement has been produced to her.
3. The Respondent has not produced a Net Family Property Brief. Specifically, the Respondent has not produced supporting documents (e.g. bank statements, appraisals, assessments, or opinions of value) for the following assets or liabilities as at either valuation date: a. Two vehicles: 1993 BMW, and 2004 Cadillac SRX (and a third Honda vehicle not disclosed on his Financial Statement but later purported to have been sold shortly after separation); b. TD Canada Trust sole bank account located at St. Clair, Ontario Branch; c. Three-bedroom condominium unit located in San Felipe de Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic; d. Credit Card balances; e. Mortgage balance. These items reflect all of the assets and liabilities included on the Respondent’s Financial Statement sworn November 29, 2017. They are relevant to the issue of equalization.
4. With respect to the Respondent’s life insurance policies: a. The Respondent has produced copies of correspondence (x3) dated October 6, 2013 which confirm a change of beneficiary status of his three American Life Insurance policies, at that time, to reflect the Applicant as the primary beneficiary and his three sons as contingent beneficiaries. The documents produced: i. Are not copies of the policies and do not confirm whether the policies are whole life or term-life, and whether or not there is a corresponding cash surrender value to the policies; and ii. Are not current and as such do not confirm the present status of the beneficiary designations. b. The Respondent has also produced his original Member and Family Enrolment/Change form for UA Local 67 dated July 10, 2007 which appears to provide for term-life insurance and designate the Applicant as 100% beneficiary of same. The document is not current. The Respondent asserts that he has not changed the beneficiary designations in relation to any of the above policies.
5. With respect to the Respondent’s condominium property located in the Dominican Republic: a. The Respondent has produced a translated copy of the certificate of title; b. The Respondent has filed two additional Affidavits in this proceeding, dated October 11, 2018 and November 28, 2018. Within the Affidavits the Respondent purports to explain the source and advancement of funds used to purchase the condominium property. c. The Respondent takes the position on this motion that he has produced all documentation he intends to produce to prove his claim for an exclusion of the condominium property from his net family property.
6. With respect to documentary proof of any bank accounts or other assets in his name either solely or jointly anywhere in the world, including but not limited to investments in the Dominican Republic, as stated above, the Respondent has not to date produced any proof of such accounts or assets. At the hearing of this motion the Respondent acknowledged that upon separation (both asserted valuation dates), he did have a USD bank account located at BHD bank in the Dominican Republic. This was not disclosed on his sworn financial statement, and no account statement has ever been produced. The Applicant asserts that there another bank account in the Dominican Republic, not disclosed.

October 11, 2018 Order of Chappel J. (Settlement Conference):

[30] I am advised that the Respondent has paid the costs awarded against him of $750.00.

November 15, 2018 Order of Chappel J. (Settlement Conference):

[31] In addition to providing an extension of time for the Respondent to produce the disclosure discussed above, Justice Chappel ordered the Respondent to produce medical records which would be relevant to the Applicant’s claim for spousal support.

[32] The Respondent has produced the medical documentation he intends to rely upon in support of his position, and counsel for the Applicant is content that he is now in compliance with this requirement.

April 16, 2019 Order of Pazaratz J. (Settlement Conference):

[33] As a result of the Respondent’s ongoing non-compliance with previous orders, the Respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed in the sum of $500.00. The Respondent has paid these costs.

[34] However, the court further ordered that the Respondent produce:

a. Copies of his passports (Canadian, Dominican and any other) including all pages for the past 12 months; and b. Written confirmation of his travel arrangements since November 15, 2018, including airline documentation confirming all flight dates.

[35] The Respondent has only selectively complied with the Order of Pazaratz J., producing only some of the pages of his passport, and only some of his travel documentation. The Respondent submits to this court that he “gave what was relevant”. He insists that he has followed the advice of his lawyer in this regard. I do not accept this explanation. The wording of the disclosure obligation is clear. The deficiencies of the Respondent’s position were explicitly explained to him in the subsequent endorsements of Pazaratz J. on May 16, 2019, July 30, 2019 and August 15, 2019. It is unfathomable that he continues to advance this position. In my view, the Respondent is deliberately choosing not to comply; he is deliberately withholding the information that Justice Pazaratz deemed relevant to the issues before the court.

May 16, 2019 Endorsement/Order of Pazaratz J. (Settlement Conference):

[36] No additional substantive disclosure was ordered on May 16, 2019 however the Respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed in the sum of $2,000.00, and a daily penalty of $100 per day was imposed for ongoing non-compliance. These amounts have not been paid.

July 30, 2019 Endorsement/Order of Pazaratz J. (TBST Appearance)

[37] Again, no additional substantive disclosure was ordered on July 30, 2019 however the Respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed in the sum of 1,000.00, and the daily penalty was increased to $200 per day for ongoing non-compliance. These amounts have not been paid.

August 15, 2019 Endorsement/Order of Pazaratz J. (TBST Appearance)

[38] Once more, no additional substantive disclosure was ordered on August 15, 2019 however the Respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00, and the daily penalty was increased to $300 per day for ongoing non-compliance. These amounts have not been paid.

[39] The parties have now appeared in court to address disclosure issues on eight separate occasions. On each and every occasion the Respondent has appeared before the court in a position of non-compliance. Multiple extensions of time have been granted, and creative efforts have been attempted in an effort to compel the Respondent to comply. Nothing is working. The Respondent chooses to waste the time and resources of the Applicant and the court. More than two years after this litigation was commenced, the Respondent still has not produced the basic financial disclosure that was required of him at the outset by the Family Law Rules.

[40] The Respondent is not in substantial compliance as he asserts. He has not produced everything he is able to produce as he asserts. Rather, it is the opinion of this court that the Respondent has only selectively complied with his financial disclosure obligations under the Rules and as Ordered by the court. He has deliberately chosen to produce only the documentation which he believes is advantageous to his position. For example, the Respondent has provided extensive medical documentation and an actuarial report regarding the impact of mortality/life expectancy on the Respondent’s pension interests (both as a defence against the Applicant’s claim for spousal support and to support a reduced value of his pension asset). By contrast, he has produced only two pages of his passport, which is a comparatively simple and easy production. The Respondent has produced historic bank account statements for the period of 2008 to 2011 which, in his view, support his excluded property claim, but has not provided the more current bank accounts necessary to establish valuation date values. He has produced historic insurance documents, but will not produce information confirming current values and current beneficiaries. It is clear that the Respondent’s non-compliance is not as a result of diligent but unsuccessful effort. He is clearly capable of complying; he simply chooses not to.

[41] On preliminary review of the materials produced by the Respondent to date, which purport to trace inherited funds and/or damages for personal injuries into the condominium property in the Dominican Republic, it is unlikely that the Respondent will be successful at trial in proving his claim. The burden of proof falls to the party seeking the exclusion to prove that funds originate from an excludable source, and can be properly traced into an asset existing on valuation date. Counsel for the Applicant has made extensive efforts to request the additional documentation and information which would likely be necessary to establish the source of funds and a satisfactory tracing of same. However, instead of complying with her requests the Respondent has chosen to simply assert the position that he has produced everything necessary to prove his claim. He does so to his own detriment.

[42] Rule 1(8)(d) expressly provides that where a party fails to obey an Order of the court, the court may deal with the failure by making an order that all or part of a document that was ordered to be provided but was not may not be used in the case. In my view this is the appropriate remedy with respect to items pertaining to the Respondent’s claims for excluded property. This same logic applies to any debts claimed owing on valuation date, and any assets claimed on the date of marriage. These are documents, that had they been produced, would have been of financial advantage to the Respondent in the equalization calculations. He has not produced any such documentation, despite an obligation under the Rules and multiple requests for same. Therefore, any document which purports to provide evidence of a date of marriage asset, valuation date debt, or any excluded property (or tracing thereof), which has not already been served upon the Applicant through her counsel shall not be permitted as evidence at trial.

[43] Admittedly, this remedy does not assist the Applicant in advancing her equalization claim as it pertains to assets in the Respondent’s name on valuation date. This was the problem identified by Pazaratz J. on May 16, 2019. It is prejudicial to the Applicant to proceed to trial without this information. A trial without accurate information on the part of the Respondent is more complex, including inference and speculation. If the Respondent does not immediately bring himself into compliance with his disclosure obligations, adverse inferences will undoubtedly be drawn against him. This however, can be done with or without his participation.

[44] The Respondent does not seem to understand that the trial judge may be called upon the add a premium to the estimated value of the assets contained within his financial statement; the court may presume a significant percentage increase to the original purchase price of his condominium property ($195,000.00 USD in 2009); the court may attribute the total bank transfers made from the Respondent’s Canadian bank accounts as monies held in the Respondent’s name in his undisclosed US Dollar account(s) in the Dominican Republic as at the valuation date. These are just some strategies that the court may opt to apply. However, justice is best served if the trier of fact is not left to conjecture.

[45] This is a matter of exceptional circumstance. The Respondent’s ongoing non-compliance has occurred in the face of extensive case management and continual admonitions and penalties. We are now almost to the point where no other remedy will suffice; the Applicant’s request to strike the Respondent’s pleadings is being made as a last resort.

[46] This court has a positive obligation to promote the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to deal with cases justly. This court must craft an order that ensures the procedure is fair to all parties, saves expense and time, deals with the case in a way that is appropriate to its importance and complexity, and gives appropriate court resources to the case while taking into account the need to give resources to other cases. The actions of the Respondent to date have run counter to the primary objective, and it is therefore with no small measure of reluctance that I will allow the Respondent one further opportunity to bring himself into compliance.

[47] There will be one final attempt to preserve the adversarial structure of this proceeding; one final effort to compel the Respondent to participate properly in these proceedings; one final opportunity granted for the Respondent to comply. It will be specific, and it will be time-limited. There will be no further extensions and no further delay. The Respondent will comply, or his pleadings will be struck on the return date without further argument and cost to the Applicant, and without further reasons of the court.

Order

[48] On the basis of the above, there will be an Order as follows:

1. The Respondent shall, on or before January 31, 2020 serve and file the following documentation as Tab 20, Volume 2 of the Continuing Record in these proceedings. The pages will be numbered and tabbed in the following order: a. TAB A: Redbook values or appraisals of all vehicles in the Respondent’s name, specifically including his BMW, Cadillac SRX, and Honda vehicle (sold in the Dominican Republic in 2017) as at June 30, 2016 and August 15, 2016; b. TAB B: Bank Account Statements for his TD Canada Trust sole bank account at the St. Clair, Ontario branch for the period of June 30, 2016 to August 15, 2016 (inclusive); c. TAB C: A letter from TD Canada Trust, signed by a representative of the bank, confirming (i) that the Respondent currently holds no other bank accounts or investments at any TD Canada Trust branch, and (ii) held no other bank accounts or investments with TD Canada Trust at any branch during the period of June 30, 2016 to August 15, 2016 (inclusive); d. TAB D: Bank Account Statements for all bank accounts held by the Respondent in the Dominican Republic, specifically including his USD account, for the period of June 30, 2016 to August 15, 2016; e. TAB E: A letter from BHD Bank in the Dominican Republic, signed by a representative of the bank and translated into English, confirming (i) that the Respondent currently holds no bank accounts or investments with the bank and (ii) held no other bank accounts or other investments with the bank during the period of June 30, 2016 to August 15, 2016 (inclusive); f. TAB F: A formal appraisal of the Respondent’s three-bedroom condominium unit located in San Felipe de Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic as at June-August 2016, or the equivalent of a municipal tax assessment of this property for the same time period (all of which must be translated into English); g. TAB G: A statement from American Income Life Insurance Company, dated after today’s date, confirming the current named beneficiary of the Respondent’s life insurance policies (Policy Numbers CD3903908, CD9302658, and CD3903909); h. TAB H: A statement from American Income Life Insurance Company confirming the cash surrender value, if any, of each of the Respondent’s life insurance policies (Policy Numbers CD3903908, CD9302658, and CD3903909) as at June 30, 2016 and August 15, 2016; i. TAB I: A statement from UA Local 67 Welfare Plan, dated after today’s date, confirming the current named beneficiary of the life insurance policy in the Respondent’s name; j. TAB J: A notarized copy of every single page of the Respondent’s current Canadian Passport. If the Respondent obtained a new passport in 2019, he shall also produce a notarized copy of every single page of his previous Canadian Passport; and k. Tab K: Written confirmation of all travel arrangements pertaining to the Respondent from November 15, 2018 to present, including airline documentation confirming all flight dates.
2. The Respondent shall pay all outstanding costs awarded against him to date, totaling $4,000.00, to the Applicant, through her counsel on or before January 31, 2020.
3. The Respondent shall not be permitted to rely upon any documentation at trial in support of any claim for a date of marriage deduction, valuation date debt or liability, or any excluded property or tracing thereof, that has not already been produced to the Applicant through her counsel in these proceedings.
4. All daily penalties imposed by Justice Pazaratz shall continue to accrue until the Respondent is in full compliance with paragraph 1 above, or the matter is disposed of at trial.
5. There shall be no further extensions of time for compliance with the terms of this Order.
6. This motion shall be adjourned to be spoken to before me on February 3, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. In the event that the Respondent is not in full compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Respondent’s Answer shall be struck on the return date, without need for further argument or further reasons, and the Respondent shall no longer be permitted to participate in this action in any way.
7. The issue of costs of this motion may be addressed on the return date.

Bale J. Date: January 2, 2020