COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-0015-00
DATE: 2020 09 02
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Winford Bailey v. Eileen Bailey
BEFORE: D. E. Harris J.
COUNSEL: R. Singh for moving party, Applicant Winford Bailey
J. Grossman for responding party, Respondent Eileen Bailey
HEARD: September 1, 2020 by videoconference
ENDORSEMENT
[1] On March 2, 2020, Justice Beilby issued a consent order that the wife, Eileen Bailey, was to obtain a real estate valuation of the matrimonial home from a certified valuator within three weeks and convey it to the applicant husband. If the applicant accepted the valuation, then the respondent would be given the opportunity to buy him out. If the applicant did not accept the valuation, he could obtain his own. The midpoint between the two would be the agreed upon value of the home for either buy out or for sale on the open market.
[2] COVID 19 intervened. The wife had a valuation from 2018 which, understandably, the father was not satisfied with. A current one was obtained and conveyed to counsel for the husband on July 28, 2020. He did not accept it and arranged for one of his own. Apparently, the person he hired failed to show up at an appointment and ultimately delivered a one line report. However, it appears the valuation conclusion was essentially the same as the mother’s report.
[3] The father brings this motion to supplant the agreement evidenced in Justice Beilby’s order of March 2, 20202. An entirely new process to arrive at fair market value is suggested. This is an after the fact attempt to move the goalposts. There is no reason tendered nor indeed is there any reason imaginable to justify an alteration of the previous agreement. The motion is therefore dismissed.
[4] Counsel for the wife, somewhat generously, has agreed that given the problems with the husband’s valuation, a second opportunity ought to be permitted. It is ordered that the valuation must be made and conveyed to counsel for the wife by September 11, 2020. The terms of Justice Beilby’s order will continue to apply after this modification.
[5] Counsel for the wife asks for $3500 in costs; the husband submits that it should be $1500. Order to go that costs to the wife be in the amount of $3000 inclusive of disbursements and HST. This motion was unnecessary and had no realistic chance of success.
[6] No further intervention by the judiciary ought to be required in this simple matter.
Harris J.
DATE: September 2, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-0015-00
DATE: 2020 09 02
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Winford Bailey v. Eileen Bailey
BEFORE: D. E. Harris J.
COUNSEL: R. Singh for moving party, Applicant Winford Bailey
J. Grossman for responding party, Respondent Eileen Bailey
ENDORSEMENT
Harris J.
DATE: September 2, 2020