Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 1387/19

DATE: 2020-10-21

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Harjit Dhaliwal, Applicant

AND:

Amandeep Dhaliwal, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz

COUNSEL: S. Juzkiw, Counsel, for the Applicant

R. Kalnitsky Roth, for the Respondent

HEARD: October 21, 2020

ENDORSEMENT

[1] In my endorsement of June 26, 2020, I tried to encourage these parties to be more sensible and cost efficient.

a. I ordered that the matrimonial home and an investment property were to be sold.

b. I ordered that both parties are to do all things necessary to facilitate marketing of both properties.

c. My endorsement included a term that both parties are to accept any reasonable offer.

[2] The parties were able to sell the investment property fairly quickly, but the Respondent has brought a motion seeking that he be allowed to assume full authority to conduct all aspects of the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home (including determining the sale price and accepting an offer) because he feels the Applicant is being unreasonable.

[3] The Applicant says the Respondent’s motion is inappropriate and premature because she has been acting reasonably in relation to attempting to sell the property.

[4] This is a high conflict file and there is no trust – on this issue or on any issue. The Applicant had vehemently opposed sale of the matrimonial home at the June 2020 motion, and the Respondent believes the Applicant continues to stall because she is in possession of the home and he is paying for everything. The Applicant denies that she is stalling.

[5] I am not prepared to grant the Respondent authority to assume control of the sale. There is disagreement about the appropriate listing price and the manner in which the parties should have responded to the one and only offer that came in. But the Respondent has provided no independent professional evidence to suggest that his numbers are more appropriate than the Applicant’s.

[6] However, it is clear that the parties are operating on different timelines in terms of the speed with which this property should be sold. As set out in my previous endorsement, the financial situation here is extremely difficult for the parties. They have now paid their lawyers to spend the whole day with me arguing about simple things that rational people could resolve quickly and easily. It is imperative that some structure be imposed, to help these parties (and the children) through this very difficult period.

[7] My order of June 26, 2020 remains in effect in relation to the sale, with the following additional terms:

a. Each party shall obtain at their own expense an appraisal by a qualified professional as to the current fair market value of the property. The parties shall cooperate with respect to making the property available for appraisal. The appraisals are to be ordered no later than October 26, 2020 with instructions that the appraisals are to be prepared as quickly as possible, and in any event by November 9, 2020. The parties shall provide one another with copies of their respective appraisals, whether they intend to rely upon them or not.

b. In the event that there continues to be a disagreement as to the appropriate listing price (or selling price) of the property, either party may have the issue returned by motion, at which time both appraisals (and any additional appraisals which the parties may elect to obtain) shall be produced.

c. A “for sale” sign shall be placed on the property no later than October 26, 2020.

d. The Applicant shall make the property available for showings by the real estate agent on any day (except Tuesdays) on 24 hours notice. The Applicant shall have the option of changing the showing time but only up to 2 hours from the requested time.

e. The parties shall not reject any offer by reason of it being conditional, so long as the condition is for a period of not more than 14 days, and so long as the parties are still able to market the property during the period of the condition.

f. Any offer must include a deposit of at least $60,000.00 unless otherwise specifically agreed by the parties.

g. The parties shall respond to any offer which is presented within 48 hours, or if the offer is not outstanding for 48 hours, by no later than 7:00 p.m. on the date the offer is to lapse. Upon receipt of any offer the parties shall confer and identify to one another – in writing by email, either directly or through counsel, their positions with respect to any response or counter-offer.

[8] The Respondent’s motion to be granted control of the sale is adjourned without a return date, returnable on seven days’ notice if necessary.

[9] On a separate issue, the parties made submissions with respect to the scheduling of a long motion and whether the issues of support and access needed to be coupled.

a. There had been a previous determination that those issues, in combination, would require a long motion. That scheduling was further complicated by COVID.

b. However, the parties are still disputing disclosure relates primarily to the support issue.

c. The access issue has gone far too long and shouldn’t be delayed as a result of financial disclosure problems for which both parties may be responsible.

d. The Respondent may proceed with an access motion on 10 days’ notice, with fresh materials to be filed (respecting the guidelines set out with respect to the length of materials).

[10] Scheduling of the support motion may be addressed when ready, and after all disclosure has been completed. Counsel should re-visit whether the support motion will need to be dealt with as a long-motion after it is uncoupled from the access motion.

[11] There shall be no order as to costs.

a. There was divided success.

b. To the extent that either party could claim any element of success, Rule 24(4) would mitigate against an award of costs. Both of these parties continue to act unreasonably.

Pazaratz J.

Date: October 21, 2020