COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-FS-054613-0000
DATE: 2020/12/31
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Judith van Rhijn, Applicant
AND:
David van Rhijn, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice L. Madsen
COUNSEL: Shuchanna Swaby, Agent for Tracy Miller, Counsel for the Applicant
Respondent, Self-Represented
HEARD: December 18, 2020
ENDORSEMENT
On this motion, the applicant wife, Judith van Rhijn [“the applicant”] brings a motion seeking the incorporation awards made in a mediation-arbitration process, and other relief as will be set out below.
I grant certain aspects of the relief sought by the applicant.
Materials Reviewed
- I received and reviewed the following materials filed by the parties:
a. Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated February 7, 2020;
b. Applicant’s Affidavit sworn February 7, 2020;
c. Respondent’s Affidavit sworn July 8, 2020;
d. Applicant’s Reply Affidavit sworn September 16, 2020;
e. Applicant’s Amended Notice of Motion dated November 26, 2020; and
f. Applicant’s Factum.
The respondent stated that he had also sworn an affidavit dated June 30, 2020. However, the applicant’s counsel indicated that this was not served and no affidavit of that date had been filed with the court.
The respondent did not file a factum.
Adjournment Request
When the matter was called, the respondent requested an adjournment. He stated that he became self-represented on December 4, 2020. He requested an adjournment for “8 to 10 weeks” to allow him some time to recover from the financial impact of COVID-19 on his business and then to be able to retain a new lawyer.
The court is advised that he has been represented by three different lawyers to date.
I gave the parties an opportunity to discuss potential terms of an adjournment but agreement was not reached.
I declined to permit the adjournment. The applicant brought her motion ten months ago. The respondent has been represented and has had the ability to obtain legal advice. He has known for many months that this long motion was pending. He filed a responding affidavit in July 2020, so his evidence is before the court. Court dates are scarce and delays significant in the current environment. An adjournment was not reasonable in the circumstances.
Background
Briefly, the background relevant to this motion is the following:
The parties married on July 15, 2000 and separated in January 2019.
In April 2019, the applicant started proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice seeking a range of relief related to parenting, financial issues, and a divorce. A temporary Order was made by Justice Sloan on May 2, 2019.
In early June 2019, the parties entered into a mediation-arbitration agreement with Don McIntyre [“the med-arb agreement”]. That agreement provided that the parties would mediate the issues arising from their separation, and if agreement was not reached, Mr. McIntyre would arbitrate those issues. Specifically, the parties submitted the following issues to the med-arb process:
a. Parenting;
b. Child support;
c. Spousal support;
d. Equalization of net family property;
e. Exclusive possession of the matrimonial home;
f. Restraining order; and
g. Costs in the event of an arbitration.
There is no Answer before the court. It may be that the delivery of an Answer was not insisted upon when the matter was diverted to mediation-arbitration.
The parties mediated over several sessions. The mediation was not successful.
The matter proceeded to arbitration.
Two substantive Arbitration Awards were made by Mr. McIntyre, the first on a final basis, and the other on an interim basis:
a. Final Award, on consent, dated July 30, 2019, resolving property matters between the parties [“the Final Award”];
b. Interim Award, not on consent, resolving support issues on a temporary basis [“the Interim Award”]. Submissions were heard September 30, 2019, and Reasons released October 8, 2019. The Award arising from those Reasons were dated December 11, 2019. In his Reasons, Mr. McIntyre invited costs submissions within 10 days.
On October 11, 2019, Mr. McIntyre advised the parties that he was withdrawing as mediator-arbitrator.
Following the arbitrator’s withdrawal, the respondent challenged the arbitrator’s authority to make a decision on costs, given that he had withdrawn. On February 23, 2020, the arbitrator ruled that he was seized of the costs issue notwithstanding having withdrawn and given that he had invited cost submissions in his Reasons dated October 8, 2020. On March 1, 2020, the arbitrator rendered his costs award. Neither the ruling about jurisdiction to award costs nor the costs award itself were appealed.
The parties disagree on the extent to which there has been compliance with the two substantive awards. Most significantly:
a. The applicant says the respondent has not signed the required documentation for the National Australia Bank Limited to release funds as set out in the two Awards. In argument the respondent acknowledged that these funds had not yet been released.
b. The applicant stated that that the respondent had not yet provided proof of the required life insurance designation having been made. In argument the respondent acknowledged that he had not yet made the required designation.
c. The respondent confirmed that he has not yet transferred his interest in a property in New South Wales, Australia, to the applicant. However, he provides certain explanations.
Since the Final Award (regarding property), the applicant transferred her interest in the matrimonial home to the respondent and the respondent paid the equalization payment of $400,000, as directed therein.
The applicant states that the value on which the transfer of the matrimonial home and an adjacent lot was $1,000,000. She says she has subsequently learned that the property has been listed for sale for $3,490,000. She states that the properties have since been sold. The respondent acknowledged in argument that there is a signed Agreement of Purchase and Sale with a scheduled closing in February 2021.
The arbitration process was not complete when the arbitrator withdrew. Consequently, the parties have not yet had their “trial”.
The parties’ mediation-arbitration agreement provided that if the arbitrator withdrew, the parties would submit the matter to another arbitrator. If they could not agree on who that should be, they could apply to the court for a determination of that issue. The agreement also provided that any interim awards would continue in full force and effect until the replacement arbitrator is appointed. Specifically, the med-arb agreement stated as follows:
11.1 ….In the event of the withdrawal of the arbitrator or termination of arbitration, the parties shall appoint a replacement arbitrator either by agreement of the parties or by Court Order. [emphasis added]
11.2 In the event that the arbitrator’s appointment is terminated, and the parties are unable to agree on a replacement, a court of competent jurisdiction shall appoint a replacement arbitrator on either party’s application to the court.
11.3 In the event the arbitrator’s appointment is terminated, the parties agree that any interim or interlocutory award(s) made by the arbitrator will continue to bind the parties and will continue in full force and effect as the basis of the continuation of the arbitration with the replacement arbitrator.
The respondent says he is prepared to arbitrate with another arbitrator but that the applicant has not cooperated. This is not denied by the applicant, who, it appears, would now prefer to be in the court process.
Neither the Final Award nor the Interim Award have been appealed, and there has been no motion brought to set aside either of those awards.
Relief Sought:
There was confusion at the outset of argument about what was actually being sought on this motion. The relief sought in the Notice of Motion, the Amended Notice of Motion, the applicant’s affidavits, and the applicant’s factum was not consistent.
Ultimately, the relief sought on the motion was the following:
a. An Order incorporating the terms of the Arbitration Awards of Don McIntyre dated July 30, 2019 and December 11, 2019;
b. An Order that the respondent have ten days to comply with the Arbitration Awards of July 30, 2019 and December 11, 2019;
c. An Order directing the National Australia Bank Limited to release certain funds in accordance with the Arbitration Awards;
d. An Order that the respondent comply specifically with a term in the Interim Award requiring certain life insurance designations;
e. An Order directing that proceeds of sale of 942 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario and the adjacent lot be held in trust by the respondent’s solicitor pending further agreement or Order of the court; and
f. Costs.
- The applicant sought the following relief after the respondent had filed his responding materials:
a. In her Amended Notice of Motion dated November 26, 2020, the applicant sought the Order referred to above directing that proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home and adjacent lot be held in trust by the respondent’s solicitor pending further agreement between the parties or a court Order.
b. In paragraph 19 of her Reply affidavit sworn September 16, 2020, the applicant sought disclosure of the details of the sale of the matrimonial home and adjoining lot, along with supporting documents including the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
c. In the penultimate paragraph of her Reply affidavit, sworn September 16, 2020, the applicant stated “I wish the property settlement to be set aside and proper equalization done as he refuses to carry out the terms of the settlement and materially misrepresented the value of the matrimonial home and vacant lot.”
d. Orally, at the opening of argument, counsel for the applicant stated she was also seeking an Order incorporating the Costs Award of March 2, 2020. This was not sought in either Notice of Motion nor in the applicant’s affidavits.
Although at the beginning of the argument, the applicant stated that she no longer sought the incorporation of the July 30, 2019 Award into an Order of the court, she changed her mind during argument, reverting to the position in her Notices of Motion, ultimately seeking incorporation of both Orders.
During argument the respondent brought an oral motion seeking certain police records which he said were relevant to evidence put before the court by the applicant. No notice had been provided to the applicant, nor to the police. Nor, in my view would such records be relevant to the determination before the court on this motion. I dismissed the request.
Law and Analysis
1. Incorporation
The applicant ultimately sought the incorporation of the terms of the Interim and Final Awards into an Order of the Superior Court of Justice.
Section 59.1 of the Family Law Act provides that family arbitrations, family arbitration agreements, and family arbitration awards are governed by the Family Law Act and the Arbitration Act, and that in the event of a conflict, the Family Law Act prevails.
Section 59.6 of the Family Law Act provides the requirements for the enforceability of a family arbitration award, which requirements include the parties each having received independent legal advice (“ILA”) on the agreement, and the arbitrator having met the regulations under the Arbitration Act. Neither party argued that the arbitration awards did not meet the conditions to be incorporated into a court Order or enforced.
Section 59.8 of the Family Law Act provides that a party who is entitled to the enforcement of a family arbitration award may make an application to the court to that effect. Where, as here, there was already a proceeding between the parties in court, the party entitled to enforcement shall bring a motion. Where the requirements under section 59.6 are met, the court shall make an Order on the same terms as the award unless the period for appeal has not yet elapsed; there is a pending appeal; or the award has been set aside or there is a declaration in invalidity.
Family Law Rule 32.1 provides that a party who is entitled to the enforcement of a family arbitration award and is requesting enforcement, may file the request together with the ILA certificates, a copy of the family arbitration agreement, and an original or certified copy of the award.
In this case, the applicant proceeded by motion given the existence of the court proceeding. A copy of the med-arb agreement including ILA certificates was tendered, as were copies of the awards sought to be enforced. The court received materials both in hard copy and electronically. While copies were not certified, in view of the consent of the respondent to the incorporation of the awards into a court Order, as provided at paragraph 3 of his affidavit, an Order shall issue incorporating the terms of the Interim and Final Awards.
2. Time Period to Comply
The applicant seeks an Order that the respondent comply with the terms of the Interim and Final Awards within ten days.
The respondent says that some terms have already been complied with.
He gives various reasons (in argument, not in his affidavit materials) for failure to comply with other terms, including, for example:
a. He states that he has not complied with the life insurance term because in his view it would be preferable to have a life insurance term with a declining balance;
b. He says he could not comply with a provision that he transfer his interest in a property in New South Wales, Australia (paragraph 4 of the Final Award) because he had not had an opportunity to collect his personal items and bicycle from the shed.
The respondent misunderstands the nature of an Arbitration Award. He was directed to take certain steps within certain timeframes. The awards spoke from when they were made and were neither an invitation to further negotiation, nor “suggestions.” While terms of the interim award could be adjusted as part of the final “arbitration” (the equivalent to the parties’ trial), until any adjustment is made in that process, the respondent’s obligation is to comply with Mr. McIntyre’s Awards, whether he agreed with those terms or not.
I have no difficulty granting the applicant’s request that the respondent shall have ten days from the date of my Order to comply with the terms of the arbitration awards as set out in my Order below.
3. Funds at the National Australia Bank Limited
The applicant seeks an Order directing the National Australia Bank Limited to release certain funds in accordance with the Arbitration Awards.
The National Australia Bank Limited is a third party and was not served. As framed, the Order cannot be made.
However, in essence what the applicant is seeking is an Order enforcing specific terms of the Arbitration Awards.
As seen above, enforcement of family Arbitration Awards is provided for in sections 59.6 and 59.8 of the Family Law Act.
Specifically, I find that in seeking to have the National Australia Bank Limited release funds, the applicant is seeking enforcement of the following paragraphs of Mr. McIntyre’s Awards:
Paragraph 7 of the Final Award dated July 30, 2019:
a. The parties shall take all necessary steps to unfreeze the funds in the National Australian Bank, Classic Trading and Visa Account, including signing all legal documents required by the National Australian Bank and attending the Australian Consulate in Toronto to have their identifies verified on or before August 31, 2019.
b. The funds in the National Australian Bank account shall be released to the wife (estimated to be $239,873.42 AU) shall be released to the husband and Wife as follows: (note: awkwardness in original wording)
i. The sum of $75,000 AU to the husband and the balance to the wife.
Paragraph 2 - 6 of the Interim Award dated December 11, 2019:
These paragraphs provide that from the $75,000 AUD amount payable to the husband, $17,111 shall be deducted on account of retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and retroactive spousal support; and
That $13,412 shall be deducted and paid to the wife’s solicitor in trust on account of retroactive child and spousal support “which was to be paid to the husband from the Arbitral Award made July 30, 2019.”
Paragraph 10 of the Interim Award dated December 11, 2019:
The husband shall sign all documentation which is necessary to unfreeze the following accounts such that the Arbitration Award dated July 30, 2019 can be adhered to:
National Flexdirect Bank Account BSB082-707
487667607
Visa Trading Account BSB083-088
49113123
[emphasis added]
The respondent stated repeatedly in argument that he agrees with the release of the funds in question to the applicant. However, when given a break to discuss this further the parties were unable to arrive at a consent.
This court does not have evidence regarding exchange rates that would apply to calculate the credits to be applied in relation to the $75,000 AUD. However, the applicant should not have to continue to wait to have the funds released to her as Mr. McIntyre awarded 18 months ago. Accordingly, my Order arising from this motion includes the following term to enforce the terms of Mr. McIntyre’s Awards:
The Respondent’s written and/or verbal consent to the unfreezing and release of funds held at the National Australia Bank (National Flexdirect Account BSB082-707, 487667607; and Visa Trading Account, BSB083-088, 49113123) is hereby dispensed with. The Applicant shall be entitled to direct the unfreezing of the funds and payment out of the accounts without the consent of the Respondent. The Applicant shall, upon receipt of the funds, direct the payment of $75,000 to the trust account of her solicitor, to be held until further agreement, Award, or Order, as the case may be.
4. Compliance with the Life Insurance Term, Para 11 of the Interim Award
- The applicant seeks a specific term that the respondent comply with the life insurance provisions of the interim award, which reads as follows:
The Husband shall forthwith designate the Wife as the irrevocable beneficiary of the life insurance policy in the sum of $420,000 in trust for the children of the marriage. The Husband shall further designate the wife in her own right as the irrevocable beneficiary of the life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000. The Husband shall forthwith provide proof to the Wife’s counsel that the above designations have been made and are in full force and effect.
As indicated above, the respondent was candid that he has not complied with this term because he thinks that there are better arrangements available. He would prefer a declining balance arrangement.
Again, the Award was not a suggestion to the respondent. It was immediately binding upon him, absent an appeal or motion to set aside the award.
I have already ordered that the respondent comply with all terms that I am incorporating into an Order of the court within 10 days, as set out above. Strictly speaking therefore, no further relief is required in this regard.
However, the respondent should understand the nature of an irrevocable beneficiary designation, as he appears to believe that this means that the designation can never be changed. That is generally not accurate. Rather, it means that, where the life insurance is security for support, the designation cannot be changed without the consent of the beneficiary, an Arbitration Award, or an Order of the Court. In other words, if the term is changed at their final arbitration or at trial, or if the parties agree to a change in writing, the designation can typically be changed with the insurance company.
Meanwhile, the Order binds the respondent and he must comply.
5. Proceeds of Sale of Matrimonial Home
As noted above, the applicant also seeks an Order directing that proceeds of sale of 942 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario (the former matrimonial home) and the adjacent lot be held in trust by the respondent’s solicitor pending further agreement or Order of the court.
The request for this relief was advanced only in the Amended Notice of Motion served after the respondent had filed his materials. This is substantial relief and the respondent ought to have had an opportunity to respond to this issue.
The applicant’s evidence is that the respondent is selling the property for a far greater amount than the value that was ascribed to it when the parties arrived at their agreement with respect to property, which was set out in Mr. McIntyre’s Final Award. She seeks this relief to protect the value in the event that she goes forward with her request that the Final Award be set aside based on material non-disclosure.
I am not prepared to grant the request for payment into trust at this time given the inadequate notice to the respondent. However, to assist the parties in their next steps, I am prepared to order immediate disclosure regarding this transaction.
The respondent suggested during argument that the applicant is not entitled to know the details of the pending transaction because the property award was a Final Award. This is not accurate. The parties remain in litigation. They have not yet had the equivalent of their “trial” in the arbitration process. While the property terms have been finalized, the issue of the value obtained in the sale of the matrimonial home and adjacent lot are relevant to the remaining issues between the parties. It is trite to state that the duty of financial disclosure set out in Rule 13 is an ongoing duty which must be faithfully complied with. See Rule 13(15).
Accordingly, the respondent shall, within 10 days of this Order, provide to the applicant a complete and unredacted copy of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and any other documents relating to the sale of 942 Doon Village Road Kitchener, Ontario and the adjacent lot.
6. A Comment about Process
Although the applicant stated in her reply affidavit that she now seeks to set aside the Final Award in relation to property, there is no motion properly before the court on that issue at this time. In argument, the suggestion seemed to be that such a motion would be brought before the court.
I remind the parties that their med-arb agreement provided that in the event that the arbitrator were to withdraw, they would retain a new arbitrator. Their agreement further provided that if they could not agree on who that arbitrator should be, they could apply to the court for a determination of same. I am not aware that any motion has been brought to appoint a new arbitrator as the parties’ contract sets out.
Of course, their med-arb agreement also provides that if they jointly agree, they can terminate the med-arb agreement (see para 11.1).
These comments are obiter but intended to assist the parties and reduce arguments (and the incurring of expenses) about “process.”
Order:
- On the basis of the foregoing then, I make the following Order:
- The following terms set out in the Final Award of Arbitrator Don McIntyre dated July 30, 2019 are hereby incorporated as final terms in this Order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as follows:
a. Upon the equalization payment being paid to the applicant, and upon the other transfers being completed as set forth herein, the applicant shall transfer her right title and interest in the jointly owned matrimonial home. municipally known as 942 Doon Village Road. Kitchener, Ontario (hereinafter referred to as the matrimonial home) on or before July 27, 2019. The respondent shall be responsible for the fees and disbursements relating to the transfer of the matrimonial home.
b. The applicant shall continue to have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home until July 27, 2019 at which time she will vacate the home and the respondent may move in.
c. The parties shall divide the contents of the matrimonial home equally.
d. The respondent shall transfer to the applicant all of his right title and interest in the property in New South Wales municipally known as 2150 Ellangowan Road, Ellangowan, Australia (hereinafter referred to as the Ellangowan property) on or before July 30, 2019. The applicant shall be responsible for the fees and disbursements relating to the transfer of the Ellangowan property.
e. The respondent shall pay to the applicant an equalization payment of $400,000 by way of certified cheque payable to the applicant on or before July 18, 2019.
f. On or before July 18, 2019 the respondent shall transfer to the applicant the following assets:
i. All funds in the Toronto Mercantile Exchange Account which shall be a minimum of $218,090 AUD; and
ii. All funds in the PWL CAD investments account which shall be a minimum of $9,000 CAD.
g. The parties shall take all necessary steps to unfreeze the funds in the National Australian Bank, Classic Trading and VISA account, including signing all legal documents required by the National Australian Bank and attending at the Australian Consulate in Toronto to have their identities verified on or before August 31, 2019.
h. The funds in the National Australian Bank account (estimated amount $239,873.42 AUD), shall be released to the respondent and applicant as follows: The sum of $75,000 AUD to the respondent and the balance to the applicant.
i. The Chrysler Town and Country van shall continue to be in the applicant’s possession for her exclusive use. The van shall remain in the respondent’s name until May 3, 2020 at which time it, shall be transferred to the applicant’s sole name.
j. The applicant shall retain all proceeds received from the estates of Norman and Norma Munroe received after the date of separation.
k. The applicant shall retain the contents of the shed on the Ellangowan property save and except for the respondent’s bicycle and personal items and the land cruiser which shall be collected prior to August 31, 2020.
l. Save and except as set forth herein, the parties shall retain sole ownership of the remaining assets in their respective names free from any claim by the other party.
m. The respondent shall be solely responsible to pay all debts owed to his family.
n. The respondent shall bear sole responsibility to pay all outstanding property taxes on 942 Doon Village Road, Kitchener and on 950 Doon Village Road, Kitchener.
o. The respondent shall pay all income taxes owing by him and by the applicant for the 2018 taxation year on or before August 31, 2019.
p. The respondent shall be responsible to pay the outstanding account to his bookkeeper, Quynh Li.
- The following terms set out in the Interim Award of Don McIntyre dated December 11, 2019 are hereby incorporated as interim terms in this Order of the Superior Court of Justice as follows:
a. The respondent shall pay interim child support for the children of the marriage namely, Daniel van Rhijn born December 16, 2002, Christopher van Rhijn born March 9, 2005, and Amy van Rhijn born May 20, 2008 in the monthly amount of $2,734 payable on the first day of each month, commencing November 1, 2019, until the hearing of this matter on a final basis based on a 3 year average income of $124,034.
b. The respondent shall pay retroactive child support from the period of February 1, 2019, to October 2019, inclusive in the amount of $8,806.
c. The respondent shall pay the sum of $2,955.89 as his contribution to retroactive section 7 expenses and passport fees.
d. The respondent shall pay interim spousal support of $619 per month commencing November 1, 2019.
e. The respondent shall pay retroactive spousal support of $5,571 for the period of February 2019 to October 2019 inclusive of a rate of $619 per month. These payments shall be tax deductible to the respondent and taxable to the applicant, pursuant to s 56.1 (3) and s 60.1(3) of the Income Tax Act.
f. The amounts as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) to 2(e) herein shall be deducted from the sum of $75,000 AUD owing from the applicant to the respondent pursuant to the Arbitral Award made July 30, 2019, and shall be released to the applicant forthwith.
g. A further sum of $13,412 representing 4 months of child and spousal support payments shall be withheld from the $75,000 AUD which was to be paid to the respondent from the Arbitral Award made July 30, 2019.
h. The sum of $13,412 shall be held in trust by the applicant’s solicitor to be paid out in accordance with the paragraphs 1 and 4 herein.
i. From the $75,000 AUD, once the monies have been released and have been converted into CAD, and the above-noted deductions have been made, the respondent shall receive the remaining balance.
j. The respondent shall forthwith provide to the applicant’s counsel a summary of the expenses he alleges have been paid and supporting documentation. If the applicant’s counsel and the respondent cannot agree as to what credit, if any, should be attributed to the respondent, the list of expenses and supporting documentation is to be provided to the Arbitrator to make a summary of and render an arbitral decision with respect to the expenses.
k. The respondent shall pay his proportionate share of 90.4% of ongoing section 7 expenses.
l. The respondent shall forthwith provide to the applicant the transfer documents properly executed for the Ellangowan property.
m. The respondent shall sign all documentation which is necessary to unfreeze the following accounts such that the Arbitration Award dated July 30, 2019, can be adhered to:
i. National Flexdirect Bank Account BSB082-707 487667607
ii. Visa Trading Account: BSB083-088 49113123
n. The respondent shall forthwith designate the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary of the life insurance policy in the sum of $420,000 in trust for the children of the marriage. The respondent shall further designate the applicant in her own right, as the irrevocable beneficiary of the life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000. The respondent shall forthwith provide proof to the applicant’s counsel that the above designations have been made and are in full force and effect.
o. The parties shall make brief written submissions as to the costs of the Motion. The applicant shall have 30 days from the release of these reasons and the respondent shall have 30 days thereafter.
The respondent shall have ten days from the date of this Order to comply with all terms set out above, to the extent not already complied with.
The respondent’s written and/or verbal consent to the unfreezing and release of funds held at the National Australia Bank (National Flexdirect Account BSB082-707, 487667607; and Visa Trading Account, BSB083-088, 49113123) is hereby dispensed with. For clarity, notwithstanding any terms in clause 1 and/or 2 herein, the applicant shall be entitled to direct the unfreezing of the funds and payment out of the accounts without the consent of the respondent. The applicant shall, upon receipt of the funds, direct the payment of $75,000 to the trust account of her solicitor, to be held until further agreement, Award, or Order of the court, as the case may be.
The respondent shall, within 10 days of this Order, provide to the applicant a complete and unredacted copy of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and any other documents relating to the sale of 942 Doon Village Road Kitchener, Ontario and the adjacent lot.
The parties may serve and file costs submissions, not to exceed three pages double spaced, with a bill of costs, on the following schedule:
Applicant: January 22, 2021
Respondent: February 8, 2021
- Timelines for the filing of costs submissions may not be extended without permission of the court. If costs submissions are not received on the schedule set out herein, the matter of costs shall be deemed to have been resolved by the parties.
L. Madsen, J.
Date: December 31, 2020