COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-0015049-0000

DATE: 20210414

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Adam Saperia, Applicant

AND:

Jennifer Vlasiu, Respondent

BEFORE: E. Papageorgiou, J.

COUNSEL: Kenneth Cole, for the Applicant

Self-represented

HEARD: April 8, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Applicant, Adam Saperia (“Saperia”) brought a motion before me for the enforcement of Justice Boucher’s Order dated November 9, 2020 (“Justice Boucher’s Order”) where she ordered the sale of a property held by him and Jennifer Vlasiu (“Vlasiu”) as tenants in common located at 1370 Avenue Road, Toronto Ontario (the “Avenue Road Property” or the “Property”) as well as other ancillary orders.

[2] In particular, Saperia now seeks an Order that Vlasiu vacate the Property within 30 days and that he be given control over the sale process.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I am granting the Order sought as amended by me to address concerns which I raised.

Justice Boucher’s Order re the Sale of the Avenue Road Property

[4] With respect to the sale of the Avenue Road Property, the pertinent portions of Justice Boucher’s Order which Saperia is seeking to enforce provided as follows:

Saperia’s motion for the immediate partition and sale of the jointly-owned property at 1370 Avenue Road, Toronto, Ontario, M5N 2H4 is granted. Vlasiu’s requests to delay the sale and for an appraisal and to allow her priority in terms of purchasing priority, and for the parties to apply for a deferral of payments, are all dismissed.

3(b) Within 3 days of this ruling, Vlasiu shall put forward to Saperia’s counsel the names of three qualified real estate agents experienced with the neighborhood, as well as the names of three qualified real estate lawyers to handle the transactions that he could choose from. If Vlasiu does not put forward these names within three days, then Saperia is free to select from the names he suggested in his notice of motion.

3(h) The parties must accept any reasonable offer for the purchase of the home and neither party may unreasonably withhold their consent, and that either party may return to court on short notice to deal with any such unreasonable refusals. The parties should pay particular attention to the ruling regarding this part of the order.

4.The parties will be advanced a maximum of $150,000 each from any proceeds of sale, after the discharge of the mortgage and payment of closing costs and fees and disbursements related to the sale. Ms. Vlasiu will if advanced an additional $5,000 if available for relocation expenses. The remaining proceeds will be held in escrow by the real estate lawyer for the purpose of potentially satisfying each parties’ substantive claims at trial, or until otherwise agreed by the parties, or until as otherwise ordered by the court.

Failure to Comply with Justice Boucher’s Order re Sale of the Property

[5] The Applicant contends that Vlasiu has taken a variety of steps to obstruct Justice Boucher’s Order and delay any sale.

[6] First, she refused to agree to the draft Order and filed a Form 25 E disputing it. Saperia’s counsel had to schedule a zoom call with Justice Boucher to settle the dispute on November 26, 2020. Vlasiu did not attend, and Justice Boucher approved the order.

[7] Second, she took steps to appeal Justice Boucher’s Order which she ultimately failed to pursue, which also delayed matters. She served a notice of leave to appeal Justice Boucher’s Order on November 16, 2020. On December 23, 2020 the Divisional Court advised her that the motion for leave to appeal was denied because no leave was required as the Order was a final order. The Court advised her she could bring a motion for a stay and that if the parties could agree on a date for exchange of materials, the appeal could be scheduled as early as January 13, 2021. Then, presumably because the appeal was not scheduled, the Court advised her that the next available date was February 22, 2021.

[8] Saperia’s counsel advised Vlasiu that if the appeal could proceed on February 22, 2021, he would not seek to enforce Justice Boucher’s Order relating to the sale pending the appeal and therefore no stay motion was required. Vlasiu did not respond. Then Saperia’s counsel obtained a teleconference date with Justice Favreau on January 15, 2021 regarding the scheduling of the appeal. Again, Vlasiu chose not to attend, and Justice Favreau set February 22, 2021 as the date for the appeal along with a timeline.

[9] Ultimately, she did not proceed with the appeal because it had been denied without costs. This made no sense as the Divisional Court was permitting her to appeal, and Saperia’s counsel wrote to her advising her that she could proceed with her appeal and asking her if she wished to. She did not respond. The Divisional Court dates were vacated, and the appeal did not proceed. However, Saperia incurred tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees.

[10] Third, she did not provide a list of three “qualified real estate agents experienced with the neighborhood, as well as the names of three qualified real estate lawyers” within three days as required. Instead, she provided a list of names on November 16, 2020, 4 days late. Further, the names of the real estate agents she selected included two from the same agency who did not have experience in the Avenue Road area.

[11] Pursuant to the Order, Saperia could have appointed his own agents because of Vlasiu’s late delivery of these names, but Saperia decided to proceed with one of her recommendations in any event so that the listing could proceed without delay. His counsel wrote to Vlasiu indicating that they would be prepared to move forward with her recommended agents subject to some conditions. She did not respond and to date they have been unable to move forward with a listing.

Hardship to Saperia and urgency of this matter

[12] Saperia has been out of the Avenue Road Property since January 2020. He has been paying the expenses associated with the Property including the mortgage in the approximate amount of $6,000 per month. Saperia was terminated from his employment on February 26, 2021. He did receive termination payments, but says he is using these funds to pay down his debt obligations and fund ongoing expenses including the Avenue Road Property. He has a large outstanding tax liability of $120,000. Saperia is currently living with his parents and he says that he has an urgent need to proceed with the sale which he believes will be frustrated by Vlasiu.

Vlasiu’s Arguments Regarding the Sale

[13] Vlasiu is unrepresented. She uploaded materials to caselines but did not serve them on Saperia’s counsel. Her materials were not sworn. While grammatically articulate, and well written, the organization of the materials, their length, and inclusion and repetition of many irrelevant and scandalous allegations made them very difficult to understand or follow.

[14] I note that although the motion was scheduled for only one hour, it proceeded from 2:00 until approximately 4:45. Of that time, Vlasiu obtained approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes to make her objections and submissions. Even though her materials were unsworn, I gave her significant latitude in her submissions. Further, even if her 61-page draft Affidavit of April 1, 2021 had been sworn and been properly before me, it would have made no difference to my decision herein. At the conclusion of this endorsement, I have more to say about her materials.

[15] Procedurally, she claims she was short served. This is not true. There is an affidavit of service in the file showing she was served on March 26, 2021 for this motion on April 8, 2021. This satisfies the service requirement of r. 14.

[16] Also, procedurally, for reasons which are not clear to me, Vlasiu refuses to communicate with Saperia’s counsel. She says they are not properly appointed counsel, and that they have no “locus standi” because Mr. Cole from Epstein Cole has taken over the brief from Ms. O’Connor, who was also counsel with Epstein Cole. Before Justice Boucher, she sought an Order that Saperia’s counsel stop writing to her. Justice Boucher very clearly advised that the lawyers need to engage with her to properly represent Saperia. Justice Boucher reviewed Saperia’s counsel’s correspondence which was polite and respectful and which she concluded did not constitute harassment. She dismissed Vlasiu’s request.

[17] Vlasiu sought various orders in her Form 14C related to these objections including that the motion be struck, and that she be given leave to have further time to respond and serve a cross-motion. In my view, this request for an adjournment is why she did not swear her affidavit; had she sworn it, it would have been more difficult for her to argue she needed more time to respond.

[18] At the outset of the motion, she made objections orally. I determined her objections above were not valid, and the motion proceeded. She continued to make her objections after Mr. Cole began his submissions and I had to mute her. It was my impression that she was attempting to take up all the time available with her objections so that the motion, as a practical matter, would not proceed.

[19] With respect to the merits of this motion, Vlasiu made a number of conflicting submissions. On the one hand she said she does not object to the sale. But at the same time, she argued that the Justice Boucher’s Order was improperly made and attempted to re-litigate it.

[20] She is concerned that the sale will defeat her claim to a 50 % interest in the Avenue Road Property. She raised this issue with Justice Boucher who addressed it and explained that there would be no prejudice to her claim. The sale will result in each party receiving $150,000 with the balance of the proceeds held by a third party. This balance will be available to satisfy any order in favour of Vlasiu with respect to the Avenue Road Property if she is successful.

[21] She argued that the issues surrounding the Property should be split from the remaining family proceedings. Justice Boucher addressed this as well and held that even if the parties were never married, issues related to the family home should be considered in the whole context of the financial and other claims made.

[22] She argued that the sale should be delayed until after a scheduled settlement conference or until trial. She suggested that she would like to buy Saperia’s interest in the home and waiting would permit her to do so. Justice Boucher addressed these too. Vlasiu also lost her job in January 2021. Given Vlasiu’s assertions regarding her finances, there is little practical likelihood that she could buy out his interest. I note that Vlasiu’s position is that even though the Property was purchased for over $1.7 million, and has approximately $900,000 in equity, she should be able to purchase Saperia’s interest for $150,000 and that he should remain the only one responsible for the mortgage. There is little likelihood that this issue will be settled at the settlement conference.

[23] She argued that the move with a small child would be a hardship particularly during COVID. Justice Boucher addressed this too. She held that there is a robust rental market, her baby is young and though it is inconvenient, it would not unduly restrict routines or schooling; indeed, these issues would become worse with delay.

[24] She argued that she is an abused woman, that there are current criminal proceedings against Saperia, and that he is using this motion to somehow intimidate her and distract her from the criminal proceeding. Saperia points out that the criminal charge was only laid once he commenced this family law proceeding in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred many months previously. He is vigorously contesting these allegations. I am not in a position to consider her claims to abuse on this motion. This issue will need to be dealt with on the merits and cannot be summarily addressed through this motion.

[25] While claims of abuse may be relevant to requests for the sale of property in some circumstances, in my view they are not pertinent in this case. Vlasiu asserts that the parties are not spouses, that they never lived together, and that the Property is not their matrimonial home. There is a final Order for sale under the Partition Act. The Property must be sold; the parties’ finances do not permit Vlasiu to remain in the home and Vlasiu has not provided any legal basis which does. I note that Justice Boucher referred to the current criminal proceedings against Saperia in her decision. She clearly did not find this relevant to her decision regarding the sale of the home.

[26] Vlasiu argued that she should be given sole authority to conduct the sale. Given her position that she should be able to purchase Saperia’s interest for $150,000, which she repeated many times during the hearing, giving her the sole authority to market and sell the Property would not result in the parties obtaining the highest realizable value.

[27] Vlasiu also argued that this motion is being brought to harass and intimidate her as Saperia’s criminal trial will be proceeding at the end of April. I am not persuaded of this based on the materials or submissions before me.

Analysis Regarding Sale of Property

[28] Saperia’s counsel cites many cases about the importance of parties’ complying with Court Orders. The integrity of the administration of justice is at stake when a party willfully disobeys an Order: Hughes v. Hughes, [2007] 85 OR (3d) 5050, at para 18, Dumont v. Lucescu, 2015 494 at para 43, Gordon v. Starr, 2007 CanLII 35527 (ON SC), [2007] 42 RFL (6^th) 366 at para 23, Taylor v. Taylor (2005), 2005 CanLII 63820 (ON SC), 21 R.F.L. (6^th) 449 at para 3, Levely v. Levely, 2013 ONSC 1026.

[29] Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules explicitly empowers the Court to deal with a party’s failure to obey an Order by making any Orders the Court considers necessary for a just determination of the matter.

[30] Saperia cited numerous cases where Courts, who have found that one spouse failed to comply with a court Order regarding the sale of a matrimonial home (including refusal to cooperating with the listing agent and unreasonably withholding consent for a sale), held that the appropriate remedy was to dispense with the spouse’s consent combined with an order for exclusive possession by the other spouse so that it could be shown, inspected and sold: Kokaliaris v. Palantzas, 2016 ONSC 198 at paras 47-49, Sabijan v. Sabijan, 2019 ONSC 4654 at para 20.

[31] In other cases, where the Court was not confident that the spouse would cooperate with a sale process, they have dispensed with the spouse’s consent and ordered that the other spouse would have carriage of the sale, including authorization to execute, on behalf of the other spouse, any documents required to effect the sale of the matrimonial home: Sousa v. Sousa, 1998 CarswellOnt 5280 at paras 44-46, Flores v. Flores, 2020 ONSC 5809 at para 52.

[32] Vlasiu argues that these cases are inapplicable because these cases involved sales of matrimonial homes. However, in Sousa, the Court made the same order with respect to vacant land owned by the parties. Furthermore, I see no reason why different principles would apply where the parties are not spouses.

[33] The specific breach of Justice Boucher’s Order related to the sale of the Property was only late delivery of the recommended names by a few days. I am mindful of the Canadian Judicial Counsel: Statement of Principles on Self Represented Litigants and Accused Persons and the following relevant principles set out therein:

a. B.(2): Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.

b. C(3) Judges should ensure that procedural and evidentiary rules are not used to unjustly hinder the legal interests of self-represented persons.

[34] In other circumstances, in particular because Vlasiu is unrepresented, the breach alleged might not be sufficient to make the Order sought, and the defaulting party would be given another opportunity to co-operate, if they had a good explanation for the default. However, in the circumstances of this case (which include her attempts to re-litigate Justice Boucher’s Order again before me, the scandalous and unsupported allegations she has made described below, her conduct related to the taking out of Justice Boucher’s Order, and her purported appeal) I have no doubt that she has no intention to co-operate, even if given another opportunity, and that she would attempt to frustrate any sale so that she may remain in the Property. In my view, this will only result in further unnecessary conflict in this case.

[35] I am satisfied that Vlasiu has breached Justice Boucher’s Order and that the Order sought is necessary for a just determination of this matter. The sale of the Property will require real estate agents to attend, showings of the Property and Vlasiu has a small child who will have to be accommodated. There is also the risk of infection from COVID to Vlasiu and her child from Property showings and measures which would have to be taken to sanitize the Property after each showing. All of this combined with Vlasiu’s clear opposition to the sale will make any sale that requires her cooperation difficult, if not impossible. And there is a possibility that the parties will not realize the best value for the home if the sale process is difficult.

[36] Furthermore, the Order sought is in the best interests of the child. Until now, pursuant to Justice Diamond’s Order, child support has been paid as part of Saperia’s payment of the mortgage and other expenses associated with the Property. Vlasiu argues that she is destitute, unemployed and that she has no money to buy diapers. After this Order is made, Saperia will no longer have to pay expenses associated with the Property and he will pay $1,671 towards child support. As such, instead of all of the child support going towards the Property, she will have $1,671 per month to pay towards child expenses. I seriously doubt that a 15-month-old cares where he lives, but I am certain that he is affected if his mother does not have money to buy diapers, food, and other necessities. (On this issue, I note that Saperia requested that he only begin paying child support after the sale closes, but in my view, this could cause hardship to the child if the sale takes too long to effect. Child support is the right of the child and once Vlasiu vacates the Property, the child will no longer be receiving the benefit of the payments which Saperia is making towards the Property. As such I am ordering that Saperia begin paying this amount immediately upon Vlasiu vacating the Property. While he will then also have to continue paying the Property expenses until sold, he has an 18-month severance agreement and any issues as to any overpayment as a result of both paying the Property expenses and the monthly $1,671 can be addressed at a later time through the proceeds of sale.)

[37] I raised the concern that she may not have sufficient funds to find alternate accommodation prior to the sale, without the sale proceeds of $150,000 contemplated by Justice Boucher’s Order. Saperia offered to provide her with $5,000 to assist her with her move, which amount would be paid back to Saperia out of the sale proceeds. Saperia says that she should be given 30 days to find alternate accommodation. I think this is too short and I will be giving her 60 days to find an alternate residence and vacate the premises.

[38] Vlasiu raised a concern that if Saperia had control over accepting offers, he could make one himself or through someone non-arms-length at an amount below fair market value and thereby defeat her interest. Saperia suggested that the Order provide that neither party may make offers to purchase the Property directly or through non-arms-length parties. This satisfies her concerns.

[39] In my view the Order sought with the above modification is a fair and appropriate way of addressing the breach of Justice Boucher’s Order. It will also move the parties along in this process which is in their best interests. I also feel it is in the best interests of the child for the reasons I have set out above.

Removal of Saperia’s personal items from the Property

[40] Pursuant to paragraph 3(e) of Justice Boucher’s Order, Saperia was required to arrange for a third party to pack up and remove his belongings, on or before November 16, 2020. Vlasiu was required to cooperate and allow third party-access between the hours of 10 am and 8 pm, and Vlasiu was required to be given 24 hours-notice.

[41] On November 12, 2020, without canvassing anyone’s availability, Vlasiu unilaterally imposed conditions that Saperia would have to provide 48 hours’ notice regarding who his third party would be and that all of his belongings would be on the back porch on November 21, 2020 at 12 pm for pick up. Notwithstanding that this was not in accordance with Justice Boucher’s Order, Saperia’s counsel wrote to Vlasiu advising that he agree to her packing up his things as long as they were in good condition and protected from the weather. Instead of responding to counsel’s offer, she then waited until 3:47 pm on November 20, 2020 to state that because he had not given 48 hours-notice of who his third party would be, he could no longer pick up his things.

[42] Saperia has still not obtained his belongings.

Disclosure

[43] Pursuant to paragraph 6 of Justice Boucher’s Order, Vlasiu was to provide certain disclosure within three weeks. She continues to refuse to provide basic information such as confirming whether she is returning to work at Bell once her maternity leave is over. The outstanding disclosure is relevant to the issue of child support.

[44] Disclosure of financial information is the most basic obligation in family law: Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules, O.Reg 114/99, Fielding v. Fielding, 2015 ONCA 901, at para 64, Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450 at paras 11-13, Machanda v. Theethi, 2016 ONSC 3776 at para 9.

[45] Although she says she has provided the disclosure the evidence before me is to the contrary and she has not provided evidence that she has complied. I am attaching as Schedule “A” a chart which sets out disclosure which remains based upon Justice Boucher’s Order which references Tab 34 of the Compendium filed before her at the motion.

[46] I note that Vlasiu argued that, in fact, Saperia had has failed to provide disclosure. Justice Boucher considered this issue as well and concluded that there were only two outstanding disclosure issues related to a company Saperia had an interest in, Goldenhill Investments as well as a chequebook for a personal line of credit. There were no sworn materials before me from Saperia on this issue, possibly because his counsel was not served with Vlasiu’s materials and there is no motion before me on this issue in any event. However, Saperia’s counsel Mr. Cole advised that they had advised Vlasiu in writing that Goldenhill Investments has been defunct for years and that Saperia never recalled receiving a chequebook. I accept his submission as an officer of the court.

[47] As well, Saperia has obtained a severance package which Vlasiu complains he has failed to disclose. Again, counsel advised me that they are in the process of sending her a non-disclosure agreement as the settlement is confidential and upon providing her signature, counsel will provide her with the severance package.

[48] Justice Boucher dismissed all other requests for disclosure from Saperia on the basis that the relevance of the documents she sought was not sufficiently explained. Because Vlasiu raises so many arguments which are not valid and seeks to relitigate issues repeatedly, it may be that reasonable arguments made by her are obfuscated. I cannot say whether she raised this with Justice Boucher, but before me, she seemed to argue that she requires tax return information and other financial disclosure from Saperia going back more than three years. Saperia has one very large income year, 2019 where he earned almost $1,000,000, compared to other years before the court where he earned only $200,000. She argues that he is a high net worth individual and that he has structured his many investments so that he only captures income periodically. She seems to argue that the one year where he earned $1,000,000 is not an aberration but reflects this and that child support should be based on an average of his income which takes into account his high-income years. Previous courts have based their calculation of child support only on the annual income of $200,000. If she is correct, that periodic large income years are a regular feature of his income, this may support her child’s claim to increased child support at trial.

[49] Child support is a right of the child and it is critical that the Court have all relevant information before it on this issue.

[50] The difficulty is that there is not a proper motion before me on this issue and I have serious concerns that Vlasiu will be able to bring a clear and coherent motion focused on this issue without raising yet again all of the issues already decided against her.

[51] I strongly encourage her to obtain legal assistance and I have provided some resources for her at the end of this endorsement.

Order sought re other breaches

[52] Saperia seeks an order that prevents Vlasiu from taking any other steps in this litigation until she has complied fully with her obligations, including her disclosure obligations, and permitting him to pick up his belongings.

[53] In my view, in the circumstances this is an appropriate Order. All Vlasiu has to do is comply with the Order. There is no evidence before me that providing the disclosure or allowing Saperia to remove his things from the Property would occasion her any prejudice or hardship.

Order sought re insurance

[54] Saperia was ordered to make best efforts to add the child to his extended health benefits. His counsel wrote to Vlasiu several times requesting information required by the insurer. He also offered to pay Vlasiu to obtain her own coverage for the child given her reluctance to provide the required information. To date, she has not responded, and he has been unable to add her. Given he has lost his job, he wishes to take Vlasiu off the current plan since she is not even using it. He says he is still willing to provide funds to obtain benefits for the child. In my view this is reasonable and if Vlasiu wishes some money for such benefits, she may write to his counsel and if it cannot be resolved, then she may bring a motion.

Manner of proceeding

[55] I have sympathy for Vlasiu. She was obviously very distressed at the hearing. I read all of her materials which showed that the parties had a relationship that she greatly valued, together with her upset over the way it ended. She is on maternity leave with a small child which cannot be easy during this pandemic. She is stressed about his future; she sees herself as fighting for her child’s rights even when it comes to the Property and was tearful that her son may not have a meaningful relationship with his father.

[56] However, the reality is that the manner in which she is conducting herself in this proceeding is causing delay, time, and expense to both parties and is counter-productive to her goal of providing for her child.

[57] There are but two issues: 1) the parties’ claims to the proceeds of the sale of the Avenue Road Property; and 2) the issue of child support.

[58] There is a real asset that she is asserting a claim to (which apparently has equity of approximately $900,000) and the reality is that her conduct has resulted in costs orders against her ($18,000 by Justice Boucher and $8,500 by Justice Diamond). To the extent that she creates unreasonable costs for the parties, she may be subject to further costs orders which may only decrease her ultimate claim to payment to any proceeds of sale.

[59] What is in the parties’ and the child’s interest, is to move forwards and deal with these issues in a cost-effective and efficient manner. To date, that is not what she has done, and, in my view, she would be well advised to reconsider the manner in which she is conducting this proceeding. She cannot relitigate matters decided against her without appealing them.

[60] I also feel compelled to address the nature of the materials filed by Vlasiu.

Her unsworn affidavit

[61] Her unsworn affidavit is filled with bald and scandalous allegations which, had it been sworn, would have undermined its overall credibility. The following are some examples.

[62] It alleges that Justice Diamond only dismissed her motion for support as not being “urgent” and “never ordered anything else.” She says that Saperia’s lawyers then fraudulently altered Justice Diamond’s April 15, 2020 endorsement to change his direction that Saperia pay the household expenses from his order that they both pay them. She alleges that Justice Diamond never made the costs Order dated May 1, 2020 and that it is a fabrication by Saperia and his counsel. Indeed, she alleges that Saperia and his lawyers have altered “each and every Order a Court has made”, and that they impersonated Justice Favreau. There is no evidence supporting any of this. Let me assure Vlasiu that the Court Orders and Endorsements made are valid.

[63] It alleges that Saperia’s law firm is laundering money through this court process, and have lied on the record throughout these proceedings, again without any evidence.

[64] It says “my civil status was stolen from me in a stroke of a pen. I was married by Kenneth Cole (typed) with Meaghan O’Connor’s signature, two fraudsters masquerading as lawyers, who stated under the heading “Lawyer’s Certificate”: “My name is Kenneth Cole and I am the Applicants’ lawyer in this divorce case. I certified that I have complied with the requirements of Section 9 of the Divorce Act.” The “marriage” fraud was perpetuated in cahoots with the court clerk Conchita Liacer and Melissa Briden who entered false information in the court record knowing to be false and supplied all the Honorable Judges with such false information causing me severe prejudice at the hands of the thieves and irreparable harm.” This is a theme of Vlasiu’s materials—that somehow the use of the word “divorce” in one filed document constitutes a fraud that has robbed her of her status as single. I attempted to reassure her that this was not the case and that she is still single.

During the hearing

[65] During the hearing, she misrepresented many of the Court Orders which have been made as well as cases and legislation which she has cited. Previous Judges have admonished her. In her cost’s decision, Justice Boucher made clear that Vlasiu misrepresented the effect of Justice Boucher’s Order, that Vlasiu took unreasonable and strategic actions to frustrate Justice Diamond’s Order regarding child support, and that she continually tries to undermine the intention of court orders. In his cost’s endorsement, Justice Diamond awarded substantial indemnity costs because of her “moving target” approach, her raising arguments about an alleged $650,000 gift “on the fly” during the first telephone hearing.

[66] She has continued to communicate directly with Saperia despite court admonishment that she should be dealing with Saperia’s counsel only. Interestingly, when I raised this issue with her, she appeared to offer that she would still like to communicate with Saperia directly but could send emails to him through a different email address if the use of her email was distressing to him. I find this insistence on communicating directly with Saperia perplexing.

[67] She was apparently videotaping parts of the zoom hearing contrary to the rules. When it became apparent and I asked about it, she acknowledged that she knew she was not permitted to videotape court proceedings, and said she was only videotaping counsel’s communications during the break. Even this is highly inappropriate and there is frankly no way for me to be certain that she was not recording the entire hearing contrary to the rules.

[68] As well, it became apparent during the hearing that her child was present. At one point, he began crying and Vlasiu appeared to look over the. monitor at him and yelled something like that he should not worry as his mother was out there fighting for his house. I advised her that research showed that subjecting a child to conflict between the parents was extremely damaging to the child, and that the child should immediately be removed from the room, assuming there was someone there who could supervise the child. I found her actions in this regard quite troubling.

[69] After the hearing she forwarded to my attention a 74-paragraph draft order she proposed (also uploaded to Caselines previously) which contained numerous proposed Orders, once again seeking to reverse Orders made and never appealed and/or in respect of matters never raised and/or which are incredulous. Here are some examples of the Orders she seeks:

An Order should this Honorable Court deem just or necessary, that any Honorable Judge presiding over this matter shall handwrite in their own handwriting any Orders they make for this hearing, to deter fraudulent tampering of their Orders given the chronic history of the Applicant’s counsel outright changing Honorable Judges Endorsements and Orders throughout these proceedings to date, of which all those “corrections” remain uninitialized by Honorable Judges

An Order should this Honorable Court deem just, that the Honorable Judge presiding over this matter shall ensure that any and all Orders made shall not have immediate effect, and that all Orders will be required to be issued and entered to be in force, with an Honorable Judge presiding signing off in their own handwriting on the Orders that are to be issued, including sealing of the Orders, and digital security signatures from Court Staff, in light of the imminent property theft, real estate fraud, title fraud, and mortgage fraud attempts by the Applicant and attempts at wrongful disposition of Jennifer’s property.

An Order, that the reported cases Saperia v. Vlasiu, 2020 ONSC 1963, and Saperia v. Vlasiu, ONSC 2301 be removed from all associated sources with immediate effect, and for this Honourable Court to contact all the cases that have cited these cases (over 15 citations) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and this is not a valid family law case; spousal impersonation has taken place and this endorsement has been released based on false, material facts. There is no “non-custodial parent,” there is no “matrimonial home” nor “family home” and there is no “child of the marriage” nor “child of the mortgage” and as such “equalization” does apply, and these Endorsements and Orders which have fraudulently been obtained through spousal impersonization [sic] by the Applicant is to be struck from the Court with immediate effect to avoid further irreparable harm to public interest, particularly in light of the dangerous precedent that has been set of “family violence” where abusers and non-custodial parents can now continue to economically abuse and control their victims, by withholding child support and unilaterally directing as they see fit. All of the judgments made with those associated cases who have cited Saperia v. Vlasiu to be re-tried to ensure the administration of justice is restored.

A declaration that Adam has impeded the child (“G.V”) access to justice as a result of Adam’s bad faith, vexatious, malicious and vexatious conduct in these proceedings to date, and for Adam to be declared a vexatious litigant and for this Honorable Court to proceed to an uncontested trial and/or settlement conference already set down for 2 June 2021 at 10am.

An Order for Leave for Summary Judgment and Dismissal as there are no triable claims of Adam, neither under the Family Law Act, nor under the Divorce Act as both parties have a marital status as “single” in accordance with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), never “married,” never “divorced”, never “separated” (See attached SCHEDULE E)

An Order that Adam read the numerous Affidavits, and Compendium totaling more than 800 pages, which contains the information requested that is relevant to these proceedings and which has been pleaded, and for Adam to show evidence of follow up questions (if any) requested, prior to scheduling any other events or motions for disclosure in these proceedings, in accordance with Rule 16(12)(iv) of the Family Law Rules

A specific Order that the Applicant’s counsel, until they can produce a retainer agreement and Form 4: Change in Representation, shall refrain from writing unrelated correspondence to the Respondent or that are indirectly or directly directed to the Applicant, given the bail conditions that are in place, and unsolicited correspondence to be limited to one letter per day, failure to which this will be construed as harassment and criminal harassment charges sought.

A specific Order that Kenneth Cole (LSO #15902K) and Meaghan O’Connor (LSO #77097V) publicly apologize to this Honorable Court, and in particular in writing to Honorable Justice Boucher, Honorable Justice Nakonechny and to Jennifer (the Respondent) regarding false allegations Mr. Cole has made on Official Court record at the hearing on 3 November 2020 and which contributed to a miscarriage of justice, and severe prejudice against Jennifer and her son, including but not limited to the following perjury…

An Order that in the administration of justice and to ensure no further miscarriage of Justice that this Honorable Court Order a launch of criminal investigation and court investigation into the misconduct of court staff with the firm Epstein Cole, and in particular all correspondence and activity that this Honorable Court has purview with Ms. Meaghan O’Connor (previously of Epstein Cole), Mr. Kenneth Cole (of Epstein Cole), Alyssa Weinerman (of Epstein Cole), Ms. Melissa Briden (of Superior Court of Justice Court) , Ms. Magdalena Byrne (of Superior Court of Justice Court), Ms. Patrizia Generali (of Superior Court of Justice Court), Ms. Susan Alvero (of Superior Court of Justice Court), with a particular investigation into Endorsement and Order tampering Activities with the intent to commit fraud and property theft.

A further Order that Ms. Melissa Briden (of Superior Court of Justice Court) , Ms. Magdalena Byrne (of Superior Court of Justice Court), Ms. Patrizia Generali (of Superior Court of Justice Court), Ms. Susan Alvero (of Superior Court of Justice Court) be barred from further access of the file Saperia v. Vlasiu (FS-20-015049) and any and all court duties associated with this file.

[70] I understand that she is unrepresented but the problems with her submissions, materials and conduct go well beyond the fact that she does not have legal training. It is not acceptable for people to come to court and repeatedly make the kinds of unfounded, scandalous and bald allegations which I have read and heard, and/or continually come to court seeking to relitigate decisions made against them already.

[71] While I did not agree with most of her submissions, Vlasiu presents as extremely intelligent, astute, articulate, and familiar with court processes. In my view, it is not that she is unable to understand the Court Orders which have been made, but rather her refusal to do so and to insist on a narrative which simply is not true.

[72] She would be well advised to seek some form of legal representation because if she persists in this fashion, she will likely face more and more requests for costs which may reduce any entitlement that she may have to the proceeds of sale. I am attaching as Schedule “B” to this endorsement a list a list of pro bono or lo-bono legal advice centers who she may consult.

Previous costs orders

[73] Saperia’s counsel requests an Order that the two costs orders previously made be payable out of the sale proceeds. Justice Diamond said that his costs Order is to be paid at the end of the proceeding and accordingly, I am unprepared to make such order with respect to his costs order. However, I am ordering that the costs order made by Justice Boucher be payable out of the proceeds of sale as she directed that they be paid within 60 days or out of the proceeds of sale.

Costs of this proceeding

[74] Saperia requests costs of this motion. There was insufficient time to address costs. Each party may make costs submissions no longer than three pages with font size of 12, 1.5 spacing, as follows:

Saperia within 7 days; and
Vlasiu within 7 days thereafter.

[75] To be clear, I will not read anything beyond the 3-page mark or that does not comply with the above directions.

Case Management

[76] Part B(3) of the Canadian Judicial Council: Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants and Accused Persons states:

Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.

[77] I am seizing myself of any future motions in this matter as I believe it is important for one person to be dealing with this case.

Order

[78] In summary, I order as follows:

The Respondent, Jennifer Vlasiu (the "Respondent") shall immediately comply with the terms of the Order of Justice Boucher dated November 27, 2020, and, in particular, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 6 therein.
The Applicant, Adam Saperia (the "Applicant"), shall have sole authority to list and sell the property municipally known as 1370 Avenue Road, Toronto, Ontario (the "Avenue Road Property") and full carriage of the sale of the Avenue Road Property, including that he shall have sole authority to accept or decline any offers and the terms contained therein and sole authority to make any counter offers and to execute all necessary documentation necessary to list the Avenue Road Property for sale and to transfer title of the Avenue Road property to the new purchaser. However, the Applicant may not make any offers to purchase either directly or through a non-arms-length party.
The consent and signature of the Respondent shall be dispensed with regarding the listing and sale of the Avenue Road Property, including any signatures required on the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, deed/transfer and closing documents as required by the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
David Batori shall be the listing agent for the sale of the Avenue Road Property, subject to his agreement.
Raquel Levine (or, in the alternative, Daniel Horowitz) shall be the real estate lawyer to act on the closing of the sale of the Avenue Road Property, subject to her or his agreement.
The Applicant (through counsel) shall provide to the Respondent via email at jenvlasiu@gmail.com copies of any offers, counter-offers, Agreements of Purchase and Sale, and Listing Agreements regarding the sale of the Avenue Road Property, forthwith upon receipt/delivery/execution.
The Applicant may arrange for a third party (who may be connected to the Applicant) to pack up and remove his personal belongings from the Avenue Road Property, with the Applicant monitoring the pack up by video chat to verify the items, and the Respondent shall cooperate and allow the third-party access between the hours of 10 am and 8 pm provided she is given 24 hours, in accordance with the Order of Justice Boucher dated November 27, 2020.
The Respondent shall provide vacant possession of the Avenue Road Property within 60 days of this Order.
The Applicant (through counsel) shall provide to the Respondent $5,000 to be used as relocation expenses upon being furnished with proof that she has signed a lease or has specific plans in place as to vacating the Property. Upon sale of the Property, this amount will be repaid to the Applicant from the proceeds of sale.
The Respondent shall not be present at the Avenue Road Property during showings, inspections, buyer visits or open houses.
If necessary, the Applicant may return to Court on short-notice and on an urgent basis for any additional relief that may be needed to help facilitate the sale of the Avenue Road Property as soon as possible, in the event of a lack of cooperation or obstruction by the Respondent to any Orders made for the purposes of ensuring the sale of the Avenue Road Property without further delay.
Commencing on the 1^st of the month after the Respondent vacates the Property, the Applicant shall pay child support of $1,616.00 per month to the Respondent for the child, based on the Applicant's 2020 income of $194,050.00, pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines.
The Applicant may remove the Respondent from being covered under his extended health insurance benefits plan.
In accordance with the Order of Justice Boucher dated November 27, 2020, on the closing of the sale of the Avenue Road Property, the following net proceeds of sale shall be released to each of the parties, with the remaining net proceeds of sale being held in trust by the real estate lawyer acting on the sale:

a) $150,000 to the Applicant; and

b) $150,000 to the Respondent.

The following outstanding Costs Order shall be paid to the Applicant from the Respondent's share of the proceeds of sale from the Avenue Road Property that Justice Boucher dated November 27, 2020:

a) the Costs Order of Justice Boucher dated January 12, 2021, in the amount of $18,000.

The Respondent shall comply with her disclosure obligations as set out at paragraph 6 of the Order of Justice Boucher dated November 27, 2020, and, specifically, she shall provide her disclosure to the Applicant (through counsel) set out in Schedule “A” hereto within 30 days.
The Respondent is hereby prevented from taking any further steps in this proceeding, including bringing any further motions, pending her full compliance with the Order of Justice Boucher dated November 27, 2020.
This Order shall be effective immediately without the need for it to be issued and entered to be in force.

E. Papageorgiou, J.

Date: April 14, 2021

Schedule A—Remaining Disclosure

Details of all benefits and income that the Respondent has received from and after January 2020, including all provincial and federal government benefits, maternity benefits, employment income, fees or other benefits relating to consulting work done, and any other income earned by the Respondent.
Details of the Respondent’s current employment relationship with Bell Canada and/or its affiliates, including a complete copy of the Respondent’s employment contract with Bell Canada or its affiliates or other supporting documentation regarding her position as Director of Artificial Intelligence that outlines her remuneration and benefits.
A copy of the Respondent’s most recent pay stub from her employment with Bell Canada or its affiliates.
Details of any applications the Respondent has made for employment since the commencement of her maternity leave.
Copies of all bank statements for all accounts held by the Respondent in her name only or jointly with any third party from January 2019 to the present.
Copies of all credit card statements held by the Respondent in her name only or jointly with any third party from January 2019 to the present.
Copies of any correspondence between the Respondent and third-party service providers regarding the Avenue Road Property.
Details regarding any changes that the Respondent has made to any accounts associated with the Avenue Road Property.
Copies of all medical and dental accounts incurred by the Respondent on behalf of herself or the child, from January 1, 2020 to the present.
Documentary evidence, such as invoices or receipts, for all section 7 expenses being claimed by the Respondent.
Any documentation upon which the Respondent is relying upon in regard to the alleged “gifts” made by the Applicant, Adam Saperia to the Respondent in connection with the purchase of the Avenue Road Property.
Copies of all correspondence between the Respondent and third parties regarding the Applicant and/or the relationship with the Applicant from September 1, 2020 to present.
A copy of the Respondent’s updated resume.
Details of all employment held by the Respondent and the remuneration earned from same since her immigration to Canada.

Schedule B

Pro Bono or Lo-Bono Legal Advice or Assistance:

• IRC Office: Information and Referral Coordinator (IRC) can direct you to appropriate Family Law related resources and information, completing forms etc. In Toronto it is referred to as the Family Law Information Centre (FLIC):

Free Family Law Information | mediate393

• Family Law Resource List, Information& Tools to support self-represented litigants:

Family Law Resource List, Information & Tools to Support SRLs - CLEO Connect

• Legal Aid Ontario

1-800-668-8258 or

https://www.legalaid.on.ca/

• Family Law Limited Scope Services Program – middle to lower income Ontarians unbundled services

Ontario's Family Law Limited Scope Services – Unbundled Services for Family Law Cases (familylawlss.ca)

• Ontario Legal Information Centre:

Home - Centre d'information juridique de l'Ontario (centreinfojuridique.ca)

• Advice Settlement Counsel – first hour of services is $225 all in

ASC (Advice and Settlement Counsel) | mediate393