Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-1621

DATE: 2021/06/17

BETWEEN:

MMABONG BASSEY EKONG Applicant

– and –

BASSEY EKPE EKONG Respondent

COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant Self-represented Respondent Marcelle M. Story, Lawyer for the Children: Emediong, Edikan and Dianabasi

HEARD: February 2, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION

D. SUMMERS J.

The Relief Sought

[1] The applicant mother, Ms. Ekong, brings this motion seeking several orders. She asks for temporary orders that the children reside in her primary care subject to parenting time with the respondent father, that he pay child support, and that she have temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. She also seeks disclosure, an order that the divorce be severed from corollary issues, that the respondent father make regular payments on the line of credit, and that he pay her $7,002 as reimbursement for repairs to the home and the loss of personal belongings.

[2] The respondent, Mr. Ekong, opposed the relief sought and brought his own motion seeking orders that the children live with him, and that he has sole decision-making authority. In the alternative, he asks for a shared parenting order. Mr. Ekong also asks for exclusive possession, permission to sell the matrimonial home, and disclosure.

Background

[3] The parties married in Nigeria, on August 17, 2002. Mr. Ekong returned to Canada, but it was not until May 2005 that Ms. Ekong was able to join him with her young son, from a prior relationship. Fourteen years later, on April 1, 2019, the parties separated. They have lived separate and apart under the same roof since then.

[4] In addition to Ms. Ekong’s son, Iniobong (Lawrence), who is now 30 years old and finishing medical school, the parties have three children together. Emediong is 18 years old. His sister, Edikan, is 16 years of age, and the youngest, Dianabasi, is 15.

[5] Ms. Ekong is 52 years old. She was a teacher in Nigeria and has worked as a pharmacy assistant since coming to Canada. She is currently employed in that capacity by Costco.

[6] Mr. Ekong is 69 years old. He is a secondary school teacher with the Ottawa Carleton District School Board.

[7] The children are represented by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, in the person of Ms. Story. She and Ms. Bennett, the social worker appointed to assist, interviewed the children on multiple occasions.

[8] The parties each represent themselves.

Discussion

Decision-Making and Parenting Time

[9] Ms. Ekong submits that it is in the children’s best interests to live with her. She says that she has been their primary caregiver and is the better parent to guide and care for them on a day-to-day basis. Ms. Ekong believes the children want to live with her in the matrimonial home where they will be close to their school, activities, and friends. She proposes they spend alternate weekends with their father from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. when they will return to her care and attend church together.

[10] Mr. Ekong submits that it is in the children’s best interests to live with him in the matrimonial home. He contends that he spends more time with the children than Ms. Ekong does. He says any evidence from the children to the contrary should be “taken with a grain of salt” and given little, if any, weight. According to Mr. Ekong, their mother has brainwashed them, and he alleges parental alienation.

[11] Each alleges emotional abuse by the other and both say money is a significant source of conflict.

[12] Section 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C, 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), as amended, provides that the court shall only consider the best interests of the child when determining parenting issues. Primary consideration is to be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being when considering all their circumstances, including the following factors listed under subsection 16(3):

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

[13] Further, under s. 16(4) of the Divorce Act, the court is required to take the following factors into account when considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j) above:

(a) the nature, seriousness, and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional, and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

The Parties’ Evidence

[14] The animosity between the parties is longstanding and has worsened over the last two years.

[15] Ms. Ekong alleges that Mr. Ekong becomes abusive when she disagrees with him. She contends that he diminishes her role as a parent and her financial contributions to the household. She says he tells her that she is mentally unstable and possessed by demons, that her income means nothing, the house is his, and she just lives there, eats his food, and should pay rent. Ms. Ekong adds that Mr. Ekong mistreats Lawrence and refers to him as a fatherless child.

[16] Mr. Ekong denies emotional abuse and says he never mistreated his family or caused them harm in any way. He alleges that Ms. Ekong is the toxic and abusive presence in the house and says her hate for him is so great, he fears for his life and the safety of his children. He contends that she is mentally unstable and unfit to care for the children. He also asks that she undergo a psychological evaluation and that her parenting time be supervised pending the results. The record before me does not persuade me of any of these allegations. There is no evidence that Ms. Ekong is anything other than a capable parent.

[17] Mr. Ekong describes Ms. Ekong as loud, belligerent and says she yells at him and at the children without reason. The evidence from the children set out below indicates that the home environment is difficult, their parents argue a lot and that their mother sometimes yells when she gets upset but none of the children suggest belligerence. Mr. Ekong also alleges that Ms. Ekong no longer permits him to eat the food she buys, or to do his laundry at home – a restriction he says costs him $500 in cleaning expenses each month. Mr. Ekong did not point to any evidence to support these allegations or even describe how Ms. Ekong could prevent him from meeting his daily needs in the home.

[18] Mr. Ekong’s view of Ms. Ekong’s contribution to the household aligns with her evidence. He says that, indeed, he is the one who bought the house, covered all expenses, and gave the children a comfortable lifestyle. He says that Ms. Ekong did not contribute aside from buying groceries and referred to her as a tenant in his house since separation who refuses to pay rent. Mr. Ekong contends that she kept her money for herself, even using the child tax benefit to develop her property in Nigeria.

[19] I do not accept that Ms. Ekong’s financial contribution to the household has been as insignificant as Mr. Ekong asks the court to believe considering that they are raising and educating four children together. They also own a home here, operate two cars, have accumulated some small savings, and each own property in Nigeria. I am satisfied that the financial needs of the family required the incomes of both parties. In my view, it is a form of emotional abuse for Mr. Ekong to say otherwise. Moreover, as will be seen below, the children say their mother makes sure that they have what they need and describe her as generous.

[20] Mr. Ekong says he has always been unhappy in his marriage but complains that Ms. Ekong chose to separate now when he is on the verge of retirement. He says that is the last thing children should expect from a mother who claims to love them. He also claims that Ms. Ekong hates their son, Emediong. He says she, along with Lawrence, are responsible for the boys’ low self-esteem and depression and blames her for the impact the separation has had on Emediong. Mr. Ekong provides no evidence to support such a harsh allegation. Moreover, it does not match with what Emediong says below about his relationship with his mother.

[21] Ms. Ekong complains that Mr. Ekong sends significant amounts of money to Nigeria to develop two properties. She alleges that his actions have destroyed their financial security and says the debt has negatively impacted their family. She claims that Mr. Ekong refuses to share in child-related expenses including school supplies, extracurricular activity costs, the uninsured portion of dental bills, and the like, and that he turns away from sharing basic home maintenance costs. As examples, she talked about a bed bug infestation that required exterminators, a plugged sink, a broken dishwasher, and a broken window. Mr. Ekong also complains that she sends the child tax benefit to develop her property in Nigeria.

[22] The parties’ financial statements confirm significant debt including a mortgage, a large student line of credit secured against the matrimonial home, and other high interest loans. The parties agree that the credit line relates to medical school for Lawrence. Ms. Ekong claims the inability to obtain further credit is jeopardizing his ability to finish his degree.

[23] Mr. Ekong denies exposing his family to financial hardship but does not deny sending money to Nigeria to develop property. He sees it as an investment for the long-term benefit of the family in addition to providing them with a place to stay when they visit. He claims the loan to buy the properties in Nigeria has now been paid in full.

The Children’s Views and Preferences

(i) Collectively

[24] Overall, the children describe a traditional family with their father involved in the big issues and their mother as the parent who looks after their day-to-day needs. They all speak of the conflict between their parents and want it to end. The children were not surprised when they were told about the separation and now just want them to get on with it. Emediong says the home environment is quite toxic; it is like walking on eggshells. All three children say they no longer bring friends home and all talk about their parents involving the police. According to Emediong, their disputes are not police worthy. Edikan reports how embarrassing it is for the police to have been at their home so many times that they could address each child by their first name.

[25] The children all say that their parents’ relationship got worse about two years ago although they had always fought a lot. It was then that their parents sat them down to explain that their fights were mostly about money and property. According to Emediong, each parent explained their side. He said it was good to know why they argued but it was also uncomfortable to know that he could not do anything to change it.

[26] The children agree that their parents now argue less in front of them. According to Dianabasi, they text each other instead. Although they no longer do it, both Emediong and Edikan said their parents used them as messengers in their conflict. The children say there is still tension in the home.

[27] Emediong, Edikan and Dianabasi, are all A students. Good grades are important, and each expresses a desire to pursue medicine. They are all involved in their church, music, and athletics. Each says it is important that they attend church with their mother. Mr. Ekong attends a different church.

(ii) Individually

Emediong (age 18)

[28] Emediong describes his mother as caring and supportive and says she makes sure that he has what he needs. He adds that he and his mother have always been close but acknowledges that they butt heads, from time to time. He thinks they are a lot alike and have good days and bad days. Emediong says he does not have a close relationship with his father. He describes him as a good father and says he does what he can for them.

[29] In the future, Emediong sees himself having both parents in his life and wants a relationship with his siblings. He wants a parenting arrangement that allows for a back and forth flow between his parent’s homes and facilitates his activities. He does not want a fixed schedule and asks that whatever the arrangement is, it needs to accommodate his attendance at choir practice on Saturdays and church on Sundays. It is important to Emediong to remain at his current school and he wants his home base with the parent who lives closest to it. He also wants the ability to see the other parent when he wishes and to vacation with each of them if the location interests him and his schedule permits. If there is a decision that he cannot make for himself, he does not care which parent makes it, as long as it is made.

[30] Emediong says he worries about the financial future. He says the conflict between his parents has negatively impacted his relationship with his siblings and adds that he spends more time either alone or away from the house with his friends.

[31] Edikan and Dianabasi also observe that the family breakdown has impacted Emediong significantly. Edikan says he spends more time alone. Dianabasi describes her brother as shutting down and withdrawing when their parents fight. She says he was not always that way.

Edikan (age 16)

[32] Edikan describes her mother as hard-working and caring. She says her mother cares too much and when she is angry, she talks and talks. Edikan speaks of a close relationship with her mother and says they do things together. She describes her father as someone who is hardworking, keeps to himself more, does not talk a lot, and is less engaged with her and her siblings. As an example, Edikan mentions volleyball. She says her mother is always aware of her games and wishes her good luck whereas her father does not seem aware. Moreover, she says her mother attends some games, while her father does not. According to Edikan, her father is very interested in his family in Nigeria and frequently talks to them on the phone. She does not know her paternal relatives. She says her relationship with her father is okay.

[33] Edikan believes her father is responsible for their maternal grandmother being deported. She says he called the authorities in the fall of 2019. They removed and deported her. Their grandmother had lived with them for five years.

[34] Edikan wants her parents to move on with their separation and does not want to be involved in their disputes. Going forward, she wants a relationship with her mother, father, and siblings. She wants to be close to her school and prefers to live with her mother and her sister, Dianabasi. Edikan also wants to see her father and said she would like to spend a minimum of two weekends a month with each parent, with flexibility around her plans and activities. As with Emediong, church is important to her and she wants her involvement accommodated. She hopes to spend three weekends every month with both Emediong and Dianabasi and would like the opportunity to vacation with either parent. She is satisfied to have both her mother and father make any medical decision that she is unable to make for herself and does not care who signs school forms as long as they get signed.

[35] Edikan now has a part-time job close to the matrimonial home that is important to her. She wants a flexible schedule, subject to her wishes and preferences and says irregular works hours underscore her need for flexibility.

Dianabasi (soon to be 15)

[36] Dianabasi describes her mother as funny, generous, and giving. She makes sure they always have cool stuff. Dianabasi says their relationship is close but notes that sometimes they disagree, her mother gets upset, yells and does not listen. Dianabasi says her father also cares about her but does not believe he tries to understand her feelings – especially about family issues. She reports that he never thinks he is wrong, and, at times, she finds that frustrating. Dianabasi says she is not as close to her father now as she once was. She describes him as generous and nice. Dianabasi reports having some contact with maternal relatives but not her paternal relatives.

[37] Dianabasi says she feels close to all her siblings as well as her mother. She too wants to live close to her school, if possible, and states that it is important to her to live with Edikan, although she wants a relationship with all members of her family. Dianabasi would prefer if all the siblings were on the same schedule but, at a minimum, wants them to be together for some weekends every month. She prefers to live with her mother and sees herself spending alternate weekends with her father provided her wishes and activities are considered, including choir practice and church. She perceives that her mother has always made medical decisions and would like her to continue. With respect to school, she does not care who makes the decision as long as it is made.

[38] According to Dianabasi, her parents argued a lot, hence, she was not surprised when they separated. She is aware they do not agree about her father spending money to build a house in Nigeria and how he had been treating her brother, Lawrence.

[39] Emediong, Edikan and Dianabasi are bright, articulate young people with many interests, activities, and life goals. They have expressed their views and preferences clearly and consistently over time. I am satisfied they are independent. The children are at an age where their wishes should be given considerable weight, and I do so. Indeed, since Ms. Ekong initiated this motion, Emediong has reached the age of majority and can legally make decisions for himself.

[40] I also note the candour with which Emediong, Edikan, and Dianabasi spoke to the OCL about their needs, the parent that meets those needs, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each parent. I have no doubt that the children love and respect both parents, however, their evidence clearly indicates they are more closely bonded to their mother and recognize her as the parent who ensures their daily needs are met. I am, therefore, satisfied that the children should have their primary residence with their mother and have parenting time with their father on alternate weekends from Friday evening at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. as well as any other time they ask to spend time with him, including holidays. This parenting schedule is to be flexible and subject always to the children’s wishes taking into consideration their part-time jobs, their activities, social needs, and interests. If parenting time with their father is to be meaningful and successful, it is essential that both parties demonstrate flexibility and prioritize the children’s best interests and wishes.

[41] I make no order with respect to decision-making authority. As noted, Emediong is now 18 years old. Edikan and Dianabasi say they are content to have either or both parents make the decisions that they cannot make themselves although Dianabasi prefers that her mother make medical decisions. While I have reservations about the parties’ ability to put the children’s best interests ahead of their animosity for one another, I nevertheless provide them an opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. If, however, a child-related issue arises and the parties are unable to make a joint decision promptly, either may request an urgent motion before me.

Child Support

[42] Ms. Ekong is entitled to receive child support. Her Notice of Motion seeks an order for $1,842 based on Mr. Ekong’s annual income in 2018 of $95,000, however, Mr. Ekong’s 2021 paystubs show his annual income as $100,591. The Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175 (the Guidelines) require that support be based on current income.

[43] Mr. Ekong asks to be relieved of his child support obligation. Other than pointing to his debts, he did not provide evidence that payment of the table amount would cause him undue hardship, nor did he provide evidence that would allow the court to consider the standard of living in each household as required under s. 10(3) of the Guidelines. Moreover, it was indicated during submissions that Lawrence would be earning income as of July 1, 2021 and, therefore, be in a position to take over payment for his student line of credit. It accounts for the lion’s share of non-mortgage related debt. If Lawrence does not take over the monthly cost of this debt, I order that the parties share it equally and each shall pay one-half of the minimum monthly payment required by the financial institution. Accordingly, I decline Mr. Ekong’s request to be relieved of his child support obligation and order that he pay $1,929 per month to Ms. Ekong for Emediong, Edikan and Dianabasi, based on his annual income of $100,591. Payments shall commence August 1, 2021. This order is made without prejudice to Mr. Ekong returning to court to seek relief against undue hardship, with the necessary evidence.

Exclusive Possession

[44] Both parties seek exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. There is little question that the environment in the home is stressful and difficult for everyone. Ms. Ekong says the children hope to and should remain in the home with her until the youngest completes high school in two years. Mr. Ekong says she cannot afford to live there, and he should be the one to stay. Ms. Ekong says she has been paying the house costs for quite a while now and can continue to do so.

[45] Section 24(1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, gives the court jurisdiction to order that a spouse have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home for a period of time, regardless of ownership. The court is further empowered under this section to make orders directing that the contents, or any part of them, remain for the use of the spouse given possession, or be removed from the home for the use of a spouse or child. The court can also order a spouse to pay for all or part of the repair and maintenance of the matrimonial home and other liabilities arising in respect of it.

[46] Subsections (3) and (4), require that the court consider the following factors when deciding whether to make an order for exclusive possession:

(3) (a) the best interests of the children affected;

(b) any existing orders under Part I (Family Property) and any existing support orders or other enforceable support obligations;

(c) the financial position of both spouses;

(d) any written agreement between the parties;

(e) the availability of other suitable and affordable accommodation; and

(f) any violence committed by a spouse against the other spouse or the children.

(4) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider,

(a) the possible disruptive effects on the child of a move to other accommodation; and

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained.

[47] Considering these factors and the evidence before me, I find that it is in the children’s best interests to remain in the matrimonial home with their mother. By all accounts, the home environment is toxic, the children have been exposed to the conflict between their parents, they say they have had enough and want them to get on with the business of separation. They also express a strong preference to live close to their school and their activities. I, therefore, order that Ms. Ekong shall have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home effective August 1, 2021. Thereafter, she shall be responsible for paying for the mortgage, property taxes, property insurance, all utility expenses, and other day-to-day operating costs. All repair and maintenance costs shall be paid by Mr. Ekong, as the sole owner of the property. Ms. Ekong shall not incur any such costs without first obtaining Mr. Ekong’s consent which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

[48] I am satisfied that Ms. Ekong can meet the household expenses set out above that total approximately $2,100 per month. Based on her 2021 pay stubs, her income will be in the range of $54,642. She also receives the child tax benefit and Mr. Ekong will be paying child support. I am further satisfied that once Ms. Ekong takes over these expenses, and Mr. Ekong makes the necessary adjustments to his expenses, he can afford alternate accommodation. In this regard, I reviewed his January 2021 financial statement and make the following observations:

• Income is shown as $7,731 per month or $92,772 per year, however, his 2021 paystubs confirm annual salary of $100,591. This adjustment results in a gross positive difference of $645 per month;

• CPP and EI contributions over overstated by $165.54 and $50.90 per month, respectively;

• He claims $500 per month for dry cleaning. $50 to $100 a month would be more reasonable;

• $7,000 for annual car repairs and maintenance is unreasonable for a thirteen-year-old vehicle valued at $5,000 in 2019;

• discretionary expenses for charitable donations ($274) and RRSP/RESP withdrawals ($200) can be suspended.

Leaving aside the amount claimed for car repairs, these adjustments total $3,847 per month.

Sale of the Matrimonial Home

[49] Mr. Ekong’s request for an order authorizing the sale of the matrimonial home is dismissed. Even had I not ordered exclusive possession to Ms. Ekong, it is my view that an order for sale would be premature in any event as there is insufficient evidence to determine what, if any, prejudice might result from the sale of the home at this time. For instance, there is still significant disclosure to be made before the equalization payment can be determined. In particular, Mr. Ekong has a pension entitlement that he has yet to value. Moreover, his financial statement indicates that he owns two properties in Nigeria of significantly greater value than the property that Ms. Ekong owns. Neither party has valued their Nigerian holdings. The parties’ failure to make the disclosure required of them , in turn, makes it impossible for the court to assess the potential need for an order under subsection 9(d) of the Family Law Act directing the transfer of property to satisfy the equalization payment.

Disclosure

[50] Both parties seek further disclosure. Ms. Ekong alleges that Mr. Ekong failed to comply with the disclosure order made by Master Fortier, dated January 17, 2020, that both parties produce evidence to prove the value of the assets and liabilities shown on their respective financial statements. I am not satisfied that either party has done that. While it should never be necessary to make the same order twice, I do so. I have also decided to case manage this file to ensure that disclosure is made and that the file moves forward toward either resolution or trial. Accordingly, a case conference shall be scheduled before me to be heard between August 16 and September 3, 2021.

[51] In the meantime, each party shall have 60 days to produce:

1. documentary evidence to prove the date of separation value of their respective automobiles;

2. date of separation and current statements for all bank accounts and investment accounts in their sole or joint names;

3. appraisals of the property that each owns in Nigeria as of the date of separation;

4. date of separation and current account statements for all debts and liabilities for which either is solely or jointly liable including but not limited to the mortgage, credit lines, loans, and credit cards.

5. documentary evidence to prove the value of all assets and liabilities on the date of marriage, if any.

6. Mr. Ekong shall immediately apply to the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan to calculate Family Law Value of his pension as of the date of marriage and the date of separation. In addition, he shall provide proof from his employer of any entitlement he had on the date of marriage and date of separation to be paid for unused sick days. If no such entitlement existed, when was the benefit paid and what was its value.

[52] I decline, at this time, to order the extensive disclosure sought relating to monies allegedly spent over many years by each party on their respective properties in Nigeria. I am not persuaded that the disclosure is relevant to the claims before the court, nor do I regard the request for documents spanning ten years as proportional.

[53] I also decline to sever the divorce from the corollary issues. Making that order would be inconsistent with the interim order exclusive possession that can only be made in favour of a spouse.

[54] The balance of each party’s motion is dismissed as they are appropriately dealt with at trial.

[55] My order is summarized as follows:

1. The children shall have their primary residence with the applicant mother, Ms. Ekong.

2. The respondent father, Mr. Ekong, shall have parenting time with the children on alternate weekends from Friday evening at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. as well as any other time they ask to spend time with him, including holidays. The parenting schedule shall be flexible and subject always to the children’s wishes taking into consideration their part-time jobs, their activities, social needs, and interests. Both parties shall be flexible and prioritize the children’s best interests and wishes.

3. Commencing August 1, 2021, Mr. Ekong shall pay child support to Ms. Ekong in the amount of $1,929 per month for Emediong, Edikan and Dianabasi, based on his annual income of $100,591.

4. Commencing August 1, 2021, Ms. Ekong shall have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she shall be responsible for paying for the mortgage, property taxes, property insurance, all utility expenses, and other day-to-day operating costs. All repair and maintenance costs shall be paid by Mr. Ekong, as the sole owner of the property. Ms. Ekong shall not incur any such costs without first obtaining Mr. Ekong’s consent which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

5. If the eldest child, Iniobong (Lawrence), does not take over the monthly carrying cost of the student line of credit obtained to fund his post-secondary education, the parties shall share the cost equally and each shall pay one-half of the minimum monthly payment required by the financial institution.

6. The parties shall have 60 days to produce:

a. documentary evidence to prove the value of their respective automobiles on the date of separation;

b. date of separation and current statements for all bank accounts and investment accounts in their sole or joint names;

c. appraisals valuing the property that each owns in Nigeria as of the date of separation;

d. date of separation and current account statements for all debts and liabilities for which either is solely or jointly liable including but not limited to the mortgage, credit lines, loans, and credit cards;

e. documentary evidence to prove the value of all assets and liabilities on the date of marriage, if any; and

f. Mr. Ekong shall immediately apply to the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan to calculate Family Law Value of his pension as of the date of marriage and the date of separation. In addition, he shall provide proof from his employer of any entitlement he had on the date of marriage and date of separation to be paid for unused sick days. If no such entitlement existed, when was the benefit paid and what was its value.

7. I will case manage this file. A case conference shall be scheduled before me to be heard between August 16 and September 3, 2021.

8. As the successful party, Ms. Ekong is entitled to her costs. I encourage the parties to reach agreement on this issue. If that is not possible, Ms. Ekong shall deliver her costs submission to the court by July 5, 2021 with proof of service to my attention at SCJ.Assistants@ontario.ca. Mr. Ekong shall then have until July 19, 2021 to deliver his costs submissions with proof of service. Neither party’s submissions shall exceed two pages, double spaced, using 12-point font. The parties shall also provide Bills of Costs and copies of any offers to settle.

Justice D. Summers

Released: June 17, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-1621

DATE: 2021/06/17

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

MMABONG BASSEY EKONG

Applicant

– and –

BASSEY EKPE EKONG

Respondent

REASONS FOR decision on a motion

D. SUMMERS J.

Released: June 17, 2021