Siddiqui v. Siddiqui, 2022 ONSC 5784

COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-FS053915-0000

DATE: 20221021

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Rabia Tahir Siddiqui

Applicant

– and –

Tahir Hussain Siddiqui

Respondent

G. Ichim and J. Montes, for the Applicant

A. Green, for the Respondent

HEARD: September 15-23, 2022

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE PICCOLI

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This matter has been on the trial ready list for at least four trial sittings.

[2] On the first day of trial, the parties asked for the matter to be stood down. On that day they were able to resolve most parenting issues.

[3] On the second day of trial, the parties requested a settlement conference judge assist with resolving some outstanding parenting issues. Justice Breithaupt Smith spent the morning with the parties and the parties resolved more parenting issues. Two sets of partial Minutes of Settlement were filed: one dated September 15, 2022, and the other dated September 16, 2022.

[4] The trial commenced at 1:30 p.m. on September 16, 2022.

[5] During the trial, the parties were able to reach a consent agreement regarding Aleen’s school, the parenting schedule for Ramadan holidays, and whether there would be a police enforcement clause. My endorsement of September 19, 2022 sets out the parties’ consent on those issues.

[6] The remaining issues for this court to decide are: what is the equalization payment owing and by whom? And who should hold the passports for the children?

[7] The parties did not provide a statement of agreed facts.

[8] This trial underscores the importance of financial disclosure and of taking the time to provide a thorough and accurate financial statement from the outset. The failure of the Applicant (“wife”) to do both resulted in suspicion, frustration, and increased litigation. It is clear that much of the confusion between the parties could have been resolved with a half day of questioning each as opposed to a 6.5 day trial. Of note, leave for questioning was granted by Justice Walters on August 17, 2020.

[9] The Applicant called four witnesses: herself, her brothers Khurran Noor (an engineer by education with a master’s in finance – currently CEO of Defence Housing Authority “DHA”) and Nadeem Noor (doctor), and her mother, Kishwer Noor. The wife’s brothers and mother all live in Pakistan and their evidence was provided virtually. In addition, on consent, the affidavits of her father, Noorul Hasan Siddiqui, dated November 19, 2018, and September 20, 2020, were made exhibits and relied upon by the parties. Noorul Hasan Siddiqui was never cross-examined on these affidavits. At the time of trial, it is undisputed that Noorul Hasan Siddiqui was unable to testify; he is 92 years of age, in ill health since suffering a severe heart attack on June 8, 2022 and cannot talk or provide evidence.

[10] The Respondent’s (“husband”) only witness was himself.

Brief Background

[11] The parties’ marriage was arranged between their families. The parties met for the first time just days before the wedding on September 6 or 7, 2002. Prior to that and for approximately 6 months they spoke by phone.

[12] The parties were married on September 8, 2002, in Karachi, Pakistan. This is a first marriage for the husband and a second marriage for the wife. The wife was married for approximately 1.5 months in 2000. Following the parties’ marriage, the wife remained in Pakistan for approximately a month and then joined the husband in the United States (“US”). Upon the wife’s arrival to the US, the parties lived with the husband’s brother for 6 months before moving into motel O’Hare kitchenettes: a furnished apartment provided by the husband’s employer in Chicago. But for two months they remained there until 2007 when they immigrated to Canada.

[13] There are three children of the marriage, namely Azeem Tahir Siddiqui, born January 2, 2004 (age 18), Ameen Tahir Siddiqui, born July 9, 2005 (age 17) and Aleena Tahir Siddiqui, born September 17, 2014 (age 8).

[14] Azeem has special needs. He is autistic and has ADHD. It was uncontradicted that his behaviour puts him closer to a 5 to 6-year-old. Academically he is at a grade 1 level.

[15] The parties separated for the first time on June 28, 2009. They reconciled in June 2011. They separated for the final time on June 29, 2018. The wife left the home with the three children and all of the children’s personal documents and went to an undisclosed location. The husband was advised of her and the children’s departure by the wife’s brother. The husband agreed to vacate the home a week later and the wife and children returned to the home where they resided until August 25, 2018. The husband returned to the home at that time and remained for approximately one month.

[16] Pursuant to the final order of Justice Gordon dated March 24, 2022 (final order of Justice Gordon) made on consent, the husband paid to the wife the sum of $1,920 in child support based on an income of $100,000 from September 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. Commencing January 1, 2022, child support for Azeem terminated and the husband pays $1,471 per month based on an income of $100,000. Pursuant to the final order of Justice Gordon, the wife will assume all costs of Azeem’s care and will receive all benefits and subsidies intended to assist in supporting him and his care.

[17] Pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement dated September 15, 2022, the parties have agreed to set up their own RSDP account for the benefit of Azeem with each to contribute at least $1,500 per year into the account.

[18] The wife is 48 years old. She is trained as a medical doctor in Pakistan. She has written her licensing exams to practice in Ontario a number of times but has not passed those exams. She works as an ultrasound technician and has for 15 years. She works at Clearview Diagnostic Imaging. Her income in 2018 was $48,421, in 2019 was $49,462, and in 2020 was $39,465.

[19] The husband is 53 years old. He graduated with an MBA from the University of Illinois in 2002. He became a Certified Public Accountant in Illinois in 2007 and a Chartered Accountant through the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario in 2010.

[20] The husband was laid off from his employment at Manulife in 2013. He returned to work in January 2018 under a 6-month contract with Price Waterhouse Coopers and then Ernest and Young. He currently works at BDO Canada LLP. He started that employment on August 9, 2021, at a salary of $100,000 per annum.

[21] At the time of their separation, the family resided in a subsidized housing townhouse.

[22] The wife believes the husband only married her because of her medical degree and earning potential. When she continued to fail her medical exam, she states the husband became verbally and physically abusive towards her. He was arrested in 2009 and charged with assault against the wife.

[23] The parties agree that the wife is not financially sophisticated.

Credibility of the parties

[24] Overall, I find the husband to be more credible than the wife. He provided his evidence in a straightforward fashion. He admitted to facts which were not in his favour. I do not find him credible on the issue of verbal abuse or his evidence that he was found not guilty of assaulting the wife in 2009. He admitted to calling the wife “stupid” and being frustrated with her. I accept that he called her other derogatory names such as “bitch” and “whore”. Further, the information of police officer Toni, sworn June 16, 2009, indicates that the husband plead guilty to the assault and received an absolute discharge.

[25] The wife was less credible overall. Although I accept that some of the issue may have been her confusion with respect to financial issues, she was represented by counsel each and every time she swore a financial statement. The lack of consistency and number of errors and differing positions taken on her financial statement (in particular as it pertains to the jewellery) have unduly complicated matters and caused a great degree of frustration for the husband. I find that, as it relates to the jewellery, the wife’s evidence was not credible or reliable and I have drawn adverse inferences against her as a result.

[26] Of particular concern was that the wife spoke to her brother, Khurran Noor, about the trial while she was under oath, despite the courts direction not to do so. Although it may be as she stated that she was keeping him apprized of the timing of his evidence and that he would need to clarify jewellery issues and who owned the school building, to the court, it was completely inappropriate for her to do so. She was represented by two lawyers in this proceeding and those lawyers should have been in communication with witnesses about the timing of their evidence and any trial issues.

Who should hold the passports for the children?

[27] The legislation that governs this issue is s.16.1(4)(d) of the Divorce Act.

[28] It is the wife’s position that she should hold the passports for the children as she is the primary caregiver and residential parent. She states that she needs Aleena’s passport in particular for identification purposes. She has not and will not leave the jurisdiction as Canada is her home and has been for approximately 15 years. She has been at her job for the same amount of time. The children have roots in Canada, and she wants them to remain here. She agreed that the husband can hold the passport for Azeem. She asserts that the husband’s desire to hold the passports is just another means of him trying to control her.

[29] It is the husband’s position that he should hold the passports for the children because the wife has attempted to leave the country twice with the children without his consent for medical treatments for Azeem: once in 2010 following the parties’ first separation and once in 2018 following their last separation. The husband’s evidence (which the wife denies) is that following the parties’ separation in 2018, the wife threatened to take the children to Pakistan and that he would never see them again. When she left the home with the children in June 2018, she refused to tell him where they were, and she took the passports with her. He states that the passport is not needed for identification purposes as there has been no passport for Aleena for some time, and this has not prevented her from being registered for school or other activities. He states he has consented to the wife travelling to Pakistan with the children in the Minutes of Settlement; he is not trying to control her, but he wants to ensure she does not leave with the children.

[30] For the reasons that follow, this court finds that the wife shall hold the passports for Ameen and Aleena. Given the wife’s consent, the husband shall hold the passport for Azeem.

[31] The wife is the primary caregiver for the children. The children primarily reside with her despite the parties’ agreement to make decisions jointly. The child, Ameen, has parenting time with his father in accordance with his wishes. The husband and Ameen are to engage in reconciliation therapy. Aleena and Azeem’s parenting time is set out in the Minutes of Settlement dated September 15 and 16, 2022. In summary, the husband has parenting time on alternate weekends, one overnight per week, and specified holiday time. Special provisions for Azeem’s non-attendance for parenting time with the husband are set out in the Minutes of Settlement dated September 16, 2022.

[32] The parties have reached consent that the wife may travel with the children to Pakistan once every three years. The consent also indicates that if a party does not return with the children following a scheduled trip, unless for circumstances outside of their control or because of a reasonable travel delay, the parties shall be deemed to consent to an order granting the non-traveling party interim without prejudice primary residence and sole decision-making.

[33] Based on the Minutes of Settlement dated September 15, 2022, the parties have agreed that the wife will hold the children’s health cards, SIN cards, and birth certificates.

[34] As the wife is the parent who is meeting the children’s day-to-day needs and the children are in her primary care, it is logical that she be the holder of the passports for the children.

[35] Although the wife may have threatened to take the children to Pakistan in 2018, such that the husband would not see them again, I do not accept that she will do so. She was hurt and angry following the separation. It is clear that although she is very close with her family in Pakistan, she and the children have roots in the community here in Ontario. She wants the children (in particular her daughter) to remain in Canada. It is clear that the child, Ameen, is motivated in school and is happy in Canada. Given the wife’s consent that the husband hold Azeem’s passport, this court will make the order. Such an order should provide the husband with peace of mind that the wife will not leave Canada as she will not leave Azeem behind.

Equalization

[36] It is the wife’s position that the husband owes her the sum of $52,334.55 as an equalization payment. It is her further position that, in arriving at this figure, she will retain the jewellery. She states that if the court finds that the jewellery is a jointly owned asset, she is content that it be sold and the proceeds divided equally.

[37] It is the husband’s position that the wife owes to him the sum of $283,518.28 as an equalization payment. It is his further position that, in arriving at this figure, the wife will retain all of the jewellery.

[38] During the course of the trial and in closing submissions, other issues were settled in terms of the net family property of each party. The issues that remained by the end of closing submissions were:

(a) Does the wife own a plot of land in DHA Pakistan or DHA City and, if so, what is its value?

(b) The identity, ownership, and value of the jewellery.

(c) Does the wife have an interest in Mrs. Noor’s Montessori School in Pakistan and, if so, what is the value of her interest in that business?

(d) What is the value of the household goods, furniture, and car owned by the husband at the date of marriage?

(e) What is the value of the household goods and furniture that each party retained at the date of separation?

(f) Does the wife have a bank account in Pakistan?

Plot of land in Karachi

[39] The wife’s position is that she does not, nor has she ever, owned a plot of land in Pakistan or elsewhere. She testified to that effect. Her brothers Khurran Noor and Nadeem Noor testified to that effect. Her father’s affidavits of November 19, 2018, and September 20, 2020, confirm that she owns no property in Pakistan.

[40] It is the husband’s position that when the wife’s parents sold their home in January 2018, they gifted each of their children some of the money. His evidence is that the wife told him each child received $50,000 and her portion was used to purchase a plot in her name in DHA. He states he was upset by this, as the wife knew he was saving to buy a house for the family, and that he wanted the gifted money to be used in furtherance of that goal. He states that the fact that the plot of land is registered to the wife’s brother Nadeem Noor is suspicious.

[41] For the reasons that follow, I find that the wife does not own a plot of land in either DHA or DHA City. I further find that even if she did own such a plot of land, the monies used to buy the plot were gifted to her by her father during the marriage and, as such, are excluded property as is any property into which said gift can be traced and any increase in value of said gift. (See section 4(2)1 of the Family Law Act). As such, the value of $300,000 the husband ascribed to that plot of land on the net family property statement is removed.

[42] A plot of land was purchased in the name of Nadeem Noor on January 1, 2018 in DHA City. The evidence of Khurran Noor is that this plot is intended for the wife once their father passes away. It is Khurran Noor’s evidence that land was put in Nadeem Noor’s name for all of the sisters.

[43] It is not contradicted that values of land in DHA City are much less than values of land in DHA. Both parties provided value of property in each jurisdiction from zameen.com. or DHA-City.com, which both parties accept are valid appraisals of land.

[44] The husband acknowledges that $50,000 is an insufficient amount of money to purchase a plot of land in DHA which is where the wife (who is not financially astute) told him the plot was purchased. He states that she must have used her own money (from the undisclosed Pakistan bank account or the undisclosed income she receives from Mrs. Noor’s Montessori School). I find the husband’s position that the wife had extra money to contribute to the tune of $250,000 implausible based on the evidence before me. That evidence includes: the wife was mainly supporting the family since 2013; the parties lived in subsidized housing; the husband, who is a Chartered Accountant, prepared the tax returns for the family and did not report any income from Mrs. Noor’s Montessori School; and the husband was unable to find any significant discrepancies in the wife’s bank statements that could lead to the conclusion that she had either an undisclosed bank account or was receiving monies from a school in Pakistan.

[45] I also do not accept the husband’s evidence that he could not get the wife to tell him what she was earning in Pakistan. He was in control of the finances. He was frustrated with the wife’s inability to manage finances. He has a professional obligation as the preparer of the tax returns. If there was an income earned by the wife outside of Canada, he would have known about it. He has provided no evidence that the wife was earning income other than from her employment as an ultrasound technician.

[46] I also do not accept the evidence of Nadeem Noor that he did not ask his father why the plot in DHA City was being purchased in his name. I accept that the wife’s family was concerned about the parties’ marriage and did not want the husband to gain any interest in the monies intended to be gifted to her. I see no fault with the husband’s family protecting gifted monies. Even if the plot of land in DHA City were in the wife’s name and was purchased through monies gifted to her from her parents, it would be excluded property. The husband does not share the value of property gifted or inherited during the marriage.

Jewellery

[47] There was a significant amount of time spent on the issue of the jewellery. The issues in reference to the jewellery included: whether any of it was owned by the wife pre-marriage, what jewellery was gifted to each party as a marriage gift or whether it was a gift to both parties, the value of the jewellery, and whether there was undisclosed jewellery.

[48] It was the wife’s position at the opening of trial that the jewellery gifted to her by her family was worth $14,680 and was included in her net family property; that the jewellery gifted by the husband’s family was worth $8,470 and was included in his net family property and that she was entitled to a date of marriage deduction for jewellery of $22,674.75 (see exhibit 1); that the jewellery gifted to her from her family was a pre-marriage asset as it had been gifted to her at her first marriage and, as such, the value should be deducted from her net family property. By the end of the trial, the wife agreed that there should be no date of marriage value attributed to the jewellery even though it was still her position that it was owned by her at the date of marriage. Her further position at the end of the trial was that the jewellery gifted by her family was worth $14,753 and by his family was worth $8,541.

[49] It is the husband’s position that the jewellery gifted to the parties is worth $125,000 and that as the wife has retained the jewellery, that figure should be inserted as her net family property. He arrives at the figure of $125,000 by taking the amount he states he gave his brother and sister for the preparation of the wedding (25,000 in a mixture of Canadian funds and US funds) and then using the increase in value of gold bullion from the year of marriage in 2002 to the year of separation in 2018.

[50] It is clear that the wife did not comply with Justice Walters order of August 17, 2020 to have the jewellery valued at the date of marriage and the date of separation by September 21, 2020.

[51] The jewellery, until Monday September 19, 2022, was in Pakistan. According to the wife it has been in Pakistan since their marriage and according to the husband it was moved after the marriage to Pakistan. Although the parties did not declare the jewellery upon entering Canada (as the husband states they should have), it is his evidence that the wife must have brought it with her when she immigrated to Canada in March 2005. Although he does not recall her wearing it in Canada, he does recall her wearing it in the U.S when they lived there.

[52] In 2018, the wife’s brother, Khurran Noor, took the jewellery to be weighed and appraised in Pakistan at Chhotani Jewels. The husband would not accept Mr. Noor’s statement about the value of the jewellery. In 2021, Khurran Noor states he took the same jewellery back to Chhotani Jewels to have a written appraisal done. That is how the one-page document dated February 21, 2021, from Chhotani Jewel Centre came to be. The document indicates that 8 bangles and two locket sets were worth 4,500,000.00 rupees. The author of the document who was identified by the wife as simply “Tahir” was not called as a witness.

[53] In her evidence, the wife admitted she did not understand the Chhotani Jewels document and that the document was wrong as it provided the value of the jewellery on February 12, 2021 and not the date of separation. She also stated that the 8 bangles did not all belong to her; only 6 of them did and that somehow the two bangles that she states were her sisters found their way into her mother’s storage locker, which is where her jewellery was being stored.

[54] On Monday September 19, 2022, the wife had the jewellery valued by another jeweler in Ontario. She attempted to introduce that appraisal and to call the appraiser as a witness. The husband objected to the introduction of the evidence, and after argument on the issue, the court did not allow the document to be tendered nor the witness to provide evidence.

[55] The wife stated that she was prepared to have all the jewellery shipped back to Canada on condition that the husband pay 50% of the cost. It was her further evidence that the husband’s family had always been able to attend with a member of her family to have the jewellery valued in Pakistan. Even if the court were to accept that evidence, one wonders why she would not just have it shipped and valued given the time and expense incurred prior to and during the trial on the issue of the value of the jewellery.

[56] I do not accept the wife’s evidence that no one could bring the jewellery to Canada before the trial. Since the separation, one of her sister’s moved to Canada, she herself went back to Pakistan in the summer of 2022, and the parties could have made arrangements to have it transported here on consent or by court order.

[57] Khurran Noor’s evidence is that two of the eight bangles belonged to their sister and not the wife. The court does not accept the evidence of Khurran Noor on this issue as he admitted in cross-examination that this information was relayed to him by the wife following the commencement of the trial. Further, given the significant time and effort spent on the issue of the jewellery, it is implausible that, from 2018 until at least February 2021, all 8 bangles were stated as being owned by the wife and the discovery of an error only occurred thereafter. Finally, the wife’s failure to call the sister in regard to this issue affects the wife adversely. I find that all 8 bangles belong to the parties.

[58] I make the following findings of fact based on the evidence presented at trial:

(a) All of the jewellery found at Exhibit 5 was gifted to the couple. It is an Indian tradition that jewellery is given as a wedding gift as an insurance policy that should the family run into problems, they can use the jewellery. See Sohi v Sohi 2015 BCSC 1043 at paragraphs 274-278 and the wife’s own evidence that it is against her religion to have life insurance.

(b) The jewellery worn by the wife on her wedding day as set out in exhibit 27, page 3, which is circled, namely the two items on her forehead (jumra, tikka) and the item that loops around one ear (nath), are not owned by either party and are, instead, jewellery owned by the extended family and worn by brides of the extended family. This evidence by the wife is corroborated by the pictures at exhibit 7 showing other family members wearing the same jewellery. It is further corroborated by the evidence of Khurran Noor and Kishwer Noor. It is also not seriously contested by the husband who stated that he did not know the custom nor was he aware as to whether that jewellery was owned by the wife or the extended family.

(c) The wife did not own the jewellery on the date of marriage as she asserted. That finding is made on the basis of the wife’s own financial statement sworn on September 25, 2020, wherein she states in part 7 that the jewellery was gifted by her parents and her in-laws during the marriage, which she repeats on page 5 of her financial statement sworn August 24, 2021. This is also the evidence of Kishwer Noor who stated that although she did gift the wife the jewellery for her first marriage, when that marriage ended she took the jewellery back and regifted it to her for this marriage.

(d) All of the jewellery found at exhibit 5 was gifted to the parties jointly. To be clear, that includes the jewellery on pages 8 and 9. In that regard, the wife and mother’s evidence conflicted and, because of the complete lack of credibility of the wife as it pertains to the jewellery, I do not accept that the items on pages 8 and 9 were a graduation gift and/or her sister’s and/or her mother’s.

(e) Both parties have retained their Raymond Veil watch which are of similar value.

[59] It is impossible for me to find, as the husband requests, that there might be undisclosed jewellery “out there”. He presented no evidence of this. He did not call his sister, Ezre Kahtoon, who was the one who purchased the jewellery from his side of the family and who he advises knows more about “these things”. His evidence was that he does not recall what jewellery was gifted to them; that he thinks there is jewellery missing but he does not know what; that they did not declare the jewellery when they entered either the US or Canada; he does not know if the wife borrowed jewellery for the wedding of if she owned jewellery prior to the marriage.

[60] Given my finding that the jewellery is jointly owned and given that now most of the jewellery is in Canada and stored at Ms. Ichim’s office, it is not necessary for the court to make a finding as to the value of the jewellery. It is a jointly owned asset, and if the parties cannot agree on the value, it must be sold, and the proceeds divided equally. This case is distinguished from Ahmad v. Ahmed 2017 ONSC 4952 where the court found that the husband had the jewellery that was jointly owned and placed the entire value on his net family property as the husband continued to take the position that he did not have it and, as such, there was nothing to sell.

[61] This court orders that the jewellery found at Exhibit 5 be listed for sale and sold at fair market value and that each party be provided 50% of the proceeds of sale. Further to my endorsement of September 23, 2022, most of these items are being held by Ms. Ichim. At the end of the trial, I encouraged the parties to resolve the issue of how the jewellery would be sold if the court made such an order. I was not provided with a consent on that issue. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue or if any issues arise in respect of the jewellery, the matter will return before me to be decided.

Mrs. Noor’s Montessori School in Karachi

[62] The wife states that her interest in this school will only be realized upon its sale or her parents’ death. She has very little knowledge of the workings of the school – her brother Khurran Noor provided most of the evidence in relation to the school.

[63] I find Khurran Noor to be credible overall. He admitted to facts not in the wife’s favour. He was knowledgeable and forthright in his evidence.

[64] Khurran Noor testified that he started this school for his wife and mother after he got married in or around 1990/1992. It was philanthropic in nature; they wanted to provide an education for children who could not afford the school. The tuition is low, and the school is not earning much, if any, income; in the past few years he has had to put personal funds into it to keep it running. He provided the annual summaries for the school for the periods of July 2018 to June 2019, July 2019 to June 2020 and July 2020 to June 2021.

[65] The school has between 150-190 students. It originally started in 2-3 rooms in the home of Khurran Noor and his wife Ayesha Mahin. Sometime between 2002 to 2004, he bought the school from an arm’s length third party purchaser. He stated that neither sister contributed any money to the school. He has been unable to draw an income from the school in some time.

[66] The husband states that the wife owned a 6.25% interest in the school at the date of marriage and at the date of separation, and that her 6.25% interest at the date of separating is worth $250,000. His evidence in support of this position is the discussion he had with his father-in-law before the marriage and his discussions with the wife before and during their marriage. He believes that the wife receives an income from the school, but that income is unknown to him and was never reported on the wife’s income tax returns.

[67] The husband describes a conversation he had with Khurran Noor just before the wedding wherein Khurran Noor told him the school was his business. He states that following this conversation he became upset – when he told the wife about the conversations, she clarified with her parents that the school was owned by all the children. Khurran Noor does not recall this conversation.

[68] For the reasons that follow, this court finds that the wife did not have an interest in the school at the date of marriage or at the date of separation. As such, I have removed the value of $250,000 from the wife’s net family property.

[69] I accept the evidence of Khurran Noor as to how the school started and that he purchased the building which houses the school in 2002 or 2003 from an arm’s length third party purchaser.

[70] I do not accept, as asserted by the wife, that the National Identity Card allows someone to simply go online, type in the numbers and determine whether that person owns any property in Pakistan. Khurran Noor stated that only a government agency or order of the court can authorize a search. Despite that, the husband has put no evidence before the court that would allow the court to make the finding he seeks in relation to this school.

[71] The wife’s father in his affidavit states that the wife will receive 6.25% of the value of the school as an inheritance but as of September 20, 2022, “Mrs. Rabia Tahir Siddiqui does not hold any controlling interests singly or jointly with anybody in the family school business. The envisaged share of 6.25% will be given to her whenever the inheritance will be distributed, which is currently not the case at the present”.

[72] Khurran Noor provided evidence that inheritance means that this portion of the wife’s fathers wealth will be given when both parents pass away.

[73] I am unable to accept the husband’s argument that the word “inheritance” in that affidavit may mean something different and that the wife has an interest in this school. If the husband wished to advance this argument, he should have led evidence on this point – he did not.

[74] On the evidence before me, the school property is owned by the brother Khurran Noor and the school business is owned 50% by Kishwer Noor and 50% by Ayesha Mahin. If the husband believed the wife’s interest in this school was $250,000, which would mean the asset itself was worth 4 million dollars, he should have pursued this issue more diligently. He should have hired a lawyer in Pakistan, done a corporate search, and a title search. He knows the address of the school as it is in the wife’s father’s affidavit dated September 20, 2020. I do not accept, as the husband testified, that in order to do a search, a court order is required. Even if I accepted that evidence, he could and should have obtained such an order.

Value of the husband’s contents and vehicle(s) at the date of marriage

[75] In his evidence-in-chief, the husband stated that when he and the wife were talking in the 6 months before the marriage, he told her he was basically broke. He started his practical training program towards his degree 10 days after the marriage.

[76] The husband’s position until his examination-in-chief was that he owned household goods and contents at the date of marriage worth $10,000. During his evidence-in-chief, he indicated that this was an error and that what should have been reflected on his net family property statement was that he owned $1,000 in household contents and he owned two vehicles: a 1989 Toyota Corolla and a 1996 Toyota Camry which he thinks he paid $6,000 for at auction. He does not say when he bought the cars at auction. He was not cross-examined on these issues. The wife’s lawyer said this was the first she had heard of the husband owing vehicles at the date of marriage. In closing submissions, the wife agreed that he owned a Camry, but she did not indicate if she agreed as to the value of the Camry. The husband has not met his onus of proving his asserted date of marriage deductions. As such, the figure of $10,000 has been removed from his date of marriage deductions. (See section 4(3) of the Family Law Act).

Household contents at the date of separation

[77] It is the wife’s position that she retained $1,975 in contents and the husband retained $4,925 in contents.

[78] It is the husband’s position that the wife retained $53,000 worth of household contents and he retained $1,700 in contents but he is prepared to agree that on the net family property statement, the value of the contents retained by the wife was $10,000 and the value retained by him was nil.

[79] For the reasons that follow, I find that save and except for the washer and dryer which will be sold and the proceeds divided equally, the parties retained a similar value of household contents at the date of separation. I have removed the value of the contents from the net family property statement. I would have ascribed a value if it would have resulted in any difference in either party’s net family property – in this case it does not and, therefore, there is no need for this court to make a finding as to the actual value retained.

[80] The husband prepared a list of household contents and items he states were owned at the date of separation which outlines who took what items and his position as to the value of those items. The wife used the same list, added and deleted, and set out her position as to who took what items and the value of same. Both parties stated they arrived at their respective values by looking on the internet. Although the husband’s evidence was not entirely clear, it appears that he arrived at his values by using replacement cost and then discounting by a factor he considered appropriate. The wife states that she looked on the internet to determine what comparable items were selling for. The court was not provided with any other evidence as to the value of the contents.

[81] Both parties alleged the other took more items than they ascribed to themselves on the list. The wife only recalled during her cross-examination that she had retained the washer and dryer. The court has difficulty accepting either party’s evidence on the issue of household contents. It appears that overall, the value being ascribed to the contents by the wife is more accurate than that ascribed by the husband who noted that a web-based program was worth $1,500, for example.

[82] It is clear from the pictures in evidence that the household contents were not extravagant or expensive; they were mostly purchased at IKEA, and regardless as to whether they were purchased mostly between 2009 and 2011, as the wife stated, or whether a lot were purchased in 2014 to 2015, as husband states, they could not have the resale value ascribed to them by the husband. The husband’s evidence is that 60% of the contents were purchased from IKEA.

[83] During the parties’ first separation, the wife purchased bedroom furniture and lounge furniture from IKEA. She did not ascribe a value to that furniture because she stated she bought it with her money. That position is incorrect in law.

[84] The list prepared by the wife, which indicated the value of items, ascribed $1,000 to husband’s clothing but nothing to her clothing. She also neglected to ascribe a value to those computer items she took that she states were Azeem’s. If one ascribes a similar value to her clothing and purses to the wife, the values of the parties’ property becomes closer. The wife also neglected to place any value on the items she purchased from 2009 to 2011, stating the parties were separated at the time and she purchased those items with her own money, and she considered those items hers. When considering all of these matters, it is clear that both parties retained similar value of contents.

[85] The wife provided evidence that she purchased IKEA furniture in August and September 2018 at a cost of $9,477.36 after the parties separated.

[86] The parties were not in a financial position to purchase household contents of the type that would have a resale value of that ascribed by the husband.

[87] As stated by the court in Rebiere v Rebiere 2015 ONSC 1324, at para 14: It is not always necessary to call expert evidence to prove values for minor assets: see Da Costa v Da Costa [1972] O.R. No. 384 (Ont. C.A.) at para 37. Where there is a failure to produce proof of the value of assets, the court can estimate values, perhaps arriving at harsh choices or simply ascribing no value: see also: Earle v Earle, [1997] O.J. 1308 (Gen Div – Fam. Ct.).

[88] The court finds that neither party has met the onus of proving the amount kept by each of them and that each can keep what they have; no value has been ascribed on the Net Family Property. The washer and dryer that the parties owned at the date of separation in the wife’s possession shall be sold and the proceeds divided equally

Did the wife have a bank account in Pakistan at the date of marriage and date of separation

[89] I accept the wife’s evidence which is corroborated by her brother, Khurran Noor, and her father in his affidavits that the wife did not have a bank account in Pakistan. Until she was married, as a female, her parents maintained financial responsibility and control over her.

Conclusion with respect to equalization

[90] I find that the husband owes to the wife the sum of $63,981.73 as an equalization payment. I have made changes to the net family property worksheet provided to the parties to reflect my findings and it is attached here at Schedule “A”.

Orders made:

The Applicant shall hold the passports for the children, Ameen Tahir Siddiqui, born July 9, 2005 (age 17), and Aleena Tahir Siddiqui, born September 17, 2014 (age 8). She shall forthwith make notarized copies for the Respondent.
The Respondent shall hold the passport for the child, Azeem Tahir Siddiqui, born January 2, 2004 (age 18).
The Respondent shall pay to the applicant the sum of $63,981.73 as an equalization payment within 90 days. There shall be no interest added to this amount if it is paid within 90 days.
The washer and dryer that the parties owned at the date of separation in the possession of the wife shall be sold and the proceeds divided equally.
The jewellery found at exhibit 5 shall be listed for sale and sold at fair market value. The proceeds of sale shall be divided equally between the parties. If the parties are unable to agree as to the listing of the jewellery or terms of the sale of the jewellery, they shall return before me.
I strongly encourage the parties to resolve the issue of costs. If they are unable to do so, the wife may file written submissions on costs within 20 days. The husband may file responding written submissions within 14 days thereafter. The wife may provide brief reply 4 days thereafter. Submissions are not to exceed 4 pages, plus a detailed bill of costs which must be submitted and copies of any offers to settle. If a party does not serve and file submissions respecting costs in accordance with these deadlines, there shall be no costs payable to that party, although costs may still be awarded against that party. Cost submissions shall be sent to Kitchener.SCJJA@ontario.ca and Beth.Anderson@Ontario.ca.

Justice Piccoli

Released: October 21, 2022