Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-14-36793 DATE: 2023 03 08 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: W.N., Applicant AND: M.V., Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: W.N., Self Represented Sangar Duraiappah, for M.V.

HEARD: March 8, 2023

Endorsement on Motion

[1] Court attendance today, by Zoom. Ms. V. moves to force the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home without the involvement or consent of Mr. N. The closing date for the sale is this month.

[2] Ms. V’s motion dated 23 February 2023 is granted, in part. Costs in the total amount of $1000.00 are ordered to be paid by Mr. N. to Ms. V. Those funds shall be deducted from Mr. N.’s share of the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

[3] Clauses 1-3, 5, and 6 of the draft order filed by counsel for Ms. V. are not disputed by Mr. N. The order emanating from this Endorsement shall include those clauses.

[4] With regard to clause 8 of that draft order, costs, the amount of $10,000.00 was suggested by counsel for Ms. V. Mr. N. suggested no costs. Successful on the motion, there should be some costs in favour of Ms. V. Her behaviour at court during the hearing, however, disentitles her to anything more than a fairly nominal sum. She cannot control her outbursts, gestures, eye-rolling, and so on, and there has to be some meaningful consequence for that. Mr. N., self-represented, did not replicate the bad manners. The meaningful consequence comes in the way of a much lower quantum of costs than what would otherwise prevail. Clause 8 shall be replaced with the costs order made above. For as long as video courtrooms are here to stay, litigants and their counsel will be held to the same standards of professionalism that would otherwise apply in a traditional courtroom. Nothing less than that will be acceptable.

[5] Clause 4 of the draft order is granted. Although Mr. N. indicates that he supports the home being sold and the closing date being respected, for caution it is better to allow the sale to proceed without his signature. After all, the sale is compulsory as per the Final Order of Justice Coats made long ago.

[6] Finally, regarding clause 7 of the draft order, that relief is denied. Rather, the said $25,000.00 equalization payment shall be held in trust by counsel for Ms. V. If Mr. N. does not bring his Motion to Change the Final Order of Coats J. within the next sixty (60) calendar days, then those monies may be released to Ms. V. If the Motion to Change is brought, then the monies shall remain in trust pending a further court order.

[7] The crux of the argument advanced by Mr. N. today was that he is owed a lot of money by his former spouse, and that she has violated her obligations under the Final Order made by Justice Coats, and that things have changed with his finances since that Final Order was made. Those arguments present no legitimate obstacle to the sale of the home, however. They must be pursued, if Mr. N. wishes, through a Motion to Change. That really should have been in place before the Court made an order freezing the $25,000.00, but in this case Mr. N. is self-represented and clearly did not understand the mechanics of what he had to do. There is also little prejudice to Ms. V., as she will be handsomely compensated from the sale of the home in the very near future.

[8] As for Mr. N.’s suggestion to hold $100,000.00 in trust from Ms. V.’s share of the net proceeds of sale, there is simply no basis in the evidence filed to make such an order and no connection between that sum and anything contained in the Final Order of Coats J. I, therefore, decline to accede to that request.

Conlan J. Date: March 8, 2023