COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-00096622-00 DATE: 2023 11 02

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: BOUTIN, Micheline, Applicant AND: BOUTIN, Victor, Respondent

BEFORE: Regional Superior Justice L. Ricchetti

COUNSEL: CARR, ALEXANDRA and MORGAN, Timothy, for the Applicant (BOUTIN, Micheline) JOSEPH, Gary and MACEACHERN, Aria, for the Respondent (BOUTIN, Victor)

HEARD: October 12, 2023; In person.

ENDORSEMENT

MOTIONS

[1] There were three motions before me today.

[2] The first motion is from Mr. Victor Boutin seeking:

a) A variation of the existing preservation and non-dissipation orders to permit him or his corporation to raise monies by way of mortgage financing.

b) An order that Ms. Boutin deliver an updated Family Law Act (FLA) Financial Statement.

c) An order that Ms. Boutin deliver her business valuation report within 30 days.

d) An order that the Receiver release $1,000,000 from the trust monies to Mr. Boutin’s counsel; and

e) An order dismissing Ms. Boutin’s motions.

[3] The second and third motions were from Ms. Micheline Boutin.

[4] The first motion by Ms. Boutin sought:

a) An order prohibiting Mr. Boutin from obtaining any further orders until Mr. Boutin complies with specified prior court orders.

b) An order that the Receiver release to Ms. Boutin $2,500 per day until Mr. Boutin is in compliance with certain specified orders.

c) An order that the Receiver release funds to pay the expenses relating to the matrimonial home and two other jointly owned properties or, alternatively, to release to Ms. Boutin the sum of $180,000 to pay the expenses for those properties.

d) An order requiring Mr. Boutin to provide specified supporting documentation to the Receiver; and

e) An order requiring Mr. Boutin to provide certain documents such as his life insurance, profit, and loss statement for 13820 Heritage Road, Caledon.

[5] The second motion by Ms. Boutin was an urgent motion seeking:

a) “An Order requiring the Respondent Victor Boutin, within 7 days, to provide to the Receiver, Fuller Landau LLP, a copy of the reporting letter(s) and the file of his real estate lawyer acting on the transactions in November 2022 and June 2023 with Hydro One Networks Inc. for the property municipally known as 22130 Charing Cross Road in Chatham-Kent, Ontario.

b) An Order under r. 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 requiring the Respondent Victor Boutin, within 30 days, to authorize 2136615 Ontario Ltd. to pay the Receiver, Fuller Landau LLP all of the net proceeds of sale for the property municipally known as 22130 Charing Cross Road in Chatham-Kent, Ontario. If any of the net proceeds of sale have been spent, an Order that the Respondent Victor Boutin is personally liable to pay the net proceeds of sale to the Receiver, Fuller Landau LLP within 30 days.”

MR. BOUTIN’S MOTION

Background

[6] Mr. Boutin’s Net Worth Statement, shortly before the separation, showed that he had assets worth more than $77,000,000. Mr. Boutin, directly and indirectly through his companies, owns a substantial number of properties, some being developed/built. By the time Mr. Boutin filed his sworn Financial Statement on December 6, 2021, he had $0 net worth. Further, Mr. Boutin, under oath, stated he had no income at all, having to live in his office because he couldn’t afford to rent accommodations.

[7] Mr. Boutin, personally and through his companies has, post separation, been involved in many financial transactions, involving millions of dollars and numerous properties. Some transactions involve transfers or encumbrances to non-arms length parties. Some transactions have been identified but, details remain undisclosed by Mr. Boutin or are subject of vague responses. Other transactions were uncovered by Ms. Boutin over the years during this litigation. Of note, there was a reorganization done by Mr. Boutin post separation that has never been fully disclosed to Ms. Boutin.

[8] While pleading impecuniosity, complete and accurate disclosure by Mr. Boutin has NEVER, TO THIS DATE, been made regarding his income, assets, and their value. There have been numerous orders requiring Mr. Boutin to make complete and accurate financial disclosure. To no avail.

[9] Over the past three years, commencing in August 2020, the court commenced making numerous disclosure orders directing Mr. Boutin to produce financial documentation. Yet, despite numerous court orders, Mr. Boutin’s counsel admitted today, at this hearing on October 12, 2023, that Mr. Boutin has still not made complete and accurate financial disclosure.

[10] Because, by December 2021 there had not been complete and accurate disclosure by Mr. Boutin, and the many post separation transactions, the court made orders for the preservation and non-dissipation of family assets owned or controlled by Mr. Boutin, including his companies.

[11] The first Order was made, by me, on December 22, 2021, ordering Mr. Boutin to preserve assets as requested in para. 1 of Ms. Boutin’s October 5, 2021, Notice of Motion:

An order that the Respondent shall preserve and be restrained from depleting, transferring, or otherwise dissipating any property in his possession or direct or indirect control, without the Applicant’s express written consent obtained in advance. This shall include, but not be limited to, the transfer of any monies or property between the various corporations which existed at separation, have existed since separation, and which will exist pending trial.

[12] Mr. Boutin’s position was that the preservation and restraining Order was too onerous on him and his companies and would seriously, negatively impact his business and operations.

[13] Then the matter came before J. Van Melle on January 19, 2022. Justice Van Melle rejected Mr. Boutin’s submission and confirmed that the preservation and restraining Order made by me on December 22, 2021, remained in effect, pending the release of her decision.

[14] On February 1, 2022, J. Van Melle reaffirmed the preservation and non-dissipation order against Mr. Boutin as she ordered:

The Respondent, Victor Boutin (“the Respondent”), shall preserve and be restrained from depleting, transferring, or otherwise dissipating any property in his possession or direct or indirect control, without the Applicant’s, Micheline Boutin (“the Applicant”) express written consent obtained in advance. This shall include, but not be limited to, the transfer of any monies or property between the various corporations which existed at separation, have existed since separation, and which will exist pending trial.

[15] Mr. Boutin was not deterred and continued to deal with his assets as he saw fit, and to put them beyond the reach of Ms. Boutin.

[16] As a result, Mr. Boutin brought a contempt motion. The matter returned before me on April 29, 2022, with the liability phase of the contempt hearing for over 5 days of hearing.

[17] On May 30, 2022, I found Mr. Boutin in contempt. See Boutin v. Boutin, 2022 ONSC 3229 (Boutin Contempt Liability Reasons). The long list of court orders requiring Mr. Boutin to make complete and accurate disclosure is set out in those reasons. As are some of the post separation transactions by Mr. Boutin.

[18] The status of Mr. Boutin’s financial disclosure is set out at paras. 86 to 89 Boutin Contempt Liability Reasons. Mr. Boutin didn’t deny his failure to make complete and accurate financial disclosure, notwithstanding the court orders. He acknowledged it. It is important to note that this was 2 ½ years AFTER the separation.

[19] As for the transactions after the preservation orders, at para. 90, Mr. Boutin alleged that Ms. Boutin was aware of the sale of one particular property AND alleged that he needed to deal with his assets for financial reasons. Ms. Boutin denied any knowledge of the particular sale and, quite frankly, this statement by Mr. Boutin was rejected. The property, Concession 10/11 Halton Hills, was sold by Mr. Boutin on December 22, 2021, But, several months later, hiding the fact it was sold from Ms. Boutin, asked for her consent to sell that property. That consent was not forthcoming. And so, the details of Mr. Boutin’s sale and his attempt to cover up the sale, became clearly known.

[20] Essentially, the excuse that Mr. Boutin had to sell properties or enter into various transactions for financial reasons was an admission that he ignored the preservation orders.

[21] The matter returned before me on August 5, 2022, for sentencing on the contempt and other motions. See Boutin v. Boutin, 2022 ONSC 4776 (Boutin Contempt Sentencing/Motions Reasons).

[22] By August 5, 2022, not only had Mr. Boutin not purged his contempt, but his ordered financial disclosure remained outstanding.

[23] In fact, there is evidence that Mr. Boutin continued to engage in related party transactions the day before the sentencing. Documents subsequently obtained show advances to Audrey Boutin, his daughter in law, for substantial amounts of money – more than $1,000,000.

[24] And there was no complete and accurate financial disclosure of various transactions where Mr. Boutin had disposed of assets, including some very valuable assets such as the Florida properties referred to in the Boutin Contempt Liability Reasons. There continued to be little or no financial disclosure regarding transferred monies to related parties (i.e., Boutin children and grandchildren) or to his joint venture with JSVB Holdings Ltd. (JSVB) or to Sota Investment Limited (Sota). See para. 47 of the Boutin Contempt Sentencing Reasons/Motions Reasons.

[25] The court had no choice but to appoint a Receiver, with the same authority that Mr. Boutin would have to obtain the necessary financial disclosure, and to provide that disclosure to Ms. Boutin.

[26] Notwithstanding Mr. Boutin’s lack of financial disclosure and the disregard of the disclosure and preservation orders, Mr. Boutin brought a motion to sell certain properties – but he didn’t identify all the properties he wanted to sell except that he was “thinking” about selling three properties. Now Mr. Boutin’s position was that he was “asset rich” and “income poor”. Para. 103 and following Boutin Contempt Sentencing/Motion Reasons. A marked difference from his December 2021 Financial Statement.

[27] Mr. Boutin’s motion was dismissed.

[28] Ms. Boutin brought a motion seeking authority to sell several properties. The court ordered that the identified properties be sold. The sale process was set by court order. Mr. Boutin was to provide proposed listing agents, but Ms. Boutin could proceed to list and sell the properties with the involvement of Mr. Boutin or further court order. See para. 117 Boutin Contempt Sentencing/Motion Reasons.

[29] Mr. Boutin did not provide the name of three real estate agents as required in para. 117 (a) of the Boutin Contempt Sentencing/Motion Reasons.

[30] Not only did Mr. Boutin not provide the names of real estate agents, and despite the court Order, Mr. Boutin ignored the Order and unilaterally entered into listing agreements to sell various properties. This was without Ms. Boutin’s knowledge or consent. Mr. Boutin picked his own real estate agent and his own listing price.

[31] But not only did Mr. Boutin ignore the court ordered sale process for the identified properties, he also listed for sale additional properties (not in the August 22, 2022, Order) including a number of properties which were jointly owned with Ms. Boutin.

[32] When this came to Ms. Boutin’s attention, she brought a motion. It was heard on September 27, 2022 – just over a month after the court’s last Order in August 2022.

[33] The following is set out in my endorsement released on September 28, 2022:

16. The Order [August 22, 2022, Order] was not followed by Mr. Boutin. In particular:

1. Mr. Boutin did not provide the names of real estate agents he proposed for each property. Prodding by Mrs. Boutin’s counsel to produce such names did not help;

2. Mr. Boutin unilaterally, with agents of his choice (who had prior dealings with Mr. Boutin), listed the properties ordered to be sold.

3. Mr. Boutin also listed the matrimonial home (Brampton) and the Garafraxa property with the same agents (which were not one of the properties ordered to be sold), despite the fact Mrs. Boutin is a joint owner, without her knowledge or approval and for which Mrs. Boutin has an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

4. Subsequent to Mrs. Boutin’s first affidavit, Mr. Boutin listed another jointly owned property (Caledon) without Mrs. Boutin’s knowledge or approval.

5. There is a dispute whether the listing prices are or were reasonable listing prices.

6. Despite being asked by Mrs. Boutin’s counsel to “delist” the properties listed by Mr. Boutin contrary to the terms of the August 22, 2022 order, Mr. Boutin has not done so.

7. Despite Mr. Boutin listing the properties for over $45 million dollars, he continues to claim he doesn’t have the $100,000 to fund the Receiver as he was to do under the August 22, 2022 order.

17. Mr. Boutin’s position is that it was either a misunderstanding or that he wanted to be “proactive”. I reject any misunderstanding as my Reasons/Order could not have been clearer with respect to the sale of the properties. As for being proactive – this is nothing more than Mr. Boutin’s continued deliberate and flagrant disregard for court orders.

18. Mr. Boutin tries to justify his actions by setting out what he considers to be reasonable listing prices and what he is doing with the properties. However, none of that explains the flagrant disregard for my Order to follow the listing and sale procedures carefully set out.

[34] Mr. Boutin was ordered to immediately terminate his real estate listings and:

21. …Any and all further dealings with the said 8 properties can only be carried by Mrs. Boutin, subject to further court order. To be clear, Mrs. Boutin shall have full and complete discretion with regard to all matters relating to the sale of these properties save and except that the net proceeds (after third party encumbrances, legal, commissions and usual adjustments) are paid into court. Neither Mr. Boutin nor Mr. Boutin’s companies’ approval, signature or authorization are necessary for listing, showing, or selling these properties. Mr. Boutin and the Boutin companies are to not have any further dealings whatsoever with these properties.

[35] Unhappy with this court’s decision, Mr. Boutin had his real estate agent/broker put in an offer for one of the properties – the same agent who Mr. Boutin had listed the properties ordered to be sold by Ms. Boutin. This appeared to be an effort to foreclose other parties from putting in offers.

[36] Still unhappy with this court’s decision, in December 2022, Mr. Boutin brought a motion to permit him to enter a joint venture regarding one of specified properties this court had ordered sold by Ms. Boutin.

[37] That motion was heard on December 29, 2022. Mr. Boutin suggested that this particular property was worth $8,000,000.

[38] But the real purpose of the “joint venture” was to essentially prevent this property from being sold despite the court order. Mr. Boutin would contribute the subject property – what he claims was worth $8,000,000. The joint venturer would contribute $100. And the property might someday be developed in some undescribed manner. The court stated:

This is what is known about the proposed joint venture. Mr. Boutin’s company would contribute the lands to this joint venture, with the lands being valued at $8,000,000. The limited partnership would contribute $100 (no that is not a mistake). When AND IF, the project is approved and started, 879662 Ontario Inc will have the “opportunity” to fund the necessary costs and, if not funded by 879662, a company called Ironpoint (Barber Mill) Limited Partnership ltd. would be required to fund those costs. Not much is known about this corporation.

What is the project? “to develop build and operate a boutique hotel or to develop and sell condominium buildings on the land.” The exact details of the project aren’t known or yet available. The description is vague and speculative! Whether the lands are zoned is not known! How long it will take to develop these lands is not known. Whether there will be any profit is not known. There is much not known about this proposed joint venture.

And we have two parties in their 70’s. Mrs. Boutin who claims equalization and monies now. Mr. Boutin is still interested in speculating real estate. The two are at cross purposes.

What Mr. Boutin has demonstrated is that he is a successful real estate speculator. But he has already ignored court orders and has not paid the amounts ordered to be paid to Mrs. Boutin despite have obvious, and now admittedly valuable assets from which such payments could be made by selling some of these assets. Instead, Mr. Boutin has engaged in not paying Mrs. Boutin and decrying impecuniosity.

What is known is that the lands would no longer belong solely to Mr. Boutin, through his company. They would belong to the joint venture. The court would lose control over these lands.

There is no reason to deviate from my order that this property be sold. This part of Mr. Boutin’s motion is dismissed.

[39] Again, Mr. Boutin unhappy with the August 22, 2022 Order, brought a motion on January 24, 2023 to stop any further sales of the properties to be sold by Ms. Boutin under the August 22, 2022.

[40] Mr. Boutin’s motion was dismissed. Written reasons were released on January 30, 2023. See Boutin v. Boutin, 2023 ONSC 759 (Boutin Jan 2023 Reasons).

[41] One of the issues that was required to be dealt with was that Audrey Boutin (Mr. Boutin’s daughter-in-law) had mortgages on several properties the court had ordered sold. Ms. Boutin disputed that those mortgages were bona fide and the amount, if any, was owing under those mortgages.

[42] Mr. Boutin’s position in the January 24, 2023 motion was set out in para. 44 of Boutin Jan 2023 Reasons:

[44] Mr. Boutin states he can raise the necessary money (millions of dollars) through financing. This is the same party who stated to this court that he had an unknown net worth, if any, and didn’t have any money to rent a residence so much that the had to sleep in his office. Now, Mr. Boutin can raise “millions of dollars”. Where was this ability to finance when order after order was made against him to pay Mrs. Boutin, which orders went unpaid in August – and have still not been paid. And if future orders are made, must this court have to go through motion after motion (close to 40 motions in about 2 years)?

[45] Even if Mr. Boutin’s submission had merit, I would not exercise my discretion to vary the order. The obstructive conduct of Mr. Boutin continues. There was obstruction to the sale of the properties (set out in the December 2022 motion) by Mr. Boutin unilaterally listing the properties despite this court’s order that Mrs. Boutin was to proceed to sell the properties. There was the attempt to enter into a Joint Venture where $0 would be generated to the Boutin company yet there would be a transfer of a property. There was Mr. Boutin’s long time real estate agent/broker, Mr. Camara, submitting an offer. This is the same agent Mr. Boutin had unilaterally listed the 8 properties for sale despite my August 2022 Order. There was the attempt by Mr. Boutin after my August 2022 Order, through Mr. Camara, listing 3 properties where Mrs. Boutin was a joint owner – WITHOUT her knowledge or permission.

[46] There is a potential issue with the sale of one of the 8 properties, the Lot 26 Heritage Road, Caledon property as it abuts another Boutin Holdings Limited and the sale of one contravenes the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 unless there is a severance or variance. This may abort the sale or certainly delay the sale of this property. This may eliminate the sale of this property and hence reduce the net proceeds from the sale of the properties.

[47] And then there is the Metrolinx issue. While not before me to deal with – it demonstrates Mr. Boutin’s continued disregard for court orders. As set out in my prior reasons, I made a preservation/non-dissipation Order in December 2021. That was followed by a further direct Order from J. Van Melle on February 1, 2022 that Mr. Boutin not to dispose of or sell any assets. I won’t repeat the sale of the Halton Hills property the same day as my Order by Mr. Boutin nor the subsequent attempt by Mr. Boutin to not disclose the fact it had been sold. The court was very critical of this conduct.

[48] Metrolinx approached Mr. Boutin with respect to compensation for a portion of one of his properties (one of the properties this court ordered to be sold!) Mr. Boutin executed a document transferring to Metrolinx a portion of the land for an alleged approximately $52,000. Was Mrs. Boutin advised of this before it occurred? No. The portion of the property is now sold and this will no doubt become yet another motion in this proceeding.

(Emphasis added).

[43] Yes, Mr. Boutin had sold a portion of one of the properties to be sold to Metrolinx. Mr. Boutin ignored the court’s preservation orders. Mr. Boutin didn’t tell or obtain the consent of Ms. Boutin. And the proceeds of sale were unaccounted for. This clandestine transaction had to be uncovered by Ms. Boutin.

[44] The matter was back in court on June 19, 2023. Ms. Boutin was given authority to sell a property described as the Gananoque Property. She sold the Gananoque Property. The sale was to close on June 22, 2023. Ms. Boutin was told that Mr. Boutin was trying to sell the gazebo, dock, and a shed on the Gananoque Property. When Mr. Boutin’s counsel was asked in writing prior to the motion whether Mr. Boutin was engaged in trying to sell the gazebo and other items, there was no denial. Mr. Boutin denied he was doing so in an affidavit but admitted he was trying to sell and had sold furniture and appliances from the Gananoque Property. An injunction had to issue preventing Mr. Boutin from selling any fixtures or chattels on the Gananoque Property and preventing him from going within 200 meters of the Gananoque Property.

[45] And now we get to Mr. Boutin’s current motion.

Analysis

[46] Mr. Boutin’s position is that there are sufficient funds, currently held by the Receiver from the sale of some of properties ordered sold on August 22, 2022, to pay Ms. Boutin any reasonably calculated equalization payment.

[47] Of course, this is based on Mr. Boutin’s current valuation expert based on the draft report submitted last year, which relies heavily on information from Mr. Boutin and Jimmy Boutin, who was involved in some of the related party transactions described in the Boutin Contempt Liability Reasons. And, while there continues to be outstanding complete and accurate financial disclosure from Mr. Boutin.

[48] Just three of the many, many properties owned in whole or in part by Mr. Boutin and/or his companies, have after their sale, resulted in net proceeds of $13,571,030.93 being held in trust by the Receiver. This is substantially more that the $0 net worth sworn to by Mr. Boutin. And there are many, many more properties. There were at least 45 Boutin related properties described in J. Van Melle’s Order of February 1, 2022.

[49] What would the sale of the remaining properties bring and form part of an equalization calculation? Until Mr. Boutin makes complete and accurate financial disclosure, and all his related party transactions are reviewed and, if necessary, decided by the court, no one knows. So, I reject the submission that Ms. Boutin’s equalization payment (and not to forget any potential lump sum support payment) is sufficiently secured by the monies held in trust by the Receiver.

[50] At this motion, Mr. Boutin submits that his companies are in dire need of funds, failing which, the companies will not survive financially. As described above, this was a common position taken by Mr. Boutin throughout the past two years. This same refrain has been raised numerous times in this court to prevent a finding of contempt, court ordered sale of properties, and the appointment of a Receiver.

[51] Mr. Boutin filed approximately 10 affidavits (some by him and some by persons involved in his businesses) on this motion setting out the amounts he and his companies owe, alleging that:

a) developments having stalled / delayed;

b) increased carrying costs;

c) companies are operating at a loss; and

d) stating that unless monies are received shortly, his companies will not survive.

[52] Mr. Boutin proposes to mortgage certain of his properties. Details and terms of the financing are not set out. Details of how Ms. Boutin’s claims in this proceeding are not set out.

[53] Mr. Boutin seeks an updated Financial Statement from Ms. Boutin. Yet, Mr. Boutin has not made financial disclosure to permit an accurate Financial Statement from Ms. Boutin. Further, Mr. Boutin has not filed an updated sworn Financial Statement himself in the past two years!

[54] Ms. Boutin opposes the motion.

[55] Mr. Boutin submits Ms. Boutin’s desire is to destroy his lifetime real estate accomplishments. I reject this submission because it is Mr. Boutin’s actions in failing to make complete and accurate financial disclosure of his assets, his manipulation/ transfer/ arranging for encumbrances on his assets (some effectively putting monies beyond Ms. Boutin’s reach in this proceeding), that puts the blame for the current situation squarely and solely on Mr. Boutin.

[56] Mr. Boutin submits that, for all previous defaults and breaches of court orders prior to the finding of Contempt, are either subject to issue estoppel or constitutes double jeopardy. Neither of these legal principles apply. Besides, as set out in these reasons, Mr. Boutin’s flagrant disregard for court orders has continued well after the finding of contempt.

[57] Mr. Boutin’s history of not disclosing all relevant financial information (and at this hearing his counsel acknowledged that complete and accurate financial information/documents still have not been made by Mr. Boutin) weighs heavily against granting the Order sought by Mr. Boutin.

[58] Mr. Boutin’s history of related party transactions whereby his assets are reduced and/or liabilities increased (such as owing $100,000 to each of his very young grandchildren), weighs heavily against granting the Order sought by Mr. Boutin.

[59] Mr. Boutin’s history of ignoring court orders, including selling assets notwithstanding the preservation Orders, weighs heavily against granting the Order sought by Mr. Boutin.

[60] Mr. Boutin’s blatant attempt to circumvent or prevent Ms. Boutin’s efforts to sell the properties set out in the August 22, 2022 Order, weigh heavily against granting the Order sought by Mr. Boutin.

[61] Mr. Boutin has done everything he can to avoid having any funds to pay Ms. Boutin what she may be owed at trial.

[62] The contempt Order has not changed Mr. Boutin’s approach to this litigation.

[63] The appointment of a Receiver has not changed Mr. Boutin’s approach to this litigation.

[64] And shortly before this motion was heard, what did Ms. Boutin discover?

[65] Mr. Boutin, through his wholly owned company, 2136615 Ontario Limited, gave, on November 24, 2022, Hydro One an option for $30,000 to buy 22130 Charing Cross Road, in Chatham-Kent, Ontario. On June 26, 2023, Hydro One exercised that option for $275,400.

[66] These dealings with the Charing Cross Property were without notice to Ms. Boutin and without her consent. Ms. Boutin had to discover the transactions herself.

[67] There was no court order exempting either dealing with this property.

[68] This is just another clear, deliberate and flagrant breach of the preservation Orders.

[69] And what did Mr. Boutin say to this?

[70] Mr. Boutin, through his counsel, wanted to know how Ms. Boutin discovered this. That is astonishing a question. It is asking “how did you catch me ignoring court orders?”

[71] But then Mr. Boutin responded by way of a sworn affidavit. Ms. Boutin, while correctly identifying the municipal address of the Charing Cross property in the Notice of Motion and attaching the correct title register showing the transfer of the Charing Cross property from Mr. Boutin’s company to Hydro One, Mrs. Boutin’s, in the body of her affidavit, misdescribed the municipal address as 21330 (instead of 22130) Charing Cross Road.

[72] And Mr. Boutin’s response was that he does not own this property nor do his companies.

[73] Mr. Boutin did not give details or information regarding the transactions with Hydro One. No explanation.

[74] Mr. Boutin did not give details or information as to where the proceeds of sale are from these transactions. No explanation.

[75] After more than four years of litigation, Mr. Boutin’s failure to make complete and accurate financial disclosure simply allows him to deal with these assets, developments, and real properties as he sees fit with the hope that he is not caught and allows him to simply arrange his financial affairs to defeat Ms. Boutin’s claims in this proceeding.

[76] And given the above background, there is a real likelihood that the sale of all Mr. Boutin’s and his corporate assets may have to be liquidated. Mr. Boutin has no one to blame but himself for the current alleged financial crisis of his companies and the situation he and his companies now face.

[77] I reject Mr. Boutin’s counsel submission that any further breaches should be brought by way of another contempt motion rather than the manner advanced by Ms. Boutin as a response to Mr. Boutin’s motion.

[78] I have no hesitation dismissing Mr. Boutin’s motion in its entirety. So, ordered.

[79] I repeat, if the result is that all of Mr. Boutin and his company’s properties and developments must be liquidated, by his continuing conduct described above, he has no one to blame but himself.

MS. BOUTIN’S MOTION

The Urgent Motion

[80] Given the above, the relief sought by Ms. Boutin is hereby granted as follows:

a) Mr. Boutin shall within 15 days, direct or cause to direct 2136615 Ontario Ltd., to pay to the Receiver, Fuller Landau LLP, all the net proceeds of sale of 22130 Charing Cross Road with full disclosure of the transaction, the sale, and the utilization (including the statement of adjustments) and current location of the sale proceeds.

b) Any party having knowledge of this Order shall not deal with in any way, transfer, or encumber the net sale proceeds from 22130 Charing Cross Road except to pay them to the Receiver forthwith.

c) The Receiver is hereby directed, pursuant to the authority of the August 22, 2022, Order, to obtain the entire file from the real estate lawyer acting for Mr. Boutin and/or 2136615 Ontario Ltd. relating to the sale to Hydro One Networks of 22130 Charing Cross Road, Chatham-Kent. Should the lawyer claim that any part of the file is privileged, those documents shall be sealed in an envelope, with copies provided to Mr. Boutin, and the sealed envelope(s) shall be brought to court for a hearing, on notice to Mr. Boutin and Ms. Boutin, for a determination whether each document over which privileged is claim is privileged in whole or in part.

Ms. Boutin’s Amended Motion dated September 21, 2023

No Further Motions unless certain Orders are Complied with

[81] I am not prepared to grant the order as requested.

[82] How does one determine whether the specified orders are complied with and thereby prohibit Mr. Boutin from obtaining any orders?

[83] In the past, there have been disagreements as to what disclosure was made, what remained outstanding, whether some document(s) was subject to the disclosure Order, whether the document was within the control of third parties and so on. The purpose of appointing a Receiver was to ensure that the financial disclosure Mr. Boutin failed and refused to make, would be obtained and available through the Receiver. Obviously, this is turning out to be a more difficult, time consuming and expensive endeavour as originally thought. Especially, without the cooperation of Mr. Boutin, his continued failure to make complete and accurate disclosure and engaging in various transactions.

[84] I am not prepared to make the order sought at this time. However, as can be seen from the above, the fact that Mr. Boutin continues to not make complete and accurate financial disclosure is likely to be a serious impediment for any relief he may in the future seek from this court.

Expenses of the Matrimonial Home, Terra Cotta, and East Garafraxa Properties

[85] On April 9, 2021, J. Miller ordered:

The Respondent shall continue to pay for all expenses relating to the matrimonial home and two other jointly-owned properties, located at 13820 Heritage Road, R.R. #1, Terra Cotta (Caledon), Ontario, and for the parcel of land located in East Garafraxa, Ontario, including but not limited to:

i. Utilities;

ii. Property taxes;

iii. Property insurance; and

iv. General maintenance and repairs, as required,

[86] Mr. Boutin failed to comply with J. Miller’s Order on the basis that he was impecunious and did not have assets or monies to pay these expenses. Mr. Boutin’s assertion of impecuniosity has turned out entirely inaccurate. He simply didn’t want to pay those expenses of Ms. Boutin.

[87] The Receiver is to release to Ms. Boutin the sum of $180,000 from the monies in trust for the purpose of paying the outstanding and ongoing bills and expenses to the three properties described in J. Miller’s Order. This is without prejudice to Ms. Boutin’s ability to seek further funds prior to trial to pay additional expenses, upon her producing an accounting showing that how and that the $180,000 has been entirely used up to pay those expenses. The accounting for these funds in the calculation of an equalization payment will be left to the trial judge. So, ordered.

Outstanding Disclosure

[88] Ms. Boutin seeks supporting documentation alleged to be outstanding from Mr. Boutin. The Receiver advised the court that his second report will be completed by the end of October. At that time, a more detailed analysis of what documents remain outstanding will be available.

[89] Accordingly, the relief sought in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Ms. Boutin’s motion is hereby adjourned.

CONCLUSION

[90] Mr. Boutin’s motion is dismissed in its entirety.

[91] The following order is made:

a) Mr. Boutin shall within 15 days, direct or cause to direct 2136615 Ontario Ltd., to pay to the Receiver, Fuller Landau LLP, all the net proceeds of sale of 22130 Charing Cross Road with full disclosure of the transaction, the sale, and the utilization (including the statement of adjustments) and current location of the sale proceeds.

b) Any party having knowledge of this Order shall not deal with in any way, transfer, or encumber the net sale proceeds from 22130 Charing Cross Road except to pay them to the Receiver forthwith.

c) The Receiver is hereby directed, pursuant to the authority of the August 22, 2022 Order, to obtain the entire file from the real estate lawyer acting for Mr. Boutin and/or 2136615 Ontario Ltd. relating to the sale to Hydro One Networks of 22130 Charing Cross Road, Chatham-Kent. Should the lawyer claim that any part of the file is privileged, those documents shall be sealed in an envelope, with copies provided to Mr. Boutin, and the sealed envelope(s) shall be brought to court for a hearing, on notice to Mr. Boutin and Ms. Boutin, for a determination whether each document over which privileged is claim is privileged in whole or in part.

d) The Receiver is to release to Ms. Boutin the sum of $180,000 from the monies in trust for the purpose of paying the outstanding and ongoing bills and expenses to the three properties described in J. Miller’s Order. This is without prejudice to Ms. Boutin’s ability to seek further funds prior to trial to pay additional expenses, upon her producing an accounting showing that how and that the $180,000 has been entirely used up to pay those expenses. The accounting for these funds in the calculation of an equalization payment will be left to the trial judge.

e) The relief sought in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Ms. Boutin’s motion dated September 21, 2023, is hereby adjourned.

COSTS

[92] Any party seeking costs shall serve and file written submissions on entitlement and quantum within two weeks of the release of these reasons. Written submissions shall be limited to three pages, with attached Costs Outline and any authorities.

[93] Any responding party shall have one week thereafter to serve and file responding submissions. Written submissions shall be limited to three pages with any authorities relied on attached.

[94] There shall be no reply submissions without leave.

RSJ L. Ricchetti Released: November 02, 2023