COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-1323
DATE: 2023/01/10
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – FAMILY COURT
RE: BARBARA COHEN, Applicant
AND
STEVEN COHEN, in his capacity as Trustee of the Estate of Sidney Cohen and Susan Charendoff, Respondents
BEFORE: Justice A. Doyle
COUNSEL: Anne E. Posno and Melanie Battaglia, Counsel for the Applicant Barbara Cohen
Daniel Schwartz and Marta Siemiarczuk, Counsel for the Respondent Steven Cohen, in his capacity as Trustee of the Estate of Sidney Cohen
Jonathan Richardson, Counsel for Susan Charendoff
Hilary Book, Counsel for the non-party Brian Cohen
Michael Wade, Counsel for the non-parties: Campbell Steel and Ironworks Limited, Rideau-George Real Estate, Somerset Towers and Hickory Developments Inc.
HEARD: December 1, 2022, in Ottawa via Teleconference
ENDORSEMENT ON APPLICANT’S MOTION FOR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
[1] This motion is brought in the context of a trial to solely determine the issue of whether the marriage contracts signed by the Applicant, Barbara Cohen (“Barbara”) and Sidney Cohen (“Sidney”) are valid or should be set aside.
[2] Barbara moves for extensive financial disclosure from the Respondents and non-parties. She argues, among other things, that the disclosure is required for the court’s consideration when dealing with the second part of the test set out in Levan v. Levan, 2008 ONCA 388, i.e. whether the court should exercise its discretion in setting aside the marriage contract signed by Barbara and secondly, in response to the Estate’s recent amendment to its answer to include a defence of laches.
[3] The Respondents object to the motion on the basis that this disclosure is not necessary when the court deals with the first phase of this trial which is solely on the issue of whether the court should uphold the marriage contracts or set them aside. In ordering a Phase 1 trial, Justice Audet found that this was the most efficient and expedient manner to deal with this matter. If the marriage contracts are set aside, then the finalization of the value of the Respondent’s estate can be litigated and then determined.
[4] The non-parties who attended the motion did not take a position but request that the court deal with who will cover the costs of obtaining the documents requested.
[5] On consent, the parties and non-parties have agreed that if production of the documents in the hands of the non-parties is ordered, then notice will be provided to the non-parties in the event that a party wishes to file the document in court. This will allow the non-parties to consider bringing a motion for sealing of the documents due to their commercially sensitive information.
[6] On consent, Brian Cohen will provide a transcription of audiotapes of his conversations with Sidney that mention Barbara with sufficient context to permit the references to be understood.
[7] For the reasons that follow, the court dismisses the motion.
Brief Background
[8] Barbara married Sidney on July 1, 1986, and Sidney passed away on January 4, 2017.
[9] On June 30, 1986, the eve of their wedding, Sidney asked Barbara to sign a marriage contract (“Marriage Contract”) and Barbara met with the lawyer Kenneth Radnoff in his home.
[10] On August 25, 2008, Barbara signed an amending marriage contract (“Amending Contract”) which related to their matrimonial home which involved a mortgage in favour of the Respondent, Susan Charendoff, (“Susan”) who is the daughter of the late Sidney Cohen.
[11] On June 23, 2017, Barbara issued an application against the Respondent Estate (the “Estate”) seeking to set aside the Marriage Contract and the Amending Contract under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.3, as am., and claiming an equalization payment pursuant to the Family Law Act and a separate application for dependent’s relief under the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26. She has also brought a claim against Susan with respect to the mortgage held by her.
[12] In 2018, Justice Maranger consolidated the two proceedings. On July 24, 2019, Justice Audet bifurcated the trial and ordered that the parties first proceed to Phase 1 of the trial which would deal with the sole issue of the validity and enforceability of the contract. Phase 2 would deal with all other issues.
[13] Both parties have amended their pleadings on consent on a couple of occasions.
[14] The Estate concedes that if the Marriage Contract is set aside, so is the Amending Contract.
[15] At the outset of the trial, I granted the Estate’s motion to amend their pleadings to include the defence of laches and Barbara the right to amend her reply. The Estate submits that in reliance on the marriage contracts, Sidney provided gifts during his lifetime and bequeathed legacies to Barbara’s children and grandchildren.
Barbara’s Position
[16] Barbara is seeking documents that were provided to the estate expert, documents to value the real properties and information regarding gifts.
[17] She argues that the documents are relevant and within the scope of the Phase 1 trial and most of the documents are in the hands of the Estate.
[18] The value of the estate is relevant in the second step of Levan in which fairness is a consideration. She argues that what Barbara gave up by signing the marriage contracts is relevant.
[19] The value of the estate is relevant as there is a material difference between $24M what the Estate said it was worth according to its expert and $36m which is what it is prepared to admit as the value of the estate for the purposes of this motion. Only with the disclosure of the documents requested, can Barbara assess for herself the value of the estate.
[20] She refers to Rule 20.2(5) of the Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114/99 as am. (the “Rules”) which mandates that an expert report be accompanied by a copy of the documents relied on by the expert in forming their opinion.
[21] A motion should not need to be brought. Even though the Estate indicates that it is not planning to call this expert at trial which would consequently engage this subrule, there is no undertaking that they will not be calling the expert for trial.
[22] Barbara questions the reliability of the Estate’s expert.
[23] The sale prices of some properties were double the value estimated by the Estate’s expert, Paula White, in her report (“White report”).
[24] For example, Ms. White estimated that the 2108 Roberts property was valued at $32M by Ms. White but the property sold for $56M. Similarly, 5314 Lakeshore was valued at $27M and sold for $38M and 1 Corkstown was valued at $8.48M and sold for $24.5M. These values add up to a difference between $69M and $120M.
[25] Barbara’s expert, John Seigel, critiqued the White report by commenting that it was just a calculation report which is not as complete and thorough as a comprehensive valuation report.
[26] Real estate comprises 75% of the Estate’s assets. In his affidavit, John Comba, a real estate advisor and appraiser, listed the documents he would require to properly value the real properties.
[27] Also, the amendment of laches became relevant at the commencement of trial and hence the issue of fairness is more pronounced. The scope of the trial has widened.
[28] Audet J was attempting to streamline the case and she assumed the pleadings were closed.
Estate’s Position
[29] The Estate relies on Audet J’s order requiring the parties to proceed with the Phase 1 trial. In her endorsement, she noted that considerable amount of time and expense had been spent with respect to the issue of financial disclosure. If the court first determined the validity of the marriage contracts, then the parties would only need to obtain the extensive valuations if the marriage contracts were set aside.
[30] This motion for documents requests documents that are not relevant to Phase 1, not proportional and against the primary objective of the Rules.
[31] The Estate expects that if the value of the Estate is an issue, then Phase 1 will be a 2-week trial with experts disputing the values of assets. This is what Justice Audet was trying to avoid with her decision to bifurcate the hearing. It will no longer be a focused hearing dealing with the validity of the marriage contracts.
[32] To date, the Estate provided extensive disclosure and put together a multi-page chart.
[33] The White report was provided early in the litigation before the bifurcation hearing.
[34] Regarding rule 20.2(5) that requires production of documents by the expert, it is only necessary if calling the expert at trial which they do not intend to do.
[35] Barbara was prepared to proceed to trial in March 2021 without further financial disclosure.
[36] The amendments pertaining to laches which includes her amended reply do not require the precise value of the estate. She denied that Sydney acted in detrimental reliance on the marriage contracts. He kept paying expenses. Gifts given are not relevant to the value of the estate.
[37] The value of the estate is not relevant to the issues of detrimental reliance as part of his laches defence.
[38] It is not relevant to fairness or unconscionability.
[39] Regarding step 2 of Levan, there has been no case that says that the precise value of the estate is a relevant consideration.
[40] The court granted the motion to allow Barbara to bring this motion for financial disclosure, but the court did not imply that the exact value of the estate was necessary for the Phase 1 trial.
[41] Barbara’s argument is that the unconscionability argument in step 2 of Levan does not require an exact value of the estate. Nor is it required for the laches defence.
[42] The disclosure regarding the estate freeze was not in the relief sought in the notice of motion.
[43] The Estate has already provided a great amount of disclosure and it is their position that the estate is valued at approximately $24M. However, for the purposes of the motion, they are prepared to use the figure of $36M as the value of the estate (see Estate’s counsel letter dated September 29, 2002).
Susan’s Position
[44] Barbara’s motion for disclosure as against Susan includes:
Disclosure and evidence of all gifts made by Sidney; and
Production of all audiotapes involving Susan with respect to the nature of the marriage between Barbara and Sidney and production of all documents, including e-mails and text messages in Susan’s possession, power, or control, which reference either the nature of the marriage between Sidney and Barbara, any reliance by Sidney on the marriage contract or amending marriage contract, or Sidney’s Estate plan.
[45] Susan has already produced all disclosure sought in the letter dated March 18, 2022 and her affidavit confirms that nothing has changed since that letter.
[46] Counsel for Barbara confirmed that they were satisfied (see email dated October 20, 2022).
[47] Susan also argues that the defence of laches does not lead to the addition of the issue of the validity of the mortgage to Phase 1.
[48] The balance of the disclosure sought by Barbara relates exclusively to the Phase 2 trial.
[49] The disclosure now sought is an attempt to undo the bifurcation order in this matter.
[50] Susan confirmed she has neither any audiotapes nor any documents with respect to the nature of the marriage between Sidney and Barbara. Sidney gave Susan nominal sums of money for her birthday or similar occasions.
[51] Sidney would offer to pay for Susan’s flight if Susan came to visit Sidney valued at approximately $1800 and she also benefited from bridge financing from Sidney.
[52] Justice Audet’s bifurcation order found:
Equally important is the added advantage of excusing the respondent, Ms. Charendoff, from the obligation to spend time and expenses participating in a lengthy trial when most of the issues are irrelevant to her, with the exception of a very narrow commercial issue.
[53] Barbara has provided no law in which disclosure for the second phase of a bifurcated trial has been ordered in advance of the completion of the first phase. Barbara relies on the general duty to provide disclosure in a timely manner as opposed to any specific obligation on the part of Ms. Charendoff.
[54] Susan requests the following:
a. An Order that Ms. Charendoff has complied with the disclosure requests of the applicant and no further disclosure is necessary from Ms. Charendoff prior to completion of the Phase I trial in this matter.
b. An Order dismissing this motion as against Ms. Charendoff.
c. An Order that Ms. Charendoff shall be paid her costs of this application by the Applicant, on a full indemnity basis.
Position of Somerset Towers, Hickory Developments, Campbell Steel and Ironworks Ltd., and Rideau-George Real Estate
[55] Counsel representing the above non-parties attended the hearing and indicated that he took no position with respect to the production motion. He indicates that his clients have confirmed that the documents are physically archived and that they estimate the cost will range from $4,000 to $5,000 per company to produce the records and it would take 90 days to obtain and produce the records if ordered to do so.
Position of Brian Cohen
[56] Brian provided the Barrhaven trust declaration. He explained that it was set up for tax reasons, to benefit the grandchildren and he would be in a conflict if he gave himself money.
[57] The request for details as to why Brian holds a mortgage on Steve Cohen’s property is not properly before the court as it was not requested in the notice of motion.
[58] Barbara’s motion does not meet the test under the rule dealing with obtaining documents from a non-party.
Analysis
Introduction
[59] The court makes the following comments.
[60] Barbara’s motion is attempting to undo the bifurcation order in this matter.
[61] It is clear that Justice Audet’s order for bifurcation was aimed at avoiding this type of motion requesting numerous documents. In my view, this is an attack on the spirit of her order.
[62] Also, this disclosure is now not relevant because there is a laches defence. Barbara has received the information requested and this was with the cooperation of Susan and Brian Cohen.
[63] Although the court will consider the fairness factor when dealing with step 2 under Levan, it is not necessary to have an exact value of the estate. The Estate has conceded that the White report may not accurately reflect the true value of the estate for the purposes of this motion. The court recognizes that if the marriage contracts are set aside, then there will need to be fulsome disclosure so that Barbara can satisfy herself with respect to the values of the real estate and the Estate’s minority interest in other assets.
[64] Rule 19 (11) of the Rules provides that:
If a document is in a non-party’s control, or is available only to the non-party, and is not protected by a legal privilege, and it would be unfair to a party to go on with the case without the document, the court may, on motion with notice served on every party and served on the non-party by special service,
(a) order the non-party to let the party examine the document and to supply the party with a copy at the legal aid rate; and
(b) order that a copy be prepared and used for all purposes of the case instead of the original. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 19 (11).
[65] As discussed below, the court finds that it would not be unfair for Barbara to proceed with
Phase 1 of the trial without the documents in the hands of the non-parties.
[66] Therefore, the court finds that the extensive disclosure requested from the parties and non-parties is not relevant for the Phase 1 trial.
Discussion
[67] Below is my specific response to Barbara’s documents request.
[68] Barbara divided the disclosure requested into various categories:
[69] Regarding the yellow highlighted documents shown on CaseLines that were provided to the Estate’s experts and should be produced pursuant to the rule 20.2 (5) which states that
(5) The following documents shall accompany a report when it is served on a party under subrule (2), (3) or (4), unless the documents have already been served on the party:
A copy of any written statement of facts on which the litigation expert’s opinion is based.
A copy of any document relied on by the litigation expert in forming his or her opinion. O. Reg. 250/19, s. 8.
[70] This subrule refers back to subrule (2) which mandates the production if: “A party who wishes to call a litigation expert as a witness at trial shall provide those documents.”
[71] If this motion was brought in the normal course, the court could determine whether the disclosure was necessary. The fact that the Estate says that they are not calling the expert would not preclude the court from considering whether Barbara should be entitled to the documents. The documents could still be relevant.
[72] In my view, the fact that a party says that they are not going to rely on the expert’s report at trial does not preclude a court from determining whether a party is entitled to documents in the hands of the other party that were provided to the expert for the preparation of trial.
[73] The disclosure of these documents may be relevant if the marriage contracts are upheld.
[74] However, it is not necessary for the court to require the disclosure of these documents for Phase 1. As discussed, the court can determine the issue in Phase 1 without the exact value of the estate.
[75] Regarding the documents needed to appraise real estate, the court notes that certain of the properties were undervalued by Ms. White. Certainly, this is an indication that certain of the values may not be representative of the market value but at this stage, I have determined that the exact value of the estate is not necessary for Phase 1.
[76] Barbara has requested documents regarding the estate freeze on Barrhaven Mall Co-Tenancy including section 85 rollover documents.
[77] The court denies this request as these documents were not specifically requested in the original notice of motion or amended notice of motion.
[78] Regarding the gifts, the court finds Susan’s response as outlined in her materials responds to Barbara’s inquiries.
Barbara’s Draft Order
[79] The court will proceed through each item in Barbara’s draft order reproduced below:
- Records of the Estate freeze regarding the Barrhaven Mall Co-Tenancy.
This is denied as this was not requested in the notice of motion or amended notice of motion
- Letters of representation obtained from Mr. Steven Cohen wherein he confirmed certain representations and warranties made to Paula White including a general representation that he had no information or knowledge of any facts or material information not specifically noted in this report which, in his view, would reasonably be expected to affect the information contained in each of Paula White’s valuation reports.
This is denied as this information is not relevant for the Phase 1 trial.
- The Applicant, Barbara Cohen (or a designate on her behalf) shall be permitted access to each of the real properties that Mr. Sidney Cohen had an ownership interest in as of January 4, 2017 to conduct her own appraisals of the subject properties.
This is denied as it was not requested in the notice of motion or amended notice of motion.
- Regarding each of the properties (“real properties”) - 403 Bank Street; 417-421 Bank Street; 1211 Cyrville Road; 1227 Cyrville Road; 361 Frank Street:
(a) All offers/sale/listings in the 3 years prior to January 4, 2017 or since;
(b) Income and expense statements for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017;
(c) Copy of 2016 realty tax bills;
(d) Name/contact information of property manager to arrange for an inspection of the properties;
(e) Rent rolls as of January 1, 2017;
(f) PDF copies of all leases and lease amendments that were in place and offers to lease as of January 4, 2017; and,
(g) Any proposed development plans for the site located at 417-421 Bank Street as of January 4, 2017.
This is denied. The court acknowledges that most of these documents were provided to Ms. White. As discussed above, at this time when the court is only dealing with the sole issue of the validity of the marriage contracts, requiring further disclosure goes against the objective, intent and spirit of Justice Audet’s order.
- An order for the sale documentation of 105 Murray Street including the value of the minority interest to the Estate and the calculation of that minority interest in comparison to the total proceeds.
This request is denied as these documents were not requested in the original notice of motion or amended notice of motion.
- An order for the sale documentation of the Riverpark properties, 400 Bell Street, Pembroke, 5341 Lakeshore Road, Burlington and 2018 Robertson Road, Ottawa, including the value of the minority interest to the Estate and the calculation of that minority interest in comparison to the total proceeds and same details for any share transfer.
This request is denied as these documents were not requested in the original notice of motion or amended notice of motion.
- An order that the Respondent Estate produce the following documentation that has already been produced to Paula White and listed in her scope of review documents, plus the 2017 unaudited financial statements of each entity:
(a) Hickory Developments Inc.
(i) unaudited financial statements for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2016;
(ii) the schedule of adjusted cost base and undepreciated capital cost of real property held by Hickory, provided by management;
(b) Campbell Steel and Ironworks Ltd.
(i) unaudited financial statements for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015 and 2016;
(ii) T2 Corporate income tax return for fiscal year ended October 31, 2016;
(iii) schedule of adjusted cost base and undepreciated capital cost of real property, provided by management;
(iv) information on market price per square foot and environment/remediation costs for 855 Carling Avenue, Ottawa;
(v) a calculation of the value of the Estate of Mr. Edward Cohen’s 25% share interest in Campbell, dated December 4, 2014, prepared by CGF&L Chartered Accountants;
(c) Rideau-George Real Estate - unaudited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, 2015 and 2016;
(d) Depot Realty Limited Partnership - unaudited financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014, 2015 and 2016, and the Depot Limited Partnership Agreement dated October 29, 1996;
(e) 105 Murray Street (co-tenancy) - unaudited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016;
(f) Somerset Towers (co-tenancy)
(i) unaudited financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014, 2015 and 2016;
(ii) the Co-Tenancy Agreement dated June 30, 1983;
(g) Avalon Park (co-tenancy)
(i) unaudited financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014, 2015 and 2016;
(ii) the Co-Tenancy Agreement dated April 1, 2010;3761bf30aace3d-5
(h) Riverpark Place Limited Partnership
(i) unaudited financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014 and 2016;
(ii) the Limited Partnership Agreement dated June 22, 1994.
This request is denied. As discussed, at this stage of the proceedings during Phase 1, the exact value of the estate is not necessary for the court to analyze step 2 in Levan. As discussed above, the court may consider whether these documents should be produced in the event that the marriage contracts are set aside.
The Non-Parties shall produce the following information:
- Campbell Steel & Iron Works Limited shall produce the following:
(a) Unaudited financial statements for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2017 (if not produced by Estate);
(b) Shareholder Agreements;
(c) Regarding the real property at 855 Carling Avenue:
(i) All offers/sale/listings in the 3 years prior to January 4, 2017 or since;
(ii) Income and expense statements for 2014, 2015 and 2016;
(iii) Copy of 2016 realty tax bills;
(iv) Name/contact information of property manager to arrange for an inspection of the properties;
(v) Rent rolls as of January 1, 2017;
(vi) PDF copies of all leases and lease amendments that were in place and offers to lease as of
(vii) January 4, 2017;
(viii) Estimated cost to clean up the site; and,
(ix) Any proposed development plans for the site as at January 4, 2017
- Hickory Developments Inc. shall produce the following:
(a) Unaudited financial statements for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2017 (if not produced by Estate);
(b) Shareholder Agreements;
(c) Regarding the real property at 140 Hickory Street, Ottawa:
(i) All offers/sale/listings in the 3 years prior to January 4, 2017 or since;
(ii) Income and expense statements for 2014, 2015 and 2016;
(iii) Copy of 2016 realty tax bills;
(iv) Name/contact information of property manager to arrange for an inspection of the properties;
(v) Rent rolls as of January 1, 2017;
(vi) PDF copies of all leases and lease amendments that were in place and offers to lease as of
(vii) January 4, 2017;
(viii) Estimated cost to clean up the site; and,
- Avalon Park (a co-tenancy) shall produce the following:
(a) Unaudited financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 (if not produced by Estate);
(b) Regarding the real property at 2450, 2460, and 2470 Southvale Crescent:
(i) All offers/sale/listings in the 3 years prior to January 4, 2017 or since;
(ii) Income and expense statements for 2014, 2015 and 2016;
(iii) Copy of 2016 realty tax bills;
(iv) Name/contact information of property manager to arrange for an inspection of the properties;
(v) Rent rolls as of January 1, 2017;
(vi) PDF copies of all leases and lease amendments that were in place and offers to lease as of
(vii) January 4, 2017;
- Somerset Towers shall produce the following:
(a) Unaudited financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 (if not produced by Estate);
(b) Regarding the real property at 2450, 2460, and 2470 Southvale Crescent:
(i) All offers/sale/listings in the 3 years prior to January 4, 2017 or since;
(ii) Income and expense statements for 2014, 2015 and 2016;
(iii) Copy of 2016 realty tax bills;
(iv) Name/contact information of property manager to arrange for an inspection of the properties;
(v) Rent rolls as of January 1, 2017;
(vi) PDF copies of all leases and lease amendments that were in place and offers to lease as of January 4, 2017.
- Rideau-George Real Estate shall produce the following:
(a) Unaudited financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017(if not produced by Estate);
(b) Co-tenancy agreements for Rideau-George Real Estate;
(c) Regarding the real property at 185-195 Rideau Street and 130-140 George Street:
(i) All offers/sale/listings in 3 years prior to January 4, 2017 or since;
(ii) Income and expense statements for 2014, 2015 and 2016;
(iii) Copy of 2016 realty tax bills;
(iv) Name/contact information of property manager to arrange for an inspection of the properties;
(v) Rent rolls as of January 1, 2017;
(vi) PDF copies of all leases and lease amendments that were in place and offers to lease as of
(vii) January 4, 2017;
- Depot Realty Limited Partnership shall produce the following:
(a) Unaudited financial statements fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (if not produced by Estate);
- 105 Murray Street (co-tenancy) shall produce the following:
(a) Unaudited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (if not produced by Estate).
As discussed above, these documents do not need to be produced at this point for Phase 1. Pursuant to Rule 19(11), it would not be unfair for Barbara to proceed to Phase 1 of the trial without these documents.
Respondent Susan Charendoff shall produce:
- Evidence of any gift received, or consideration made by Ms. Charendoff in support of the mortgage held by her on 1201-40 Boteler Street, Ottawa, Ontario, registered as instrument no. OC716383 on May 6, 2007 and an explanation as to why Ms. Charendoff has not listed this mortgage as a gift.
In my view, Susan has responded and provided this information and this has been acknowledged by Barbara.
Steven Cohen shall produce:
- Evidence of any gift received, or consideration made by Steven Cohen in support of the mortgage held by him on 502-4748 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, Florida, filed on October 5, 1999 at Book/Page 11381/1121 and an explanation as to why Steven Cohen has not listed this mortgage as a gift.
The notice of motion and amended notice of motion does not make this specific request but rather there is a general request to list all gifts received by Sidney’s children. This request is denied.
Summary
[80] Accordingly, Barbara’s motion is dismissed subject to the parties’ consent that requires Brian Cohen to provide a transcription of audiotapes of conversation with Sidney that mention Barbara with sufficient context to permit the references to be understood.
[81] The parties are encouraged to agree on the issue of costs. The responding parties were successful and presumptively entitled to costs.
[82] If the parties cannot agree on costs, then the Respondents will provide their 2-page costs submissions and any offer to settle and bill of costs by January 27, 2023, the non-parties will provide their 2-page costs submissions along with any offer to settle and bill of costs by February 10, 2023, the Applicant may file her 2 page costs submissions and any offer to settle and bill of costs by February 24, 2023, and the Respondents and non-parties may file a 1 page reply by March 10, 2023.
[83] The parties are to immediately set up a trial management conference through the trial coordinator’s office so that the length of trial and dates for trial can fixed.
Justice A. Doyle
Released: January 10, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-1323
DATE: 2022/01/10
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: BARBARA COHEN, Applicant
AND
STEVEN COHEN, in his capacity as Trustee of the Estate of Sidney Cohen and Susan Charendoff, Respondents
BEFORE: Justice A. Doyle
COUNSEL: Anne E. Posno and Melanie Battaglia, Counsel for the Applicant Barbara Cohen
Daniel Schwartz and Marta Siemiarczuk, Counsel for the Respondent Steven Cohen, in his capacity as Trustee of the Estate of Sidney Cohen
Jonathan Richardson, Counsel for Susan Charendoff
Hilary Book for Brian Cohen
Michael Wade for the third parties: Campbell Steel and Ironworks Limited, Rideau-George Real Estate, Somerset Towers and Hickory Developments Inc.
endorsement
Justice A. Doyle
Released: January 10, 2023