Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-21-00044690-0000 Date: 2024 01 25

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

SATBIR KAUR DHILLON Applicant

- and -

AMANDEEP SINGH DHILLON Respondent

MOTION

REMOTELY BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. CHOZIK on January 25, 2024 for a MILTON, Ontario proceeding

APPEARANCES:

Mr. J.G. Cox Counsel for the Applicant

Ms. V. Younger Counsel for the Respondent

Table of Contents

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT

W I T N E S S E S

WITNESSES	Exam in-Ch	Cr- Exam	Re- Exam

E X H I B I T S

EXHIBIT NUMBER	ENTERED ON PAGE
Ruling on Motion	1

Legend [sic] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error. (ph) - Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.

Transcript Ordered: January 26, 2024 Transcript Completed: January 30, 2024 Ordering Party Notified: January 30, 2024

Ruling on Motion

THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2024

...PROCEEDINGS RECORDED, NOT TRANSCRIBED

Ruling on Motion

THE COURT: I am going to give my reasons for the motion orally, and I am going to order a transcript so that the reasons become part of the file.

RULING ON MOTION Chozik, J. (Orally):

Financial Disclosure

The applicant brings a motion for financial disclosure. The disclosure is requested by an independent business valuator, Ms. Reid, who was jointly retained by the parties to prepare a business valuation pursuant to the order of Justice Kurz, dated April 29th 2022.

I am satisfied that the disclosure requested is relevant, proportionate and must be produced in order for the business valuator to do the business valuation.

The disclosure that is sought is nothing special. These are the documents that any reasonable business owner can expect to have to produce if requested to do so by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The Respondent concedes that the requested information is reasonable. He submits that he has made reasonable efforts to produce it. I disagree.

I reject the Respondent’s submissions. He claims, without foundation, to have either produced documents, undertaken to produce them or intending to do so in the future.

I reject his claim that he has made reasonable efforts to comply with the business valuator’s request. The fact that it has been 16 months since she has made the request, and many of the documents have not been produced, defies that he has made reasonable efforts to comply.

He is being asked to produce what any reasonable business owner can expect to have to produce. I do not accept his claims that documents were lost when he moved. He has offered no credible evidence in support of this. The documents were supposedly lost in 2022. In 2022, most business documents were readily available electronically from any variety of sources.

I reject his claims that there are documents that are available to the Applicant at the matrimonial home. I find that that claim is simply not credible. First, this is the first time it is raised, today. Second, he could go and get those documents if they were there. Third, there are no specifics of exactly what documents he says are at the matrimonial home or where in the matrimonial home he had left them. His claim is simply incredible.

The Respondent’s counsel asks the Court to take a conciliatory approach to the financial disclosure. There is no conciliatory approach to financial disclosure. A conciliatory approach to family litigation is only possible when full financial disclosure has been made. The Supreme Court of Canada has told us in no uncertain terms that financial disclosure is the “lynchpin” to family litigation.

By not disclosing what has been requested, I find that the Respondent has essentially delayed or attempted to derail the business valuation that is required in this case. He agreed to an independent accountant, but he did not do that until today.

In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the disclosure sought is relevant, reasonable and proportionate and there shall be an order issued as per the draft order that was submitted and I have signed.

Cross-Motion

The Respondent brought a last minute cross-motion and, for reasons I gave earlier, I declined to hear it. On a regular motion list in Milton list there is time to hear one motion: the one booked first and in advance is the one that gets heard.

The practice of filing last minute cross-motions, like this one, that was filed on the same day that the confirmations were due, is to be discouraged. Its primary effect is to derail the original motion or overload the already overloaded Milton motions list.

In this case, as I have said, the last minute cross-motion was filed with the confirmation of motion and not in advance. As a result, I declined to hear it.

Costs

In respect of costs, the Applicant is the successful party and is entitled to her costs. I am satisfied the full indemnity costs are warranted in the circumstances. There should have been no reason for the Applicant to bring this motion.

The disclosure should have been produced. Instead the Respondent is just delaying the inevitable and his feeble excuses and justifications for not producing ordinary financial disclosure has the effect of ratcheting up the Applicant’s, and his own, legal costs.

I am satisfied that the cost of $22,500 inclusive are reasonable, fair and proportionate in the circumstances.

Where there is a lack of prompt financial disclosure litigation becomes extremely cumbersome, time consuming and expensive. Parties must know that the cost of not producing financial disclosure is extremely high.

The Respondent shall pay costs of $22,500 inclusive to the Applicant within 30 days.

THE COURT: My written endorsement is simply going to say, “For reasons given orally, the Applicant’s motion is allowed. Order to issue as per draft signed. The Respondent shall pay cost of the motion to the Applicant on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $22,500 within 30 days. For reasons given orally, I declined to hear the Respondent’s cross-motion.” Thank you.

MATTER CONCLUDED

Certificate of Transcript

Form 2 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5 (2)) Evidence Act

I, Dolores Daly, (Name of Authorized Person) certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of SATBIR KAUR DHILLON – and – AMANDEEP SINGH DHILLON (Name of Case) in the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court (Name of Court) held at 491 Steeles Ave. E., Milton, Ontario (Court Address) taken from Recording 1211_10_20240125_075700__10_CHOZIKE.dcr which has been certified in Form 1 by Jessica Assang.

January 30, 2024 (Date)

(Signature of Authorized Person)