Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-000019702-0000 DATE: 20240412 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: FARZAD SOLEYMANIHA, Applicant AND: NAHID KAROOBI, Respondent

BEFORE: Madam Justice A.P. Ramsay

COUNSEL: Sage Harvey (Agent), for the Applicant Lisa Rose Baumal, for the Respondent

HEARD: March 26, April 4, 2024

Endorsement

I. Introduction

[1] The parties were married in April 2001 and separated on September 24, 2018. They have one child who is now over the age of majority. The applicant husband is employed. He had a business until 2020 or 2021. The respondent wife was unemployed after separation. She has not been employed since January of 2013. She receives government benefits and is receiving spousal support from the applicant.

[2] The parties are seeking a divorce as well as a determination by the court of various financial matters as a result of the breakdown of their marriage. During the course of the litigation, they dealt with the sale of the matrimonial home, and the sale proceeds remain in a trust account to await the ultimate determination of the balance of the matters before the court. The remaining issues include spousal support, child support, and the equalization of net family property. There is a dispute about whether the respondent owns two properties in Iran.

[3] An eight-day trial was to start on March 25, 2024, but was adjourned by Diamond J. at a recent exit pre-trial conference to accommodate the respondent bringing this motion. Justice Diamond determined that the applicant was in breach of his disclosure obligations, with leave granted to the respondent to bring a motion to strike the applicant’s pleadings and proceed to an uncontested trial.

II. Nature of the Motion

[4] The respondent wife brings this motion to strike the applicant husband’s Application issued on October 20, 2020, as amended on May 6, 2023, for failure to comply with five disclosure orders, namely:

i. Order of Justice Horkins dated April 28, 2021; ii. Order of Justice Faieta dated January 9, 2022; iii. Order of Justice Sanfilippo dated June 20, 2022; iv. Order of Justice Nakonechny dated December 12, 2022; and v. Trial Endorsement Scheduling Form/order of Justice Faieta dated April 6, 2023.

III. Preliminary Matters

[5] The motion was heard on two separate days. After the motion materials were served, the applicant provided additional disclosure in his affidavit sworn on March 19, 2024, and on March 22, 2024. The applicant’s affidavit was missing page six when it was served and filed and, in the result, I permitted the respondent with an opportunity to file a brief reply affidavit, if necessary, on the return date of the motion.

[6] On this motion, the applicant argues that the respondent is also in breach of her disclosure obligations. The applicant’s representative focused on what the respondent has not done. The applicant’s position was certainly not endorsed by Diamond J., who recently found that the respondent had complied with her disclosure obligations and trial management obligations. It was Diamond J. who scheduled the respondent’s motion at an exit pre-trial conference held before him on March 4, 2024. This matter was slated to start an eight-day trial on March 25, 2024.

[7] The applicant says the respondent does not have leave to move for the alternative relief sought, for disclosure. While I agree with the applicant that leave was granted to the respondent to move to strike his pleadings, I also agree with the respondent that the alternative relief flows from the main relief sought. As for the respondent’s position that no leave was granted to the applicant seeking an order for the release of a portion of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, or to address the disclosure related to the respondent, I agree. I do, however, agree with the applicant that the court may consider the evidence (if any) with respect to the latter in determining whether the respondent comes to the court with clean hands.

IV. Position of the parties

A. Position of the Moving Party/Respondent

[8] Counsel for the respondent submits that this is not a particularly complicated case and says the applicant has had considerable leeway. During oral arguments, counsel for the respondent submitted that there can be substantial disclosure which does not go to the heart of the issue. The respondent submits that failing to provide a sworn financial statement in 18 months is not substantial compliance given the issues involved in the case.

[9] At the time of the motion before me, the applicant was still in breach of his financial disclosure obligations. He has provided no evidence in his affidavit as to why he has not complied with his mandatory financial disclosure obligations under the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (the “FLRs”), and the various court orders directing financial disclosure. The applicant’s last financial statement was August 2022. He has not provided any updated sworn financial statement or affidavit setting out whether there were any changes. By order of Faieta J. dated April 6, 2023, he was ordered to provide an updated financial statement. The applicant was also ordered to provide a net family property statement. He has failed to do so. He has not provided his net family property statement. He has steadfastly refused to provide his 2022 income tax return. He has only provided the notice of assessment. The respondent argues that the greatest impediment to resolution of the outstanding issues is the applicant’s failure to provide disclosure.

[10] Since some disclosure was provided after the motion was served, the respondent now indicates that they are prepared to see, in the alternative, that an order be made directing disclosure of the outstanding 24 items, which includes a joint valuation, be provided within 30 days, failing which the application is dismissed.

B. Position of the Responding Party/Applicant

[11] The applicant says that most of the disclosure requested by the respondent has been provided, cannot be provided, or was not ordered by the court and is of questionable relevance to obtain a fair hearing at trial.

[12] The applicant says that the respondent has not complied with her own disclosure obligations by failing to produce the documentation regarding her ownership of property in Tehran, Iran. The applicant argues that the respondent has only relied upon blanket denials and has not provided any documentary evidence with respect to ownership of their Iranian properties. The applicant also argues that he has already satisfied his disclosure obligation. Counsel for the respondent concedes that there are two items in the notice of motion which were produced (the applicant’s benefit booklet and corporate tax return).

V. Previous Orders

i. Endorsement of Justice Horkins dated April 28, 2021

[13] The order of Horkins J. was made following a case conference and dealt with disclosure of both parties and potential sale of the matrimonial home. At paragraph 1(ix) of the order, she directed that the applicant provide “[a] copy of the documents (with translations) that the Applicant relies upon to prove that the Respondent owns property in Iran.”

[14] At paragraph 2 of her order, Horkins J. directed: “The Respondent shall provide the Applicant with proof of any rental income she earns from any property that she owns in Iran.”

ii. Endorsement of Justice Faieta dated January 9, 2022

[15] The parties participated in a settlement conference before Faieta J., and subsequently entered into a consent order for the sale of the matrimonial home and disclosure by both parties.

[16] Paragraph 10 of the January 9, 2022 order of Faieta J. provided that on or before April 15, 2022, the respondent shall produce the documentary evidence to establish the ownership status of the two properties located in Tehran, Iran at the municipal addresses of 5 Ziyaiee Avenue, Motahari Street, Noor Square, Tehran, Iran and 1 Second East Avenue, Motahari Street, Noor Square, Tehran, Iran, and as detailed in the certified translation documents provided by the applicant dated October 24, 2019 and February 28, 2021.

a) Minutes of Settlement, January 2022

[17] The parties participated in a Settlement Conference on January 5, 2022, before Faieta J. The agreement reached, including the process for the sale of the matrimonial home, was ultimately incorporated into Minutes of Settlement (the “Minutes”). The Minutes also dealt with disclosure and transfer of property to the respondent.

[18] At paragraph 6 of the Minutes, the applicant agreed to comply with the disclosure requests in paragraphs1(vi) and (vii) of the endorsement of Horkins J., specifically disclosure of bank statements and statements, to present, from various financial institutions.

[19] Paragraph 10 of the Minutes required the respondent to “produce all documentary evidence necessary to establish the ownership status of the two properties located in Tehran, Iran” at the addresses set out in the Minutes, by April 15, 2022.

iii. Endorsement of Justice Sanfilippo dated June 20, 2022

[20] In his endorsement in January 2022, Sanfilippo J. scheduled a combined settlement conference/trial management conference to take place on June 20, 2022. The matter came before Sanfilippo J. He adjourned the trial management conference as the respondent was without counsel. In his endorsement, he noted:

[7] The Applicant sought: (i) the Respondent’s compliance with outstanding disclosure; (ii) the Respondent’ s compliance with para. 10 of the January 5, 2022 Minutes of Settlement requiring that the Respondent “produce all documentary evidence necessary to establish the ownership status of two properties located in Tehran, Iran” said to be owned by the Respondent; (iii) an Order severing the divorce; (iv) an Order for additional terms for the sale of the matrimonial home, including that the Applicant can act as the listing real estate agent in the marketing and sale of the property.

[8] The Respondent contended: (i) that she had complied with all disclosure requirements; (ii) that she was unable to obtain the documentary evidence sought in relation to the two properties in Tehran; (iii) she was unwilling to sever the divorce from the other issues raised by the Application; (iv) that she would not consent to the Respondent acting as listing agent for the sale of the matrimonial home.

[21] As both sides contended that the other was in breach of their disclosure requirements and argued that they themselves were in compliance, both parties were granted leave to bring motions related to disclosure.

iv. Endorsement of Justice Nakonechny dated December 12, 2022

[22] The parties proceeded to another case conference, this time before Nakonechny J., on December 12, 2022. She noted: “The Applicant husband has just produced translated documents relating to properties he says the Respondent wife owns in Iran. The wife denied the validity of the document and she says she does not own the properties. There is still outstanding disclosure including the value of the husband’s business ordered by Faieta J. in January 2022.” Justice Nakonechny ordered, among other things, the respondent to serve her request for information and the applicant to respond within a certain time frame. At paragraph 4 of her endorsement, she further ordered: “The parties shall jointly retain a business valuator for Open Green Road Inc. The applicant is solely responsible for the costs of the valuator” (emphasis added).

v. Endorsement of Justice Faieta dated April 6, 2023

[23] Justice Faieta’s second order was made following a combined Settlement Conference/Trial Management Conference. He set the date of the exit pre-trial conference and the trial date. He set out the disclosure to be made by the parties and steps to be taken in advance of the trial date. In his order he commented: “Many conferences have been held in this case…. The Applicant has not complied with the Orders found in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Justice Nakonechny’s Endorsement dated December 12, 2022.”

vi. Endorsement of Justice Diamond dated March 4, 2024

[24] Justice Diamond vacated the date of the trial. He stated:

This matter is not ready for trial. The applicant has not complied with both his disclosure obligations and the trial management obligations set out in Justice Faieta’s Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form (“TSEF”). The TSEF was released over ten months ago and set specific timelines (with which the respondent has complied) for the delivery of, inter alia, updated financial statements, net family property statements, trial exhibits, and other disclosure.

The applicant has seemingly also not cooperated with the court-ordered business valuator. The applicant’s request to extend the deadline for his compliance is rejected – disclosure was to have been provided in the spring of 2023. The respondent is not going to be subjected to trial by ambush at the eleventh hour.

[25] Justice Diamond granted leave to the respondent to bring this motion on March 26, 2024, for an order to strike the applicant’s pleading, and for the scheduling of an uncontested trial.

VI. Outstanding Disclosure

[26] A Request for Information dated December 2022 (the “RFI”) was served on the applicant in accordance with the order of Nakonechny. J. dated December 12, 2022. Paragraph 25 of the respondent’s factum set out the list of items which were outstanding when the motion was launched. The respondent maintains that the following items remain outstanding from the RFI: Items 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32 and 34. The applicant provided some of the information on the eve of the motion, but the respondent contends these items remains outstanding.

[27] The applicant admits that he has not completed his disclosure, but now asks this court to release $25,000 from the net proceeds of sale from the parties’ former matrimonial home so that he may pay for the business valuation, legal fees, and living expenses. There is no motion before me for the relief sought. Counsel for the respondent points out these issues were raised in the confirmation form and were not subject to a case conference and indicates that the applicant has not provided a sworn financial statement.

[28] I am not inclined to entertain this request by the applicant, primarily because of his failure to provide the sworn financial statement in the face of court orders. Nor has he provided a net family property statement. In my view, the respondent should be able to respond to the request by having some idea as to what his assets and debts are; and, in my view, such an order should not be made in a vacuum. On the materials before me, the matrimonial home is sold but the equalization of net family property remains; the respondent indicates that she has a claim for significant retroactive child and spousal support arrears.

[29] I agree with counsel for the respondent that the lack of a motion by the applicant for the above relief precludes the respondent from putting forward any evidence to address potential prejudice.

[30] I do not accept that the applicant would not be able to advance a retainer to the valuation expert. The parties have agreed on an expert, Dave Holmes, to provide a valuation. Mr. Holmes indicates that his retainer is $3,000 and his fees would be in the range of $3,000 to $6,000. The applicant has now produced his 2023 income tax return which revealed income of $125,000 in 2023 and an expected tax refund of $11,800.

[31] Both parties were to provide letters from the bank to confirm accounts that they had. The applicant says he has provided this information, but the respondent disputes this.

[32] The applicant argues that he has complied with his obligation to provide credit card statements. The only credit card statement he says the respondent complains about is the President’s Choice (“PC”) Financial statement. I commend Mr. Harvey for conceding that he did not believe that this was the only credit card with information that was required to be disclosed. With respect to Horkins J.’s order, the representative for the applicant points out that the respondent has not indicated that much of that order is outstanding.

[33] The respondent says the applicant has not provided four years of credit card statements. The applicant submits that only the PC Financial statements have not been provided. Justice Horkins ordered him to produce monthly credit card statements of all credit cards. He has provided no explanation on this motion as to why he is not done so. Court orders must be obeyed. The applicant cannot, on his own volition, determine what he may and may not disclose in the face of a court order.

[34] Mr. Harvey argued that the respondent could have retained a lawyer in Tehran to do a title search on the Iranian properties. It was also open to the applicant to retain someone, which he did. He retained a lawyer who apparently has carried out title searches of the Iranian properties. Though the title searches have not been produced on this motion, the applicant’s representative argues that the name of the respondent shows up on the title of the properties. There is not a scintilla of evidence before the court. If the property searches have already been carried out by the applicant and show the respondent to be the owner of the properties, surely there would be actual evidence that would support his position.

[35] Some of the positions advanced by the applicant in terms of the extent of his disclosure, despite the able arguments of Mr. Harvey, cannot be accepted. For example, Horkins J. made ten disclosure orders. The applicant’s representative submits that none of the disclosure ordered by Horkins J. is part of the list. The applicant’s representative submits that the applicant has complied with Horkins J.’s order. The court is not able to accept that assertion. For example, Horkins J. ordered the applicant to provide monthly credit card statements from January 2017 to the present. The applicant has not complied with that provision of the order. The applicant adroitly argues that the only credit card statements that the respondent says is outstanding is the PC Financial statement. He has not provided them. I note that Faieta J.’s order also deals with the credit cards and mentions several credit cards. The applicant argues that he is not obliged to provide certified translation of the real estate documents unless he intends to rely on it at trial; this position is disputed by the respondent, who points to such language in the order.

[36] With respect to Faieta J.’s order, again, the applicant’s representative submits that based on the respondent’s position, the only items outstanding are the business appraisal and MasterCard statement; he noted that there were other credit cards mentioned, such as Capital One, Scotiabank and Amex, which the respondent is not alleging are outstanding.

[37] On this motion, Mr. Harvey argued that the respondent is in breach of the order of Faieta J. because she did not hire a real estate lawyer in Tehran to do a title search of the property. Without making any findings as to whether the respondent in fact owned or owns property in Tehran, I am not satisfied that she is in breach. That is because there are orders also putting the onus on the applicant to obtain this information. Indeed, he seemed to have done so. By his own admission, he hired a real estate lawyer in Tehran to report on the ownership of the two properties. He produced what he says is a certified translation of documents from the Real Estate Registration Organization of Iran showing the respondent's ownership of two properties in Tehran. The authenticity of these documents is challenged by the respondent. I note that the applicant’s representative was not able to provide any information about the actual title search documents. Indeed, the translated letter from a notary public that the applicant says he hired to conduct the investigation refers to “instruments at the notary public offices are drawn up in accordance with the instrument number”, and the letter from the notary public indicates that “[c]ertified copies of the said drawn up instruments in 2 sheets of paper were put in an envelope and were sealed and were then handed over to Mr. Asghar Mohammadi, son of Ahmad, holder of B.C. No. 4480 issued in Tehran. Mr. Asghar Mohammadi is obligated to deliver the said instruments to you.” While the cover letter from the notary public is translated, the instruments referred to are not before the court.

[38] The applicant argues that he is not required to provide any translation of a document from Iran unless he is going to be relying on it at trial. This is in fact contrary to the court order and his aborted attempts in the past. Counsel for the respondent points out that not only were the two letters that were provided, purportedly dealing with the respondent’s alleged ownership of the remaining properties, were not fully translated (i.e., one of them was not), the letters were in fact contradictory. She points out that in one document, it is alleged that it was the respondent’s mother who transferred property to her, and in another document, it is alleged that the respondent owned the property from the beginning.

[39] Both sides refer to the credibility of the other party, implicitly and expressly. The applicant says the respondent has filed fraudulent statements and is not disclosing her two properties in Tehran. The respondent says the applicant is claiming child support for their son whom he claims is in full-time school, which was contradicted by recent disclosure evidence.

[40] I agree with the applicant that some of the disclosure goes to his ability to make his case. He is claiming significant post-separation adjustments based on expenses paid on the matrimonial home until closing. The applicant has now provided on the eve of the motion some information but did not provide proof of payment of the mortgage, property taxes, or condo fees from January 2022 to closing. He has not provided supporting documentation re: discounting his RRSPs and notional disposition costs.

[41] However, with the late disclosure and the undertaking to remedy the situation, this case straddles the line. Counsel for the respondent herself conceded that with respect to disclosure, she does not know whether “it would meet the exceedingly onerous test to dismiss since he has provided additional disclosure” since the motion was brought. However, as she noted, it took the motion to do that. She conceded that if the court were to make an order for the applicant to provide the outstanding information, then there would be sufficient information for the trier of fact.

[42] I am mindful of the fact that despite what the applicant contends is substantial disclosure, the court would not be in a position to do justice between the parties because of the “nature” of the outstanding disclosure requests.

VII. Analysis

[43] Under r. 1(8) of the FLRs, where a party fails to obey a court order, the has discretion to make an order that the court considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including awarding costs, dismissing a claim, and striking out any application, among other things, as enumerated in the rule.

[44] The striking of pleadings in family law proceedings is considered a remedy of last resort and should be used where no other remedy would suffice: Purcaru v. Purcaru, 2010 ONCA 92, 75 R.F.L. (6th) 33, at para. 47; Chiaramonte v. Chiaramonte, 2013 ONCA 641, 36 R.F.L. (7th) 11, at paras. 31-33; and Kovachis v. Kovachis, 2013 ONCA 663, 36 R.F.L. (7th) 1, at para. 34. If a party’s pleading is struck, that party “is not entitled to participate in the case in any way”: see FLRs, r. 8.4, paragraph 2.

[45] On a motion to strike in family law proceedings, the court must consider whether the default is wilful and whether an order to strike is the only appropriate remedy: see Kovachis, at para. 33. There is ample evidence on the record before me to find that the applicant’s non-compliance is wilful.

[46] However, since the respondent’s motion was launched, the applicant has made significant disclosure. While I agree with the applicant that some of the disclosure requests merely impact his ability to maintain his claims, as identified below, there is disclosure and information which remains outstanding that go to the heart of the issues to be determined between the parties. As of the time of the motion, the applicant had not paid the retainer for the business valuator; he had not provided information requested by that expert; he had still not provided his 2022 income tax return; he had not provided a sworn financial statement; he had not provided corporate tax returns for Open Green Road Inc. for 2017 to 2021 and financial statements for the company; and he had not provided an updated net family property statement. The disclosure requests are relevant to the issues to be determined in the proceedings as they relate to the ability of the parties, and the court, to determine the matter of the equalization payment, if any, to be paid by either party – a key issue in dispute. This disclosure, of course, impacts on the determination of the quantum of spousal support, another issue in dispute.

[47] As counsel for the respondent pointed out, the applicant has not provided an updated net family property statement. There is no real evidence before the court to indicate that the applicant could not have afforded the retainer of the expert. He now has a reprieve. He is expected to receive almost $11,000 by way of refund from the Canada Revenue Agency.

[48] The lack of financial disclosure by the applicant is prejudicial to the respondent having the issues determined in a timely fashion. The case is still not ready for trial in the absence of an updated financial statement, net family property statement, and business valuation.

[49] There is financial disclosure information related to their son, who has reached the age of majority, but for whom the applicant is claiming retroactive and ongoing child support. The recent disclosure indicates the applicant has cashed in his RESPs in 2023, totalling approximately $46,000. The applicant has not provided certain tax returns and paystubs for the son. The disclosure is important to the determination as to whether the applicant is entitled to support the parties’ adult son.

[50] On the other hand, some of the other items of non-disclosure relate to the 2023 tax information, such as T4s, RRSP statements, and the 2023 notice of assessment, and were added by the respondent due to the history of nondisclosure by the applicant. Yet others are minor and are not germane to the issues to be decided between the parties. Still, other matters of non-disclosure affects either the applicant’s right to assert certain claims in these proceedings and which affect only him, though I agree early disclosure is of import. To that end, I agree with the respondent’s position that if the applicant does not disclose certain information, enumerated below, then he should not be able to rely on the information.

[51] I am also satisfied that the time required to disclose, and the costs associated with the disclosure requests, are proportionate to the importance of the matters to be determined between the parties.

[52] Given the applicant’s repeated breach of court orders, I would have granted the order striking his application, but for the late-breaking disclosure. I have considered the fact that at times, one or the other of the parties were representing themselves. But any reprieve should come with some consequences. Counsel for the respondent notes that history shows the applicant will not comply without a court order. I would in fact disagree with that. History has shown that the applicant is contemptuous of court orders. He repeatedly breached them, hence the reason for the motion to strike.

[53] I am however persuaded by the respondent’s pragmatism; she has indicated a willingness to pursue the alternative remedy in the face of the disclosure of the applicant. She has asked that timelines be imposed and if they are not complied with, that she be granted leave to move before me, on an urgent basis, or any other judge, to strike the application and proceed with the uncontested trial. I agree with the respondent’s alternative scenario.

[54] I do have some concern that some of the requests made by the respondent in her updated motion confirmation form may be duplicated; this is understandable as disclosure was being made by the applicant at the eleventh hour. At the conclusion of the motion, I brought this to the attention of counsel for the respondent, and I am satisfied that any duplication can be sorted out as between the parties.

[55] As for the respondent’s alleged property in Tehran, Iran, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the respondent is in breach of any court order, though I make no ultimate determination of that issue.

[56] The items which are outstanding are dealt with in my disposition below.

VIII. Disposition

[57] For the reasons to follow, I reluctantly make the following order.

[58] The respondent is at liberty to bring a motion to strike the Application if the applicant fails to comply with the disclosure ordered in paragraph 58 within thirty (30) days of the date of this endorsement, except for where otherwise specified. I make the following disclosure order:

i. The applicant shall provide the required disclosure requested by the expert, David Holmes, as set out in his email dated December 14, 2022, within 30 days of the date of this endorsement. ii. The applicant shall pay the retainer of Mr. Holmes for a joint valuation of Open Green Roads Inc. on the separation date, in the amount of $3,000, within 30 days of the date of this endorsement. iii. The applicant shall cooperate with Mr. Holmes and furnish any further information, clarification or documents as requested by him, to complete the joint valuation of Open Green Roads Inc. on the separation date. iv. The applicant shall provide his updated sworn Financial Statement within 30 days of the date of this endorsement. v. The applicant shall provide a Net Family Property Statement within 30 days of the date of this endorsement. vi. The applicant shall provide his 2022 tax return and all attachments and supporting information within 30 days of the date of this endorsement. vii. The applicant shall provide his 2023 T4s, within 7 days of when he receives it. viii. The applicant shall provide all corporate tax returns filed for Open Green Road Inc. for 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 within 30 days of the date of this endorsement. ix. The applicant shall provide the financial statements for Open Green Road Inc. for 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 within 30 days of the date of this endorsement. x. The applicant shall provide copies of statements for his PC Financial MasterCard from 2017 to 2021, and provide evidence within 45 days, in writing, of requests made. xi. The applicant shall provide his complete 2023 Notice of Assessment within 7 days of receipt. xii. The applicant shall provide a letter from his employer supporting the quantum of the health insurance, RRSP, show allowance and BYOD benefits listed in paragraph 14 on page 3 of his Financial Statement sworn June 15, 2022, and August 23, 2022. xiii. Unless otherwise dealt with in paragraphs 58, 59 and 60, the applicant shall provide the disclosure information in paragraphs 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, and 36 of the Respondent’s Request for Information dated December 15, 2022. xiv. The applicant shall provide a signed original Direction from his employer to obtain the applicant’s employment information, via Open Green Roads Inc., from Citilogistics, within 30 days of the date of this endorsement.

[59] With respect to the disclosure requests in paragraph 59, if the applicant fails to provide the information below within 45 days of this endorsement, he will be deemed to have abandoned these claims, and, subject to the discretion of the trial judge, will be foreclosed from relying on the evidence at trial. The applicant shall provide the following information:

i. All documents pertaining to the payment of the online part-time real estate salesperson course taken by his son, proof of any RESP usage for payment of said course, and copies of Adrian’s 2022 and 2023 Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment, with 2023 to be provided when available, and Adrian’s most recent paystub. ii. Supporting documents for all matrimonial home expenses the applicant paid from separation until the closing of the sale of the matrimonial home as follows: a. The mortgage from separation to closing; b. Property taxes from separation to closing; and c. Condominium fees from January 8, 2022 to closing. iii. A list of what is owned solely or jointly and their estimated values and, if it exists, any supporting document to provide ownership and value. iv. Documents to substantiate the applicant’s claimed separation-date value of his 2011 Toyota Sienna. v. The total amount of the cost of all repairs claimed by the applicant on the matrimonial home in 2021 and 2022 and complete, legible supporting documents. vi. Proof of payment of $250 for a garage door repair dated July 30, 2021. vii. Supporting documentation/information relating to $7,500 sought by the applicant for his labour regarding repairs on the matrimonial home, in the form of a log setting out the nature of the repairs performed, the dates and times the repairs were performed, and the hourly wage he is seeking. viii. A report from an actuary to support his claim for 25 percent notional disposition costs on his RRSPs. ix. Statement for the Knowledge First RESP from January 1, 2022 to present. x. Details and supporting documents as to how the applicant determined the two properties that he claims the respondent owns were worth $300,000 on the date of separation and currently. xi. Supporting documents to confirm the applicant’s claim that he spends $800 a month for storage costs.

[60] I am not inclined to make any order with respect to the purchase and sale documents for the applicant’s 2011 Toyota Sienna given that the documents may not be available, and I agree the book value can be obtained by the respondent.

[61] Pursuant to the direction of Diamond J., the party shall attend court within two weeks of the date of this endorsement to set a new trial date.

IX. Costs

[62] As agreed, the parties will make their costs submissions in writing limited to two pages, exclusive of their Bill of Costs. Justice Diamond had ordered costs of $1,000 at the exit pre-trial conference, with the discretion of this court to determine when those costs would be payable. The costs submissions should address the timing of the payment of these costs.

A.P. Ramsay J. Date: April 12, 2024