Delongte v. Delongte, 2024 ONSC 3454

COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-000137-00

DATE: 2024 06 14

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

CHRISTINE DE LONGTE

Lorna M. Yates, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

MICHAEL DE LONGTE

James Milne, for the Respondent (during trial) Michael De Longte, self-represented (for closing submissions)

Respondent

HEARD: September 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, October 3, 2023

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Fowler Byrne J.

[1] The Applicant and Respondent were married for close to 20 years. This trial was heard to resolve the outstanding issues arising from their separation.

I. Issues

[2] The following issues must be decided by me:

a. What equalization payment should be made?

b. What is each party’s income for the relevant years?

c. Once income has been resolved,

i. What is owed by Michael for retroactive child support?

ii. What is Michael’s prospective child support obligation?

iii.Does either party owe the other retroactive or prospective spousal support?

d. What are the appropriate post-separation adjustments?

e. Is occupation rent owed by Christine to Michael, and if so, what is the appropriate amount?

[3] Additionally, Christine has alleged that Michael has had access to her private emails (through her company) and that he and his counsel have reviewed all email communication between herself, her counsel and her financial expert since March 2018. She also alleges, that due to that access, that Michael has fabricated emails that were apparently from Christine and her finance manager Francine Acocella, and that he has presented this as evidence in order to mislead this court.

[4] Christine had earlier demanded an affidavit detailing all the emails reviewed and production of the original emails. None was forthcoming prior to trial. She also seeks a ruling as to the admissibility of these emails and also a finding that Michael was unreasonable and acted in bad faith by reviewing them.

II. Background

[5] The parties were married on October 24, 1998 and separated on March 19, 2018. There are two children of the marriage, M.D, born June 12, 2003 and H.D., born February 8, 2005. As of the trial, the children were both over the age of majority and were pursuing post-secondary studies. They remain children of the marriage.

III. Analysis

A. Equalization

[6] The parties have each submitted their own comparative net family property statements. Michael, who was self-represented when his written closing submissions were filed, provided two equalization scenarios.

[7] A review of these net family property statements, the evidence at trial and the Agreed Statement of Facts shows that most of the values on the net family property statements are agreed upon and will be accepted by the court. Accordingly, the only values which require a determination by the court are as follows:

a. The value of household contents;

b. The value of jewellery owned by Christine;

c. The value of Christine’s designer purse collection;

d. The value of Michael’s investment account ending in 294 as of the date of separation;

e. The value of Michael’s B2B Bank Financial Account ending in 880;

f. How to treat the children’s RESP and bank accounts;

g. The value of 1957466 Ontario Inc., operating as The Home Improvement Group (“THIG”), which is wholly owned by Christine;

h. The value of 1960579 Ontario Inc., operating as The Commercial Improvement Group (“TCIG”), which is wholly owned by Christine;

i. The value of a tax refund owed to Christine on the valuation date;

j. Whether Michael can claim a disposition cost on a capital gain earned in his investment account;

k. The value of household contents brought into the marriage;

l. Whether Michael was owed any money on the date of marriage;

m. Whether Michael can deduct $30,000 on the day of marriage which was his contribution to a down payment on another property.

a. Household Contents

[8] Other than the sum placed on the parties financial statements, I have no evidence of what the value of the contents are. Both parties admitted that the values provided were estimates. Michael believes that Christine received contents that were worth $10,000 more than what he retained. Apparently, there are still some contents in a storage locker.

[9] Given that I have no evidence of the value of these items, I will simply remove them from the net family property statement.

b. Jewellery

[10] Christine gave evidence that with the exception of two Tiffany bracelets, her only other jewellery of value was a 10 year old second wedding band and her engagement ring. She had the engagement ring on the date of marriage, so she did not include it. Apparently, the wedding band was lost or stolen after separation and they received $10,000 from their insurer, which Michael retained.

[11] Michael maintains that the ring was valued at $38,000. He searched the internet and provided print outs of two rings with a 2.21 or 2.22 Carat Round diamond. They were being sold for $24,908 and $26,000. Unfortunately, I have no evidence of what Christine’s ring was – except that Michael stated that these rings closely resemble Christine’s ring. Unfortunately, what a ring is being listed for is no reflection of what a person would purchase it for. The best evidence I have of the value of the ring is what the insurance company paid for it. Both parties agree that they received $10,000. Both parties agree that Michael retained that sum.

[12] Accordingly, the sum of $10,000 will be added to Christine’s property, but a post-separation adjustment will have to be made to account for Michael keeping the amount.

c. Designer Purses

[13] No evidence was presented by either party about the value of the purses. Christine gave evidence of owning four designer purses bought between 10 and 20 years ago.

[14] Michael testified that Christine had 12 to 14 designer purses. He stated that they all cost about $2,000, except for the Chanel purse, which cost more. Christine was not cross-examined on the value she provided nor the number of purses she had.

[15] Whether or not I accept Christine or Michael’s evidence on the quantity of purses Christine owns, the difficulty I face is that I have no evidence of their value. There is no way this court can place a value on these items in a vacuum.

[16] The law is clear. The party who asserts a value has a duty to provide credible evidence as to its value: Virc v. Blair, 2017 ONCA 394, 138 O.R. (3d) 191, at para. 59; Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, 248 O.A.C. 168, at para. 38. Accordingly, I am entitled to draw an adverse inference as a result of Christine’s failure to prove the value of the purses.

[17] I will accept Christine’s evidence of how many purses she owned on the date of separation. These were her items, so she would have the best evidence of what she owned. Given her failure to prove their value though, I will adopt Michael’s valuation of these purses, which he said was $2,000 per purse. Accordingly, I will add $8,000 to Christine’s net family property value.

d. Michael’s Investment Account ending in 294

[18] On the date of separation, Michael solely owned an investment account, which was valued at $566,917.20. It appears that he withdrew $424,000 from the home equity line of credit (HELOC) prior to separation, and the balance of the account represents some of these proceeds.

[19] Christine did not know about this withdrawal until after separation. She brought an urgent motion, and on July 12, 2018, Andre J. ordered that Michael, while he could retain the money at that time, was responsible for full repayment plus any interest that arose on this amount since June 28, 2017. He further ordered that there will be a post-separation adjustment for interest payments, if any, that Christine paid from the day the money was taken until it is paid.

[20] The matrimonial home was sold in March 2021 and the HELOC was paid off in full. In order to address Michael’s obligations under the order of Andre J., on her net family property statement Christine noted her obligation to pay $63,000 towards the HELOC, being her 50% share of the amount owing prior to Michael drawing it down. Michael would be responsible for $63,000 as well, plus the $424,000 he improperly removed.

[21] Accordingly, as a result of Andre J.’s order, Michael was found to have had this debt on the date of separation and is reflected as such on the net family property statement. The full amount of his investment account, which contains that money should also be included to show the most accurate record of his net worth that day.

e. Michael’s B2B Account ending in 880

[22] There is a slight discrepancy between the balance of this account on the valuation date on each party’s net family property statement. The difference is small. Michael maintains it is $122,358.62. Christine maintains it is $120,874.61.

[23] I have reviewed exhibit 89, which is Michael’s financial statement sworn on August 7, 2023. In that document, he deposes that the balance of that account is $120,874.61. Accordingly, that number will be used.

f. Children’s Funds

[24] The parties hold two RESPs for their children. They have agreed that they will be utilized for the children’s education and thus have both agreed to exclude it from the NFP analysis.

[25] The parties agree that in June 2018, Michael removed $15,661.98 from the children’s bank accounts. He claimed he was required to do this because Christine had obtained a preservation order (after it was found he removed large sums of money from various businesses) and he needed funds to pay the household bills and mortgage.

[26] It appears that Michael has paid back half of this, but a further $7,895.81 remains owing to M.D. and H.D. He initially maintained that Christine should pay back the other half. As of the trial though, Michael has agreed that he will repay the other half directly to the children.

[27] Both parties have elected to keep these sums out of the net family property calculation. If Michael does not repay the children, Christine seeks a post-separation adjustment to repay the children.

g. Value of THIG & TCIG

[28] Christine is the sole owner of 1957466 Ontario Inc., operating as The Home Improvement Group (“THIG”). She has been its sole officer and director since its incorporation on August 19, 2016. As well, for all relevant times, Christine also held 100% of the shares in 1960579 Ontario Inc., operating as The Commercial Improvement Group (“TCIG”). CIG was incorporated around the same time as THIG.

[29] In order to provide a valuation of THIG and TCIG for trial, Christine retained Ms. Paula White, CPA, CA, CPV. Michael disagreed with the values opined by Ms. White, and as a result, he retained Mr. Alan Mak, FCPA, FCA, CBV. The qualifications of both experts were admitted. The difference in value opined by Ms. White and Mr. Mak is due to the fact that they utilized different valuation methods. Ms. White used an asset-based approach, where she determined the adjusted book value of both companies. Mr. Mak used an earnings-based method. The difference in value is extraordinary. It falls to me to determine which methodology is most appropriate based on the evidence before me.

i. History and Operations of TCIG and THIG

[30] Michael’s prior business endeavors outside of THIG and TCIG are relevant, as his prior businesses ended up blending with THIG and TCIG, sharing both employees and customers.

[31] In or around 2011, Michael and a friend decided to start a painting business together. His friend would do the work, and Michael would do the marketing. It was incorporated as 2033519 Ontario Inc., operating as the Perfect Painter (“PP”). Michael proved to be very good at marketing. He made his own website, participated in WagJag (a discount and coupon website), and learned how to use Google to optimize business. He created a presence on HomeStars, a website that refers potential clients to renovators. Within a year, he had three or four people working full time for him. He needed to hire someone to help run the company as he continued to work full time.

[32] In 2013, Michael hired Laura Frank to help with the accounting records. That is when they started using the QuickBooks accounting software and a customer relationship management (“CRM”) system.

[33] In late 2013, Michael also incorporated 2373265 Ontario Inc., operating as the Perfect Renovations Group (“PRG”). He was the sole shareholder of PRG. Apparently, workers from PP had caused some damage to a retaining wall. To address the potential liability, Michael stopped operating PP and then incorporated PRG. All of the new software was transferred over to PRG and business continued in the normal course. PRG did more than just painting, expanding into renovations.

[34] PRG’s success was variable. They earned $108,000 in taxable income as of their fiscal year end in 2013, lost over $163,000 as of their 2014 year end, earned $485,000 in 2015, and then lost $232,000 in 2016.

[35] At the beginning, both Michael and Christine remained employed outside of the businesses. The parties realized though that Michael was spending most of his waking hours working at his job or at this business. As a result, they agreed that in or around 2015, Christine left her own full-time employment to join PRG. That year, they moved from being a home-run business to leasing a premises. They optimized this situation by creating a company, 1957467 Ontario Inc. (“467”), to purchase the commercial unit (wholly owned by Michael) located at 2550 Matheson Blvd. East, Suite 214, in Mississauga (“Matheson”). PRG operated there and would make lease payments to 467.

[36] Around this time, the parties started using the services of Owen Tulk. He was an accountant who also assisted with the payment of trades and human resources issues. Mr. Tulk took his instructions from Michael and Ms. Frank. Mr. Tulk would pay trades and employees based on their instructions.

[37] Once she joined PRG, Christine started to manage day to day renovations, including the sales teams and recruiting. Around the time while PRG was operational, Christine’s cousin Francine Acocella, joined as a bookkeeper. In that capacity, Ms. Acocella reconciled accounts, created invoices, processed deposits and payments and reviewed estimates. Ms. Acocella’s duties remained the same until Ms. Frank left the companies in February 2018. Up to that time, Ms. Acocella had no access to the company bank accounts. Michael would sign all the cheques and on occasion, Ms. Frank would. When Ms. Frank resigned, Ms. Acocella had to step up as the finance manager. Since that time, she was responsible for all entries into the accounting software.

[38] The parties disagree as to the extent of Michael’s involvement in THIG and TCIG. At trial, Michael maintained that is role in the companies was minimal. Despite that position, in his evidence, he also admitted to a number of roles he had in the companies. He managed their presence on Google and their website. He would send out flyers. He was asked to help when there was an issue with a customer. He received financial reports and reviewed them with Mr. Tulk and Christine. He would sign payroll cheques and double check the hours before he did so as Christine had no authority to sign cheques. He reviewed subcontractor payments before they went out, every two weeks. He was listed as the lead salesperson on a number of projects. Once every five to six months he would do training with the sales team. Also, if cash had to be collected, he was the one who would do it. He had access to the bank accounts, he held the ownership of the website domains, and the company email addressees. He had access to the accounting software so he could see the financial status of the company at all times. In cross-examination, he admitted that he also gave instructions about the servicing of company vehicles, payroll, process of payments and invoicing.

[39] Despite his initial position, it is clear that Michael remained very involved in the business. As shown in the affidavits of customers who paid in cash, as detailed below, Michael was their main contact on these projects. Indeed, Mr. Parra in his affidavit, stated that he was the Sales and Project Manager at THIG and that he reported to Michael.

[40] Michael’s position at trial, that he was not heavily involved in PRG, THIG or TCIG, was not credible. It is contrary to the evidence of the witnesses who gave evidence of payment in cash. On two occasions at trial, he was impeached on prior affidavits where he swore that he was involved in the companies, essentially running them on a day to day basis, and that he would have hundreds of emails approving literally everything within the business operations. He swore an affidavit on an earlier occasion that Christine would almost exclusively ask his approval on everything and that he never consulted with Christine.

[41] In late 2015 or early 2016, PRG was subjected to a WSIB audit. TCIG and THIG ended up having to pay WSIB approximately $35,000. In order to avoid that payable, they simply wound down PRG and incorporated THIG and TCIG, and continued business as usual. Mr. Tulk helped them with their WSIB issue and with their year end accounting. They restructured so that they would not have this same WSIB issue in the future.

[42] As of 2016, when TCIG and THIG were incorporated, the businesses continued in the usual course. For the most part, any project started under PRG would be finished under PRG, but any new project was done through THIG or TCIG. Also, Christine and Michael continued in the same rolls. Ms. Frank resigned shortly before the date of separation and Ms. Acocella started to take on her roll. Mr. Tulk remained as the outside accountant.

[43] As with PRG, both THIG and TCIG provide improvement and renovation services. The only difference was that they routed home renovations through THIG and commercial renovations through TCIG. They marketed their services through a number of websites and other social media tools, and then subcontracted the work to the appropriate trades people, including estimators. Neither Michael nor Christine did any of the physical labour, nor are they licensed tradespeople. They simply market their services, and then arrange for quotations, pricing, and for the work to be done by others, with minor exceptions, and then oversaw the whole process. The cost of the renovation projects includes a markup for their services.

[44] On the date of separation, both THIG and TCIG were still operating out of Matheson. On that day, Michael walked away from the business, and left it to Christine to figure it out. He had a little input afterwards, but pretty much severed all ties over the next several months. Despite that, he still controlled the THIG website domain, all THIG emails and had access to the accounting software and banking.

[45] In December 2021, Christine moved these companies out of Matheson and started operating out of Christine’s home at 7096 Baskerville Run, Mississauga (“Baskerville”). Matheson was sold by Michael on September 3, 2019.

ii. Approaches to Valuation

[46] Both valuators, Ms. White and Mr. Mak, provided their opinion of the fair market value of both THIG and TCIG. Both valuators define fair market value to mean the highest price that a hypothetical willing and able buyer would pay a hypothetical willing and able seller, acting at arm’s length in an open and unrestricted market, when neither is under compulsion to buy or sell and when both have reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts.

[47] There are several recognized and legitimate methods to utilize in order to arrive at the fair market value of a corporation. Both experts gave evidence as to why they choose their particular method, and when the other method would be appropriate.

[48] In determining the appropriate method, Ms. White looked at the financial information that was available. TCIG and THIG had only been incorporated since 2016. She had two fiscal years to review, ending on May 31, 2017, and on May 31, 2018. The latter fiscal year end was approximately 1.5 months after the date of separation. Viewing those two fiscal years, she determined that there were, after adjusting for management compensation, insufficient profits in either company to indicate material good will. She defined good will to be the difference between what someone would pay for a company and the actual value of its hard assets (such as equipment, vehicles, properties or receivables.) In those circumstances, she opined that the adjusted book value was the most appropriate method of valuation.

[49] After completing her analysis, Ms. White valued THIG at between nil to $8,000 and valued TCIG between nil to $28,000.

[50] Mr. Mak indicated that the earnings approach is generally appropriate when you have a going concern business that generates positive profits, or economic profits. He opined that an asset approach can be appropriate only when a business is not generating economic profits, in which case it might not be a going concern, or if the business is heavily dependent or predicated on capital investments, or is asset driven such as a real estate holding company. In a service business such as THIG or TCIG, where there is not a significant capital investment required, it would not be appropriate to use an asset-based approach if it was a going concern. In an asset-based approach, the valuator considers the assets and liabilities individually, whereas in an earnings-based approach, it considers the profits generated by those assets and liabilities used in conjunction in the business.

[51] Mr. Mak believed the earnings approach was most appropriate. Mr. Mak did recognize that there was a limited history of TCIG and THIG available for examination. Nonetheless, he believed that as of March 2018, housing prices were going up, interest rates were low and there was high consumer confidence. As a result, Mr. Mak believed that TCIG and THIG had a good outlook He also believed the limited financial results supported that optimism, until the date of separation. When he saw the year end results, 1.5 months after separation, his expectations were not met. He opined that was because cash sales were not considered and expenses were overstated, which materially affected the fiscal year end results. Accordingly, he added cash sales in, he normalized the earnings and expenses, and arrived at a positive cash flow, which validated the earnings-based approach.

[52] Mr. Mak is also critical of Ms. White’s approach because it does not recognize the fair market value of all the assets and liabilities of these businesses. In particular, it does not account for economic resources of the company, such as intangible assets, which include customer lists, relationships with suppliers and good will. These have value for a potential buyer. With the asset based approach, these assets are not included in the analysis.

[53] After completing his analysis using the earnings method, Mr. Mak valued THIG between $1,732,479 to $1,832,674. He valued TCIG at $213,972 to $231,710.

[54] After reviewing the two valuation methods, I find that the asset-based approach is the most appropriate methodology to value TCIG and THIG. Both experts agree that an asset-based approach is appropriate when the business is not generating sufficient profits. Mr. Mak agrees, that based on the financial statements of TCIG and THIG alone, there are insufficient profits. It is not until Mr. Mak conducts his analysis and “normalizes” the earnings, that profits can be seen. Unfortunately, the evidence simply does not support the profits that he extrapolates.

[55] Firstly, one of the factors that Mr. Mak relies on is the existence of unreported cash sales that are not reflected on THIG and TCIG’s financial statements. I have reviewed the evidence of the seven witnesses that Michael called to support the existence of unreported cash sales. After reviewing this evidence, the following is clear:

a. PRG and THIG accepted cash in payment for projects, and that both Christine and Michael were aware of that;

b. If cash was to be collected, it was done by Michael or by another under his direction. Michael testified that he liked to keep Christine out of it;

c. Prior to separation, Christine had no involvement in the accounting side of things, and therefore had no knowledge if the cash received was properly recorded in the books;

d. The cash was collected and retained by Michael, usually without Christine even being aware of it. Some of the cash was collected and retained by Michael after separation;

e. Michael has done little to account for the cash, other than to say that he “spread it around”, putting some in their joint account, paying for family expenses or putting it in a box in his closet;

f. The affidavits support the receipt of $444,500 in cash between 2016 and shortly after separation, but some of that, was with respect to PRG projects; and

g. Following separation, Christine at first stopped taking cash payments. Eventually she started accepting cash as payment again, but always ensured it was recorded appropriately in their accounting records.

[56] Having found that there were unreported cash sales, I then must determine what impact that has on the valuation of THIG and TCIG. In considering those cash sales, Mr. Mak spread the cash payments evenly over the period the project was ongoing, rather than the date it was actually received. By contrast, Ms. White accounted for the cash in the fiscal year that it was actually received. This impacted the revenue of each relevant fiscal year. For example, Mr. Mak added $228,045 in cash sales to fiscal 2017, while Ms. White added $373,000 to 2017. For 2018, Mr. Mak added $233,450 in revenue for fiscal 2018, while Ms. White only added $89,000. The result is that, given Mr. Mak’s normalized earnings and expenses, this revenue was simply added to the bottom line. He did not account for the possibility that some of these sales were for PRG, a fact that Mr. Mak was not advised of this possibility when he did his analysis.

[57] In Ms. White’s analysis, it did not impact the companies’ revenue sufficiently to alter her method of valuation. She noted that whenever there is a project, whether paid for “on the books” or by unreported cash, there would be corresponding expenses. If THIG was paid, for example, $50,000 in cash for a renovation, it would have to pay for materials and labour. Some of that labour may be paid in cash. The materials may be paid for in cash. There is no way of knowing what the net cash income was. Mr. Mak admitted that he did not include that possibility in his valuation. In order to include cash sales in a valuation, Ms. White would need to understand if the associated expenses were recorded or were also unreported.

[58] I find Ms. White’s approach to accounting for cash sales when they were collected as preferrable. It treats cash receipts in the same way that properly recorded receipts were treated in the financial records of THIG and TCIG. When she applied these revenues to the appropriate year, and normalized for management compensation, which is addressed below, it had little impact on her valuation.

[59] Secondly, Mr. Mak’s analysis does not take into consideration the history of Christine and Michael’s companies. They both agree that PP, PRG, and then THIG and TCIG together is a progression of the same business. They experienced years of profit and years of loss. Since 2013, there has not been one instance that PRG and THIG/TCIG earned a profit two years in a row.

[60] Mr. Mak also valued PRG and PP for the purposes of this litigation. Given that they were not operational, he opined that they had no value. He admitted that he could have used PRG as a predecessor company to see whether trends in financial performance could be extrapolated, but he was unable to do so. While conducting his analysis, he requested additional financial information, but was informed that they were not available. Apparently, the accounting software account had been shut down or was no longer accessible. So, in the absence of the more detailed financial information, such as general ledgers and trial balances, he was not in a position to look back at PP or PRG and therefore he did not take into account those predecessor corporations in establishing a trend or an analysis for THIG or TCIG.

[61] There was sufficient evidence though to show the six-year history of the net income of PRG and then TCIG/THIG:

Fiscal Year End	Company	Net Income
2013	PRG	$108,297
2014	PRG	-$163,895
2015	PRG	$485,974
2016	PRG	-$232,274
2017	THIG/TCIG combined	$26,905
2018	THIG/TCIG combined	-$113,404

[62] This evidence does not support the required ongoing positive profits or economic profits that Mr. Mak stated is required to make the earnings-based approach appropriate.

[63] Thirdly, the profits of TCIG and THIG, such as it was, need to be adjusted for management salaries. As explained by Ms. White, a potential purchaser would need to know, if they purchased this company, what they would need to pay a manager to do the work of Christine and Michael. Ms. White opined that an appropriate salary would be between $150,000 and $200,000 per year. While Mr. Mak did not provide an opinion as to an appropriate salary, he did acknowledge that Christine’s annual salary of $75,000 to $80,000 per annum was insufficient. If adjusted for management compensation, any net income would be reduced.

[64] Fourthly, Mr. Mak’s valuation places a value of approximately $1.5 million on THIG/TCIG’s intangible assets, which include customer lists, relationships with suppliers and vendors and good will. Unfortunately, the evidence does not support that value. In the past, when faced with a potential liability, Michael found it made more economic sense to simply fold up a company and start a new one. In particular, when PRG was faced with a WSIB bill of $35,000, it made more sense to simply fold up shop. Had PRG, as an earlier version of TCIG/THIG, possessed the type of intangible assets that Mr. Mak hypothesizes, it would have made more sense to pay the debt and retain the intangible value in PRG. Michael made the decision that the intangible assets in PRG were negligible and could easily be transferred to a new company.

[65] Michael has also provided evidence of the value of what he considered one of his most valuable intangible assets, being a link on the HomeStars website. On November 16, 2016, THIG purchased the business Mr. Rescue, including its website profile and its link to HomeStars. For this asset, he paid only $25,000. This is a far cry from the million dollar value put to it by using the earnings approach.

[66] In addition, one of THIG and TCIG’s intangible assets, being the thig.ca email addresses and the telephone numbers of the businesses, were controlled by Michael, not Christine, who was the owner of those companies. No new purchaser could rely on ever getting a phone call or email. Also, one should consider that this is a business model that has no barriers to entry. Neither Christine nor Michael had any construction experience. They were marketers. Anyone could open a webpage, find some trades, and market themselves on a variety of platforms.

[67] When considering good will, I have also considered that THIG had been in litigation constantly. Prior to separation, THIG was a defendant in seven separate lawsuits. Michael himself speaks about the stress he was experiencing because of this. Just prior to separation, the company’s long time comptroller, Laura Frank, had resigned and the bookkeeper Ms. Acocella was quickly moved up to finance manager. Christine indicated that before separation, she was always having to let tradespeople go and search for new ones. On top of all of that, as of the date of separation Michael had withdrawn all the money available to THIG and TCIG, leaving only enough to cover two payroll cycles. This business was far from a stable source of net income.

[68] In the end, if the fair market value of a company is based on what a prudent arm’s length purchaser would pay for this company, it is inconceivable that someone would pay $1.5 to $2.0 million for TCIG and THIG. These companies made enough money (in some years) to provide one family with a comfortable lifestyle, as long as one partner earned a below market wage and the other continued to earn money from an outside employer. Even to keep this going, Christine had to eventually give up a leased premises and start working out of her home. Simply stated, the evidence does not support an earnings-based approach to valuation.

iii. Value of TCIG and THIG

[69] Having found in favour of the asset-based approach appropriate, I will now consider the only opinion of the company’s value using this methodology.

[70] For the value of THIG, Ms. White provided two scenarios. The first assumed that one of THIG’s liabilities was a debt owed by THIG to 2236445 Ontario Inc. (“445”) in the sum of $295,000. 445 is wholly owned by Michael. Scenario two assumed the debt to 445 was actually only $186,000. Christine gave evidence that this was originally a shareholders’ loan in 2016, but only $186,000 remains outstanding. Michael has not demanded payment since March 2018. Michael indicated that $295,000 was still owing and this debt was included in his valuation of 445. Unfortunately, given that the value of this company is admitted, no expert evidence was presented on how this value was determined. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the second scenario is the appropriate scenario to adopt.

[71] Ms. White then made a “stub period adjustment” to account for the valuation date being approximately 1.5 months before the fiscal year end. She ascertained that $41,092 of THIG’s losses for the fiscal year ending in 2018 were accrued after the date of separation but before fiscal year end. She deducted those losses accordingly. Accordingly, after this adjustment was made, its value on the date of separation was $7,655, which Ms. White rounded up to $8,000.

[72] For TCIG, Ms. White offered two scenarios. For both scenarios, she performed the same stub period adjustment. She ascertained that $18,412 in losses in TCIG accrued after the date of separation. Accordingly, she reduced the losses by that amount and came to her value of $27,693, which she rounded up to $28,000.

[73] In the first scenario though, she considered the impact if TCIG transferred some of its assets to address THIG’s deficit in fiscal year 2018, given that they operated more or less together. That would have resulted in TCIG having no value, but also would not have been sufficient to have any impact on THIG’s negative value. In the second scenario, no such transfer was made, and TCIG retains its values. After considering both scenarios, I believe the second scenario is the most appropriate.

[74] Michael attacked the assets and liabilities of TCIG and THIG on the financial statements, alleging that inappropriate year end adjustments were made and payables were overstated.

[75] With respect to the year end adjustments, the evidence is clear that THIG and TCIG followed the same process as was done under Michael’s guidance at fiscal year end 2017. The adjustments were determined in consultation with Michael, Ms. Frank, and Mr. Tulk. For 2018, Ms. Acecello stepped in, discussed the status of the projects with Mr. Tulk, and she accepted those adjustments as were advised by Mr. Tulk.

[76] As for payables, Michael admitted that they existed, but disputed whether they would ever be paid. Given that Christine and Ms. Acocella were relatively new to the financial records of THIG and TCIG as of the day of separation, it was reasonable that they relied on the payables that were on the books when Michael walked away.

[77] Accordingly, I find that the value of THIG as of the date of separation is $8,000 and the value of TCIG is $28,000.

h. Tax Refund Owed to Christine

[78] Christine gave evidence that she was owed a tax refund for 2017 in the sum of $4,720.18 as of the date of separation. At trial, Michael conceded that this amount should be included.

i. Disposition Cost on Michael’s Capital Gain

[79] On Michael’s most recent financial statement, sworn August 7, 2023, he claimed a contingent liability associated with the capital gains on his investments. In particular, he had a capital gain of approximately $142,000. Calculating that he would have to pay tax on half that amount, and estimating that he will be taxed at a 49.5% marginal rate, Michael claimed a deduction of $35,248.21.

[80] Unfortunately, I do not accept that disposition cost. As will be explained below, Michael sustained great losses in 2021 due to his day trading of approximately $1.5 million. As he is entitled to do, he then refiled his income tax return for three previous three years and will be entitled to apply these losses for up to 20 years into the future until they are extinguished. Michael also admitted that he claimed his gains and losses in the appropriate tax year already and has received sizeable tax refunds. Due to his re-filings with Revenue Canada, Michael continues to have business losses he can apply against his income in the future.

[81] As a result, Michael has failed to prove that this is a disposition cost that he will actually have to pay. This liability will not be allowed.

j. Value of Household Contents on Date of Marriage

[82] Both parties have claimed that they had approximately $4,000 in furniture at the date of marriage, and the other brought nothing. Neither of them presented any evidence of the value of the furniture.

[83] Michael made an assignment into bankruptcy on May 29, 1998. At that time, he declared that he had $500 in furniture. This was only a few months prior to their marriage. At trial, he stated that when they moved into together, he brought his parents’ “cast-off” furniture, such as a sectional, table, and TV.

[84] Nonetheless, I find that neither party has proven the value of the contents to any degree of certainty. Accordingly, there will be no marriage day deduction for this item for either party.

k. Money Owed to Michael on Date of Marriage

[85] While Michael claimed $7,420.75 was owed to him on the date of marriage, it is not listed on his most recent financial statement sworn August 7, 2023. Also, there was no evidence presented to support this marriage day deduction. Accordingly, this deduction will not be allowed.

l. Marriage Day Deduction for Down Payment

[86] The parties purchased a new home approximately nine months after they were married. It was a new build. Title was put in Christine’s name, as a 99% owner, and in her parent’s name, as 1% owners. Michael could not go on title due to recent bankruptcy.

[87] Michael maintains that he contributed $30,000 towards the downpayment, and thus wants recognition that on the date of marriage, he had $30,000. He stated that he and Christine equally contributed to the five percent (5%) down payment. Thereafter, he got a cheque from his employer AT&T for “back-dated” commissions and contributed the sum of $30,000 towards the downpayment.

[88] The difficulty is that Michael had declared bankruptcy on May 29, 1998, and at that time, he declared he had next to nothing. That means in order to declare this marriage day deduction, he must have acquired this commission cheque after his bankruptcy in on May 29, 1998 and before the date of marriage in October 1998.

[89] At trial, Michael’s evidence is that he was able to retain this commission because nine months after the bankruptcy, he was automatically discharged. Accordingly, it is not possible that he had that money on the date of marriage. Nine months after his assignment would take him to the end of February 1999, several months after the parties married. I have no evidence that this was money owed to him on the marriage date. This deduction is not permitted.

m. Michael’s request for an Unequal Division

[90] In his final submissions, Michael requested an “unequal division” and a payment to him of $45,353.27. It is unclear what this submission is based on. Also, Michael did not seek an unequal division in his pleadings. Accordingly, there will be no unequal division.

n. Final Equalization Payment

[91] After considering all these issues, and subject to any post-separation adjustments, I find that Michael is to pay Christine the sum of $345,325.02 to equalize their net family property values. The net family property statement is attached hereto as Schedule “A”.

B. Income of the Parties

[92] Unfortunately, neither party’s income was straight forward. Christine was self-employed through PRG, THIG and TCIG for several years prior to the separation and thereafter. Michael was employed outside of the family companies but earned income and losses through online day trading and rental properties. The opinion evidence of two highly qualified accountants was provided in the hopes of assisting the court. Ms. White also provided expert opinion evidence regarding Christine’s income. Mr. Mak also provided expert opinion evidence on both parties’ income.

a. Christine’s Income

Ms. White’s Analysis

[93] With respect to income, for the years 2018 to 2022, Ms. White calculated Christine’s income using two scenarios.

[94] Under Scenario One, Ms. White started with Christine’s line 15000 income on her tax return. While she was entitled to deduct carrying charges that Christine claimed (Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97, Sch. III, s.8), Ms. White added them back in as they were actually family law legal fees and not the type of carrying charges contemplated by the CSG. Then, if Christine received spousal support payments, those were deducted (see CSG, Sch. III, s. 3). She then added the other half of the capital gains not claimed as income and grossed it up accordingly (see CSG, Sch. III, s. 6). Following that, she added back as income that percentage of discretionary expenses that were personal in nature and grossed them up (see CSG, s.19(1)(d), 19(2)). For each year, she added back in the full amount of the children’s cell phone expenses and 15% of sporting tickets, car insurance, lease payments, and gas, as well as any of Ms. White’s professional fees that were paid for by TCIG. In 2018 and 2019, she added back Christine’s capital cost allowance claimed (CSG, Sch. III, s. 11).

[95] During her evidence, Ms. White indicated that she missed an additional expense on March 2, 2022 for $1,925 which she states should be added back in as income for that year. Grossed up, these expenses would be worth approximately $3,000. While originally Ms. White added back in the costs of renovations that Christine had completed through THIG as a benefit, she has since learned that they have been partially repaid and the rest will be repaid. She now would not add those expenses back into Christine’s income.

[96] Finally, in this scenario, Ms. White added the pre-tax income of TCIG and THIG given that they were wholly owned by Christine (CSG, s.18(a)). If TCIG and THIG combined experienced a net income gain, that was added. If there was a net income loss, no adjustments were made to Christine’s income.

[97] For Scenario Two, if the capital gain was non-recurring, such as the one time sale of real estate and securities, they were excluded from Christine’s income. In 2018 and 2019, she also excluded rental income attributed to Christine on two properties in which Christine had an ownership interest, but which she did not actually receive. That evidence was not challenged. For 2018 and 2019, the difference between Scenario One and Scenario Two was only the rental income.

[98] Accordingly, Ms. White opined that Christine’s income was as follows:

	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Scenario 1	$91,000	$186,000	$117,000	$206,000	$354,000
Scenario 2	$91,000	$167,000	$76,000	$206,000	$105,000

Mr. Mak’s Analysis

[99] Mr. Mak admitted that he and Ms. White generally took the same approach to income calculation. To calculate Christine’s income, Mr. Mak started with the income guideline requirements in the CSG. He started with what is reported on the tax returns of each individual, (ie. line 15000), and then made adjustments as appropriate for items such as investment income, taking into account taxable versus actual dividends and capital gains. He then took into account attribution of corporate income for corporations controlled by each individual. He also took into account personal benefits that have been received by each individual but not recorded as such for tax purposes.

[100] After utilizing this methodology, Mr. Mak then created four scenarios. In Scenario A, he assumed that any of Christine’s legal fees paid by the company will be repaid by Christine and that promotional expenses would be considered 50% personal. By promotional costs, he is referring to sporting tickets, entertainment, and fitness club dues. In Scenario B, he assumed that legal fees would not be repaid and should be counted as a personal benefit to Christine. He also assumes that promotional expenses are 50% personal in nature. In Scenario C, he assumes that legal costs would be repaid, and that only 15% of promotional costs are personal in nature. Finally, in Scenario D, he assumes the legal fees loans would not be repaid and are therefore personal benefits to Christine, and that 15% of promotional costs are personal in nature.

[101] Upon being advised that evidence was provided at trial that the company was reimbursed these legal fees by Christine, Mr. Mak agreed that only Scenarios A and C were appropriate. He presented these two scenarios in two different ways. The first included non-recurring capital gains and the second did not:

Includes Capital Gains/Losses

	2017	2018	2019	2020
Scenario A	$431,000	$560,000	$347,000	$280,000
Scenario C	$426,000	$556,000	$346,000	$280,000

Excludes Capital Gains/Losses

	2017	2018	2019	2020
Scenario A	$427,000	$560,000	$347,000	$247,000
Scenario C	$422,000	$556,000	$346,000	$247,000

[102] Mr. Mak provided no opinion on Christine’s income from 2021 forward.

[103] Mr. Mak summarized that the main differences between his opinion and Ms. White’s opinion are threefold. First, Ms. White’s calculations do not include any cash sales by Christine’s company, which would affect pre-tax corporate income. Second, he disagrees with the percentage of personal use allocated by Ms. White to certain expenses, which would affect the amount gross-up.

[104] Thirdly, when considering the income of THIG and TCIG, Mr. Mak took into account normalization adjustments for both reported and unreported sales and for the expenses. In his evidence, Mr. Mak confirmed that the income and expense adjustments he made in his valuations of THIG and TCIG would flow through to his evaluations of each party’s income. Mr. Mak confirmed that if the Court does not accept his adjustments to income and expenses used in the corporate valuation, they could not be used to determine Christine’s income.

Court’s Analysis

[105] In determining Christine’s income, I will start with my earlier finding that Mr. Mak’s valuations of THIG and TCIG were not accepted by the Court. For that reason, his attribution of income for Christine from her businesses could not be added. As indicated earlier, even if the proven unrecorded cash sales were included, it had no impact on Ms. White’s views of the companies’ income. As a result, it would have no impact on her analysis of Christine’s income.

[106] Secondly, with respect to the percentage of personal use for the discretionary expenses, Mr. Mak admitted that he had no evidentiary basis for his assumption that 50% of the expenses were personal. He made an assumption and calculated the expenses accordingly. By contrast, Ms. White indicated that she picked 15% after speaking directly to Christine about the nature of these expenses. Her use of 15% was not based on an assumption, but rather on information directly from the person who controlled those expenses. Accordingly, 15% will be used, leaving only Scenario C of Mr. Mak’s analysis to consider.

[107] With respect to non-recurring capital gains or losses, I see no reason why these should not be included in both Christine’s income and Michael’s income. It was income that was available to them in that year. I will not include, though, the rental income that was ascribed to Christine but which she did not receive.

[108] Given that I have not accepted Mr. Mak’s normalization of corporate income on the facts of this case, I am left with Ms. White’s opinion, which I accept as the appropriate method of calculating income for Christine.

[109] Accordingly, since I am including non-recurring loses and gains, but not income that Christine did not receive, I find that Christine’s income is as specified in Scenario Two for 2018 and 2019, and as specified in Scenario One for the remaining years. In particular, for 2018: $91,000; for 2019: $167,000; for 2020: $117,000; for 2021: $206,000; for 2022: $354,000.

b. Michael’s Income

[110] Prior to and during the operation of PP, PRG and then THIG and TCIG, Michael was an account manager with Rogers Wireless from September 2008 to September 2009. He then worked for Fibernetics from October 2009 until August 2019 until he took a leave. During the time he was at Fibernetics, he held various positions, such as the Manager of Channel Partnership & Sales. He was also Director of Sales at Newt Hosted Pbx Sales, GTA Enterprise and Mid-Market Sales. His continued to be paid until November 2019, thereafter receiving employment insurance benefits.

[111] Michael continued to receive these employment insurance benefits for approximately eleven months, following which his employment with Fibernetics was officially terminated on October 2, 2020. At that time, Michael received $172,698.00 in severance which was paid over 18 months, ending in April, 2022. He also received CERB benefits in 2020 and 2021. In April 2022, Michael started a new job as an account executive at Rogers Communications, where he remains as of the trial.

Mr. Mak’s Analysis

[112] As with Christine, Mr. Mak started with what was reported on line 15000 of each party’s income tax return. He then made adjustments for things such as investment income, taking into account taxable versus actual dividends and capital gains. He also took into account attribution of corporate income for the corporations controlled by Michael, which were 467, PP, 2336445 Ontario Inc. (“445”), PRG and 10775452 Canada Corporation (“452”). He also took note that Michael owned 50% of 1937469 Ontario Inc. (“469”).

[113] He also took into account personal benefits that have been received by each individual but not recorded as such for tax purposes.

[114] In 2019, Mr. Mak noted a business loss of approximately $251,000, mostly from Michael’s day trading. More notably in 2021, Michael suffered a business loss of $1,495,625 in 2021 from day trading. Mr. Mak accounted for these losses only in the year they were incurred. This resulted in a negative income for 2019 and 2021.

[115] For Michael, he set forth two scenarios, a high and a low scenario. The high scenario contemplates the inclusion of non-recurring capital gains and losses, while the low scenario excludes them.

[116] After conducting his analysis, Mr. Mak has found the following income for Michael:

	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
High (including cap. gains)	$356,000	-$18,000	$146,000	-$1,395,000	$294,000
Low (excluding cap gains)	$245,000	-$19,000	$146,000	-$1,396,000	$136,000

[117] Through Ms. White’s critique of Mr. Mak’s opinion, and through cross-examination, a number of facts were highlighted which Mr. Mak agrees would affect his opinion. One of Mr. Mak’s most significant statements at trial was that he was not provided with any information regarding the financial activity of 469, PP, PRG, 445 and 452, after 2020. As a result, he could provide no opinion as to whether any of these companies in which Michael has a complete or at least 50% ownership interest earned any income which could be attributed to him.

Ms. White’s Analysis

[118] Ms. White’s evidence highlighted several difficulties, but I will discuss only the most significant.

i. 467

[119] Michael owns 100% of 467. At one time 467 owned Matheson and as of 2020 owned another vacation property located at 171 Snowbridge Way, Unit 28, The Blue Mountains, Ontario (“Snowbridge”). The parties also agree that Michael engaged in day trading after separation through this company.

[120] In 2019, 467 reported $1,161,000 from the sale of securities, but also corresponding costs of $1,402,000, resulting in $241,000 trading loss. No explanation is given for the original source of these funds. These losses are attributed to Michael in 2019 by Mr. Mak.

[121] Despite this attribution of losses, Mr. Mak admitted that he has no specific knowledge of how Michael funded his trading losses in 2019 as no trading reports were produced by Michael. He made an assumption that they were realized losses. That being said, Mak agreed that the accounting method noted on Michael’s tax returns for 2019 was “accrual” accounting, so it is possible that the gains and losses may include unrealized gains and losses, and may have been realized in the weeks or months that followed, in the next fiscal year. In other words, it is not clear if Michael actually funded these losses and if it as during that fiscal year. Insufficient disclosure was provided to explain it.

[122] Despite these losses, Michael continued to day trade. On his 2021 Statement of Business or Professional Activities, Michael showed a net loss of $1,495,624.72 in 2021. This loss, plus an additional loss suffered in 2022 of $160,332, amount to approximately $1.65 million in business losses, almost exclusively caused by Michael’s day trading.

[123] As is permitted by Revenue Canada, Michael requested that he carry back these losses for 2018 to 2022, and Notices of Reassessment for these years have been issued. Michael has utilized approximately $752,000 of his losses. That has translated into tax refunds of approximately $275,000.

[124] Michael has another $904,000 in losses that can be applied against his income going forward. Using the same rate of historical saving that Michael actually received in 2018 to 2022 (36.6%), and carrying it forward for the next several years, Ms. White estimates that Michael will receive another $330,611 in tax savings in the coming years.

[125] Accordingly, Mr. Mak’s application of all of Michael’s business losses to one year does not accurately reflect Michael’s income for support purposes over the period of review. By earning income “tax-free” from 2018, Michael is essentially exempt from taxes for a period of time, which is a scenario contemplated by s.19(1)(b) of the CSG. This approach has also been followed in Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2015 ONSC 1408, 57 R.F.L. (7th) 402, at para. 36, where Justice Penny indicated that the court may gross up income for a spouse in any case where they are exempt from paying income tax.

[126] In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to impute additional income to Michael for that portion of his net income which is tax free by grossing it up to reflect a pre-tax income that would result in the same amount had he been taxed in the normal course.

[127] In addition, the evidence at trial was clear that 467 sold Matheson on September 3, 2019, which would be reflected in 467’s 2020 year end financial statements. Mr. Mak stated that he only received the profit and loss statements for 467 for 2016, 2017 and 2018. He had no knowledge of whether 467 had a capital gain or how it was reported. This income should be attributed in some manner to Michael, but without the appropriate disclosure, I am left to draw an adverse inference: s.23, CSG.

[128] Mr. Mak also concedes that the only information that he had about the personal nature of the expenses claimed by 467 was the information he received from Michael. Michael advised him that the personal component of 467’s expenses were $6,500 per year, consistently. As a result, Mr. Mak deducted any legal fees for Michael’s matrimonial proceedings, plus an additional $6,500 per year. Ms. White indicates that $6,500 per year does not seem realistic considering that he claimed over $10,000 for printing and approximately $15,000 in “administration and general” in some years.

[129] The evidence also indicates that Snowbridge was purchased for $593,000 in the 2020 fiscal year. 467 owns 50% of Snowbridge, and the other 50% was purchased by 10995690 Canada Inc. (“690”). I note from Michael’s financial statement sworn April 11, 2023, that 690 was purchased by 467 on June 5, 2020. In March 2023, 467 placed a mortgage on that property for the sum of $560,000 and there is no information as to what happened to those funds. Given the lack of financial disclosure for 467 from 2020 onwards, there is no way of knowing whether this is an income property, whether the proceeds of the mortgage were invested and earned income or used to buy another property, or if this property should be considered at all when determining Michael’s income. Again, I am left only with drawing an adverse inference that he did earn some income from Snowbridge, given Michael’s lack of financial disclosure

ii. 469

[130] The parties agree that 469, of which Michael has a 50% interest, owned a rental cottage located at 74 Wendake Road, Tiny, Ontario (“Wendake”). There is also evidence that it was sold in 2020 for $614,250, which was part of the 2021 fiscal year end for 469. Despite that, no capital gain was noted by Mr. Mak. He did not update his report despite being later advised of the sale. Mr. Mak stated that because Michael only owns 50% of 469, Michael did not have control of the corporation, and thus any income from the corporation should not be attributed to him.

[131] At trial, Michael gave evidence that when he sold the property, he and the other owner repaid a number of shareholder loans and they both took $160,000 from the proceeds in 2021. He and his partner have an ongoing dispute regarding the remaining proceeds of the sale, and therefore they remain in trust with another lawyer. I have no evidence as to what sum remains. In these circumstances, Mr. Mak indicated that if the proceeds were a return on capital or a return of a loan, it would not be income. However, if it was a distribution of a profit, it should be income to Michael. I am entitled to draw an adverse inference that this was income that was attributable to Michael. Since $160,000 was distributed, I find that it should be considered income for that year.

Court’s Analysis

[132] As indicated in my analysis of Christine’s income, I see no reason to not include non-recurring capital gains and losses in my analysis, especially with respect to Michael. His income properties appear to be one of his many avenues to income. Throughout the marriage and after, he not only maintained employment outside of the various companies, he also bought and sold vacation or rental properties, and day traded.

[133] With respect to Michael’s income in 2018, his total income on his tax return stated $308,820. After making the usual adjustments as per Schedule III of the CSG, it increased to $364,495. He then adjusted it further by attributing the various losses suffered by Michael through 467, 519, and 445, offset by a small gain by 469. This resulted in Michael’s income being $303,757. I note that when analyzing Christine’s income, if a net loss was suffered by THIG and TCIG together, Ms. White did not reduce Christine’s income.

[134] Mr. Mak then added back in personal expenses that were charged to 467 of $32,789, which he grossed up to $52,000. The DivorceMate software also grosses this up, based on Michael’s actual income as imputed. Accordingly, I will rely on the software. Then, I must consider that Michael successfully applied to have his business losses applied against his declared net income for that year. It would be improper to gross up the entire $303,757, as he was not taxed on that full amount. His declared net income was only $246,934, so that sum should be grossed up by the DivorceMate software. The remaining $56,641 should be considered regular income. Together with the improper deductions of $32,789, Michael’s income is the equivalent of $612,139 in income for support purposes in 2018.

[135] With respect to 2019, Michael started with employment income of approximately $151,000. After making the CSG Schedule III adjustments, attributing some losses from companies other than 467, and setting aside $66,674 in personal expense deductions (which I will calculate separately), the result is an income of $138,088. After the application of his business losses, the sum of $114,927, being his declared net income, was earned tax free. Accordingly, this sum must be grossed up. The remaining income is considered in the normal course. The result is income for support purposes for 2019 is $349,530.

[136] For 2020, Michael’s income as stated on his tax return, plus Schedule III adjustments (not including 467 losses) shows that his income was $104,121. He applied his business losses to his declared net income of $71,817. From his deducted expenses, Michael indicated that $39,326 were personal. They will be added to Michael’s income, but I will allow the DivorceMate software to gross them up. Michael’s total income for support purposes in 2020 is therefore $214,985.

[137] As for the proceeds of Matheson, I have no disclosure from Michael as to how the proceeds were treated. I can see from an agreed upon valuation of 467 as of the date of separation that the value of that company was $76,042. Earlier financial statements in the trial record show that the value of the Matheson building alone was at $265,000 and later was valued at $66,000 (which I assume was the net of whatever encumbrances were registered against it). Assuming the usual fees surrounding any sale (5% commission on sale price and real estate legal fees), I find that Michael would have received approximately $60,000 from the sale of Matheson. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing if he had to pay property tax arrears or other encumbrances. Given that this income (or loss) would have been part of the reassessment that Revenue Canada performed when Michael carried back his losses, I will not add any additional income for the sale of Matheson.

[138] For 2021, Michael’s income before he claimed his business losses, was $131,542. After Schedule III adjustments, it was reduced to $89,706. He applied all his losses at that time, thereby making this income tax free. That should be grossed up. The personal expenses of $6,500 will be grossed up by the DivorceMate software.

[139] At trial, Michael stated that he received $160,000 that same year, through 469, when he sold Wendake. Mr. Mak did not have that information when he prepared his report, so it wasn’t factored into his income. That should be added to his income through corporate attribution. Assuming that this was, or will be, taxed through 469, which is not subject to the business losses, I will not gross it up for the purposes of Michael’s income that year. The result is that Michael’s total income in 2021, for the purposes of support calculations, is $357,515.

[140] Finally, with respect to 2022, Michael’s employment income was $175,610. After Schedule III adjustments (excluding 469 losses) there was an additional $78,840 in income. Mr. Mak also included $6,500 in personal expenses. Michael then applied his business losses, making his net income of $155,044 tax free. The Schedule III adjustments, though, were not part of his income tax return and thus were not impacted by the business loss, and they should not be grossed up. Accordingly, Michael’s income for support purposes for 2022 is $421,824.

[141] Christine has argued that Michael remained underemployed for a period of time after separation and that income should be imputed. I disagree.

[142] From the date of separation until he was terminated in October 2020, Michael was employed by Fibernetics. While he did take a leave, that was explained by Dr. Philips, who testified at trial. In 2019, Dr. Philips diagnosed Michael with major depressive disorder. In 2021, he noted that Michael had an adjustment disorder with an anxious and depressed mood. He treated Michael with anti-depressant mediations. Michael took the medications on and off for a few years. Dr. Philips agreed that at no time did he indicate that Michael was unable to work, but he did believe that during this period of treatment his capacity to work was compromised. If he did return to work, there would have to be accommodations. He believed Michael’s prognosis to be good.

[143] Michael received a severance which was payable until April 2022. He also received employment benefits and CERB payments. He became employed again in his area of experience as of April 2022. He has remained there since. During his period of unemployment, he gave evidence about his efforts to find employment.

[144] Most at issue was the time that Michael was not working but instead chose to earn money by day trading. As earlier indicated, that did not go well. There was never a time though, when Michael earned no income, whether through his properties or through various benefits. I have already imputed income to him as a result of his tax-free earnings during those years. In these circumstances, I do not find it appropriate to impute any further income to him.

[145] Accordingly, by way of summary, I find Michael’s income to be for 2018: $612,139; for 2019: $349,530; for 2020: $214,985; for 2021: $357,515; for 2022: $421,824.

c. Retroactive Child Support

[146] The parties agree that both children were dependant children of the marriage throughout this time.

[147] Their daughter has remained at home with Christine while she has pursued her university degree. She is currently in her third year and expects to spend six years in university in order to become a teacher.

[148] Their son has just started post-secondary school. He also continued to live primarily with Christine at first. It is agreed that he now spends half his time with Michael, although the parties dispute when that started. At first, Michael maintained that their son started spending more than 40% of his time with him as of July and was fully 50% with him by September. In cross-examination, he admitted that their son did not reside with him over 40% of the time in July and August, and thus maintains now that their son started dividing his time between the parents as of September 2021. By contrast, Christine maintains that their son did not start residing equally with the parties until the end of November 2021, when she moved into her new home.

[149] In support of his position, Michael relies on the chart he kept. He agrees that the entries on the chart for August 2021 are false. He also relies on five emails that he sent to Christine’s lawyer in October wherein he maintains that their son is with him at least six nights, followed by eight nights with Christine. He was requesting a change in child support as a result.

[150] Christine relies on her own records as well. Her first note that her daughter drove her son to school was in December 2021. She also relies on the medical notes of Michael’s psychiatrist Dr. Philips. In his notes on December 14, 2021, Dr. Philips writes that Michael indicated that his relationship with his son is improving and that his son stays with him at least once per week. In cross-examination, Dr. Philips confirmed that his note reflects what Michael said to him.

[151] With respect to this issue, I find that H.D. did not start living equally with both parents until December 2021 for several reasons. First, Dr. Philips’s notes and testimony are evidence of an independent witness. While he is Michael’s psychiatrist, he has no interest in who should be paying child support to whom, and in fact it does not appear that this was ever discussed with Michael.

[152] Also, Michael has shown himself to not be credible in these proceedings. For example, his position that he was not involved in the operations of THIG and TCIG, despite all evidence to the contrary by other witnesses. He maintained that position despite acknowledging that an earlier affidavit in the proceedings, where he swore he ran the businesses entirely.

[153] As indicated earlier, his evidence changed frequently in trial. He would indicate one thing while being examined in chief, and then change his evidence entirely under cross-examination. His evidence changed to support whatever argument he was making at the time. He gave a great deal of evidence about why he thought TCIG and THIG were so profitable, and how he was solely involved in collecting and hiding the cash he received from clients. He was knowledgeable enough about THIG and TCIG to know how these cash proceeds were or were not included in the books and records of THIG and TCIG. But when it was more advantageous for him to say he knew nothing about how the businesses were run, he did not hesitate to state that under oath as well.

[154] One of the more striking admissions by Michael (which will be addressed below in further detail) is that Michael kept the “thig.ca” domain after he walked away from the company. He admitted he had access to all of Christine’s email communications, including those to her solicitor and the expert she hired for the trial. He printed what he thought was helpful. He agreed that during this time, he was the only person that could create new ‘thig.ca” email addresses, and that he could delete email addresses. He could stop the entire “thig” domain whenever he wanted. He further admitted that he would not have access to Christine’s emails unless he changed the password. He admitted that he then changed the password so he could have access to all of Christine’s communications, including those covered by solicitor and client privilege. He never told anyone he had this access until approximately July 2023, just months before the trial started.

[155] Accordingly, for the purposes of ongoing table child support, Michael should pay Christine for the support of two children form the date of separation until the end of November 2021. Thereafter, starting December 1, 2021, Michael will pay for the support of two children, but this will be offset by Christine’s support of one child.

[156] For the purposes of calculating Michael’s income for 2023, I have no expert opinion evidence on that year. I do have Michael’s financial statement sworn August 7, 2023, where he discloses his employment income, other income and rental income, which is the equivalent of $133,231 per year. That will be grossed up. In light of this, I find that the most appropriate method to determine Michael’s income for 2023 is to average the last three years, as per s.17(1) of the CSG. In averaging his income though, I will not include the proceeds from Wendake, as this will not recur again. This will result in Michael’s 2023 income to be $255,986. This averaging of income will have to be revisited when Michael can prove that he has no more business losses to carry forward.

[157] As for Christine’s income for 2023, she has estimated it to be $103,000. Given her previous year’s income, I have difficulty believing that she would only earn one-third of what she earned in 2022. In her sworn financial statement dated July 28, 2023, she indicated that her monthly income was $6,995.07 plus adjustments of approximately $24,000. Her yearly income is estimated at $375,000, not including spousal support. It is not known what those various adjustments are for and if they will reoccur. Accordingly, I will treat her 2023 income in the same manner as for Michael, by averaging the previous three years, finding her 2023 income to be $225,667.

[158] On May 15, 2021, Justice Shaw made the first interim order regarding child support. Michael was ordered to pay $2,317 per month in child support and $387 per month in spousal support. He was also ordered to pay 65% of the children’s section 7 expenses.

[159] Given my findings of the parties’ income on a final basis, these payments must be adjusted. I make the assumption that the child support has been paid as of June 1, 2021, and the parties can make the adjustments if that is necessary. I will divide up 2021 into three periods: the period before the support was payable, the period after the order of May 15, 2021, and the period when the parties’ son started living with both parties. Accordingly, the outstanding child support that is owing by Michael from the date of separation until the end of 2023 is $186,730. The DivorceMate Calculations are found at Schedule “B”. My calculations of arrears are found attached as Schedule “C”.

d. Ongoing Child Support Payments

[160] The parties agree that both children remain dependant children of the marriage. Their daughter continues to reside primarily with Christine and H.D. divides his time between the homes.

[161] Based on the incomes I have found for 2023 herein, commencing January 1, 2024 Michael shall pay child support for the two children of the marriage, based on his income of $255,986, in the monthly amount of $3,349. Christine shall pay child support for one child of the marriage, based on her income of $225,667, in the monthly amount of $1,844. Accordingly, Michael shall pay a set-off amount of $1,505 per month.

e. Retroactive Section 7 Expenses

[162] In the Agreed Statement of Facts, the parties agree that their son’s special or extraordinary expenses consist of his school fees and hockey. Now that has started post-secondary school at the University of Guelph, the parties agree that their son’s expenses will include post-secondary school expenses and his vehicle costs. Also, both parties agree that their daughter will continue to have post-secondary school expenses while she commutes to York University. Justice Shaw’s order of May 15, 2021 states that their daughter’s post-secondary school expenses include her car expenses. They also include extra-curricular activities for both children.

[163] As a result of the enforcement of Justice Shaw’s order, and then the order of Justice Agarwal, dated August 25, 2022, Michael was ordered to pay the sum of $11,979.50 to bring up to date on all his section 7 expenses prior to August 2022. In fact, the parties acknowledge that Michael has paid the sum of $12,527.50 in section 7 extraordinary expenses since separation.

[164] Accordingly, the s.7 claims at trial are for those expenses incurred for the period of August 2022 to trial.

Expenses for M.D. & Son

[165] Christine has claimed gas and vehicle expenses for both children. They both live at home and travel to university, a significant savings for their parents. Both parties agree that these are appropriate s.7 expenses, except that Michael indicated that he should not have to pay for his daughter’s insurance until she puts the correct address on her policy. I reject this condition. It has nothing to do with whether these expenses were incurred. Accordingly, Michael shall pay his proportionate share of the children’s vehicle expenses, which have been shown to total $2,946.81 in 2022 and $12,215.65 in 2023.

[166] Christine also claimed gym memberships for both children. This is not an appropriate section 7 expense. Section 7 of the CSG defines what type of expense is extraordinary in s.7(1.1) as “expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse's income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table”. Christine is claiming approximately $20 per month. This is not extraordinary as contemplated by the CSG. That can be paid from her monthly child support payments. In addition, now that both children are in post-secondary education, they may have gyms available to them at their university as part of their student fees. Michael should be not required to contribute to two gym memberships at the same time, if at all.

[167] Also, Christine has claimed the cost of an accountant to prepare her children’s tax returns. I do not find that is a s.7 expense contemplated by the CSG.

[168] Christine has claimed the yearly costs of storing the children’s cord blood. It costs approximately $170 per year for each child. Michael is not agreeable to this being a section 7 expense. I find this to be an appropriate medical expense as contemplated by the CSG. This was a decision the parties made while together in order to preserve a possible future treatment for their children in the event they become gravelly ill. This expense was also considered in N.C. v. C.H., 2022 ONSC 7142, at para. 17, where Justice Mandhane found the storage of cord blood to be an appropriate s.7 expense.

[169] This expense totaled $163.21 in 2022 and $335.80 in 2023.

Expenses for H.D.

[170] Christine has claimed tutoring costs, online courses as well as extra expenses associated with his application to university and his high school graduation. These are appropriate s.7 expenses. They total $1,265 in 2022 and $2,228 in 2023. I have not included the minor $12 expense of an awards banquet.

[171] Christine has also claimed various hockey expenses, which the parties agree are appropriate. Excluding the minor $5 expenses associated with a championship, I find these expenses totalled $396 in 2023 and $535 in 2022.

[172] Christine has claimed Spotify subscriptions. Again, that is not an appropriate expense. If Christine wishes to provide that service, it can come out of her regular child support payments.

[173] Finally, Christine has claimed car insurance for her son. The parties agree that is an appropriate expense. His insurance costs totalled $1,080 in 2022 and $1,080 in 2023.

Michael’s Claims

[174] Michael has claimed contribution towards H.D.’s hockey skates in the sum of $214.69 in 2021. He should be credited for Christine’s proportionate share.

Amounts to Be Paid

[175] Based in the incomes that I found Michael and Christine to have earned in 2022 and 2023, their proportionate share is different each year. In 2022, Christine should pay 46% of all section 7 expenses and Michael should pay 54%. In 2023, Christine should pay 47% and Michael 53%. For 2021, for Michael’s claim, Christine is required to pay 37%.

[176] Michael has argued that the educational expenses should come from the savings for the children’s education before he is required to pay anything. I have no evidence of the amount that remains, but it makes sense that these savings be used for the large expenses, such as tuition. I also agree with Christine’s submission that a monthly budget would make sense for the months the children are in school.

[177] Based on all the amounts I have allowed, and reducing the amount that Christine owes for H.D.’s hockey skates, the total amount Michael should pay to Christine for retroactive section 7 expenses from August 1, 2022 to August 30, 2023 is $11,770.56.

f. Ongoing Section 7 Expenses

[178] To their credit, the parties had saved for the children’s education, and those funds should be used appropriately before the parties are asked to supplement the expense.

[179] As indicated above, Michael wants all expenses related to the children’s education, such as vehicle expenses, to come from their savings before he is required to contribute. As indicated above, the savings should be saved for the larger expenses, such as tuition.

[180] Also, to her credit, the daughter has continued to work and contribute towards her own expenses as well. Accordingly, once the savings have been depleted and a reasonable portion of the children’s earnings have been applied, the remaining expenses should be paid proportionately.

[181] I agree that a monthly budget for transportation expenses makes sense for the months that the children are in school. Christine has suggested the sum of $750 per month. I agree that the vehicle expenses equate to roughly $750 per month, but these should only be for the 8 months the children are in school. To be consistent, the total amount of $6000 spread out over 12 months is $500 per month. Given that their current income is almost the same, this sum should be paid equally by the parties, being $250 each per month.

[182] If the children need continued tutoring, this is also an appropriate expense. Christine has suggested a cap of $250 per month, even if their son exceeds it. His share of this would be 50%, or a maximum of $125 per month. The children should also avail themselves of the resources available to them through their university, and that which is part of their school fees.

g. Retroactive Spousal Support

[183] Both Christine and Michael have made a claim for spousal support in this Application.

[184] On May 15, 2021, Christine brought a motion for interim support. In addition to child support, Justice Shaw also ordered that Michael pay $387 to Christine for spousal support. Christine would like that adjusted now that Michael’s income has been determined. During the trial, Christine indicated that she was withdrawing her claim for ongoing spousal support. She is content that her spousal support be terminated as of October 1, 2023.

[185] Michael would like both retroactive spousal support and ongoing spousal support.

The Law on Spousal Support

[186] My authority to award support on an interim or final basis is set out in s.15.2 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp.). The factors that I must consider are set out in ss.15.2(4) and the objectives are set out in ss.15.2(6). Given the facts of this case, the most pertinent objectives are as follows:

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

[187] The purpose of interim spousal support orders is to establish or maintain a reasonable state of affairs pending trial. They are without prejudice to adjustment by the trial judge: Lokhandwala v. Khan 2019 ONSC 6346 (Div.Crt.) at para. 5.

[188] In Damaschin-Zamfirescu v. Damaschin-Zamfirescu, 2012 ONSC 6689 at para. 24, Justice Chappel sets out the general principles that apply when dealing with motions for temporary spousal support. In Driscoll v. Driscoll, 2009 CanLII 66373 (Ont. S.C.), Justice Lemon adopted the principles for temporary spousal support as set out in the British Columbia case of Robles v. Kohn, 2009 BCSC 1163. From both cases, the most applicable factors to be considered on the facts before me are:

a. The primary goal of interim spousal support is to provide income for dependent spouses from the time the proceedings are commenced until the trial. Interim support is meant to be in the nature of a “holding order” to, insomuch as possible, maintain the accustomed lifestyle pending trial.

b. Assuming that a triable case exists, interim support is to be based primarily on the motion judge’s assessment of the parties’ means and needs. The objective of encouraging self sufficiency is of less importance.

c. An interim support order should be sufficient to allow the applicant to continue living at the same standard of living enjoyed prior to separation if the payor's ability to pay warrants it;

d. On interim support applications the court does not embark on an in-depth analysis of the parties' circumstances which is better left to trial. The court achieves rough justice at best; and

e. Interim support should be ordered within the range suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise.

[189] With respect to a final spousal support order, the appropriate principles to consider were recently explained by Kurz J. in the decision of R.L. v. M.F. 2023 ONSC 2885 and by Chappel J. in A.E. v A.E. 2021 ONSC 8189 at para. 451-475. I will highlight the salient points that apply to the facts before me.

[190] Whatever the respective advantages to the parties of a marriage in other areas, my focus, when assessing spousal support after the marriage has ended, must be the effect of the marriage in either impairing or improving each party’s economic prospects. This recognizes that marriage is, among other things, an economic unit which generates financial benefits. The spouses should expect and are entitled to share those financial benefits: Moge v Moge 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 (S.C.C.) at pp. 848-849.

[191] There are three conceptual bases for spousal support: (1) compensatory, (2) non-compensatory, and (3) contractual: Bracklow v. Bracklow 1999 CanLII 715 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420 at para. 15. There is no contractual basis to order spousal support in this case.

[192] Compensatory support is based on the notion that some or all of a spouse’s entitlement to support may arise out of his or her contributions to the other spouse during their relationship. That contribution may arise out of the roles that the parties assumed. This can include conferring an advantage on one party by allowing them to enhance their career, or conferring a disadvantage to the other, such as a spouse who gives up their career or delays their career to assume a caregiving role for the children. This type of spousal support recognizes that upon the breakdown of a relationship, there should be an equitable distribution between the parties of the economic consequences of the marriage: R.L. at 253-255; at A.E. para 464.

[193] Non-compensatory support is based on need and the ability to pay. This claim arises out of the relationship itself and the mutual financial interdependence that arises from that relationship. It is founded on the claimant spouse’s economic need alone at the time of separation, even if that need is unconnected to any disadvantage arising form the relationship: A.E. at para. 466; R.L. at para. 257.

Analysis

[194] I find on these facts, that Christine is entitled to interim spousal support but that Michael is not.

[195] Prior to her marriage, Christine worked as a manager at Brown's Shoes. She worked during the marriage as a retail management executive but took a maternity leave of one year and three months after the birth of both her children.

[196] As indicated, the family decided that Christine should leave her employment and join PRG in 2014. When she left outside employment, she was earning $91,178 per year. Had she remained, she could have expected her salary to increase. She earned significantly less at PRG. In fact, both Ms. White and Mr. Mak opined that she continued to earn below average income at THIG and TCIG for the work she performed.

[197] When the marriage broke down, Michael walked out on THIG and TCIG. He was an integral part of that business, and for the most part, simply left it to her to figure out. Their long-time bookkeeper Ms. Frank had just resigned. Shortly thereafter, most of her sales force left. Most importantly, Christine discovered that Michael had emptied the company bank accounts (he had signing authority at the bank), leaving only enough to cover two payrolls. She subsequently learned that he had drawn down the home equity line of credit, retaining almost $500,000. He also emptied the children’s bank accounts. It came to light at trial that for all the unreported cash sales for THIG and TCIG, he retained the cash for himself, and distributed to his family as he felt appropriate. This all may explain why he was able to purchase a new home only a few months after separation, which had no mortgage. I am satisfied on the evidence that Christine has shown a need for interim spousal support.

[198] On the other hand, Michael did not suffer in the same way immediately after separation. As indicated, he had already taken for himself significant equity from the matrimonial home and the businesses. He immediately purchased a new home, without a mortgage. He somehow availed himself of enough cash that he was able to day trade and lost over $1.5 million in the years that followed. We also know that Michael was able to utilize these losses and apply them back for three years and will continue to be able to apply them forward for many years. Michael will be able to earn income tax-free for several years to come. He has already received significant tax refunds prior to trial, totalling approximately $275,000, which are themselves tax free. He maintained ownership of Matheson for several years post-separation. He was able to buy Snowbridge. He may have some more funds coming to him when he resolves the outstanding dispute over Wendake.

[199] Accordingly, I find that Michael has not shown that he is entitled to interim spousal support. There is also something inequitable about rewarding him financially for his foolhardy investment of his family’s wealth by day trading immediately after separation. If he found himself cash strapped during this period, he has only himself to blame.

[200] As for ongoing spousal support, I agree that an ongoing claim by Christine is no longer appropriate. She has indicated that she is not seeking any support after October 1, 2023.

[201] Likewise, I do not find that Michael is entitled to ongoing support on a compensatory or non-compensatory basis. During his evidence at trial, Michael indicated that he is earning much more now than when he first was married. His income shows that because of his business losses, he takes home about the sme income that Christine currently does.

[202] Also, at no time during the marriage, did he make any sacrifices that would impact his economic position now. It was Christine who quit her job; it was Christine who took maternity leaves. With the exception of a short period of time where Michael was on a leave and collecting employment insurance benefits or CERB, he has otherwise continued his employment outside of THIG and TCIG.

[203] Accordingly, I see no reason that Michael should be entitled to retroactive spousal support. Even if I had found entitlement, the SSAG calculations would not show anything owing.

Quantum

[204] With respect to what remains owing to Christine up to trial, she has indicated that she is not seeking any retroactive spousal support from the date of separation until December 1, 2019.

[205] Schedule “B” shows the SSAG calculations for 2019 to 2023, using the income I have determined is appropriate.

[206] For 2019, Michael should have been paying $1,893 as a mid-range. That means he owes $1,893 for December 2019.

[207] For 2020, Michael should have been paying mid-range support at $1,128 per month. He therefore owes $13,536 for all of 2020.

[208] For 2021, Michael should have been paying mid-range support at $1,420 per month. This includes December, when H.D. started residing with him as well as Christine. Michael only started paying $387 per month in June. Accordingly, he owes $14,331 for all of 2021.

[209] For 2022, the SSAG shows no support payable by Michael. As a result, he overpaid $387 per month. He therefore is owed a credit of $4,644 for 2022.

[210] For 2023, Michael should have only paid $116 each month, but he paid $387. Accordingly, he should get a credit for $271 per month until October 1, 2023 (being when Christine indicated she did not seek ongoing spousal support), for a total of $2,439. Spousal support shall stop thereafter. Thereafter, any spousal support that was paid will have to be credited back to Michael.

[211] Accordingly, the total arrears in spousal support owed by Michel to Christine, from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023 are $21,515. My calculations are attached as Schedule “D”.

C. Post-Separation Adjustments

[212] There are a number of adjustments that need to be made to the amounts ordered.

Proceeds of Matrimonial Home

[213] When the matrimonial home was sold, the parties were notionally to receive $870,524 each. We know though, that just before separation, Michael withdrew significant funds from the HELOC, and took money from the savings accounts earmarked for the children. On July 12, 2018, Justice Andre ordered that Michael be ultimately responsible for that sum, and any interest that was payable on it. Upon the sale, Michael did solely pay back that amount from his share, plus a further sum of $35,000 to Christine from his share, to be credited towards any support arrears.

[214] Christine maintains that in the end, she received $3,524.22 less than what she was supposed to get from the proceeds. This was not contested by Michael.

Interest on Home Line of Credit

[215] As indicated, Michael was responsible for the interest paid on the home equity line of credit due to his withdrawal, until the matrimonial home was sold. Christine provided the statements showing the interest that was paid on this amount from the time Michael withdrew the money (over a number of withdrawals) until the house closed in March 2021. The total interest paid was $60,128.50.

[216] Michael conceded that he should pay the interest that was charged after separation, in the sum of $52,500, but did not believe he should pay for the interest prior to separation. Unfortunately, the wording of the order of Justice Andre is clear. It states, “The Respondent Father shall be fully responsible for the interest accumulated on the TD Bank joint line of credit, beginning on June 28, 2017 and continuing until the Respondent returns the funds to the joint line of credit.” It was not paid off until the matrimonial home was sold. Accordingly, Michael must pay an additional $60,128.50 to Christine.

Rental Income from Tranquility Property

[217] On the date of separation, Christine and Michael owned a cottage rental property at 8 Tranquility Avenue, in Tiny, Ontario (“Tranquility”). Although she reported rental income on her tax returns in relation to Tranquility, she in fact never received it. Michael agreed at trial that Christine was entitled to one-half of the funds they collected in the bank account earmarked for Tranquility.

[218] In a way, this sum has already been accounted for. Ms. White, when preparing her income analysis of Christine’s income, was advised that Christine did not receive this sum. She reduced Christine’s income accordingly, for those years. Christine’s income was therefore lower, and her entitlement to spousal support was higher.

[219] Accordingly, I will not make this adjustment, as it would change the income analysis unnecessarily.

Withdrawals from Joint RBC Account Post-Separation

[220] Christine gave evidence that after separation, Michael withdrew the contents of a joint account. Half of that amount, namely $1,220.42, was hers and should be returned to her from Michael. No documentation was provided to support this claim. Michael did not give any evidence on the matter. Accordingly, I will make no adjustment on this issue.

RBC Loyalty Points

[221] Christine gave evidence that on April 6, 2018, just after separation, there were 611,801 loyal points on the RBC Avion Statement, and by the next statement, they were gone. Michael conceded that he took these points. Christine valued them at $3,059. She should be credited accordingly.

Money from the Children’s Account

[222] Michael admitted that he took money from his children’s accounts. It was Christine’s belief that Michael would return that money directly to his children. As of the date of the trial, he had paid back one-half only, but he indicated that he would return the rest. $4,930.54 remains owing to his son and $2,965.27 remains owing to his daughter.

Michael’s Contribution to the Matrimonial Home pre-Sale

[223] On December 2, 2019, Justice Shaw ordered that Michael maintain the status quo and continue to pay $9,500 per month towards the upkeep of the matrimonial home until it was sold on March 31, 2021. Justice Shaw allowed for adjustment at trial. He now seeks this credit.

[224] Michael and Christine have provided evidence of the costs of maintaining the matrimonial home between the date of separation until it was sold. Where there were any discrepancies (and they were minor) I chose the higher amount. These costs were:

Year	Mortgage	Taxes	Home Insurance	Total
2018	$35,700.00	$9,578.14	$202.68	$45,480.82
2019	$34,220.60	$9,806.65	$3,192.68	$47,219.93
2020	$14,588.84	$4,335.26		$18,924.10
2021		$7,995.42		$7,995.42
Total:				$119,620.27

[225] Clearly, the parties both are required to pay one-half of these sums or $59,810.14 each. From April 1, 2018 to March 1, 2021, a period of 35 months, this to a monthly expense each of $3,417.72, or $1,708.86 each. If Michael overpaid the monthly expense, he is entitled to an adjustment.

[226] The difficulty is that the parties do not agree on what Michael actually paid. Both parties attempted to summarize the money that Michael put in and took out of the joint account from which the household expenses were paid. Both Ms. Acocella and Michael submitted their own spreadsheet analyses. Both sets of calculations are confusing and difficult to sort out.

[227] I will divide my analysis up into the period prior to the Order of Shaw J. which I will end on December 31, 2019, and the period after until the house was sold.

[228] From the date of separation until December 31, 2019, Michael claims he deposited approximately $178,000, which is only approximately $3,000 more than indicated by Ms. Acocella. I will take the mid-point of $176,500. Both parties agree as well that there had to be some adjustments for the deposits and withdrawals related to the Tranquility property. Ms. Acocella and Michael both agree that anywhere between $30,000 and $40,000 was added to the joint account from the bank account that dealt with the Tranquility property. As both parties were owners of Tranquility, then one-half of these proceeds should be credited to Christine and one-half to Michael. Using the mid-point, that would be an additional deposit of $35,000, of which one-half, or $17,500 should be credited to Michael.

[229] Accordingly, approximately $194,000 was deposited to the joint account by Michael during this period. Over this 22 month period, that equates to approximately $8,800 per month. Given that the costs of maintaining the matrimonial home was 1,708.86 per month, Michael over paid approximately $7,000 per month. For that 22 month period, he is entitled to a credit of $154,000.

[230] After December 2, 2019, and until the matrimonial home closed, Michael only paid $9,500 each month towards the matrimonial home expenses, for January and February 2020 only. Thereafter, he deposited an additional $19,656 in 2020 and $7,900 in 2021 prior to the closing of the matrimonial home. In addition, he paid an additional $5,500 into the account during this same time period, from his personal line of credit. At the same time, he transferred $10,108 out of the account to his line of credit. So, in the period where he was to pay $9,500 per month, a period of 21 months on average, he only paid $41,949, which is averaged at approximately $2,000 per month. This was $300 more per month than was required, so he is entitled to a credit of $300 per month for 21 months, or $6,300.

[231] Accordingly, for the entirety of the post-separation up until the matrimonial home was sold, Michael is entitled to a credit of $160,300.

[232] Michael also claims for some adjustments after the matrimonial home was sold. These appear to coincide with his support payments, which I have already accounted for.

Refresh/Repairs to Matrimonial Home

[233] Michael paid for certain repairs or refresh for the matrimonial home. Christine acknowledges that she owes Michael for her share of those expenses. Christine acknowledges owing $2,658.95. This is an appropriate adjustment.

Insurance Proceeds

[234] Both parties agree that Christine lost her second wedding wing. She made a claim through their insurance and received $10,000. Michael retained it all. He agrees that one-half of that amount should be given to Christine.

Adjustment for Support Arrears

[235] As indicated, Michael paid Christine $35,000 from his share of the proceeds of the matrimonial home in 2021, to be credited towards his arrears. Accordingly, I will apply the sum of $35,000 earmarked as retroactive support as follows:

Item	Sum
	$35,000
Retroactive Spousal Support	$21,515
Retroactive s.7 Expenses	$11,770.44
Retroactive Child Support	$1,714.44
Remaining:	$0.00

[236] This will result in spousal support arrears and section 7 arrears, to the date of trial, being reduced to nil. It will also result in the child support arrears being reduced from $186,730 to $185,015.56 to reflect the reduction of $1,714.44.

Total Remaining Adjustments

[237] Based on the foregoing, I find that the following adjustments should be made to the amounts owing by either party:

a. The sum of $3,524.22 shall be paid by Michael to Christine regarding the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home;

b. The sum of $60,128,50 should be paid by Michael to Christine for interest on the home equity line of credit, as per the order of Andre J.;

c. The sum of $3,059 should be paid by Michael to Christine for the RBC loyal points;

d. The sum of $160,300 shall be paid by Christine to Michael for his overpayment of matrimonial home expenses;

e. The sum of $2,685.95 shall be paid by Christine to Michael for the expenses he incurred to repair and/or maintain the matrimonial home;

f. Michael shall pay to Christine the sum of $5,000, being her share of the insurance proceeds from the lost ring.

[238] The remaining adjustments, when totalled, result in a credit to Michael of $91,274.23.

D. Occupation Rent

[239] Michael seeks $85,968.75 in occupation rent. That is based on a monthly rate of $2,456.25 per month from the date of separation until the house was sold, a period of 35 months.

Law

[240] The issue of occupation rent was recently before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In that decision, it was made clear that an award for occupation rent must be reasonable but does not have to be exceptional: Nom Chhom v Green 2023 ONCA 692 at para. 8.

[241] The factors which I should consider when deciding if occupation rent is warranted is the timing of the claim, the duration of the other spouse’s occupancy, the inability of the non-resident spouse to realize their equity in the property, any reasonable credits to be set off against occupation rent, and any other competing claims: Griffiths v. Zambosco 2001 CanLII 24097 (Ont.C.A.) at para. 49, cited in Chhom.

[242] In Jasiobedzki v Jasiobedzka, 2023 ONCA 482, the Court of Appeal did not interfere with the trial judge’s finding that occupation rent for the husband was not necessary to render justice as between the parties. In that case, the trial judge found that the husband had not paid support during the period of the wife’s exclusive possession, he participated in the delay to sell the home and he profited from the appreciation in value of the matrimonial home that occurred because of the delay: at para. 15.

[243] The remedy must be assessed in relation to the affairs of the whole family, including the claims for child and spousal support: K. v. H. 2024 ONSC 1612 at para. 114.

[244] In Higgins v Higgins, 2001 CanLII 28223, at para 53 Justice Quinn reviewed the law on occupation rent and laid out the considerations when determining whether such an award is appropriate:

a. the conduct of the non-occupying spouse, including the failure to pay support;

b. the conduct of the occupying spouse, including the failure to pay support;

c. delay in making the claim;

d. the extent to which the non-occupying spouse has been prevented from having access to his or her equity in the home;

e. whether the non-occupying spouse moved for the sale of the home and, if not, why not;

f. whether the occupying spouse paid the mortgage and other carrying charges of the home;

g. whether children resided with the occupying spouse and, if so, whether the non-occupying spouse paid, or was able to pay, child support;

h. whether the occupying spouse has increased the selling value of the property; and

i. ouster is not required, as once was thought in some early decisions.

Analysis

[245] Michael moved out the matrimonial home on the date of separation. Christine continued to live there with the children for over three years until it was sold at the end of March, 2021. Upon the sale of the matrimonial, Michael received the remainder of what he was entitled to.

[246] It must be remembered though, that Michael had access to half of his equity prior to separation. He removed money from the home equity line of credit and used it, presumably, to purchase a new home a few months after separation. In an urgent motion before Gibson J. on May 29, 2018, Michael was ordered to preserve the sum of $424,500 taken from the line of credit and was restrained from using it. The matter then came back before Andre J. on July 12, 2018, who then ordered that Michael was able to use these funds, but that he was responsible for any interest that accumulated on it. As indicated above, that interest amounted to $60,128.50. When Michael served and filed his Answer in September 2018, he made a claim for occupation rent.

[247] Michael did eventually pay back this amount when the house sale closed in March 2021. His remaining equity at that time was $414,548. Accordingly, he was only prevented from utilizing one-half of his equity prior to this time.

[248] At no time did Christine seek an order for exclusive possession. Michael appeared to come and go from the matrimonial home shortly after separation. When Christine changed the locks, he apparently entered through the garage.

[249] Michael was not formally ordered to pay any child or spousal support until the order of Shaw J. on May 15, 2021. As indicated, $35,000 from Michael’s share of the proceeds of the sale was also released to Christine to address support arrears.

[250] On December 2, 2019, Justice Shaw ordered that Michael maintain the status quo and continue to pay $9,500 per month towards the upkeep of the matrimonial home until it was sold on March 31, 2021. As indicated above, while Michael did not pay $9,500 per month, he did pay more than his share of household expenses. In the end, this overpayment can be applied against his outstanding child support arrears, which remain substantial.

[251] It was also Michael who had to bring the motion to compel the sale of the house. In her reasons dated December 2, 2019, Shaw J. ordered that the house be listed no later than July 2, 2020. Nonetheless, it does not appear the house was listed until August 2020.

[252] The evidence shows that the listing caused a great deal of friction between the parties. It did not help that Michael was using a friend as his agent. After the listing expired in November, Christine agreed to re-list within 3 weeks. The matrimonial home was sold in December 2020, with a closing date at the end of March 2021. The sale price of $2.5 million was the highest offer they received.

[253] Based on the foregoing, I find that it was necessary that Michael bring the motion for the sale, in order to obtain his equity (or namely, half of his remaining equity in the home). Christine opposed this motion. Nonetheless, the sale was ordered, but timed in a way so as to not interfere with the children’s school year. Accordingly, if any occupation rent is owing, it is for the period of March 2018 to December 2019, but also an additional month in August, as the listing agreement was signed late.

[254] As for quantum, Michael presented comparable rental rates by gathering the information himself. He did not provide an expert opinion on the rental value of comparable homes. Christine argued that the comparables used were not true comparables – they were outside of the area, and improperly compared the square footage of their home. While Christine had a real estate agent put together the comparables, no expert opinion evidence was provided by her either.

[255] Given that the matrimonial home was in the area called “Old Meadowvale Village”, those are the comparables that are most useful. I have viewed the comparables provided by Michael. For the most part, they are for locations in Mississauga that are not close to the matrimonial home or Old Meadowvale Village. The property he considers to be the best comparable is over 12 kilometres away. By comparison, Christine has provided four comparables for Old Meadowvale Village, from 2018, 2020 and 2021. The monthly rental rates vary from $2,750 to $3,900.

[256] In these circumstances, I will use the mid-range of the three properties leased in 2018 and 2020, which is approximately $3,000 per month. Using this analysis, Michael is entitled to occupation rent from April 1, 2018 to December 1, 2019, plus one month, being a total of 21 months, at a rate of $3,000 per month, for a total of $63,000. It must be remembered though, that Michael already had access to half his equity immediately. Accordingly, this amount should be reduced by 50%, for a total of $31,500.

E. Misuse of Emails

[257] In the course of the trial, uncontroverted evidence was presented that:

a. Michael retained control over the following domains after separation: thig.ca, perfectpainter.ca, affinityrenovations.ca, and the website for Perfect Renovations Group;

b. Michael had access to QuickBooks (the accounting software) for THIG for most of 2018;

c. Michael had access to QuickBooks for TCIG for 2018 and part of 2019;

d. Michael had access to all of the emails that Christine sent and received from her thig.ca email address from separation and changed the password in 2023; This included emails containing solicitor and client communications and communications with Ms. White, which are subject to litigation privilege.

[258] After this was discovered, on July 21, 2023, Michael’s counsel produced a list of those emails that Michael admitted to having in his possession. They very clearly include emails between Christine and her lawyer and also discussed Ms. White’s expert evidence. Ms. White also was involved in some email exchanges. They also included email communications with Ms. Acocella with the company accountants, clearly in relation to the litigation.

[259] At trial, Michael indicated that he did not go through all of the emails. He stated that he was convinced that Christine was accepting cash for projects and not reporting the sales. In order to find out what she was doing, he states that he searched the term “cash” and only opened those that produced results. I note that none of the emails produced confess to accepting any unreported cash. Michael indicated that there was one that was suspicious, but he did not produce it.

[260] Michael also produced some emails from Christine’s personal “Yahoo” email account. One such email was from Christine’s personal account to Michael’s “thig” email account on May 6, 2018, which apparently attached a spreadsheet outlining what was left owing from one of the “cash” customers. Christine states that Michael had access to the matrimonial home at this time and that she rarely sends out emails at this time of day (5:45 p.m.) and that she did not send it.

[261] Christine also denies sending the spreadsheet. It is an excel sheet that is nothing like what THIG would normally produce if they were tracking payment. Christine investigated the spreadsheet further by reviewing the “info” attached to the document, which clearly states that the creator was Michael Delongte on December 11, 2016 and last modified by him on May 24, 2017.

[262] There were also emails apparently sent by Ms. Acocella that she denies ever sending.

[263] Christine admits that she was naïve by continuing to use her “thig” email address was separation. She never thought Michael would go in and read them all. Since this discovery, her lawyer has demanded a list of all emails accessed, but as of the date of trial, it was not forthcoming.

[264] So, it is clear that Michael improperly accessed and reviewed email communication that was subject to solicitor and client privilege and provided it to his lawyer. It is not clear whether he viewed more than what he provided to his lawyer, as he never responded to Christine’s lawyer’s inquiries prior to trial.

[265] What should be the result of this retention of solicitor and client communications? In Moran v Moran, 2023 ONSC 6832, Justice Kraft was faced with a situation where a wife had accessed her husband’s private communications. She cited Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp. 2006 SCC 36 at para. 34 which stated that the violation of privilege poses a significant threat to the administration of justice.

[266] Justice Kraft outlined a three part test on how to determine exactly what was accessed. Only after the extent of the violation is known can an appropriate remedy be fashioned. In that case. Justice Kraft ordered a forensic audit to be funded by the wife.

[267] In this case, the exact extent of the violation is not known. Christine elected to proceed with the trial, rather than adjourn it and have to wait probably at least another year for a trial date.

At the very least, despite the fact that Michael did not rely on any of the emails he admitted to reading, the facts establish that this constitutes serious misconduct. This violation of Christine’s privilege will be address in costs.

F. Divorce

[268] The parties also seek a divorce. I have reviewed the documents that have been filed. Based on the evidence at trial, the divorce should issue.

IV. Conclusion

[269] For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders:

a. Michael and Christine, who were married at Toronto, Ontario on October 24, 1998, shall be divorced and that the divorce shall take effect 31 days after the date of this order;

b. Michael shall pay to Christine the sum of $345,325.02 to equalize their net family property values;

c. Michael shall pay to Christine child support arrears from the date of separation to December 31, 2023 fixed in the sum of $185,015.56; if payments made were different than what was assumed in Schedule “B” herein, the appropriate adjustments shall be made;

d. Commencing January 1, 2024, Michael shall pay to Christine child support for their son and daughter, based on his annual income of $255,986, in the monthly sum of $3,349;

e. Commencing January 1, 2024, Christine shall pay to Michael child support for their son, based on her annual income of $225,667, in the monthly sum of $1,844;

f. Any section 7 arrears are reduced to nil as of October 1, 2023;

g. For section 7 expenses from September 1, 2023 onwards, the parties will share these expenses equally, payable within 30 days of being provided with an invoice and proof of payment;

h. Section 7 expenses shall include hockey costs for H.D., non-insured health, dental and vision expenses, tutoring (if required) and all vehicle expenses of the children used to travel to school, and other post-secondary school expenses (which include tuition, all charges invoices by the post-secondary institution, books, technology as needed, and lodging or residence, if applicable); if the child decides to lodge at university, the monthly payment for vehicle expenses are no longer payable;

i. To pay for the vehicle expenses for both children, Michael shall pay to Christine the sum of $500 per month, being the sum of $250 for each child for as along as they remain in post-secondary school;

j. If tutoring is required, Michael shall pay his proportionate share, but capped at $125 per month;

k. For other post-secondary school expenses, other than vehicle expenses and tutoring, the parties shall exhaust the savings in the children's RESPs, consider a reasonable contribution from the children from their own employment, bursaries or grants, before either party is required to make any contribution to these expenses.

l. Arrears for spousal support payable by Michael to Christine are reduced to nil as of December 31, 2023;

m. Neither party is entitled to spousal support from October 1, 2023 onwards;

n. Christine shall pay to Michael the sum of $91,274.23 for post-separation adjustments.

o. If it is not already paid, Michael shall pay to Christine a further $4,930.54 with respect to the money taken from H.D.’s account and a further $2,965.27 with respect to money taken from the daughter’s account; when received, this money shall be paid to the children;

p. Christine shall pay to Michael the sum of $31,500 for occupation rent;

q. Parties will exchange income information in accordance with the CSG on June 1st each year, until which time both children are no longer children of the marriage;

r. The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs themselves. If they are unable, Christine shall deliver cost submissions not exceeding five (5) pages, attaching a Bill of Costs, and any relevant documents within 30 (30) days. Michael shall deliver any responding cost submissions, not exceeding five (5) pages, also attaching a Bill of Costs and any relevant documents within thirty (30) days of receipt of Christine's cost submissions. Christine may delivery any reply cost submissions, not exceeding 3 pages, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Michael's responding cost submissions.

s. My order of December 20, 2023 will remain in force until a decision is made with respect to costs; and

t. All other claims are dismissed.

Fowler Byrne J.

Released: June 14, 2024

SCHEDULE “A”

Form 13B: Net Family Property Statement

Applicant: CHRISTINE DE LONGTE Respondent: MICHAEL DE LONGTE Valuation date: March 19, 2018 Date of marriage: October 24, 1998

Table 1: Value Of Assets Owned on Valuation Date

PART 4(a): LAND

Nature & Type of Ownership (State percentage interest)	Address of Property	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Matrimonial Home (jointed owned)	7203 Second Line West, Mississauga	$1,235,000.00	$1,235,000.00
Sold March 31, 2021
Cottage (jointly owned)	8 Tranquility Avenue, Tiny	$273,750.00	$273,750.00
Sold January 14, 2020
Investment property (each owned 25%)	12 Beachview Road, Tiny, Ontario	$240,221.00	$240,221.00
15. Totals: Value of Land		$1,748,971.00	$1,748,971.00

PART 4(b): GENERAL HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AND VEHICLES

Item	Description	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Household goods & furniture		$0.00	$0.00
Cars, boats, vehicles	2001 Porsche Boxster		$10,000.00
Jewellery, art, electronics, tools, sports & hobby, equipment	Michael (watches)		$200.00
	Christine (ring)	$10,000.00
Other special items	Purse Collection	$8,000.00
16. Totals: Value of General Household Items and Vehicles		$18,000.00	$10,200.00

PART 4(c): BANK ACCOUNTS AND SAVINGS, SECURITIES AND PENSIONS

Category (Savings, Checking, GIC, RRSP, Pensions, etc.)	Institution	Account Number	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Joint Account of parties	TD Canada Trust	*446	$2,685.31	$2,685.31
Joint Account of parties	Cottage Acct (TD Canada Trust)	*678	$1,876.84	$1,876.84
Joint account of parties	RBC Chequing	*930	$1,220.42	$1,220.42
Joint account of parties	USD RBC Chequing	*705	$0.00	$0.00
Joint account of Michael and Ray Loy	RBC Chequing (50% shown)	*101		$11,805.05
Sole Savings	CIBC	*4395	$146,415.32
Sole Savings	TD	*804		$0.00
Sole Chequing	RBC	*127		$0.00
Joint Investment	FundEx B2B	*004	$110,412.70	$110,412.70
Sole Investment	TD WebBroker	*118A		$0.00
Sole Investment	RBC	*294		$566,917.20
TFSA – sole	B2B Bank	*082		$31,816.32
TFSA – sole	B2B Bank	*074	$38,908.94
RRSP	B2B Bank	*898	$81,604.21
RRSP	B2B Bank	*252		$32,465.79
RRSP	B2B Bank	*880		$120,874.61
RRSP	TD Bank	*671		$3,147.14
Pension	Rogers Communications			$78,753.15
RESP – jointly owned	AGF Investments	*801	n/a	n/a
RESP – jointly owned	AGF Investments	*132	n/a	n/a
H.D.’s saving account	TD Canada Trust	*782	n/a	n/a
H.D.’s spending account	TD Canada Trust	*125	n/a	n/a
M.D.’s saving account	TD Canada Trust	n/a	n/a	n/a
M.D.’s spending account	TD Canada Trust	*117	n/a	n/a
17. Totals: Value of Accounts And Savings			$268,524.74	$1,076,573.53

PART 4(d): LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE

Company, Type & Policy No.	Owner	Beneficiary	Face Amount ($)	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Not applicable			0	$0.00	$0.00
18. Totals: Cash Surrender Value Of Insurance Policies				$0.00	$0.00

PART 4(e): BUSINESS INTERESTS

Name of Firm or Company	Interests	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
1957466 Ontario Inc. (HIG)	100% to Christine	$8,000.00
1960579 Ontario Inc. (CIG)	100% to Christine	$28,000.00
1957467 Ontario Inc.	100% to Michael		$76,042.00
1937469 Ontario Inc.	50% to Michael		$38,286.00
2033519 Ontario Inc. (Perfect Painter)	100% to Michael		$0.00
2336445 Ontario Inc.	100% to Michael		$259,255.00
2373265 Ontario Inc. (PRG)	100% to Michael		$0.00
19. Totals: Value Of Business Interests		$36,000.00	$373,583.00

PART 4(f): MONEY OWED TO YOU

Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
2017 Tax Refund	$4,720.18
20. Totals: Money Owed To You	$4,720.18	$0.00

PART 4(g): OTHER PROPERTY

Category	Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Safety Deposit Box			$3,000.00
21. Totals: Value Of Other Property		$0.00	$3,000.00
22. VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON THE VALUATION DATE, (TOTAL 1) (Add: items [15] to [21])		$2,076,215.92	$3,212,327.53

Table 2: Value Of Debts and Liabilities on Valuation Date

PART 5: DEBTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES

Category	Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Matrimonial Home Mortgage	Discharged on closing post separation	$233,341.59	$233,341.59
Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) on matrimonial home	Discharged on closing post separation They agree – I need to understand	$63,308.22	$487,808.22
Mortgage	8 Tranquility (discharged on closing post separation)	$67,764.54	$67,764.54
Credit Card	MBNA Mastercard **6450		$811.92
Credit Card	RBC *330/348	$0.00	$0.00
Credit Card	AMEX **5007	$0.00	$0.00
Credit Card	RBC *933/1327	$2,782.46	$2,782.46
Disposition Costs	RRSP (25%)	$30,128.28	$30,589.65
Disposition Costs	Pension (25%)		$19,688.29
Disposition Costs	RBC *2294 Capital Gain - disallowed	$0.00	$0.00
Property Tax Arrears	For Matrimonial home (paid on closing)	$4,114.45	$4,114.45
Disposition Costs	Sale of 7203 Second Line (Com, taxes, fees)	$60,485.66	$60,485.66
Disposition Costs	Sale of 8 Tranquility (comm, tax, fees)	$14,863.84	$14,863.84
23. Totals: Debts And Other Liabilities, (TOTAL 2)		$476,789.04	$922,250.62

Table 3: Net value on date of marriage of property

PART 6: PROPERTY, DEBTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES ON DATE OF MARRIAGE

Category and Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Land (exclude matrimonial home owned on the date of marriage, unless sold before date of separation).
General household items and vehicles	$0.00	$0.00
Bank accounts and savings
Life and disability insurance
Business interests
Money owed to you		$0.00
Other property (downpayment for South Palade Home) - disallowed		$0.00
3(a) TOTAL OF PROPERTY ITEMS	$0.00	$0.00
Debts and other liabilities (Specify)
3(b) TOTAL OF DEBTS ITEMS	$0.00	$0.00
24. NET VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON DATE OF MARRIAGE, (NET TOTAL 3)	$0.00	$0.00

Table 4: PART 7: VALUE OF PROPERTY EXCLUDED UNDER SUBS. 4(2) OF “FAMILY LAW ACT”

Item	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Gift or inheritance from third person
Income from property expressly excluded by donor/testator
Damages and settlements for personal injuries, etc.
Life insurance proceeds
Traced property
Excluded property by spousal agreement
Other Excluded Property
26. TOTALS: VALUE OF EXCLUDED PROPERTY, (TOTAL 4)	$0.00	$0.00

SUMMARY

	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
TOTAL 2: Debts and Other Liabilities (item 23)	$476,789.04	$922,250.62
TOTAL 3: Value of Property Owned on the Date of Marriage (item 24)	$0.00	$0.00
TOTAL 4: Value of Excluded Property (item 26)	$0.00	$0.00
TOTAL 5: (TOTAL 2 + TOTAL 3 + TOTAL 4)	$476,789.04	$922,250.62
TOTAL 1: Value of Property Owned on Valuation Date (item 22)	$2,076,215.92	$3,212,327.53
TOTAL 5: (from above)	$476,789.04	$922,250.62
TOTAL 6: NET FAMILY PROPERTY (Subtract: TOTAL 1 minus TOTAL 5)	$1,599,426.88	$2,290,076.91

EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS

Applicant Pays Respondent	Respondent Pays Applicant
$0.00	$345,325.02

SCHEDULE "B"

Delongte: 2018 - Michael as Payor Prepared by: June 14 2024

Calculation Input Annual $

Michael 53, Resident of ON
Income
Other employment income (not to be grossed up)	56,641
Other non-taxable income (auto gross up) (grossed up - tax free income)	246,934
Adjustments to Income (CSG); s.19
Expenses unreasonably deducted (Personal - automatically grossed up)	32,789
Annual Guidelines Income	612,139
CSG Table Amount (current)	7,623

Christine 50, Resident of ON
Income
Employment income	91,000
Annual Guidelines Income	91,000
CSG Table Amount (current)	0

Child Support Guidelines (CSG) Monthly $

	Michael	Christine
Child Support (Table)	7,623	0

Children	Age	Lives with	Table Amt Claimed by
Madison	20	Christine	Yes Christine
Harrison	19	Christine	Yes Christine

Youngest child finishes high school 5 years from the date of separation. Dependant credit not claimed. Note: This calculation includes amounts that have been grossed-up; this gross-up accounts for income tax only.

Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Monthly $ Length of marriage/cohabitation: 19.5 years Recipient's age at separation: 43 years

"With Child Support" Formula The formula results in a range for spousal support of $7,364 to $9,113 per month for an indefinite (unspecified) duration, subject to variation and possibly review, with a minimum duration of 9.75 years and a maximum duration of 19.5 years from the date of separation.

Support Scenarios Monthly $

	A SSAG Low		B SSAG Mid		C SSAG High
	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine
Gross Income	28,030	7,583	28,030	7,583	28,030	7,583
Taxes and Deductions	(209)	(5,004)	(209)	(5,435)	(209)	(5,849)
Benefits and Credits	99	41	99	41	99	41
Spousal Support	(7,364)	7,364	(8,256)	8,256	(9,113)	9,113
Child Support (Table)	(7,623)	7,623	(7,623)	7,623	(7,623)	7,623
Net Disposable Income (NDI)	12,933	17,607	12,041	18,068	11,184	18,511
Percent of NDI	42.3%	57.7%	40.0%	60.0%	37.7%	62.3%

CSG Special Expenses Apportioning %	74.5%	25.5%	73.0%	27.0%	71.5%	28.5%
After-tax Cost/Benefit of Spousal Support	(6,553)	4,306	(7,445)	4,768	(8,302)	5,211

Delongte: 2019 - Michael as payor Prepared by: June 14 2024

Calculation Input Annual $

Michael 53, Resident of ON
Income
Other employment income (not grossed up)	138,088
Other non-taxable income (auto gross up)	114,927
Adjustments to Income (CSG) s.19
Expenses unreasonably deducted (personal - automatically grossed up)	66,674
Annual Guidelines Income	349,530
CSG Table Amount (current)	4,471

Christine 50, Resident of ON
Income
Employment income	167,000
Annual Guidelines Income	167,000
CSG Table Amount (current)	0

Child Support Guidelines (CSG) Monthly $

	Michael	Christine
Child Support (Table)	4,471	0

Children	Age	Lives with	Table Amt Claimed by
Madison	20	Christine	Yes Christine
Harrison	19	Christine	Yes Christine

Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Monthly $ Length of marriage/cohabitation: 19.5 years Recipient's age at separation: 43 years

"With Child Support" Formula The formula results in a range for spousal support of $1,092 to $2,662 per month for an indefinite (unspecified) duration.

Support Scenarios Monthly $

	A SSAG Low		B SSAG Mid		C SSAG High
	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine
Gross Income	17,064	13,917	17,064	13,917	17,064	13,917
Taxes and Deductions	3	(5,034)	3	(5,420)	3	(5,791)
Benefits and Credits	99	41	99	41	99	41
Spousal Support	(1,092)	1,092	(1,893)	1,893	(2,662)	2,662
Child Support (Table)	(4,471)	4,471	(4,471)	4,471	(4,471)	4,471
Net Disposable Income (NDI)	11,603	14,487	10,802	14,902	10,033	15,300
Percent of NDI	44.5%	55.5%	42.0%	58.0%	39.6%	60.4%

CSG Special Expenses Apportioning %	65.1%	34.9%	63.3%	36.7%	61.5%	38.5%
After-tax Cost/Benefit of Spousal Support	(1,022)	584	(1,822)	998	(2,591)	1,396

Delongte: 2020 - Michael as payor Prepared by: June 14 2024

Calculation Input Annual $

Michael 53, Resident of ON
Income
Other employment income (not grossed up)	32,304
Other non-taxable income (auto gross up)	71,817
Adjustments to Income (CSG) s.19
Expenses unreasonably deducted (Personal- automatically grossed up)	39,326
Annual Guidelines Income	214,985
CSG Table Amount (current)	2,857

Christine 50, Resident of ON
Income
Employment income	117,000
Annual Guidelines Income	117,000
CSG Table Amount (current)	0

Child Support Guidelines (CSG) Monthly $

	Michael	Christine
Child Support (Table)	2,857	0

Children	Age	Lives with	Table Amt Claimed by
Madison	20	Christine	Yes Christine
Harrison	19	Christine	Yes Christine

Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Monthly $ Length of marriage/cohabitation: 19.5 years Recipient's age at separation: 43 years

"With Child Support" Formula The formula results in a range for spousal support of $498 to $1,673 per month for an indefinite (unspecified) duration.

Support Scenarios Monthly $

	A SSAG Low		B SSAG Mid		C SSAG High
	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine
Gross Income	11,954	9,750	11,954	9,750	11,954	9,750
Taxes and Deductions	(167)	(2,912)	(55)	(3,186)	(55)	(3,422)
Benefits and Credits	114	41	112	41	101	41
Spousal Support	(498)	498	(1,128)	1,128	(1,673)	1,673
Child Support (Table)	(2,857)	2,857	(2,857)	2,857	(2,857)	2,857
Net Disposable Income (NDI)	8,546	10,234	8,026	10,590	7,470	10,899
Percent of NDI	45.5%	54.5%	43.1%	56.9%	40.7%	59.3%

CSG Special Expenses Apportioning %	63.0%	37.0%	60.7%	39.3%	58.7%	41.3%
After-tax Cost/Benefit of Spousal Support	(348)	282	(867)	638	(1,412)	947

Delongte: 2021 - Michael as payor Prepared by: June 14 2024

Calculation Input Annual $

Michael 53, Resident of ON
Income
Interest and other investment income	160,000
Other non-taxable income (auto gross up)	89,706
Adjustments to Income (CSG); s.19
Expenses unreasonably deducted (personal- automatically grossed up)	6,500
Annual Guidelines Income	357,515
CSG Table Amount (current)	4,567

Christine 50, Resident of ON
Income
Employment income	206,000
Annual Guidelines Income	206,000
CSG Table Amount (current)	0

Child Support Guidelines (CSG) Monthly $

	Michael	Christine
Child Support (Table)	4,567	0

Children	Age	Lives with	Table Amt Claimed by
Madison	20	Christine	Yes Christine
Harrison	19	Christine	Yes Christine

Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Monthly $ Length of marriage/cohabitation: 19.5 years Recipient's age at separation: 43 years

"With Child Support" Formula The formula results in a range for spousal support of $226 to $2,615 per month for an indefinite (unspecified) duration.

Support Scenarios Monthly $

	A SSAG Low		B SSAG Mid		C SSAG High
	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine
Gross Income	21,350	17,167	21,350	17,167	21,350	17,167
Taxes and Deductions	(3,867)	(6,197)	(3,339)	(6,776)	(2,820)	(7,372)
Benefits and Credits	1	1	1	1	1	1
Spousal Support	(226)	226	(1,420)	1,420	(2,615)	2,615
Child Support (Table)	(4,567)	4,567	(4,567)	4,567	(4,567)	4,567
Net Disposable Income (NDI)	12,731	15,804	12,065	16,419	11,389	17,018
Percent of NDI	44.6%	55.4%	42.4%	57.6%	40.1%	59.9%

CSG Special Expenses Apportioning %	63.0%	37.0%	60.4%	39.6%	57.9%	42.1%
After-tax Cost/Benefit of Spousal Support	(124)	117	(790)	731	(1,467)	1,331

Delongte: 2021 - Michael as payor (shared parenting) Prepared by: June 14 2024

Calculation Input Annual $

Michael 53, Resident of ON
Income
Interest and other investment income	160,000
Other non-taxable income (auto gross up)	89,706
Adjustments to Income (CSG); s.19
Expenses unreasonably deducted (personal- automatically grossed up)	6,500
Annual Guidelines Income	357,515
CSG Table Amount (current)	4,567

Christine 50, Resident of ON
Income
Employment income	206,000
Annual Guidelines Income	206,000
CSG Table Amount (current)	1,702

Child Support Guidelines (CSG) Monthly $

	Michael	Christine
Child Support (Table)	2,865	0

Children	Age	Lives with	Table Amt Claimed by
Madison	20	Christine	Yes Christine
Harrison	19	Shared	Yes Christine

Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Monthly $ Length of marriage/cohabitation: 19.5 years Recipient's age at separation: 43 years

"With Child Support" Formula The formula results in a range for spousal support of $226 to $2,615 per month for an indefinite (unspecified) duration.

Support Scenarios Monthly $

	A SSAG Low		B SSAG Mid		C SSAG High
	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine
Gross Income	21,350	17,167	21,350	17,167	21,350	17,167
Taxes and Deductions	(3,867)	(6,197)	(3,339)	(6,776)	(2,820)	(7,372)
Benefits and Credits	1	1	1	1	1	1
Spousal Support	(226)	226	(1,420)	1,420	(2,615)	2,615
Child Support (Table)	(2,865)	2,865	(2,865)	2,865	(2,865)	2,865
Net Disposable Income (NDI)	14,433	14,102	13,767	14,717	13,091	15,316
Percent of NDI	50.6%	49.4%	48.3%	51.7%	46.1%	53.9%

CSG Special Expenses Apportioning %	63.0%	37.0%	60.4%	39.6%	57.9%	42.1%
After-tax Cost/Benefit of Spousal Support	(124)	117	(790)	731	(1,467)	1,331

Delongte: 2022 - Michael as payor Prepared by: June 14 2024

Calculation Input Annual $

Michael 53, Resident of ON
Income
Other employment income (not grossed up)	20,566
Other non-taxable income (auto gross up)	155,044
Adjustments to Income (CSG); s.18
Corporate income (impute as employment income)	78,840
Adjustments to Income (CSG); s.19
Expenses unreasonably deducted	6,500
Annual Guidelines Income	421,824
CSG Table Amount (current)	5,339

Christine 50, Resident of ON
Income
Employment income	354,000
Annual Guidelines Income	354,000
CSG Table Amount (current)	0

Child Support Guidelines (CSG) Monthly $

	Michael	Christine
Child Support (Table)	5,339	0

Children	Age	Lives with	Table Amt Claimed by
Madison	20	Christine	Yes Christine
Harrison	19	Christine	Yes Christine

Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Monthly $ Length of marriage/cohabitation: 19.5 years Recipient's age at separation: 43 years

"With Child Support" Formula The formula results in a range for spousal support of $0 to $0 per month for an indefinite (unspecified) duration.

Support Scenarios Monthly $

	A SSAG Low		B SSAG Mid		C SSAG High
	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine
Gross Income	21,746	29,500	21,746	29,500	21,746	29,500
Taxes and Deductions	(2,162)	(12,543)	(2,162)	(12,543)	(2,162)	(12,543)
Benefits and Credits	41	41	41	41	41	41
Spousal Support	0	0	0	0	0	0
Child Support (Table)	(5,339)	5,339	(5,339)	5,339	(5,339)	5,339
Net Disposable Income (NDI)	14,286	22,337	14,286	22,337	14,286	22,337
Percent of NDI	39.0%	61.0%	39.0%	61.0%	39.0%	61.0%

CSG Special Expenses Apportioning %	54.4%	45.6%	54.4%	45.6%	54.4%	45.6%
After-tax Cost/Benefit of Spousal Support	0	0	0	0	0	0

Delongte: 2023 - Michael as payor Prepared by: June 14 2024

Calculation Input Annual $

Michael 53, Resident of ON
Income
Other employment income (3 year average)	255,986
Annual Guidelines Income	255,986
CSG Table Amount (current)	3,349

Christine 50, Resident of ON
Income
Other employment income (3 year average)	225,667
Annual Guidelines Income	225,667
CSG Table Amount (current)	1,844

Child Support Guidelines (CSG) Monthly $

	Michael	Christine
Child Support (Table)	1,505	0

Children	Age	Lives with	Table Amt Claimed by
Madison	20	Christine	Yes Christine
Harrison	19	Shared	Yes Christine

Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Monthly $ Length of marriage/cohabitation: 19.5 years Recipient's age at separation: 43 years

"With Child Support" Formula The formula results in a range for spousal support of $0 to $0 per month for an indefinite (unspecified) duration.

Support Scenarios Monthly $

	A SSAG Low		B SSAG Mid		C SSAG High
	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine	Michael	Christine
Gross Income	21,332	18,806	21,332	18,806	21,332	18,806
Taxes and Deductions	(8,171)	(6,886)	(8,171)	(6,886)	(8,171)	(6,886)
Benefits and Credits	41	41	41	41	41	41
Spousal Support	0	0	0	0	0	0
Child Support (Table)	(1,505)	1,505	(1,505)	1,505	(1,505)	1,505
Net Disposable Income (NDI)	11,697	13,466	11,697	13,466	11,697	13,466
Percent of NDI	46.5%	53.5%	46.5%	53.5%	46.5%	53.5%

CSG Special Expenses Apportioning %	53.1%	46.9%	53.1%	46.9%	53.1%	46.9%
After-tax Cost/Benefit of Spousal Support	0	0	0	0	0	0

SCHEDULE "C"

Child Support Arrears

Year	Michael's Income	CSG Amt Owing (2 children):	Christine's Income	CGS Amt Owing: (1 child)	Offset Owed by Michael:	Amt Paid:	Diff. Owed by Michael:	No. of months:	Yearly total:
2018	$612,139.00	$7,623.00	n/a	$7,623.00	$0.00	$7,623.00	9	$68,607.00
2019	$349,530.00	$4,471.00	n/a	$4,471.00	$0.00	$4,471.00	12	$53,652.00
2020	$214,985.00	$2,857.00	n/a	$2,857.00	$0.00	$2,857.00	12	$34,284.00
2021 (Jan. to May)	$357,515.00	$4,567.00	n/a	$4,567.00	$0.00	$4,567.00	5	$22,835.00
2021 (June to Nov.)	$357,515.00	$4,567.00	n/a	$4,567.00	$2,317.00	$2,250.00	6	$13,500.00
2021 (Dec.)	$357,515.00	$4,567.00	$206,000.00	$1,702.00	$2,865.00	$2,317.00	$548.00	1	$548.00
2022	$421,824.00	$5,339.00	$354,000.00	$2,768.00	$2,571.00	$2,317.00	$254.00	12	$3,048.00
2023	$255,986.00	$3,349.00	$225,667.00	$1,844.00	$1,505.00	$2,317.00	-$812.00	12	-$9,744.00
Total Child Support Arrears:									$186,730.00

SCHEDULE "D"

Spousal Support Arrears

Year	Michael's Income	Christine's Income	mid-range	Amt Paid:	Diff. Owed by Michael:	No. of months:	Yearly total:
2019 (Dec)	$349,530.00	$167,000.00	$1,893.00	$0.00	$1,892.00	1	$1,892.00
2020	$214,985.00	$117,000.00	$1,128.00	$0.00	$1,128.00	12	$13,536.00
2021 (Jan. to May)	$357,515.00	$206,000.00	$1,420.00	$0.00	$1,420.00	5	$7,100.00
2021 (June to Nov.)	$357,515.00	$206,000.00	$1,420.00	$387.00	$1,033.00	6	$6,198.00
2021 (Dec.)	$357,515.00	$206,000.00	$1,420.00	$387.00	$1,033.00	1	$1,033.00
2022	$421,824.00	$354,000.00	$0.00	$387.00	-$387.00	12	-$4,644.00
2023 (Jan to Sept)	$255,986.00	$225,667.00	$116.00	$387.00	-$271.00	9	-$2,439.00
2023 (Oct to Dec)	$255,986.00	$225,667.00	$0.00	$387.00	-$387.00	3	-$1,161.00
Total Spousal Support Arrears							$21,515.00