Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-20-20649 Date: 20240618 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: GALIT ALTMAN, Applicant And: YOEL ALTMAN, Respondent

Before: M. D. Faieta J.

Counsel: Julie K. Hannaford & Angela Pagano, for the Applicant Darrell S. Waisberg, for the Respondent

Heard: In writing

Endorsement

faieta J.

[1] In relation to a “check-in” conference held on May 14, 2024, Justice Diamond’s Endorsement states: “… the parties require clarification from Justice Faieta with respect to the operative priorities of payments made and to be made under His Honour’s Orders dated November 12, 2021 and January 5, 2024. As the case management motions judge who made the Orders at the time, it is prudent for Justice Faieta to receive brief submissions from the parties and provide whatever clarification His Honour may see fit. The parties shall serve and file written submissions on this issue, totaling no more than 5 pages, to Justice Faieta’s attention in accordance with the following schedule: Applicant’s submissions by May 22, 2024. Respondent’s submissions by May 29, 2024. …

[2] Paragraph 2 of my Order dated January 5, 2024, states: Canaccord … shall forthwith liquidate assets belonging to the Respondent, Yoel Altman from the following Canaccord accounts … in such combination and in such amounts as are necessary to permit the total amount of $7,975,007.60 to be paid to [J.K. Hannaford Barristers] in trust.

[3] Earlier, two Orders froze the Respondent’s assets held by Canaccord and others subject to certain exceptions. By Order dated October 5, 2021 the Respondent’s accounts were frozen subject to withdrawals in the ordinary course of business and payments that this Court orders the Respondent to make in this proceeding. By Order dated November 12, 2021, the Respondent was permitted to access his accounts for the purpose of paying costs orders, paying his legal team in this matter, paying his chartered business valuators, his business and personal accounts, and the Independent Supervising Solicitor.

[4] Given that there does not appear to have been $7,975,007.60 paid to J.K. Hannaford Barristers in trust from the Canaccord accounts referenced in paragraph 2 of the January 5, 2024 Order, and given the Respondent’s desire to have the children’s private school tuition paid from one of those accounts, the question raised is whether the Respondent’s “ability to access the Canaccord Accounts is superseded by the positive requirement to liquidate them” and pay those proceeds to J.K. Hannaford Barristers in trust. [See para. 16 of the Applicant’s submissions]

[5] The Applicant submits the Respondent should not be permitted to access frozen funds to pay the children’s tuition.

[6] The Respondent submits that the court should refrain from dealing with this motion: (a) Their written submissions on this motion are without prejudice to his request made on May 28, 2024 to Justice Diamond’s judicial assistant to extend the May 29, 2024 deadline. Counsel was advised that Diamond J. was not sitting until June 6, 2024. He then wrote, on May 29, 2024, a letter to the attention of my judicial assistant (without specifying a name). That letter came to my attention on June 7, 2024. Counsel asks that I not read the Applicant’ materials given that it is 90 pages in length – being five pages of submissions and about 85 pages of attachments primarily my three previous Orders and Endorsements. The Respondent objects to “unsworn evidence” in the submissions primarily regarding the Respondent’s alleged non-compliance with Orders. The Respondent delivered materials of 49 pages in length including four pages of submissions. I dismiss the Respondent’s request that I not deal with the issue of the operation of the Orders. Albeit late, his position is now before the Court. The issue that has been placed before me is simple and does not turn on the Respondent’s alleged non-compliance with the Orders. Any new allegations of non-compliance and ownership of accounts are irrelevant and I have disregarded them. (b) The Respondent submits that Justice Diamond’s Endorsement dated May 14, 2024, requires clarification as it does not refer to the Order dated October 5, 2021 which the Respondent submits requires Directions before I consider it. There is no need to waste judicial resources. The issue of whether the January 5, 2024 has “priority” over the November 12, 2021 Order which permits the Respondent to access funds held by Canaccord equally applies to the October 5, 2021 Order given that both Orders permit the Respondent to access those accounts. (c) The Applicant makes allegations regard ownership of accounts which should have been made on notice to Canaccord. Once again, these allegations are irrelevant to the issue that has been placed before. There is no need to seek Canaccord’s submissions. In any event, any email dated May 28, 2024 from Clarke Tedesco, counsel for Canaccord, indicates that he has the Applicant’s submissions. Canaccord could have asked the court for permission to make submissions if it felt a need to do so. It has not. Similarly, there is no need to seek submissions from Miranda Spence on behalf of Grandhill Capital Inc. given that allegations regarding issue of ownership of certain Canaccord accounts is beyond the scope of this motion and is not being determined on this motion. (d) This motion should have been determined by Justice Kraft who is the new Case Management Motions Judge for this proceeding. The Respondent could have made that submission to Justice Diamond on May 14, 2024. At this point it is too late.

[7] Finally, the Respondent submits that he should be permitted to draw funds from his Canaccord accounts to pay for the children’s tuition based on paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Order dated October 5, 2021 which state: 9. The Respondent shall continue to pay the cost of tuition for the children. … 18. Unless the parties otherwise agree, or this Court otherwise orders, the Respondent and any other persons acting on his behalf shall be restrained from depleting, dissipating or in any way dealing with any and all assets belonging directly or indirectly to the Respondent, and the Respondent is directed to preserve all of his assets pursuant to sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act except for: (1) any transactions that occur the ordinary course of business: (2) any payments that this Court orders the Respondent to make in this proceeding, including any order for the payment of spousal support and child support whether in lump sum form or otherwise, however the Respondent shall provide a strict accounting of same to the Applicant as and when requested.

Decision

[8] The Order dated January 5, 2024, required to Canaccord forthwith liquidate assets belonging to the Respondent, Yoel Altman from certain Canaccord accounts and to pay up to $7,975,007.60 to be paid to J.K. Hannaford Barristers in trust. The words “up to” referred to the uncertainty related to the actual total amounts in the Canaccord account as of January 5, 2024. In other words, Canaccord could only pay out to J.K. Hannaford Barristers in trust whatever amount was in those accounts as of January 5, 2024 and in any event Canaccord was not permitted to pay more than $7,975,007.60 to J.K. Hannaford Barristers in trust from those accounts.

[9] The following clarification is provided. After January 5, 2024, no further funds should have paid, nor should be paid, out of the aforementioned Canaccord accounts to the Respondent for the children’s tuition expense or for any other reason pursuant to the Orders dated October 5, 2021 or November 12, 2021, until $7,975,007.60 has been paid from those accounts to J.K. Hannaford Barristers in trust.

[10] Finally, I remind counsel for the parties of their obligation under the Family Law Rules to help the court promote its primary objective. I also remind Mr. Waisberg of Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Do not expect a reply from the court if you have not complied with Rule 1.09.

Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta Released: June 18, 2024