Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-00030497-0000 DATE: 20240712 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Leslie Andrea Wynn, Applicant AND: Paul Wynn, Respondent AND: Jeffry Wynn, Leslie Wynn, The Wynn Family Properties GP Inc., The Wynn Family Properties LP Added Respondents

BEFORE: Justice M. Sharma

COUNSEL: Heather Hansen, for the Applicant Stephen Codas/Rachel Hill, for the Respondent Chris Paliare/Kris-Borg-Oliver, for the Added Respondents

HEARD: June 27, 2024

Endorsement

[1] For the purposes of this Endorsement so as not to confuse the reader among the various family members, and with no disrespect to any party, I refer to the parties by their first name, unless otherwise indicated.

[2] The Respondent, Mr. Paul Wynn (“Paul”), brings this bifurcation motion for the following Orders:

A. To bifurcate the following issues:

i. Whether the Marriage Contract signed by the Applicant, Leslie Wynn (“Leslie”), and the Respondent, Paul, should be set aside (“Marriage Contract Issue”).

ii. Pursuant to Leslie’s claims in her Amended Application at paras. 15 to 17, 21 and 22, whether Paul and his brothers, Leslie Wynn (“Les”) and Jeffrey Wynn (“Jeffrey”) hold/control property in a bare trust for Paul, and whether Paul exercises control and has a beneficial interest in the Wynn family businesses such that these interests should be included in his net family property (“Paul’s Property Issue”).

B. If both issues in para (A) are bifurcated from the remaining issues, the trial on Paul’s Property Issue proceed before the trial on the Marriage Contract Issue.

C. In the alternative to paras A and B above, an order that:

i. Paul’s Property Issue shall be bifurcated and determined by way of a hearing prior to Trial; and,

ii. The Marriage Contract Issue shall be determined by the Trial Judge at the beginning of the Trial prior to the Trial on the balance of the issues in this matter.

D. An order that if the relief sought in paras A and B, or para C is granted, the parties shall appear before Diamond J. to timetable the hearings on the bifurcated issues.

E. Costs.

[3] The Added Respondents (Les, Jeff, the Wynn Family Properties GP Inc. and the Wynn Family Properties LP) also seek to bifurcate Paul’s Property Issue, and that the trial of this issue proceed first. They do not oppose bifurcation of Marriage Contract Issue.

[4] The Applicant, Leslie Wynn (“Leslie”), seeks a dismissal of the Respondent’s and Added Respondent’s motions for bifurcation, that the matter proceed as a single trial of all issues, and that Paul pay Leslie her costs of this motion.

Overview

[5] Below is an overview of facts taken from the parties’ affidavits and factums to put the issues in this case into context. I have exercised caution in recounting facts that may be contested. The overview below does not represent any factual findings.

[6] Paul and Leslie were married on March 28, 1988 and separated in 2022. They have four children who are adults. They executed a Marriage Contract on January 8, 1988. It states that there shall be no division of property upon a breakdown of the parties’ relationship.

[7] When parties married, Paul worked for his father’s company which invested and managed real estate in Toronto. Paul did not have an ownership interest in this company.

[8] When the company was on the verge of bankruptcy in the 1980s/early 1990s, Paul’s father established two trusts: The Wynn Family Trust and the PJL Trust. The freehold real estate assets of the company were transferred to the Wynn Family Trust, and the leasehold assets were transferred to the PJL Trust.

[9] The beneficiaries of the Wynn Family Trust were the grandchildren.

[10] The beneficiaries of the PJL Trust were Paul, his two brothers, their spouses, and the grandchildren. Paul was the sole trustee.

[11] The BF Trust was also established in 1997 for the purpose of acquiring income producing real property for the benefit of the discretionary beneficiaries, which included the three Wynn brothers, their spouses and several charities. Paul was a trustee with Jeff.

[12] Due to the 21-year-rule for trusts, the trusts were wound up in 2014, 2015 and 2018. There was a resulting corporate reorganization. The Wynn Family Properties GP Inc. (the “GP”) and The Wynn Family Properties LP (the “LP”) were created.

[13] The LP is a global real estate company. According to a without prejudice org chart summarizing the corporate structure, the LP has a 100% interest in eight other corporations. The LP has real estate projects in Bahamas, the USA, the UK, and Israel.

[14] Also in 2018, the Wynn family’s Canadian real estate portfolio was sold to Timbercreek Asset Management for over $1 billion (or approximately $800 million after tax). From these funds, $200 million was donated to the Wynn Charitable Foundation, a further $200 million remained in Canada, and the remaining $400 million was vested indefeasibly in Jeff through a company called Wynn Weinzweig.

[15] Parties separated in 2022.

[16] In her Amended Application, Leslie argues certain property should be included in Paul’s net family property, and that the parties’ marriage contract should be set aside.

a. Bare Trust claims

[17] Leslie alleges in her Amended Application that Jeffrey holds the $400 million as a bare trustee for Paul, which asset should be included in his net family property. She also alleges the Added Respondents hold assets as bare trustees for Paul.

[18] The Respondents’ position is that Jeffrey is temporarily holding the $400 million for tax purposes until those funds can be transferred into a trust after January 2025, with the 13 Wynn grandchildren as the beneficiary. Jeff will become a permanent resident of Bahamas in January 2025. If he were to establish the trust prior to January 2025, any distributions to Canadian beneficiaries would be subject to tax. The Respondents say it was always the intention of the Wynn family to ensure that assets would be held for the ultimate benefit of the grandchildren and several charitable organizations, and that the trust distributions have always been consistent with that intention.

b. Paul’s control over and beneficial interest in LP

[19] Leslie is also claiming that Paul exercises de facto control over the Wynn family corporations (GP and LP), and that Paul and/or Leslie have a beneficial interest in the corporations. Therefore, she says the assets of the LP should be included in Paul’s net family property.

[20] The Respondents’ position is that Paul is not the owner of the family businesses, except for a one-third interest he has in the GP which he has valued. The GP owns 0.0001% of the LP. Other than this 0.0001% interest Paul has through his one-third interest in the GP, Paul denies that he has an interest, legal or beneficial, in the LP. Paul and the Added Respondents say the 13 grandchildren are the beneficial owners of the LP.

[21] The expense of valuing the LP in which it is alleged Paul has an interest has not been incurred. Paul says such a cost would be massive, given its global real estate holdings. Paul’s interest in the GP has been valued.

(c) Enforceability of Marriage Contract

[22] Finally, the Applicant seeks to set aside the Marriage Contract.

Respondents’ Position on Bifurcation

[23] Paul argues that, depending on his success, a determination of Paul’s Property Issue and the Marriage Contract Issue may result in a significant reduction of trial time, may eliminate the need for expert valuation of various corporate assets of the LP, may result in the Added Respondents no longer being required at trial, and may result in settlement of spousal support.

[24] In greater detail:

a. If Paul is found not to have a property interest in the LP or if the bare trust claims fail, he believes Leslie will forego her claim to set aside the Marriage Contract. This is because Leslie, according to Paul’s calculations, would owe Paul an equalization payment. If Leslie is not entitled to a significant equalization payment, this will inform the quantum of spousal support payable to her.

b. If Paul is found to have a property interest in the LP or the bare trust claims are successful, resulting in Paul having significant net family property, this will inform the validity of the Marriage Contract and whether it is unconscionable. If Leslie is entitled to a significant equalization payment because Paul is found to have an interest in these assets, and the Marriage Contract is set aside, it is unlikely Leslie will have a need for spousal support.

[25] Paul further argues that Leslie has served motions for various relief, including a motion for security for her spousal support claim of $100 million, the appointment of receivers as against the GP and LP, and worldwide Mareva injunctive relief against the Paul and the Added Respondents. As part of the test to grant injunctive relief, the Court must assess whether Leslie has a strong prima facie case in relation to her property claim in the corporate assets. Therefore, he argues, the resolution of Paul’s Property Issue and the Marriage Contract Issue ought to be determined first before a trial on the other issues and before Leslie’s motions.

Applicant’s Position

[26] Leslie argues Paul has not complied with his disclosure obligations under the Family Law Rules. She states he has not complied with the terms of an interim consent order which requires Paul to pay $125,000 per month in interim support, in addition to Leslie’s professional fees. Because he does not come to court with clean hands, she says his motion should be dismissed.

[27] She further argues that there is evidence that Paul has interests in trusts and control over the LP through the GP. She claims that the structure and assets of the GP and LP followed distribution of assets from the PJL Trust in 2015, in which both Paul and Leslie were beneficiaries and Paul was the sole trustee. The other beneficiaries were Paul’s brothers, their spouses, and their 13 children.

[28] On distribution, Leslie says the assets of the PJL Trust were distributed to Paul and his brothers equally in 2015. As a result of this distribution and structural reorganization, the assets of the PJL Trust were rolled into the LP, and Leslie claims the GP is merely a shell structure with no meaning or consequence, and that it is a vehicle for the Wynn brothers.

[29] With respect to the distribution in 2018 from the BF Trust, for which Paul and his brother, Jeffrey, were the beneficiaries, Leslie states that this trust distributed its assets to Jeffrey. She alleges this was done to defeat any family law claim Leslie might bring, or either of the Wynn brothers’ spouses might bring.

[30] She says the evidence of Paul’s spending does not reconcile with his purported limited interests in only the GP, and not the LP. She argues Paul controls the LP with his brothers, that everything is interconnected, and that it is not possible to understand Paul’s wealth without understanding the elaborate structure he and his brothers devised. One judge will need to make credibility findings, not just in relation to Paul, but his brothers as well that will be relevant to the issues of (1) what property is to be included in the Paul’s net family property; (2) whether any property is excluded as a gift; and (3) the sources of the Paul’s income in relation to Leslie’s spousal support claim.

[31] During oral argument, I was advised that Les’ wife, Andrea Wynn, has also commenced family proceedings against Les. Issues that Andrea may be arguing in her Application deal with the same assets, and Les’ interest in those assets. The issues and facts will be similar if not identical to the arguments that Leslie is making with respect to Paul’s interest in these assets. However, a motion to consolidate proceedings is not before me. This issue will have to be raised with Diamond, J. who is case managing this case.

Relevant Law

[32] Rule 12(5) of the Family Law Rules states that a court may split a case into two or more separate claims, cases or issues on motion “if it would be more convenient.”

[33] The newly amended rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which came into force on July 1, 2024, provides factors for the court to consider when deciding whether to bifurcate a proceeding. It reads:

6.1.01 (1) The court may order a separate hearing on one or more issues in a proceeding, including separate hearings on the issues of liability and damages,

(a) on a party’s motion, with or without the consent of the other parties; or

(b) at a conference under Rule 50, with the consent of the parties. O. Reg. 175/24, s. 1.

(2) In determining whether to order a separate hearing, the court shall consider,

(a) whether ordering a separate hearing will dispose of some or all of the issues, shorten or simplify the rest of the proceeding or result in a substantial saving of costs;

(b) whether the issues are clearly severable and can be heard separately without unduly repeating evidence or risking inconsistent findings of fact;

(c) whether ordering a separate hearing would unduly prejudice or advantage a party, including the impact on any counterclaim, crossclaim or third or subsequent party claim or, in cases where a jury notice has been delivered, on a party’s election to have the action heard by a jury;

(d) the impact of ordering a separate hearing at the applicable stage in the proceeding; and

(e) any other relevant matter.

[34] Parties agree that this new rule sets out factors that were often considered in caselaw and that it should guide this Court’s analysis.

[35] The factors under the new rule are not dissimilar from those set out in Simioni v. Simioni, 2009 ONSC 934 at para 17, a family case which was subsequently relied upon in several other family cases. [1] Simioni stands for the following propositions:

a. The power to bifurcate a proceeding ought to be exercised if it is convenient and would be in the interests of justice. The interests of justice will be served if there are clear time and expense benefits to be gained from bifurcation and the determination of threshold issues, provided no real or meaningful prejudice is caused to either party (para. 15).

b. The court should also give consideration to the fundamental principle that a multiplicity of proceedings is to be avoided. As a result, the onus lies with the moving party to establish that bifurcation will result in the “just, expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceedings on its merits” (para. 16).

c. When considering whether to bifurcate, the court should consider (para. 17):

i. Whether the issues for the first trial are relatively straightforward and the extent to which the issues proposed by the first trial are interwoven with those that will arise in the second.

ii. Whether a decision from the first trial will likely put an end to the action, significantly narrow remaining issues, or significantly increase the likelihood of settlement.

iii. The extent to which resources have already been devoted to all issues.

iv. The possibility of delay.

v. The advantages or prejudice the parties are likely to experience.

vi. Whether the severance is sought on consent.

Analysis

[36] I am satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, it is more convenient and in the interests of justice that the issues in this case should be severed such that they proceed as separate trials. Alternatively, and subject to a single judge being available, this case should proceed as a single trial before the same judge but broken down into three segments heard at different intervals. I am not persuaded there would be prejudice to Leslie if separate trials were ordered.

[37] The three trials or three trial segments [2] would be devoted to the following issues: (a) a determination of what property is to be included in Paul’s net family property, including what property is excluded; (b) a ruling on the enforceability of the Marriage Contract; and (c) Valuation of the parties’ property interests, and Leslie’s spousal support and any residual claims the parties may have.

[38] I come to this conclusion for the following reasons.

Complexity if a Single Trial

[39] This case is complex on several fronts. It involves complex financial transactions involving a family of extraordinary wealth. It appears estate planning and tax advice was involved in planning around the trusts, their distribution, and the corporate organization. Expert evidence on these issues is expected. The addition of the Added Respondents adds to the complexity.

[40] This case has the potential to become more complex, subject to any case management orders made by Diamond J. or the trial judge. For example, it will be more complex (a) if the family proceeding involving Les and Andrea is consolidated with this family proceeding with respect to issues in common with Paul’s Property Issue, or (b) if the 13 grandchildren seek to be added as parties, who Paul and his brothers state have a beneficial interest in the disputed property.

[41] To involve this number of parties in a single trial would be unwieldy, unfair and costly to those parties, some of whom might be excused entirely after the conclusion of the first trial. Practically, if additional parties are added, there are limited courtrooms in the Toronto region that could accommodate this number of parties for the entire trial duration if it proceeds as a single trial. Even if no further parties are added, there are clear benefits of excluding the Added Respondents early, if that is the result following the first trial.

[42] This case is unlike other family cases that typically come before the Court. Unlike typical family cases where testimony on several issues can be received in a day or less, there will be extensive evidence produced on multiple discrete issues. In this case, witnesses, including expert witnesses may be on the stand for days to address discrete issues. It does not make sense to involve all parties on the discrete issues that must be resolved, where resolution of some may shorten overall trial duration, excuse certain parties early, and promote settlement.

[43] Bifurcation at this stage makes sense. This is not a case where parties have already invested resources in expert valuation reports of the LP, with critique reports, and where planning has been underway for a single trial. Parties have not yet had a trial management conference. Expert reports on the valuation of the LP, on trust and tax issues have not yet been produced. Had trial management already occurred, and had resources on expert reports already been expended, I may come to a different result.

Discrete Issues

[44] There are discrete issues that can be neatly severed. Depending on their outcome, time and cost savings may be achieved. Regardless of the outcome, greater opportunities for early settlement arise.

[45] The first trial involving Paul’s property will involve specific witnesses and documents. It is anticipated this trial will hear evidence of the creation of the trusts, the wind-up of the various trusts between 2014 and 2018, the resulting corporate re-organization, how the GP and the LP function, the trust distributions and circumstances that led to Jeffrey holding the $400 million, whether Paul has acquired benefits following the trust distribution and corporate re-organization, and expert evidence on tax and estate planning. This evidence may be extensive.

[46] If it is determined that Paul does not have a property interest in these assets, the time and expense of valuing these assets and the preparation of competing expert reports can be avoided. There are multiple subsidiary corporations under the LP. Given the multiple corporations involved and their global real estate holdings, the savings in time and expense of valuing the LP’s assets is likely significant.

[47] I accept that because Paul has a one-third interest in the GP, which in turn holds a 0.0001% interest in the LP, there will have to be some valuation of the LP’s assets in any event. But given the principle of proportionality, one would expect the parties to expend far less time and money valuing a 0.0001% interest as compared to a much higher percentage.

[48] If it is determined that Paul has a property interest in these assets, parties appear to agree that this will be a relevant consideration as to whether the Marriage Contract ought to be set aside. Both Leslie and Paul, in their factums, argue that when the court is exercising its discretion to set aside a Marriage Contract, the court will be concerned whether the enforcement of the marriage contract would be unconscionable or unfair. Therefore, a determination of Paul’s Property Issue will be relevant to whether the Marriage Contract should be set aside, and I accept the logic that Paul’s Property Issue should be heard first before the Marriage Contract Issue.

[49] I also accept, as argued by Leslie, the following points.

[50] The trial judge, when deciding whether to set aside the Marriage Contract, will have to have a sense of the value of Paul’s property to assess unfairness or unconscionability. Therefore, some valuation of his property will be required for the Marriage Contract trial. However, the outcome of the first trial will surely give the judge hearing the Marriage Contract Issue an indication as to whether Paul’s interest in the LP is limited to a 0.0001% interest or a much higher interest.

[51] Leslie suggests there is clear documentary evidence which supports her assertion that Paul has significant control over the LP. This may be true, but it speaks to her potential success at a bifurcated trial, not whether bifurcation should be ordered.

[52] If the trial is bifurcated, Leslie argues a determination of Paul’s control of the LP, and therefore, his property interest, will require the court to consider various factors including how Paul can afford his lifestyle and assets at separation and currently, the Wynn family business structure, the economic and decision-making relationship between him and his brothers, and the underlying intent behind the current structure. Leslie states that these are relevant to (a) Paul’s ownership or beneficial interest, (b) valuation interest; and (c) income for support purposes. Because the issues of fact are so interwoven, she argues they cannot be untangled.

[53] There is also the prospect of the same witnesses being called at the various trials. Les and Jeffrey will continue to have a role as witnesses in this litigation at the third phase of trial, when valuing Paul’s interests. Other witnesses from the GP and LP, along with expert tax witnesses may also be required at the trials of Paul’s Property Issue and the third trial.

[54] However, the issues remain very much distinct. Evidence at the first trial will be about Paul’s property interest and what happened with the trust distributions and the corporate re-organization. In the third trial, it will be about the valuation of that interest. The subject of the witness’ testimony will be distinct, and I do not believe it will be unduly repetitious.

[55] I can see how evidence of Paul’s ability to afford his lifestyle and assets post-separation may well come up at the first trial and the third trial. As such there may be some duplication. However, a factor under r. 6.1.01(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is whether bifurcation can occur “without unduly repeating evidence”. On balance, the benefits of possibly avoiding expensive valuation evidence and of increasing settlement are great regardless of the outcome of the first trial, in comparison to the possibility of modest duplicative evidence being received.

[56] I am also mindful of inconsistent credibility findings by different judges. For this reason, I have recommended that the same judge hear all trials/trial segments, if the Court’s schedule will allow for it. But even if the same judge cannot hear all three trials, findings made by prior judges will either be binding or persuasive on the second judge. In any event, the issue of Paul’s property interest is discrete from its valuation. Expert valuation will be limited to the final trial.

[57] The Marriage Contract Issue is also discrete. The circumstances that existed at the time the marriage contract was entered into will involve select few witnesses. There is no need to have the Added Respondents, or any other party that may be added to this family proceeding, participate at this trial. Following the first trial, the judge at the Marriage Contract trial will have a clear sense of whether Paul’s interest is modest or significant, which will be a relevant factor at the Marriage Contract trial.

Narrow Issues – Increase Settlement Prospects

[58] The threshold determination of Paul’s Property Issue will have a cascading effect on the following trials and will increase the prospect of settlement.

[59] I agree that if Paul is successful on the first trial, it will impact the positions the parties take on the second trial. It may result in Leslie abandoning her claim to have the Marriage Contract set aside because she may owe Paul an equalization payment if he is successful on the first trial. The time and expense of valuing Paul’s purported property will be avoided.

[60] If Leslie is successful on the first trial and second trial, Paul will be incentivized to offer a significant equalization payment. The amount of equalization will likely result in Leslie’s spousal support claim becoming moot.

[61] I also agree that the outcome of the first trial will inform Leslie’s motions for security for her spousal support claim of $100 million, the appointment of receivers as against the GP and LP, and worldwide Mareva injunctive relief against the Paul and the Added Respondents. These are significant motions. Depending on the outcome of the first trial, Leslie’s motions may have no merit and may be abandoned, or may incentivize the Respondents to settlement the motions.

Prejudice to Leslie / Unfair Advantage to Paul

[62] Having found that bifurcation would result in clear time and expense benefits, the onus shifts to Leslie to demonstrate through evidence that there would be prejudice to her if bifurcation were ordered: Cohen v. Cohen, 2019 ONSC 4456 at para. 24.

[63] The bulk of Leslie’s arguments on this motion were focussed on the merits of this case, and not on bifurcation itself. I am not persuaded that Leslie has met her onus of establishing that there would be prejudice to her if this case were severed in the manner proposed. Her evidence of prejudice was hypothetical, or at best, scant.

[64] Leslie argues that bifurcation will increase the length of time before final resolution. She may be right if Leslie is successful on the first trial and the second trial. However, if she is not successful on the first trial, then there may be a very prompt resolution. Through Diamond, J.’s case management of this case, he can potentially make trial scheduling orders to minimize delay. In assessing potential prejudice arising from delay, I note that Paul is making significant support payments to Leslie in the interim.

[65] Leslie says her costs will increase, but I do not see this evidence. If a single trial were to unfold, she would have to incur the costs of one lengthy trial in any event. I have no evidence that one lengthy trial will be more expensive than three separate trials, if in fact three trials are needed. For now, I note that Paul has been paying Leslie’s professional fees. If Leslie is successful at any of the trials, she will be entitled to a cost award.

[66] In terms of savings, there can be major cost savings for both parties and savings of trial time if the trial is severed. If Paul is not successful at the first trial or second trial, parties will have to go undergo the expense of valuing / critiquing the value of Paul’s property which would be an expense, in any event, if it proceeded as a single trial. But if Paul is successful on the first trial or second trial, this expense and significant trial time can be avoided entirely. Indeed, the second trial may vanish. The Added Respondents would be removed from the proceeding. The trials will be less complex focussing on discrete issues. Witness’ evidence will be limited in scope. Severance results in a benefit to both parties and to the administration of justice.

[67] Aside from possible delay, which is speculative, I am not persuaded there is prejudice to Leslie from severing this trial.

[68] I cannot see how the order sought would result in an unfair advantage to Paul. Any advantages of time and expense would be enjoyed by both parties.

Does Paul Come to Court with Clean Hands?

[69] There was some evidence of Paul being delayed in paying professional fees incurred by Leslie and of him not paying his support. After hearing counsel, it appears that Paul has made payments (perhaps subject to some delay) consistent with the interim Order made by Diamond, J., and that one issue may relate to the cap placed on Leslie’s professional fees within that Order.

[70] In my view, these issues should be taken up with Diamond J. and do not present a sufficient bar to me considering the relief Paul seeks.

[71] Leslie also challenges the incomplete nature of Paul’s disclosure. However, Paul responds that he has not valued property which he says he does not own. He acknowledges that some disclosure is outstanding, and he is working on it. He says Leslie has not provided certain valuations (e.g., of the matrimonial home). Again, if there is outstanding disclosure, it is best to raise this with Diamond, J. This is a complex case with much disclosure. It is not a sufficient basis to deny the relief sought by the Respondents.

Conclusion

[72] I find that this is a clear and unique case, given its stage, complexity and the issues to be decided, where severing issues should be engaged in the interests of justice. Doing so has significant potential to reduce time and cost, save limited court resources, increase the potential for early settlement, and there will be little to no prejudice suffered by the Applicant as a result.

Order to Go

[73] For these reasons, I order:

1. The following issues in this Application shall be severed into three separate trials, or if judicial scheduling permits, a single trial presided over by a single judge that proceeds in three separate segments, devoted to the following issues, and in the following order:

(a) a determination under s. 4(1) of the Family Law Act as to what property is to be included in the Respondent, Paul Wynn’s, net family property, including the issues at paras. 15 to 17, 21 and 22 of the Applicant’s Amended Application, and what property is excluded;

(b) a determination on whether the Marriage Contract should be set aside under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act; and

(c) the valuation of the parties’ property interests within their net family property, the quantum of equalization payment payable and to whom, the Applicant’s spousal support claim and any other residual claims.

2. Parties shall contact the Family Trial Office to request an attendance before Diamond, J. to timetable the hearings.

Costs

[74] Parties are encouraged to settle costs. If they are unable, parties may each submit cost submissions not exceeding 3 pages, attaching a Bill of Costs and any other relevant document. The Respondent and Added Respondents shall deliver their submissions by August 9, 2024, the Applicant shall deliver her submissions by August 30, 2024, and Reply submissions (max 2 pages), if any, shall be due September 13, 2024.

Justice M. Sharma Date: July 12, 2024

Footnotes:

[1] Smith v. Torelli, 2013 ONSC 1936 at para 44; Grossman v. Grossman, 2014 ONSC 2090 at para. 18; Schulman v. Ganz, 2015 ONSC 3254 at para. 24; and Singal v. Singal, 2018 ONSC 2044 at para 56.

[2] For the purpose of this decision, I refer to the “three trials” for ease of reference, although, subject to judicial availability, it may be one trial before the same judge with three different segments.