Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FC456/19 DATE: February 26, 2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO FAMILY COURT
RE: Yvette Van Veen, Applicant AND: Brian Van Veen, Respondent
BEFORE: MITROW J.
COUNSEL: Self-represented for the Applicant Mathew Villeneuve for the Respondent
HEARD: January 19, 2024
Endorsement
INTRODUCTION
[1] This endorsement deals primarily with each party’s motion for disclosure. The other substantial relief claimed in the applicant’s motion included a request for interim spousal support. That claim could not proceed due to a lack of financial disclosure by the applicant. An order was made on the hearing of the motions adjourning the issue of interim spousal support to March 27, 2024 before me. That order also included various financial disclosure to be made by the applicant. Finally, the applicant’s motion included a claim striking a valuation report prepared for the respondent, a claim for non-dissipation of assets by the respondent and a claim preventing the respondent from bringing any further motions.
[2] The evidence suggests that the parties are of modest means. The applicant operates a sole proprietorship, which is a business engaged in dog training. The respondent is employed by an Ontario government agency. The parties were married in 1999 and separated on November 13, 2018.
[3] The respondent complains that the applicant has engaged in a campaign of relentless and ongoing requests for disclosure where “she often hyper-focuses on irrelevant or minor details” and then relies on those details to assert that the respondent is “dishonest and/or hiding assets.”
[4] The respondent deposes that he has served responses to the applicant’s two requests to admit in 2020 and 2021. The first request to admit was comprised of 2,099 questions, and the latter was comprised of 67 questions. The respondent deposes that he responded in full to both requests to admit. The applicant does not dispute this evidence in any material way.
[5] The respondent has included an exhibit setting out a table of contents [^1] listing all disclosure provided to date. The applicant does not dispute the respondent’s evidence that he has provided a total of approximately 2,500 pages of disclosure and that he has served six financial statements.
[6] In addition, Tobin J. made detailed disclosure orders for production by both parties, dated July 23, 2019 and May 30, 2023, and said orders were filed as exhibits at the hearing of the motions.
[7] Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party’s motion contains a request for further lengthy lists of disclosure.
[8] I concur with the respondent’s submission that proportionality and common sense must be considered when ordering disclosure. In Boyd v. Fields, 2006 CarswellOnt 8675 (Ont. S.C.J.) [^2], on a motion for further disclosure, Perell J. stated at para. 12:
Full and frank disclosure is a fundamental tenet of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99. However, there is also an element of proportionality, common sense, and fairness built into these rules. A party’s understandable aspiration for the utmost disclosure is not the standard. Fairness and some degree of genuine relevance, which is the ability of the evidence to contribute to the fact-finding process are factors. I also observe that just as non-disclosure can be harmful to a fair trial, so can excessive disclosure be harmful because it can confuse, mislead or distract the trier of fact’s attention from the main issues and unduly occupy the trier of fact’s time and ultimately impair a fair trial.
[9] In the reasons below, I deal first with the applicant’s motion followed by the respondent’s motion for disclosure.
[10] For reasons that follow, some disclosure orders are made and all other claims in the motions are dismissed except for the applicant’s claim for interim spousal support (which has been adjourned to be dealt with later).
The Applicant’s Motion for Disclosure
[11] The applicant had filed both a form 14B and form 14 motion for the same relief. At the hearing of the motions, it was determined that the applicant will proceed with her form 14 motion.
[12] I address the applicant’s request in her motion using the same paragraph numbers as set out in the applicant’s motion.
i. Paragraph 1 – updated and corrected address for respondent
[13] The respondent provides the municipal address where his condominium is located and deposes that he has resided there since July 2020 when he purchased the condominium. The respondent incurred expenses to provide Teraview searches for Middlesex County for his name and two corporations that he had involvement with, to counter the applicant’s baseless speculation about ownership of other properties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the applicant continues to assert that the respondent has out-of-province real estate holdings, complains that the Teraview search was only for Middlesex County and deposes that the corporate names searched were only for entities that the respondent knew the applicant is aware of. The applicant insinuates that the respondent’s multiple sworn financial statements fail to disclose other properties owned by the respondent personally or through shares in a corporation. There is a complete dearth of any credible evidence, documentary or otherwise, supporting these allegations.
[14] The applicant’s request in paragraph one is dismissed.
ii. Paragraph 2 – disclosure regarding corporate entities
[15] This request is dismissed. The respondent has disclosed already all interests in any corporate entities that he was associated with. The applicant seeks information about corporate holdings in other provinces, to which the respondent deposes that he had no such corporate ownership. The applicant speculates that the respondent has an interest in an office tower at 383 Richmond Street in London, Ontario. The respondent denies any ownership, personal or corporate, in this building. The applicant’s belief that the respondent has interests in extra-provincial corporations and in the London office building is prompted by baseless speculation.
iii. Paragraph 3 – disclosure regarding leases and mortgages
[16] The applicant seeks disclosure as to “lease/mortgage/lien particulars” for all properties held by the respondent personally or through corporate entities, including Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba and the office building in London referred to earlier.
[17] The respondent deposes that the only mortgages that he has had were personal; those mortgages consisted of the mortgage on the matrimonial home that was paid off when the matrimonial home was sold, and the mortgage registered against his current residence. Both of these mortgages are known to the applicant and disclosed in the respondent’s financial statements. This request too, falls within the category of baseless speculation.
[18] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph three is dismissed.
iv. Paragraphs 4A and 4B – requests for “unredacted” printout from CRA, and all entries from the respondent’s registered investment products; and requests to provide monthly statements from January 1, 2015 to present for all of the respondent’s registered investments
[19] The respondent deposes that he has already made full disclosure of his income tax returns, notices of assessment, and notices of reassessment from 2014 to 2022. He also deposes that pursuant to Tobin J.’s order dated July 23, 2019, that he provided copies of his various investments for the period of January 1, 2016 to July 23, 2019. The respondent further deposes that he has updated his financial disclosure since that order by serving and filing updated financial statements including in November 2023.
[20] Regarding “redactions”, it is not clear from the evidence what was allegedly redacted, but the respondent in his affidavit does undertake to provide unredacted printouts for his “investment products.”
[21] The respondent does not oppose proving monthly statements for the period January 1, 2016 to present for all his registered investments. He claims those statements have been produced for the period January 1, 2016 to July 23, 2019, and that he will produce the rest.
[22] Although the applicant requests those statements back to January 1, 2015, I find that the disclosure should start January 1, 2016. There is no evidence from the applicant explaining why the disclosure should predate the time period covered by the Tobin J. orders.
[23] The order below includes provisions that the respondent shall provide his monthly statements for all investments, registered or unregistered, and unredacted, for the period January 1, 2016 to the present. The balance of the applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraphs 4A and 4B is dismissed.
v. Paragraph 4C – This request relates to information pertaining to security options as noted “in the respondent’s personal tax returns”
[24] It is difficult to follow the applicant’s explanation regarding what this involves. The respondent’s explanation, at least, has clarity and is understandable. Both parties refer to the respondent’s 2017 notice of assessment. That document shows security options deductions in the amount of $295.
[25] Understandably, the applicant assumed there were stock options and wanted details. The respondent deposed that he owns no stock options other than perhaps through his registered investments which he has disclosed in his financial statements. The respondent further deposes that his employer forwarded an email, a copy of which was provided to the applicant, explaining that the amount shown is the respondent’s life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance, and the taxable part of his automobile benefits for personal use of the company vehicle. The respondent deposes that there is no more explanation that he can provide. The email referred to was not appended as an exhibit.
[26] While I find the respondent’s evidence difficult to understand as to how paid life insurance benefits and personal use of a company automobile can amount to “security options deductions” in a notice of assessment, and undoubtedly the applicant has the same difficulty, the reality is that this involves a negligible amount. Common sense and proportionality must prevail, and I find that no useful purpose will be served in requiring the respondent to spend further time, effort and costs in relation to this disclosure request.
[27] Accordingly, the applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 4C is dismissed.
vi. Paragraph 4D – the applicant seeks disclosure of monthly statements from January 1, 2015 to the present for “financial accounts” that receive, purchased or held securities that were derived from exercising stock options “along with all other investment products held at these institutions.”
[28] This request for disclosure has no merit. As discussed earlier, the respondent has deposed that he does not own stock options, except as may be owned through registered investments. This issue of the respondent providing monthly statements for all his investment accounts has been dealt with earlier.
[29] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 4D is dismissed.
vii. 4E – Provide unredacted monthly statements for Quadrus from January 1, 2016 to present
[30] The applicant claims that the monthly statements that the respondent was ordered to produce for his Quadrus investment account are “significantly redacted.” No further specifics are provided by the applicant as to which statements are redacted and the extent of the redactions. In a later affidavit [^3], the applicant attaches a sample Quadrus statement in support of her position that statements were redacted; however, the statement attached has no redactions.
[31] The order of Tobin J. dated July 23, 2019 required the respondent on a “best efforts” basis to provide Quadrus monthly statements, if they exist, from 2016 to 2019.
[32] The respondent deposes that he has provided all Quadrus statements pursuant to that order but that he redacted two pages of statements detailing transactions predating the date for which disclosure was ordered. Regardless, the respondent deposes that he provided the unredacted statements when he received the applicant’s current request, despite questioning their relevance.
[33] Further, the respondent deposes that he transferred his Quadrus account to Equitable Life of Canada in August 2017, and that the statement confirming this transfer has been provided to the applicant.
[34] In her affidavit [^4], the applicant alleges a $72,000 disparity in the Quadrus and Equitable Life accounts. However, the applicant has misconstrued the information provided, as she has added the Quadrus and Equitable Life accounts failing to consider that the Equitable Life account already includes the entire Quadrus account. The respondent deposes that he has had no investments in Quadrus since that account was transferred to Equitable Life.
[35] I find no merit to the disclosure order sought by the applicant. The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 4E is dismissed.
viii. Paragraph 4F – Provide all monthly statements from financial institutions including credit card statements, “from all accounts from any and all corporate interests” including monthly bank statements for Burglar Guard’s corporate bank account ending in “516” from January 1, 2015 to July 2019
[36] In her affidavit, the applicant focuses on the CIBC account ending in “516”, and the applicant complains that the respondent has provided instead self-generated spreadsheets.
[37] The parties appear to agree that disclosure regarding Burglar Guard has been previously ordered by Tobin J.
[38] Specifically, the previously mentioned orders of Tobin J. ordered production of Burglar Guard’s bank statements from January 1, 2016 to May 30, 2023.
[39] The respondent’s table of contents regarding productions, referred to previously, indicates that all bank statements for Burglar Guard, as required by the Tobin J. orders have been provided. The table of contents describes the specific location of those documents in the respondent’s brief of productions. Regarding the CIBC account ending in “516”, the respondent deposes that those statements were included in the productions as required by both orders.
[40] I am satisfied on the evidence that the respondent has provided all bank statements for Burglar Guard.
[41] Given the existing orders which require production of bank statements from January 1, 2016, it is unclear why the applicant now seeks productions from January 1, 2015. This request for additional disclosure is unnecessary and appears designed to burden the respondent with the cost of further productions that are neither necessary nor relevant.
[42] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 4F is dismissed.
ix. 4G – Provide bank statements from January 1, 2015 to present for the respondent’s CIBC account ending in “630”
[43] The applicant deposes that this is an account utilized by the respondent for his personal use and that the respondent has provided a letter from CIBC stating that CIBC cannot provide further information without the full account name or number.
[44] The respondent deposes that neither personally nor through Burglar Guard was there a CIBC account ending in “630.” The respondent further deposes that he provided a letter from CIBC dated July 11, 2023, confirming that this was not a bank account but rather an inactive debit card, and that the applicant refuses to accept this explanation.
[45] While neither party has provided a copy of the CIBC correspondence that they have referred to, productions regarding this matter are included in the respondent’s table of contents regarding disclosure. I am not satisfied on the evidence that there was any CIBC account ending in “630.”
[46] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 4G is dismissed.
x. Paragraph 4H – provide proof of deposits of all bulk sales, from the respondent’s personal or corporate interests, from January 1, 2015, and to include a full printout from SRC, Damar and Lambton Communications, to the respondent personally or his corporate interests, including BGL Security
[47] The respondent explains by way of background that he had worked part time for his father’s company Burglar Guard Ltd. (“BGL”). This company was in the business of monitoring accounts for residential and commercial purposes. The respondent’s father passed away shortly before the parties separated in November 2018, and the respondent accepts that BGL would be included in his assets for the purpose of this proceeding.
[48] Since 2016, the respondent has been employed by an Ontario government agency as indicated earlier. The respondent deposes that all monitored accounts owned by BGL were sold in October 2018. Subsequent to the sale, some minimal payments were received by the respondent, but since 2021, there has been no income from BGL. The respondent describes BGL as an inactive company since 2021. [^5]
[49] Despite the applicant’s frequent references in her material regarding disclosure from the respondent’s corporate interests, the respondent deposes, adamantly, that his only corporate interests were BGL and Sterk Security Solutions Ltd. (“SSSL”). The latter company was incorporated by the respondent in 2016 with a view to starting his own similar business. The respondent deposes that he did not pursue that venture as a result of securing his current full-time employment. SSSL never carried on business, and the respondent deposes that he has provided to the applicant articles of dissolution and the certificate of dissolution for SSSL.
[50] Despite the respondent’s evidence that all monitoring accounts by BGL were sold in October 2018 and that client deposits ended in December 2018, the respondent deposes that he has requested statements from SRC, Damar and Lambton Communications for the period January 1, 2016 to the present to show all the deposits from bulk client sales over that period of time. The respondent proposes that an order be made to that effect on a best efforts basis. The order below deals with this matter, but I decline to characterize it as a best efforts obligation.
[51] On the evidence, I decline to make any further production orders relating to BGL. The applicant has received significant disclosure regarding BGL already.
[52] To the extent disclosure is ordered, the order below provides for a commencement date of January 1, 2016 as that is consistent with previous disclosure orders.
[53] Except as noted above, the applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 4H is dismissed.
xi. Paragraph 4I – provide all monthly invoices from all revenue generating contracts held by the respondent personally or through a corporation since January 1, 2015, whether paid in cash or in-kind
[54] There is no merit to this disclosure request. The disclosure sought by the applicant has been ordered in the two pervious orders of Tobin J. The applicant now seeks production back to January 1, 2015, whereas January 1, 2016 is the start date in the previous orders. There is no evidence from the applicant supporting the necessity or relevance for additional disclosure back to January 1, 2015.
[55] The respondent deposes that all disclosure ordered has been provided, and there is reference to same in the table of contents to the respondent’s disclosure brief. While the applicant complains of redactions for some of the disclosure without providing the details as to what was redacted, the respondent deposes that client names and personal information were redacted for privacy reasons, and in any event, are not relevant. Regarding “in-kind” payments, the respondent deposes that he was never paid “in-kind” for services provided.
[56] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 4I is dismissed.
xii. Paragraph 5 – provide copies of all monthly statements from banks or other financial institutions for all payments received from clients of the respondent, personally or through corporations, from January 1, 2015 to present
[57] There is no merit to this disclosure request. These documents were already ordered to be provided in the two Tobin J. orders for the period January 2016 to May 2023. The applicant’s request to expand the time period does not meet the test of relevance and exceeds reasonable bounds of proportionality. In any event, the respondent deposes that the disclosure as ordered has been provided, as reflected in the table of contents to the respondent’s disclosure brief.
[58] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 5 is dismissed.
xiii. Paragraph 6 – this disclosure request is related to paragraph 5, and requires the respondent to provide monthly statements from all payment processing financial institutions including, Square Putnum, Square Dorchester, PayPal, and TSYS, from January 1, 2015 to present
[59] There is no merit to this disclosure request. While the respondent deposes that BGL did use Square, the respondent further deposes that he is not aware of the distinction between Square Putnum and Square Dorchester, and further that no funds were ever received from PayPal, TSYS, or any other payment processing institution. Further, all payments to BGL were paid directly to its CIBC account and those bank statements have been provided. The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 6 is dismissed.
xiv. Paragraph 8 – provide “income and deduction” printouts directly from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from January 1, 2013 to present
[60] The respondent has provided significant tax disclosure via his income tax returns and notices of assessment as discussed earlier. This disclosure request is redundant; the information sought is already included in the tax documents provided; and the request will serve only to force the respondent to incur needless time, effort and legal expenses.
[61] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 8 is dismissed.
xv. Paragraph 9 – provide use-of-home receipts from 2012 to present including internet/Wi-Fi expenses, smoke/alarm systems expenses and snow removal
[62] This request relates to production of various receipts that the applicant requires relating to matrimonial home expenses that the applicant seeks to deduct for income tax purposes.
[63] The applicant seeks copies of these receipts in order to reduce her income in the years prior to separation by claiming the amounts as business expenses. The respondent claims he has provided “various receipts” for household expenses. He refers to not being able to provide Rogers receipts because he does not have access to them. He further claims he has provided receipts totalling approximately $22,000. The respondent deposes he is unable to provide anything further as the receipts relate to service providers with which he has no ongoing relationship. Unfortunately, neither party has provided clarity as to which party has contracted with the various service providers; for example, there is no evidence as to which party contracted with Rogers. If this service was in the applicant’s name, then there would be nothing preventing the applicant from contacting Rogers directly to get a copy of the documents she requires.
[64] Any further effort necessary to obtain the receipts should fall to the applicant. If the applicant requires certain receipts or invoices to finalize or amend her tax returns, then she should be contacting all the services providers directly. For example, if a particular account was held in the respondent’s name, then the applicant should prepare a direction for the respondent to sign authorizing the service provider to release the information to the applicant.
[65] The order below contains provisions requiring the applicant to contact service providers directly and requiring the respondent, as indicated in the order, to sign a direction to allow the applicant to do so. The order also requires the respondent to provide all receipts in his possession not previously provided to the applicant.
xvi. Paragraph 10 – provide unredacted copies of all corporate registries for “all years”, to include “general ledgers, transfer registry, securities registry, transfer register, minute books” for all of the respondent’s corporate interests
[66] There is no specific time frame for this request. The applicant does not provide information as to what corporate documents have been disclosed.
[67] The respondent deposes that he has provided complete copies of corporate documents including documents referred to in paragraph 10 of the applicant’s motion. The respondent adds that some of the documents were provided over the course of several years as they were located in his father’s documents, and that subsequent to the service of the motion, that the respondent provided complete copies again to ensure that the applicant had them in an organized fashion.
[68] There is no list from the respondent as to what specific corporate disclosure was provided. While the applicant does not dispute the respondent’s evidence that the applicant was provided with corporate documents subsequent to the applicant’s motion being served, it is best to avoid any further dispute or motion as to the sufficiency regarding corporate disclosure.
[69] Accordingly, the order below requires corporate disclosure to be provided for the period commencing January 1, 2016 subject to various terms and conditions.
xvii. Paragraph 11 – provide all correspondence between CRA and the respondent or his representatives or agents, regarding the respondent personally, or in relation to his corporate interests, commencing January 1, 2015, to include various documents as specified in paragraph 11 of the applicant’s motion
[70] In support of this disclosure request, the applicant’s evidence is an allegation that the respondent has not been forthcoming regarding changes to his income and assets and debts. The respondent’s evidence is that he has had no correspondence with CRA “whatsoever since separation” and that he has received only automated notifications confirming, for example, that his tax returns are filed. The respondent’s evidence seems restricted to the time period subsequent to separation, and also it is not clear whether his evidence includes communication regarding corporate tax returns.
[71] Notwithstanding the lack of clarity in the respondent’s evidence, I find that this request for disclosure exceeds the bounds of relevancy and proportionality. The respondent has made substantial tax disclosure, both corporate and personal. There is no evidence or allegation that correspondence between the CRA and the respondent included anything other than routine correspondence acknowledging the filing of tax documents. The information sought is redundant and unlikely to add anything of value or relevance to the tax disclosure already provided.
[72] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 11 is dismissed.
xviii. Paragraph 12 – provide tax returns and monthly financial statements from January 1, 2015 to present “for the entity/individual for which the respondent paid $11,826.54 for CRA taxes in 2018.”
[73] This request is little more than “piling on” an additional request for disclosure that is irrelevant, unnecessary, and adds nothing to the information already provided.
[74] As the respondent points out, and as discussed earlier, the respondent has provided his tax returns, notices of assessment, and notices of reassessment from 2014 to 2022. The respondent’s assessed income, and the sources of income, are therefore known to the applicant.
[75] The specific tax liability is explained fully in the respondent’s 2017 notice of assessment that the applicant has received. The revised tax liability was $11,656.70 and as the respondent deposes, he paid that amount to CRA with interest for a total of $11,826.54.
[76] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 12 borders on being frivolous and vexatious and is dismissed.
xix. Paragraph 13 – respondent to provide monthly bank/financial statements “for all accounts” for the period January 1, 2015 held personally or through “corporate interests” that were used by the respondent, with the documentation to include: (a) the bank account that received Burglar Guard’s income tax refunds; (b) bank accounts that received Sterk’s (SSSL) loan to Burglar Guard; and (c) bank statements for all extra-provincial or federally-incorporated entities, including Alberta, Quebec and Manitoba, for the period January 1, 2015 to present.
[77] This lengthy request for disclosure has no merit; to a substantial degree, the disclosure request is contrived and based on facts that do not exist.
[78] Disclosure of bank account statements for Burglar Guard has already been made and was discussed earlier. The respondent explains again that SSSL never operated, and as such had no loans. Once again, the respondent repeats that he had no extra-provincial holdings, except as may be included in his registered investments.
[79] Regarding the tax refunds, the applicant refers to the respondent receiving tax refunds in three specific calendar years. The respondent deposes that these tax refunds are from his personal tax returns, and that Burglar Guard never received any tax refunds.
[80] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 13 is dismissed.
xx. Paragraph 14 – respondent to provide a pension valuation from St. Joseph’s Healthcare, including a copy of the application
[81] The respondent was employed by St. Joseph’s Healthcare and had contributed to the HOOPP pension. The respondent left that employment on a final basis, during the marriage in 2014. The respondent deposes that he has exercised an option to have his pension paid out into a TFSA and LIRA in his name. As a result, on the date of separation, the respondent had no HOOPP pension to be valued, but rather all of the pension money was reflected in his TFSA and LIRA investments held with Equitable Life of Canada. The respondent deposes that this investment totalled $110,687 at date of separation, and that the applicant has been provided with the supporting statements.
[82] The respondent further deposes that given the applicant’s renewed request for a HOOPP pension valuation, that he provided a letter dated October 2, 2023 from a HOOPP member services specialist confirming his dates of commencement and termination in the HOOPP pension plan and that all of his funds were transferred out of the plan in December 2014.
[83] In the circumstances, although the disclosure request was reasonable, there is no further disclosure to be provided and the applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 14 is dismissed.
xxi. Paragraph 15 – respondent to provide all schedules used in the completion of the respondent’s income tax returns, specifically schedule 24 in the corporate tax returns, regarding “amalgamations, mergers, transfers, or winding up of a subsidiary corporation.”
[84] The focus of this request appears to be schedule 24 which must be filed by a corporation in circumstances including amalgamation or after winding up a subsidiary corporation. To the extent that this broadly worded disclosure request includes schedules for the respondent’s personal tax returns, those tax returns have been provided as discussed earlier. There is no evidence from the applicant detailing any specific schedules that the respondent has failed to include in providing his personal tax returns.
[85] Regarding corporate income tax returns, the respondent deposes that all corporate tax returns, together with schedules for BGL have been provided, and that there has not been any amalgamation, merger, transfer or winding up of a subsidiary corporation, or any restructuring of any corporation in which the respondent has had an ownership interest. The respondent adds that SSSL has never filed tax returns because it never operated. In the circumstances, I find that no further disclosure is required.
[86] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 15 is dismissed.
xxii. Paragraph 16 – respondent to provide a letter from his employer relating to the respondent’s BMO MasterCard to confirm the amounts and purposes of payments made on the BMO credit card, or alternatively, to provide copies of the BMO credit card statements confirming that each payment made by the respondent to BMO was made to an account held by the respondent’s employer between January 1, 2015 and the date of separation
[87] This request for disclosure relates to a BMO MasterCard that the respondent’s employer provided to the respondent to use for travel expenses related to his employment.
[88] The respondent deposes that the applicant’s current motion was the first request for this information. The respondent’s evidence is that he obtained a letter from his employer confirming the payment of the expenses incurred on the BMO credit card, and that the respondent obtained “statements setting out the relevant transactions” and also a copy of the relevant employer policy, and that those documents were provided to the applicant.
[89] In her reply affidavit [^6], the applicant refers to the BMO credit card as a “T-card” (travel card). The applicant does not deny receiving a copy of the letter obtained by the respondent from his employer. The applicant then deposes that “OMAFRA T-card” statements were not provided. The applicant fails to explain what is meant by “OMAFRA T-card” statement; it is not clear if this is a reference to the BMO credit card statements.
[90] Whether or not all credit card statements were provided, it is noted that the request for statements was an alternate option to providing a letter from the respondent’s employer. That letter was provided. On the evidence, considering the principle of proportionality, I find that no further disclosure needs to be provided regarding the BMO credit card.
[91] The applicant’s request for disclosure in paragraph 16 is dismissed.
xxiii. Paragraph 17 – applicant seeks an order that a valuation completed by Mr. Victor Harding be “stricken from the record.”
[92] There is no merit to the applicant’s request for this order. The applicant deposes that the respondent hired “his friend” Mr. Harding to value BGL. The applicant then relies on Milosevic v. Milosevic [^7] and deposes that Mr. Harding claimed to have a “CPA”, but that he did not possess a “CPA”, and that Mr. Harding has provided at least one similar valuation to the court and it has been rejected. The respondent deposes that he retained Mr. Harding and his company Harding Security Services Inc. to assist him in selling the remaining monitoring accounts held by BGL. The respondent described that company as specializing in valuing, buying and selling alarm accounts in Canada. The respondent also retained Mr. Harding to provide a valuation of BGL as at date of separation.
[93] The valuation report [^8] signed by Mr. Harding has no professional designation after his name, and there is nothing in the report to suggest that Mr. Harding holds himself out as a Chartered Professional Account (CPA) as suggested by the applicant. Further, the applicant’s evidence regarding Mr. Harding’s involvement in the Milosevic case, is at best, misleading. In that case, the husband’s business had been valued by a Chartered Business Valuator (CBV). The wife had a critique prepared by her own CBV, and was successful in her motion in obtaining an advance payment from the husband to allow the wife’s expert to prepare a full report regarding the husband’s assets and income.
[94] The valuation by the husband’s CBV included the valuation of a corporation, of which the husband was a principal, described as a security monitoring company. That corporation also had been valued by Mr. Harding after separation; prior to separation the husband had retained another individual to assist him in determining the value of the corporation. Neither Mr. Harding, nor the other individual, had a CBV designation, and that fact was known by both parties. In her motion, the wife sought third-party records disclosure from both Mr. Harding and the other individual. This request was opposed by the husband. The court ordered production by both Mr. Harding and the other individual; in so doing, the court noted that the third parties may not be “certified business valuators”, but that depending on their expertise, they may be qualified as participant experts, and that they are likely fact witnesses: Milosevic, para. 68.
[95] Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, there was no finding in the Milosevic case that Mr. Harding had claimed to have a “CPA” or any other designation including a CBV, and there was no evidence in that case that Mr. Harding’s valuation was called into question; rather no opinion was expressed as to the merits of Mr. Harding’s valuation.
[96] The admissibility and reliability of Mr. Harding’s valuation in the present case is not the proper subject of a motion at this stage of the proceeding; rather it is a matter for the trial judge. Further, as suggested by the respondent, if the applicant disagrees with the valuation, then she is at liberty to obtain her own valuation.
[97] The applicant’s request at paragraph 17 of her motion is dismissed.
xxiv. Paragraph 18 – an order that the respondent not dissipate any assets held personally or through corporate interests or for his benefit
[98] In support of a non-dissipation order against the respondent, the applicant makes bald assertions without any credible documentary or other corroboration. These assertions include that the respondent uses secret addresses to conceal the extent of his corporate interests. The applicant also deposes to there being “evidence” that CRA “has returned” assets to the respondent; it is not at all clear what this latter allegation means.
[99] The respondent opposes this order and denies that he has any history of dissipating assets. The respondent also points out that there is approximately $80,000 remaining in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home. These funds belong to the respondent; the applicant has already received her share of the joint sale proceeds, plus a further $14,000 from the respondent’s share, said amount being the respondent’s estimate of the equalization payment he will owe to the applicant. On the hearing of the motions, the applicant had requested a further lump sum payment from the money held in trust in order to assist her financially pending the hearing of the motion for interim spousal support. The respondent consented to a payment of $3,000, and this amount was ordered to be paid to the applicant from the respondent’s money held in trust.
[100] The respondent’s reasonable behaviour in allowing the applicant access to her full share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds, plus an advance on the equalization payment from the respondent’s share of the sale proceeds and a further payment of $3,000 from the respondent’s share, is not suggestive of a litigant who is behaving unreasonably by hiding or depleting assets.
[101] Further, the applicant has the security of the balance of the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds remaining in trust.
[102] There is no merit to the applicant’s request for a non-dissipation order, and the applicant’s claim for that relief is dismissed.
xxv. Paragraph 19 – an order that the respondent be barred from filing any further motions until the respondent participates fully in the disclosure process and has provided the receipts necessary for the applicant to “correct her taxes” in the years 2012 to the date of separation
[103] There is no merit to the applicant’s request. The evidentiary record suggests that the respondent has complied with disclosure orders. Further, the respondent deposes that prior to the current motion, that there have been no other motions brought since March 2020.
[104] The issue of the receipts for use-of-home expenses has been dealt with earlier.
[105] The applicant’s motion for an order prohibiting the respondent from bringing any further motions is dismissed.
The Respondent’s Motion for Disclosure
[106] The respondent deposes that some of the disclosure requests have been ordered previously but not provided.
[107] The respondent complains as to the alleged paucity of the applicant’s disclosure to date, and the minimal income that the applicant claims that she earns despite her many years of experience as a dog trainer. In turn, the applicant believes that the respondent has income substantially exceeding what he has reported.
[108] It is the respondent’s evidence that the applicant’s tax returns and notices of assessment have not been provided for all relevant years. The respondent deposes that some disclosure that has been provided is incomplete and illegible.
[109] The respondent has prefaced most of his disclosure requests with the requirement that the disclosure shall be “complete, legible and unredacted.” The order below includes that provision, but it is mutual.
[110] Most of the respondent’s request for disclosure relates to the issue of spousal support.
[111] The discussion below uses the same paragraph numbers as in the respondent’s motion.
i. Paragraph 2a. – all bank statements for all bank accounts, including investments, registered and unregistered, in the applicant’s name or held in relationship to her sole proprietorship “Awesome Dogs”, or any other sole proprietorship owned by the applicant for the period January 2016 to present
[112] This disclosure request is relevant. The applicant deposes she has no investments in her business, Awesome Dogs. The applicant appears to be in agreement to providing information about any investments.
[113] There is no evidence that the applicant has any interest in any other sole proprietorship.
[114] Disclosure regarding the respondent’s request in paragraph 2a. is set out in the order below.
ii. Paragraphs 2b. and 2c. – copies of statements for any credit cards and/or lines of credit in the applicant’s name or in relation to her business and statements from PayPal, Square, TSYS and any other third-party payment service in the applicant’s name or in relation to her business, from January 2016 to present
[115] The applicant deposes that there are “no lines of credit personally or in relation to her business.” The applicant offered to provide a letter “from any institution” confirming same. The applicant’s evidence is not clear whether there were lines of credit in the past.
[116] Regarding payment services, the applicant’s evidence suggests that she had used such services, except she denies using TSYS.
[117] An order is made for disclosure in relation to paragraphs 2b. and 2c. of the respondent’s motion.
iii. Paragraph 2d. – confirmation whether the applicant held any accounts jointly with her mother, and if so, statements for all such accounts from January 2016 to present
[118] The applicant denies there were any joint accounts with anyone else including her mother. The applicant claims she has confirmed this information already. It appears the applicant has in the past has made some transfers to her mother’s account. The applicant deposes that her mother is willing to provide “proof of deposits.”
[119] Despite this alleged offer from the applicant’s mother, it is outside the ambit of the respondent’s request for disclosure, and I find that this proposed disclosure is neither proportional nor relevant.
[120] The respondent’s request for disclosure in paragraph 2d. is dismissed.
iv. Paragraph 2e. – copies of any application for credit the applicant has submitted since the date of separation, and if none, confirmation of same from TD Canada Trust, Simplii Financial and CIBC
[121] The applicant deposes that she applied for a CIBC credit card and was declined and that she did not keep the application.
[122] Applications for credit are relevant as income is usually disclosed as part of the application.
[123] Given the potential relevance of any credit application, I find that the respondent’s request for disclosure is relevant. The applicant also should obtain a copy of her CIBC Visa credit card application if that was made subsequent to separation.
[124] The order below provides for disclosure in relation to paragraph 2e. of the respondent’s motion. The order refers to November 13, 2018 which is the date of separation.
v. Paragraph 2f. – provide letters from the Toronto Star, the Londoner and other publications for whom the applicant has written, confirming amounts paid to her or to any sole proprietorship owned or operated by the applicant, for each year, from January 2016 to present
[125] The respondent deposes that for 20 years the applicant has been paid to write pet-training columns for the Toronto Star and the Londoner. The applicant’s evidence is that she has not written for the Londoner since approximately 2005, and that the Londoner did not pay her. She deposes that the income from the Toronto Star has been disclosed and claimed in her taxes. However, the applicant’s tax disclosure is incomplete. The applicant, however, does indicate that she has no objection to providing statements. This disclosure request is reasonable and is dealt with in the order below.
vi. Paragraph 2g. – provide a letter from the Animal Rescue Foundation Ontario (ARF) confirming details of the referral arrangement with the applicant, or Awesome Dogs or any sole proprietorship operated by the applicant, including the number of referrals made each year from the time this arrangement was entered into to the present
[126] The applicant complains that this covers 22 years of documents. The applicant deposes that persons adopting dogs received classes as part of the adoption process and that ARF paid the applicant approximately $75, which increased nominally over time, for each person registered for a session. The applicant is particularly upset because the individual who is able to provide this information at ARF has a serious illness. The respondent’s evidence is that he is sensitive to the individual’s illness, but the respondent believes that ARF is a sufficiently large organization that someone else could provide this information.
[127] While this disclosure request includes relevant information regarding the applicant’s income, the disclosure request as framed is overly broad and onerous. All that is relevant is the income received from ARF.
[128] Accordingly, the order below requires only income disclosure from ARF and commencing January 1, 2016. Any income disclosure prior to that date is neither necessary nor proportional.
vii. Paragraphs 2h., 2i., and 2j. – copies of complete income tax disclosure, notices of assessment and reassessment and copies of all correspondence the applicant has sent to and received from CRA for the years 2016 to 2022
[129] My order, previously mentioned, dated January 19, 2024, adjourning the applicant’s motion for interim spousal support, dealt specifically with production of the applicant’s T1 general income tax returns, notices of assessment and reassessment for the years 2020 to 2022. Therefore, no further order is required for those years.
[130] The applicant deposes that she has “no objection” to providing tax returns, notices of assessments and reassessments and correspondence. However, her agreement is limited to providing this disclosure only after “corrections” have been made and to produce only the “corrected” tax returns and assessments.
[131] The restrictions sought by the applicant are not appropriate. The applicant should be providing all her tax disclosure in its current form. If the applicant later files amended tax returns and receives notices of reassessment, then the applicant remains under an obligation to provide those documents immediately. The order below includes production of tax returns and assessments.
[132] Regarding correspondence between the applicant and CRA, the applicant acknowledges engaging in correspondence with CRA. She refers to communications with CRA that she characterizes as a “review”, where she states that she explains in “graphic detail” alleged “coercion and violence” she said she faced when attempting to obtain her “tax receipts.” The applicant requests that she be allowed to “redact content tied to other individuals who assisted Mr. Van Veen.” The applicant is not opposed to providing this correspondence, if she has retained a copy.
[133] While the applicant’s correspondence with CRA may have some relevance to the determination of her income, I find that relevance to be somewhat tangential. In the circumstances, the order below requires production of correspondence that remains in the applicant’s possession; the order below also contains a limited right of redaction. Further the order below provides that it is without prejudice to the respondent’s right to seek further disclosure regarding correspondence between the applicant and CRA.
viii. Paragraphs 2k. and 2l. – applicant to provide her curriculum vitae and details of all efforts she has made to retrain and/or become self-supporting from the date of separation to present
[134] This request for disclosure is reasonable and relevant. Dealing first with the curriculum vitae, the applicant’s evidence is that she uses a “query letter” not a curriculum vitae. The order below requires the applicant to provide these letters.
[135] Regarding efforts made by the applicant to become self sufficient, the applicant deposes that she has provided to the respondent an extensive list of strategies that she has undertaken, including continuing education classes at Western University. The respondent’s evidence is that the applicant has not provided any details as she alleges. Further, the respondent notes that the information now provided in the applicant’s affidavit does not contain any specific detail about the courses taken by the applicant.
[136] Given the conflicting evidence as to what has been provided, the order below requires disclosure as to the applicant’s efforts to become self-supporting, including a requirement for the applicant to provide better detail regarding her continuing education.
[137] A word about the applicant’s analogy in her affidavit [^9] that the respondent is like an individual who pushes a person into a lake and then watches them drown. This analogy also includes an imagined fictional quote attributed to the respondent.
[138] This type of gratuitous comment has no place in a court of law. It is disrespectful, offensive, inflammatory, a waste of time to read, contributes nothing to the evidentiary record and serves only to increase tension and animosity between litigants. An affidavit is a document that should be restricted to fact-based relevant evidence to assist the court in making a decision. An affidavit is not an opportunity for the deponent to distract the court with fanciful narratives. A litigant who thinks that this type of conduct is reasonable and assists the court, should think again.
ix. Paragraphs 2m. and 2n. – complete accounting of all cash payments and in-kind payments received by the respondent or her sole proprietorship, Awesome Dogs, from January 2016 to present
[139] The applicant agrees to provide a breakdown of cash payments. The applicant denies the use of in-kind payments. The order below deals with cash payments. The request regarding in-kind payments is dismissed.
x. Paragraph 2o. – the respondent seeks various proof as outlined in paragraph 2o. regarding the parties’ son’s enrollment in fulltime post-secondary education for the academic year commencing September 2023 so that the respondent can keep the parties’ son covered under the respondent’s various workplace benefits
[140] It is unnecessary to dwell on the somewhat contentious allegations made by the applicant regarding this matter. It appears, based on submissions by the applicant, that their son is currently covered by the respondent’s employer benefits, meaning that the necessary information has been provided. In case that is not correct, the order below provides for the requested disclosure.
Miscellaneous
[141] The order below contains a direction regarding confirmation notices for the applicant’s upcoming motion for interim spousal support. Given that the affidavit material commingles the issue of interim spousal support and disclosure, the order below requires the parties to list all relevant paragraphs and exhibits in each affidavit that relate to interim spousal support.
Order
[142] I make the following order:
Except as provided in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this order, and except for the applicant’s claim for interim spousal support, all other claims in the applicant’s motion are dismissed;
Within 28 days, the respondent shall provide his monthly statements for all investments, registered or unregistered, and unredacted, for the period January 1, 2016 to the date of this order. These statements shall be provided to the applicant by way of a document brief, containing a table of contents, and each statement shall be placed in that document brief notwithstanding that the statement may have been provided previously;
Within 14 days, the respondent shall request in writing from SRC, Damar and Lambton Communications statements to be provided within 30 days showing deposits from all bulk sales clients for the period commencing January 1, 2016 to the date of this order, and the respondent shall provide those statements to the applicant immediately upon receipt. The respondent also shall provide to the applicant a copy of his written request at the time it is made;
In relation to the applicant’s request for use-of-home receipts, the following order is made: a. It shall be the applicant’s responsibility to obtain copies of all invoices, receipts or other proof of payment in relation to the services provided to the parties for any residence occupied by the parties for the period commencing January 1, 2012, including services provided for internet, alarm systems, and snow removal; b. If any of the service providers contracted solely with the respondent, or jointly with the respondent and the applicant, then the applicant shall prepare an irrevocable direction to the relevant service provider to be signed by the respondent authorizing all details regarding the account, including receipts, invoices and payment history to be provided to the applicant; c. The applicant shall forward all such directions within 28 days to the respondent for his signature, and the respondent shall sign the direction and return it to the applicant within 14 days after the direction has been forwarded to the respondent; and d. The respondent shall provide to the applicant within 28 days, copies of any use-of-home receipts for any services for any residence occupied by the parties since January 1, 2012, that the respondent still has in his possession and that the respondent previously has not produced to the applicant;
Within 28 days, the respondent shall provide to the applicant copies of the following documentation for any corporation in which the respondent had or has an ownership interest for the period commencing January 1, 2016: a. Corporate minute book; b. All general ledgers, including any general ledgers for assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses; c. All corporate registers, including the shareholder register; d. The foregoing shall be organized in a tabbed disclosure brief with a table of contents for each corporation; and e. If the respondent already has provided a particular corporate document required to be provided pursuant to this order, then that document need not be provided again, but the table of contents shall list that document and state when and how that document was provided;
The applicant shall provide to the respondent the following disclosure, and the disclosure shall be provided within 28 days unless otherwise ordered: a. Statements for all bank accounts and registered and unregistered investments, in the applicant’s name from January 1, 2016 to the date of this order; b. Statements for all credit cards and/or all lines of credit in the applicant’s name or held in relation to her sole proprietorship, Awesome Dogs, from January 1, 2016 to the date of this order; c. Statements from PayPal, Square and any other third-party payment services in the applicant’s name and/or in relation to her sole proprietorship, Awesome Dogs, from January 1, 2016 to the date of this order; d. The applicant shall request CIBC Visa to provide a copy of her Visa credit card application, if that application was made after the date of separation (November 13, 2018), and the applicant shall request written confirmation from TD Canada Trust, Simplii Financial and CIBC that no credit applications were made by the applicant after the date of separation, other than the CIBC Visa application. The applicant shall make the written requests within 14 days and at the same time shall provide copies of the requests to the respondent. The applicant shall request that the information be provided to her within 30 days; e. Within 14 days, the applicant shall make written requests to the Toronto Star and the Londoner requesting confirmation within 30 days of all amounts, if any, paid to the applicant or her sole proprietorship, Awesome Dogs, each year commencing January 1, 2016 to the date of this order, and the applicant shall provide copies of all responses to the respondent immediately upon receipt. When making the written requests, the applicant shall provide a copy to the respondent at the same time; f. Within 14 days, the applicant shall make a written request to the Animal Rescue Foundation Ontario (ARF) requesting confirmation within 30 days of all amounts paid by ARF to the applicant or to her sole proprietorship, Awesome Dogs, on an annual basis commencing January 1, 2016 to the date of this order, and the applicant shall provide all responses to the respondent immediately upon receipt. When making the written request, the applicant shall provide a copy to the respondent at the same time; g. The applicant shall provide the following tax disclosure: i. For the years 2016 to 2019, her T1 general tax returns with all slips and schedules, including the statement of business activities in relation to the applicant’s sole proprietorship, Awesome Dogs; ii. For the years 2016 to 2019, her notices of assessment and, if any, notices of reassessment; iii. For the period commencing January 1, 2016 to the date of this order, copies of all correspondence in the applicant’s possession that the applicant has sent to, and received from, CRA, and regarding correspondence sent by the applicant to CRA, the applicant may redact information limited to the names and identities of persons (other than the respondent) referred to in the applicant’s correspondence; and iv. Subparagraph iii is without prejudice to the respondent’s right to seek further disclosure regarding correspondence exchanged between the applicant and CRA, including bringing a motion; h. The applicant shall provide copies of all letters sent by the applicant from the date of separation to the date of this order seeking employment or retaining the applicant in any capacity to provide services in relation to her sole proprietorship, Awesome Dogs. The letters to be provided shall include the letters described by the applicant as “query letters”; i. The applicant shall provide details of all efforts she has made to retrain and/or become self-supporting from the date of separation to the date of this order, to include in relation to any courses taken by the applicant, the name of the course, when and where the course was taken, the cost of the course, the length of the course and whether the course was successfully completed; j. The applicant shall provide a complete accounting of all cash payments received by the applicant personally or in her capacity as a sole proprietor of Awesome Dogs from January 1, 2016 to the date of this order; and k. If not already provided, proof that parties’ son is enrolled in fulltime education for the academic period commencing September 2023 to the end of April 2024, by providing one of the following documents: i. Letter from the post-secondary institution confirming his enrollment during this period of time; ii. Proof of school fees paid by on behalf of the parties’ son for this period of time; or iii. The class timetable for the period September 1, 2023 to April 30, 2024.
Subject to paragraph 6 of this order, the respondent’s motion is dismissed.
All disclosure required to be provided by the parties shall be complete, legible and unredacted, except that redaction may occur where permitted by the order, and redaction is permitted in respect of personal information such as social insurance number and account numbers for investments or financial institutions.
When serving the confirmation notice for the applicant’s motion for interim spousal support, each party’s confirmation notice shall list all relevant documents filed by both parties, in chronological order, and in relation to each affidavit, the confirmation notice shall list the paragraph numbers and exhibits that are relevant to the issue of interim spousal support.
Each party may make written costs submissions. The written costs submissions shall be limited to three typed pages (two pages for reply), double-spaced, minimum font 12, plus copies of any offers to settle, time dockets and bills of costs. All references to legislation or authorities shall be hyperlinked. The costs submissions shall be limited to the costs relating to the issues dealt with in this order and shall not include any costs in relation to interim spousal support. The respondent shall serve and file his costs submissions within 14 days, the applicant shall serve and file her responding costs submissions within 14 days thereafter and any reply shall be served and filed within seven days thereafter. The costs submissions shall be filed with the court in the usual manner.
“Justice Victor Mitrow” Justice Victor Mitrow Date: February 26, 2024
Footnotes
[^1]: Affidavit of the respondent sworn November 24, 2023, exhibit A. [^2]: Cited with approval by Kiteley J. in Saunders v. Saunders, 2015 ONSC 926 (Ont. S.C.J), at para. 13, said case being relied on by the respondent. [^3]: Applicant’s affidavit sworn December 1, 2023, exhibit F. [^4]: Applicant’s affidavit sworn December 1, 2023, at para. 13. [^5]: See respondent’s affidavit sworn November 24, 2023, at paras. 8 – 12, describing BGL and income received by the respondent from BGL for the period of 2015 to 2023. [^6]: Affidavit of applicant sworn December 1, 2023, para. 7. [^7]: The applicant provides no citation for Milosevic v. Milosevic. This case is a decision of Kurz J. and is reported at 2021 ONSC 1213 (Ont. S.C.J), motion for leave to appeal dismissed at Milosevic v. Milosevic, 2021 ONSC 3663 (Ont. S.C.J. – Divisional Court). [^8]: The valuation report prepared by Mr. Harding is appended to the applicant’s affidavit sworn November 14, 2023, exhibit B. [^9]: Applicant’s affidavit sworn November 24, 2023, page 4, para. L.