Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FS-23-00036064-0000
Date: 2025-04-07

Parties

Between:
Maria Teresa Del Grosso (Applicant)
– and –
Peter (Pietro) Del Grosso (Respondent)

Applicant Counsel: Robert C. Watt
Respondent: Self-represented

Heard: February 24, 2025

Uncontested trial endorsement – Part 1
Justice Kiran Sah

Introduction

[1] This matter is before me as an uncontested trial, in chambers.

Background

[2] The applicant and respondent are currently 60 and 62 years old, respectively.

[3] They separated in 2022 after 35 years of marriage/cohabitation. The applicant was 58 years old on the date of separation, May 12, 2022.

[4] The parties have three adult children, ages 32, 35, and 29. The children are not dependents.

[5] The applicant issued her application in May 2023.

[6] The application was served on the respondent by way of substituted service pursuant to the order of Kristjanson J., dated October 5, 2023.

[7] Despite not filing an answer, the respondent attended a case conference on July 5, 2024.

[8] At that time, Shore J. ordered him to file his answer and financial statement within 30 days. Shore J. also ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with financial disclosure with respect to his income from the separation date, his assets on the date of separation and current, and his debts on the date of separation and current.

[9] At the case conference, it was ordered that if no answer and financial statement was served within 30 days, the applicant could bring a 14B motion to proceed to trial on an uncontested basis.

[10] The respondent failed to serve and file in accordance with the court order.

[11] The applicant filed an affidavit, factum, and financial statement for this uncontested trial.

[12] The divorce is not being sought on this uncontested trial. On consent, Shore J. severed the divorce from the corollary issues.

[13] The divorce has not been granted; therefore, the claims for spousal support shall be considered under the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3 (hereafter, “FLA”), as is the case for the claim for equalization of net family property.

Relief Sought

[14] The applicant is seeking spousal support payable by the respondent, based on his income of $120,000 and her income of zero dollars. She seeks retroactive spousal support commencing June 1, 2022, payable at a rate of $5,000 per month.

[15] The applicant also asks that title of the ownership in the matrimonial home, where she has continued to live since separation, be transferred in full settlement of any claims for equalization of net family property, with the exception of payment of certain debt.

[16] The applicant asks for an order that the respondent be responsible for payment of two joint lines of credit registered against the property, both held with Scotiabank. In relation to these lines of credit, the applicant seeks that the respondent pay her half of the interest amounts on the two lines of credit since separation, which she claims she paid in full.

[17] The applicant also has a joint RBC line of credit, and she asks for an order that the respondent pay in full the amount owing, plus one half of the interest payments made by her.

Issues

1. Is an equalization payment owing to the applicant, and if so, is it appropriate for the matrimonial home to be in her name alone in satisfaction of that payment?
2. Is the respondent responsible for reimbursing the applicant for one half of the interest payments she made on three lines of credit that she identified in her materials?
3. Is the respondent liable to pay back the total amounts owing in the three lines of credit?
4. Is the applicant entitled to spousal support? If so, what is the appropriate quantum of retroactive and ongoing support payable by the respondent?

Analysis

[18] As stated by the court in Cedeno v. Cedeno, 2023 ONSC 6686, at para. 7:

An uncontested trial is not a rubber-stamp. While judges have discretion to require a party to produce additional evidence, or to provide oral evidence, it is not the judge’s responsibility to cure deficiencies in an applicant’s record. Busy Family lists mean it is difficult for a judge to engage in multiple rounds of fact-finding through back and forth with counsel or a party. An uncontested trial is a trial, set for a full hearing, and determination, on the date it is assigned to the judge.

[19] Trial-worthy evidence is expected at an uncontested trial.

[20] There are several evidentiary deficiencies in this case.

Equalization on Net Family Property

[21] Regarding the property claims, according to the financial statement filed, the matrimonial home was owned on the date of marriage with an estimated value of $300,000. The valuation date and current value is listed at $1 million. It is presumed that this is the full value, as the applicant indicates she owns the home.

[22] Her sole ownership was addressed in her affidavit, wherein she deposed: “[t]he matrimonial home is in my name alone and had a value of about one million dollars as of valuation date with two Registered Secured lines of credit with Scotia Bank in the amount of $182,196.56. The matrimonial home requires a lot of work to be done to it. The value of the matrimonial home has remained the same since separation.”

[23] No deed, land transfer documents, or other proof of ownership as of the date of marriage and date of separation was submitted. It is necessary to consider this evidence: see FLA, at s. 4(1)(b).

[24] With respect to the RBC line of credit, a statement dated November 12, 2024, is attached showing the current balance owing of $26,997.17. The statement reflects interest payments made on November 4 and October 4, 2024, but does not summarize payments allegedly made by the applicant and there is no proof that she in fact made those payments.

[25] Further, there is no proof that this is a joint debt or that it is secured by the matrimonial home. This debt was not set out in detail on the financial statement.

[26] To consider the applicant’s request that the respondent reimburse her half of the $7,127.86 she allegedly paid, proof is required that she in fact made those payments toward this alleged joint debt.

[27] Before considering the applicant’s request that the court order the respondent pay this debt in full, further evidence is required to demonstrate, as alleged, that the use of the RBC line of credit was strictly by the respondent and that it was a liability for his benefit alone.

[28] With respect to the Scotiabank line of credit, two statements were produced with the applicant’s affidavit.

[29] One statement pertains to the account ending in 226, dated November 4, 2024. This statement reveals a balance owing of $129,868.61. Both parties are listed as borrowers.

[30] There is some evidence of payments made and interest charges accrued for the period of October 7 to November 4, 2024, but there is no proof of who made those payments, and no proof that, as alleged by the applicant, the payments have been made by her since the parties separated. There is no proof that this debt is secured by the matrimonial home.

[31] As part of her relief sought, the applicant is seeking an order that the respondent reimburse her for half of interest payments made. The court cannot entertain that request without evidence that she in fact made those payments.

[32] The other Scotiabank statement is for the account ending in 039, and the statement is dated November 4, 2024. Both parties are listed as borrowers.

[33] There is no evidence that this line of credit is secured by the matrimonial home. There is some evidence of interest charges and payments made, including a payment made by the respondent on October 27, 2024, in the amount of $218.85.

[34] This evidence contained in the statement attached to her affidavit contradicts the evidence in paragraph 29 of her affidavit, wherein she deposes that she made interest payments on the lines of credit since separation, in the amount of $30,812.60.

[35] The applicant is asking for the court to order the respondent to pay half of this interest amount, totalling $15,406.30. The court requires proof of payments made by the applicant.

[36] In addition, there is no documentary evidence to support the applicant’s claims that all three of the lines of credit were used for the purpose of the respondent’s business. Before making an order that the respondent pay the balances owing on the three lines of credit, the court requires evidence to support that this property is consistent with the definition of net family property under s. 4 of the FLA.

[37] Further and better evidence is required to determine the equalization of net family property issues in this case.

Spousal Support

[38] The undisputed evidence before me leads to a finding that the applicant is entitled to spousal support.

[39] I make the following findings based on the uncontroverted evidence before me:

• Prior to their marriage, the applicant was employed with the Royal Bank of Canada providing customer service. She was promoted to work in the foreign exchange and liability department.
• The applicant took a seven-month maternity leave after the birth of their first child and returned to the bank after that, starting to train as a bank manager.
• She returned to work after her maternity leave and worked for six months. The parties then agreed that she would stay home as a stay-at-home mother and the respondent would be the sole income earner.
• The applicant took on housework, managed the finances, was the primary caregiver for the children, and was responsible for maintenance inside and outside of the home.
• The respondent is an architect and employable.
• He worked for 23 years with one company but left in 2009. He then worked for another company as director of architectural design until August 2013. He was employed as a senior associate for another design company from 2013 to 2015.
• In 2015, the respondent started his own business and runs that business to date.

[40] I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the threshold issue has been met.

[41] The common markers of compensatory support are present, specifically evidence pertaining to the applicant being home full time with the children while the respondent continued to work full time.

[42] I have also considered the applicant’s age and the length of the parties’ relationship. I accept that the applicant experienced a drop in her standard of living post-separation.

[43] I further accept the applicant’s evidence about borrowing money to meet her needs. It is her evidence that she has attempted to secure full-time employment using various online platforms but has been unable to secure a job that pays more than minimum wage due to her age. She is currently working part-time at Zacks clothing store at Cloverdale Mall.

[44] However, I am unable to determine the quantum of support because of the following deficiencies in the evidence. These deficiencies prevent me from considering the factors set out in s. 33(9) of the FLA, which I am required to consider in determining the amount and duration, if any.

[45] Attached to the applicant’s financial statement are portions of what would appear to be a notice of assessment. The documents attached are incomplete. However, they revealed the following.

[46] In 2021, the applicant’s total Line 15000 income was zero dollars.

[47] In 2022, the applicant’s total Line 15000 income was $65,745. Within this document, there is a handwritten note indicating that this was an RRSP withdrawal. There is no evidence to support that this was an RRSP withdrawal.

[48] For 2023, the document reveals that the applicant had a total Line 15000 income of $11,116.

[49] The SSAG calculations attached to the factum have $0 attributed for her income when she is earning some income. An explanation is required.

[50] Also, the applicant offers hearsay evidence about what her son told her about the respondent’s income.

[51] Is there any other evidence to support the applicant’s claim that: a) income should be imputed to the respondent; and b) that his income should be imputed to $120,000?

[52] Further, until such time as the property issue is resolved, this court has no information about the respondent’s future assets and means.

Order

[53] I make the following order:

1. This uncontested trial shall be adjourned pending receipt of additional evidence, via affidavit, which shall be filed on or before March 31, 2025.
2. I am seized of this matter and the uncontested trial may be brought to my attention once the further and better evidence is filed.

Justice Kiran Sah
Released: April 7, 2025