Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-22-23810 Date: 2025-11-03 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Victoria Gratton, Applicant

And: Clint Gratton, Respondent

And: Denis Gratton, Denis Gratton Construction Ltd., Cascaden Contracting Inc., 1753506 Ontario Inc., The Gratton Family Trust, Third Party Respondents

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice S.K. Stothart

Counsel:

• James Edney and Samantha Prescott, Counsel, for the Applicant
• Dhiren Chohan, Counsel, for the Respondent, Clint Gratton
• Shaun Laubman, Sarina Nexhadian and Renee Jang, Counsel for the third-party Respondents

Heard: October 15, 2025

Endorsement on Motion for Production of Third-Party Records

Overview

[1] The applicant, Victoria Gratton, and the respondent, Clint Gratton, are involved in family proceedings that involve, amongst other things, claims for child support, spousal support and equalization of net family property.

[2] This is a motion by the applicant seeking financial disclosure from third parties, Denis Gratton, 1753506 Ontario Inc. ("506"), Denis Gratton Construction Ltd ("DGCL"), Cascaden Contracting Inc. ("Cascaden"), and the Gratton Family Trust pursuant to rr. 19(11) and 20(5) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, as am., and r. 30.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[3] Denis Gratton is Clint Gratton's father. The companies, 506, DGCL, and Cascaden are businesses held within the Gratton family and with which Clint Gratton is involved, directly or indirectly.

[4] The applicant takes the position that the financial disclosure sought in this motion is necessary to determine the respondent Clint Gratton's true income and net family property. She submits that it would be unfair to proceed to a hearing on the issues in this case without this disclosure.

[5] The responding third parties oppose this motion. They submit that this motion is premature because the same materials are also being sought from the respondent Clint Gratton in another motion scheduled to be heard on November 13, 2025. They further submit that the domestic contract between the applicant and the respondent Clint Gratton make disclosure of the materials irrelevant to the family proceedings or to the calculation of Clint Gratton's NFP. As such, they submit that the applicant must first successfully set aside the domestic contract before this motion can proceed. They FURTHER submit that the applicant has not established that the materials are necessary, or that it would be unfair for her to proceed without them, or that the materials are otherwise not available.

[6] Counsel for the respondent, Clint Gratton, attended this motion but took no part in submissions.

[7] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that this motion is not premature. I am also satisfied that the disclosure is within the control of the third parties, is not privileged, and that it would be unfair for the applicant to proceed with her case without these documents. As such, I am making an order for production, subject to confidentiality terms.

What is Sought in This Motion

[8] The applicant seeks the following from DGCL, Cascaden, and 506:

1. Financial Statements for the fiscal years ended from 2019 to date; and
2. Corporate income tax returns for the fiscal years ended from 2018 to date.

[9] The applicant ALSO seeks from all of the third parties, details of non-arm's length expenses such as salaries, or fees to related parties, charged as business expenses in any company in which Clint and/or the Trust have or had a direct or indirect interest for the years ended from 2020 to date, broken down as follows: 1. Payor company; 2. Fiscal year; 3. Amount; and 4. Description.

[10] In this motion, the applicant also sought an order that the Gratton Family Trust provide the T3 trust income tax returns with all slips and schedules from 2015 to date. Following submissions on this motion, the parties provided a statement of agreed facts which sets out that the applicant has received the T3 trust income tax returns from the Gratton Family Trust for the years 2015-2023. She has not received the T3 trust income tax returns for the year 2024. I assume, for the purposes of this decision, that the respondent, Clint Gratton is prepared to provide these materials to the applicant, including for the year 2024 and that I do not have to address the issue related to the T3 trust income tax returns for the Gratton Family Trust in this decision. If I am wrong in this regard, the parties may return before me for a determination of this issue.

Background

[11] The applicant, Victoria Gratton, and the respondent, Clint Gratton, were married for over 17 years. They were married on March 25, 2004, and separated on December 5, 2021. They have three children. This application was commenced on June 2, 2022, by Victoria. In her application, the applicant seeks, amongst other things, to set aside a domestic contract entered into by the parties, spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

[12] On September 22, 2022, the applicant brought a motion seeking child support and spousal support. On October 6, 2022, on consent, an interim/interim without prejudice order was made that Clint pay child support for the youngest child and spousal support to the applicant based upon an income of $116,000.

[13] Clint is employed as a General Manager with DGCL, which is primarily owned by his father, Denis. The applicant states in her affidavit that to her knowledge Clint earned approximately $200,000 to $300,000 annually throughout their marriage from DGCL. As part of financial disclosure, Clint provided his income tax returns for 2019, 2020 and 2021. They report that he earned $166,028, $195,484, and $201,022 in those years from his employment with DGCL.

[14] The applicant states that when she reviewed banking records from the parties' joint bank account, she noticed deposits or earnings for the years 2019 to 2021 which would indicate that Clint received a significantly greater cash flow than what was reported on his income tax returns for those years. The joint bank account shows total deposits for the years 2019 to 2021 in the amounts of $258,643.75; $293,459.46; and $220,834.27. Following separation, the joint account was discontinued, and the applicant has no knowledge of Clint's actual income for the years 2022, 2023, or 2024.

[15] Following separation, Clint's reported income as set out in his income tax returns drastically declined. In 2022 he reported that he earned $116,040. In 2023 he earned $113,801.97. Clint has not provided his notice of assessment for 2024, but projects that he will earn about $115,000. Post-separation the Clint's income has decreased by about 40%.

[16] Clint says that the reason his income drastically declined, post separation, is because his performance at work suffered due to the separation and other court proceedings and because DGCL experienced financial decline. In a letter dated September 13, 2022, Denis, states that his son's income declined in 2021/2022 because his work performance was poor and because revenues of the company were dramatically compromised. In a further undated letter, Denis states that Clint's salary will remain at per his employment agreement at $115,000 per year and no bonus or pay adjustments will be issued to Clint for the year 2024. The letter states the issue of bonus is reviewed yearly based on profit and extra workload requirements.

[17] During their marriage, Clint and Victoria entered into a domestic contract. The contract is dated November 10, 2008, and Victoria signed the contract that day. Clint appears to have signed it three months later, on February 10, 2009. The contract provides that the purpose of the contract is to exclude Clint's beneficial interest in the Gratton Trust and any shares he may have in DGCL, Cascaden, or any other corporation that acquires shares or assets of these two corporations, from Clint's net family property. The contract provides that except as otherwise set out in the agreement, each remains entitled to the rights otherwise applicable under the Family Law Act.

[18] The applicant seeks to set aside the domestic contract for a number of reasons including an allegation that it was signed under duress, that she was subject to intimate partner violence throughout her marriage and was afraid of Clint, that she did not receive independent legal advice because Clint and Denis were also clients of the lawyer who advised her, and she did not receive full financial disclosure at the time of signing, particularly about the Gratton Trust or the corporations. Clint disputes this and takes the position that the domestic contract is valid and enforceable and excludes any of his corporate interests from his NFP. He states that he paid for the lawyer who advised Victoria, and she had no issue with the legal advice she obtained.

[19] The issue of intimate partner violence is a live issue. On April 28, 2023, the respondent pled guilty to uttering a threat against the applicant, and four counts of assault against her that occurred between 2012 and 2021. He received a sentence of imprisonment for six months, to be served in the community (CSO) and two years of probation. Clint also entered into a recognizance to keep the peace in relation to his daughter. The applicant states that Clint told her that if she ever left him, she would get "nothing".

[20] Clint has sworn an affidavit dated December 13, 2024, denying that he physically abused his spouse throughout their marriage. He states that the assaults he pled guilty to post-date the signing of the domestic contract and so have no impact.

[21] There are a number of interrelated corporations in which Clint is involved, either directly or indirectly. They are:

1. 1753507 Ontario Inc. – Clint is the President and Secretary of this company. He owns 100% of the shares in this company. It was incorporated on May 27, 2008.

2. 1753506 Ontario Inc. – Denis is the sole Director of this company. He is the President and Secretary. He is also the majority shareholder. He has sole control over any dividend decisions for this company. This company was incorporated on May 27, 2008.

   Clint owns 10 Class A common shares and 92,670 Class G special shares in this company. He is entitled to receive dividends but does not have the authority to declare himself a dividend. In his financial statement, Clint attributed a value of $100,000 to the Class A common shares and $92,670 for the Class G special shares.

   507, which is owned by Clint, owns 668,900 Class B special shares, 718,724 Class C special shares in 506. Clint's company, 507, borrowed the funds to purchase these shares from Cascaden.

   506 owns 100 Class A common shares in DGCL.

3. Cascaden Construction Inc. – Denis is the President and Secretary of this corporation. He is the sole Director. He is the majority shareholder. This company was incorporated on April 16, 1991.

   The other shareholders are 506 and the Gratton Family Trust.

   Clint is the Vice President of this corporation. Clint does not personally hold any shares in this corporation.

   As noted earlier, Clint's company, 507, borrowed money from Cascaden to purchase Class C and D shares in 506. Cascaden is owed a debt in the amount of $1,387,624 by 507.

4. Denis Gratton Construction Inc. – Denis is the President and Secretary of this company. He is also the majority shareholder. This company was incorporated on June 19, 1986.

   The other shareholders are 506 (which holds 100 Class A commons share) and 507 (which holds 100 Class D special shares).

   The applicant states in her affidavit that 507, which is owned by Clint, owns 100% of the preferred shares and 716,724 Class C special share in DGCL.

[22] The Gratton Family Trust was created May 27, 2008. Denis states in his affidavit that he is one of multiple trustees who administer the Trust, alongside his wife Karen, his daughter Kelly and Clint. The discretionary beneficiaries of the Trust include Denis, his spouse, and his children, including Clint. The Trust holds shares in 506 and Cascaden. It may receive dividends from both corporations and may allocate those dividends to one or more of the beneficiaries.

[23] Clint has included 507 and 506 in his financial statement as business interests. He values 507 at $0, because of the loan owed to Cascaden. He values his interest in 506 at $192,670 for the Class A common shares and Class B commons shares and takes the position that the Class A common shares (worth $100,000) were gifted to him. Clint has included the Gratton Family Trust in his financial statement and values it at zero because he is a discretionary beneficiary. In his affidavit dated December 13, 2024, Clint states that he has no control over the Gratton Family Trust.

[24] The position of Clint with respect to the corporate records sought in this motion is set out in a letter from his counsel dated May 2, 2023 (and repeated in other letters), which states:

1. Clint does not personally own any shares in DGCL and is unable to produce and is not required to produce financial statements for DGCL;
2. 507 has no voting shares in DGCL, and therefore Clint is unable and not required to produce financial statements for DGCL;
3. Clint does not personally own any shares in Cascaden, and is unable to produce and is not required to produce financial statements from Cascaden;
4. Clint has no controlling interest in 506. While Clint owns 10 Common shares, Denis owns the majority of the shares in this company. Clint does not have the authority to declare himself a dividend and does not control the corporation. As such, he is unable nor is he required to produce the financial statements for this company; and
5. Denis Gratton has clearly indicated that he is not prepared to release these financial statements nor is he required to.

[25] The applicant has retained Steve Ranot, a chartered accountant and certified business valuator, to assist in assessing Clint's income and valuing Clint's interest in the various corporation entities. Mr. Ranot has set out in several letters and an affidavit that he requires the information sought in this motion in order to assess these two issues for the family proceedings.

Analysis

Is This Motion Premature?

[26] I am satisfied that this motion is not premature and that it is in the interests of justice that the motion be determined at this time.

[27] The third-party respondents submit that this motion is premature and should be heard after the November 13, 2025, motion involving Clint. They submit that the applicant has sought the same materials sought in this motion, from Clint in the November 13th motion. They submit that the applicant must demonstrate, during the motion involving Clint, that the information is relevant and necessary.

[28] The third-party respondents further submit that this motion is premature because the domestic contract must be set aside before this motion can proceed. If the domestic contract is not set aside, then any interests by Clint in 506, DGCL and Cascaden are no longer relevant to the issue of Clint's NFP.

[29] The November 13, 2025, motion relates to a notice of motion filed by the applicant on October 7, 2024. In that motion, the applicant seeks, amongst other things, child support, spousal support, an order setting aside the domestic contract, and an order for disclosure from Clint. Included in that notice of motion is a request that Clint provide the corporate income tax returns and financial statements for 506, DGCL and Cascaden and the T3 trust income tax returns for the Gratton Family trust.

[30] In response to that motion, Clint filed an affidavit in December 2024, that said he didn't have these materials, could not get them, and is not required to get them. As noted above, Clint takes the position that he has no control over these corporations or the Trust and does not have access to the tax returns and financial statements. He has also stated that his father, Denis, will not provide them to him and will fight any disclosure of them.

[31] This third-party motion was filed on June 5, 2025. The applicant submits that she brought this motion when she received Clint's position that he cannot be ordered to produce what he does not have and is not required to obtain, and that Denis would fight any disclosure of these records.

[32] In submissions on this motion, the third-party respondents agree that Clint does not have possession of the items sought and they are not prepared to give them to him. In these circumstances, in my view, it would be a waste of time and resources to require the applicant to first seek the materials from Clint, when Clint and the third-parties take the position that he does not have them, cannot produce them, does not have to get them, and the third parties will not give them to him. The evidence about the corporations, the Trust, and Clint's connection to them will not change in either motion.

[33] I am not satisfied that this motion should be held in abeyance until the validity of the domestic contract is determined. The issue of Clint's income and access to income for support purposes is a live issue, regardless of whether the domestic contract is set aside or not.

[34] Rule 2(3) of the Family Rules provides that dealing with a case justly includes (a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties; (b) saving expense and time; (c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and (d) giving appropriate court resources to the take while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases. Requiring the issue of third-party disclosure to be litigated in the November, and then again with the third-party respondents at some point after that, is not cost effective and is an inefficient use of judicial resources.

[35] The third-party respondents submit that the applicant is asking this court to make prejudicial findings about Clint before the November motion is argued. I disagree. The issue of whether these materials should be disclosed does not require this court to make any prejudicial findings about Clint. It simply requires the court to determine whether there is an evidentiary basis on which the records should be disclosed. What the records reveal is of no consequence to this motion.

Has the Applicant Met Her Onus on This Motion?

[36] On this motion, the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the court that production should be ordered: Weber v. Merritt, 2018 ONSC 3086 at para. 29; Hohl v. Hohl, 2021 ONSC 2182 at para. 25.

[37] I am satisfied that the applicant has met her onus.

[38] Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules provides that if a document is in a non-party's control, or is available only to the non-party, and is not protected by a legal privilege, and it would be unfair to a party to go on with the case without the documents, the court may, on motion with notice served on every party and served on the non-party by special service, (a) order the non-party to let the party examine the document and to supply the party with a copy at the legal aid rate; and (b) order that a copy be prepared and used for all purposes of the case instead of the original.

[39] Third-party (or non-party) disclosure in family proceedings is generally more permissible than under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Judges are expected to exercise "liberal and generous" discretion in ordering third party disclosure in the family context. This is because it is common in family litigation for parties to make use of close family members for the purpose of concealing income or assets: Weber v. Merritt at 33; Hohl v. Hohl at para. 25; Loeb v. Loeb, 2013 ONSC 1730 at para. 42.

[40] The test under r. 19(11) is an objective test which requires an analysis outside the litigant's belief system. Suspicion and conjecture will not suffice. There must be an evidentiary basis to show that the documents sought are relevant. Motions for disclosure from third parties should not amount to a fishing expedition and should not overreach: Weber v. Merritt at para. 31 and 38.

[41] While full and frank disclosure is fundamental in family proceedings, these obligations must proportional and align with common sense and fairness. The discovery process must be kept within reasonable bounds: Weber v. Merritt at para. 35 and 37.

[42] In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ballard Estate, 129 D.L.R. (4th) 52 at para. 15, in the context of a motion for third party disclosure in civil proceedings, the Ontario Court of Appeal set out six factors to be considered by the motions judge:

1. The importance of the documents in the litigation;
2. Whether production at the discovery stage of the process as opposed to production at Trial is necessary to avoid unfairness to the applicant;
3. Whether the discovery of the defendants with respect to the issues to which the documents are relevant is adequate, and if not, whether the responsibility for that inadequacy rests with the defendants;
4. The position of the non-parties with respect to production;
5. The availability of the documents or their informational equivalent from some other source which is available to the moving party;
6. The relationship of the non-parties from whom production is sought, to the litigation and the parties to the litigation. Non-parties who have an interest in the subject matter of the litigation and whose interests are allied with the party opposing production should be more susceptible to a production order than a true "stranger to the litigation."

Privilege

[43] Rule 19(11) only applies to documents over which legal privilege does not apply. Privilege has not been asserted by the third-party respondents.

Unfairness

[44] The first condition under r. 19(11) is that it would be unfair for the moving party to go on with the proceedings without the documents. Unfairness requires an assessment of the materiality of the information sought to the issues in the proceedings: Weber v. Merritt at para. 40.

[45] What is fair and relevant and needs to be produced may increase with the complexity of the financial and business circumstances: Weber v. Merritt at para. 42; Loeb v. Loeb at para. 48.

[46] In this case, I am satisfied that the documents sought are important to the fair and just adjudication of child support, spousal support, and Clint's NFP. I also find that it would be unfair to require the applicant to continue with this case, including her upcoming motion, without the documents sought.

[47] The information from DGCL is clearly relevant to the issue of Clint's income. One of the reasons provided for the steep decline in Clint's income immediately following separation is that DGCL has experienced a drastic decline in its profitability. To date, Clint's income has never gone back to what it was during the marriage. The applicant needs access to the financial and tax records of DGCL to determine if one of the reasons for this sustained decline is due to a sustained decline in DGCL's financial health.

[48] I am satisfied that the financial and tax information from DGCL, 506, and Cascaden is material to Clint's income and NFP. All three companies are closely held family companies in which Clint is involved directly or indirectly. Clint and his company, 507, own shares in 506. Clint is vice president of Cascaden. While Clint does not own shares in this company, Cascaden lent Clint's company, 507, over one million dollars. Clint's company, 507, owns shares in DGCL. There is some ambiguity about Clint's ownership interest in DGCL. In his initial financial statement, sworn July 12, 2022, he indicted he owned 10% of the non-voting shares in this company. Clint has changed this position in his subsequent financial statements.

[49] I find that all three closely held family companies and the Gratton Family Trust are so closely interconnected, it would be unfair to the applicant to attempt to advance her claims without being able to explore what, if any, financial benefit Clint receives from these companies, directly or through his company 507, or through the Gratton Trust which owns shares in 506 and Cascaden. It may also assist with exploring the position taken by Clint that the significant, and sustained, decline in his income is truly due to poor profits by DGCL, or whether there has been a concerted effort by his family to reduce his reported income in response to these family proceedings.

[50] The applicant has retained an expert to assist her in determining Clint's available income and NFP. A court may have to determine whether Clint's income should be imputed and whether the steep decline in his reported income post separation is truly due to his poor performance, the poor performance of DGCL, or due to a decision within the family to decrease his income in the face of family litigation.

[51] The corporate financial disclosure sought in this case is also relevant to Clint's income pursuant to s. 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, as am. Section 18 provides that where a spouse is a shareholder, director or officer of a corporation and the court is of the opinion that the amount of the spouse's income as determined under s. 16 does not fairly reflect all the money available to the spouse for the payment of child support, the court may consider the situations described s. 17 and determine the spouse's income to include (a) all or part of the pre-tax income of the corporation, and of any corporation that is related to that corporation, for the most recent taxation year; or (b) an amount commensurate with the services that the spouse provides to the corporation, provided that the amount does not exceed the corporation's pre-tax income.

[52] I agree with the reasoning by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Boucher v. Boucher at para. 49-50, that the issue is not whether Clint owns or controls these closely held family corporations. The issue is whether he is receiving income from them, directly or indirectly. The family corporations in this case are highly interconnected and are connected directly to Clint or indirectly to his company 507 or to the Gratton Family Trust.

[53] I also agree with Saunders JA's observation in Laushway v. Messervey, 2014 NSCA 7 at para. 61, that relevance involves an inquiry into the connection or link between people, events or things, and does not occur in a "pristine, sealed vacuum". This is especially so in family proceedings where there may be a motive to hide income through a complicated labyrinth of family corporations.

[54] The applicant's position that Clint has access to additional income is not speculative. The applicant has stated that she looked at the parties' joint bank account for the years 2019 to 2020, and Clint was receiving substantially more income than what was reported in his income tax returns. She is entitled to explore where this additional money was coming from and why there has been such a steep decline in Clint's available income.

The Information Sought is Not Easily Available by Any Other Method

[55] The third-party respondents concede that Clint does not have the ability to obtain this information, and they are not prepared to share it with him or the applicant.

[56] I am satisfied that the only way to obtain the information sought it through the third-party respondents.

[57] It was pointed out in submissions that pursuant to s. 154 of Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, Clint, as a shareholder in 506, and as owner of 507 who is a shareholder in DGCL, and as one of the Trustees of the Gratton Family Trust, which is a shareholder in Cascaden, is entitled to examine the articles, by-laws, unanimous shareholder's agreements, minutes of meetings and resolutions of shareholders, the register of directors and the securities register. I am satisfied that at this point, it would be a waste of time and resources to require the applicant to first obtain an order that Clint personally, or as owner of 507, or as a Trustee, obtain these materials. It is very clear that he opposes this request, and this motion is a more effective and efficient manner of dealing with, what I have already found, is relevant disclosure in these family proceedings.

The Disclosure Will Not Cause Unacceptable Delay or Undue Cost

[58] The responding third parties do not assert that the production of the materials sought will cause unacceptable delay or undue expense. While there will be some cost in producing copies of these materials, I am not satisfied that this cost would be "undue".

The Position of the Non-Parties with Respect to Production

[59] As noted earlier, the third parties oppose any production.

The Relationship

[60] As noted above, the third-party respondents are all part of interconnected family businesses primarily run by Clint's father and in which Clint has, directly or indirectly through 507 or the Gratton Family Trust, some connection. Denis Gratton and the corporations are not true "strangers" to the litigation. They are not at arm's length to Clint and there may be a desire to shield income and assets relevant to the determination of support and equalization. This is not speculative, considering the steep and sustained decline in Clint's income since separation.

Not a Fishing Expedition

[61] As noted above, there is evidence that Clint was receiving significantly more money during the marriage than that claimed in his income tax for those same years. Further, there is evidence of Clint's sudden, significant and persistent decline in income, post separation. I am satisfied that this is not a fishing expedition.

Proportionality

[62] I am satisfied that the disclosure sought is proportional. The applicant seeks the financial statements and tax records of the companies. These should be readily available and capable of being produced. The third parties have not claimed that there would be unacceptable delay or expense in providing these records.

Confidentiality

[63] As noted above, the information sought is information available to shareholders. I am satisfied that any concerns about confidentiality can be addressed by way of a standard confidentiality agreement that the applicant will not disclose the contents of these materials to anyone else, except as required in these family proceedings. She would be permitted to share the materials with her counsel, any retained expert, or with the court in these family proceedings. This should be something the parties can easily agree on.

Floodgates

[64] The third-party respondents expressed concerns that the applicant's expert has suggested that he may need more records once he receives and reviews these financial records. If that is the case, the same principles in this motion will apply to any further request or motions seeking disclosure and the issues can be balanced and determined at that time.

Gratton Family Trust

[65] The applicant seeks an order that all of the third-parties, including the Gratton Trust, disclose details of non-arm's length expenses such as salaries, or fees to related parties, charged as business expenses in any company in which Clint and/or the Trust have or had a direct or indirect interest for the years ended from 2020 to date, broken down as follows: 1. Payor company; 2. Fiscal year; 3. Amount; and 4. Description.

[66] A preliminary objection was raised by the third parties that the Gratton Family Trust itself was not served with this motion. This objection was not pressed to any great degree in oral submissions. The Gratton Family Trust is not a separate legal person. In this case two of the Trustees, Denis Gratton and Clint Gratton, were aware of this motion. I am satisfied that the Trust was aware of this motion and its interests have been addressed in this motion.

[67] Clint Gratton may receive income from the Gratton Family Trust as a discretionary beneficiary. As such, any monies paid to non-arm's length individuals or companies may be relevant to the issue of what income is available to Clint, directly or indirectly through the family companies.

Conclusion

[68] For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the information sought from the third parties is not privileged, is relevant, that it would be unfair to the applicant to go on with this case without them, and they should be disclosed.

Orders

[69] For the reasons set out above, I make the following orders:

1. Within 30 days, Denis Gratton shall provide the Applicant with:

   • a. Details of non-arm's length expenses such as salaries or fees to related parties, charged as business expenses for any company in which Clint Gratton and the Gratton Family Trust have or had a direct or indirect interest for the years ended from 2020 to date, broken down as follows: (i) Payor company; (ii) Fiscal year; (iii) Amount; and (iv) Description.

2. Within 30 days, Denis Gratton and Denis Gratton Construction Ltd. ("DGCL") shall provide the Applicant with the following:

   • a. Financial Statements of DGCL for the fiscal years ended from 2018 to date; and
   • b. Corporate income tax returns of DGCL for the fiscal years ended 2018 to date.

3. Within 30 days, Denis Gratton and Cascaden Contracting Inc. ("Cascaden") shall provide the Applicant with the following:

   • a. Financial Statements of Cascaden for the fiscal years ended from 2018 to date; and
   • b. Corporate income tax returns of Cascaden for the fiscal years ended 2018 to date.

4. Within 30 days, Denis Gratton and 1753506 Ontario Inc. ("506") shall provide the Applicant with the following:

   • a. Financial Statements of 506 for the fiscal years ended from 2018 to date; and
   • b. Corporate income tax returns of 506 for the fiscal years ended 2018 to date.

5. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of a confidentiality agreement, they may return before me on this issue.

Costs

[70] If the parties are unable to agree on the issues of costs related to this motion, the applicant may provide written submissions of no more than 2 pages, within 15 days of the release of this decision. The respondent may provide written submissions of no more than 2 pages, within 15 days of receipt of the applicant's submissions.

[71] The costs submissions should also address who should pay the costs.

[72] If submissions are not filed with the court and uploaded to Case Centre by December 19, 2025, the issue of costs related to this motion shall be deemed to have been determined with no costs owing to either party.

The Honourable Madam Justice S.K. Stothart

Date: November 3, 2025