Madho v. Singh, 2025 ONSC 626
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DEVIKA MADHO
Applicant
– and –
RAMESH SINGH
Respondent
Malina Roshan, for the Applicant
Adela Crossley, for the Respondent
HEARD: October 7-10, 2024
REASONS FOR DECISION
1This is a focussed hearing on the single issue of date of separation (valuation) for purposes of equalization under s. 4 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”). There is no question that the parties had been living separate and apart for at least one year immediately preceding this trial for the purposes of s. 8(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3.
2The court heard from four witnesses, including the parties.
3The finding of facts will hinge upon a credibility assessment.
4The Applicant Wife (“Ms. Madho”) claims the date of separation to be December 18, 2019. The Respondent Husband (“Mr. Singh”) claims the date of separation to be November 30, 2014.
5A degree of difficulty is added by the fact that the parties lived under the same roof as at both posited dates of separation. Ms. Madho did not move out of the matrimonial home until 2022.
6The parties stipulated that if I find that the date of separation is November 30, 2014, Mr. Singh has agreed to consent to the extension of the limitation period pursuant to s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.
7For the reasons that follow, I find that the date of separation is December 18, 2019.
Background
8By way of brief background, Guyana is the country of origin for both of the parties.
9The parties were married on July 14, 1995 in Georgetown, Guyana. Mr. Singh travelled to Guyana from Canada, where he was working and residing, to meet Ms. Madho. His sister had met Ms. Madho’s mother in Guyana and told Mr. Singh that Ms. Madho was a good marriage prospect. Ms. Madho was seen as a good candidate because she came from a “family of means”. Ms. Madho described it as an arranged marriage. She agreed to marry Mr. Singh after a short period of courtship and to emigrate to Canada.
10At the date of marriage, Ms. Madho was 20 years old and Mr. Singh was 29 years old. Ms. Madho had completed a high school education and Mr. Singh was working full-time at Celestica.
11Ms. Madho came to Canada on July 9, 1996.
12There are three children of the marriage: Angilea (24 years old), Sanjay (20 years old) and Ranjeev (18 years old).
13Most of the Mother’s extended family live in Guyana.
14The Father’s extended family (notably his siblings) live in Ontario, and some are in or around Toronto.
Test for Determining the Date of Separation
15Section 4(1) of the FLA defines the “valuation date” as the earliest of certain events. For this matter, the earliest event is “the date the spouses separated and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation”. The factors that are relevant to determining the date of separation for valuation purposes are also relevant to determining when the parties began living separate and apart for the purposes of ss. 8(2)(a) and 8(3) of the Divorce Act: Al-Sajee v. Tawfic, 2019 ONSC 3857, 2019 CarswellOnt 10060, at para. 25 (“Al-Sajee”) and the cases cited therein, including Oswell v. Oswell (1990), 1990 CanLII 6747 (ON HCJ), 74 O.R. (2d) 15 (H.C.), at para. 12; aff’d (1992), 1992 CanLII 7741 (ON CA), 12 O.R. (3d) 95 (C.A.).
16The test is objective and primarily informed by a comparison between the spouses’ habits as a cohabitating couple in a conjugal relationship before and after the posited dates of separation Czepa v. Czepa (1988), 1988 CanLII 8647 (ON HCJ), 16 R.F.L. (3d) 191 (Ont. H.C.). There must be a significant change in the spouses’ overall relationship, viewed through a holistic lens, to demarcate the date of separation.
17There are many indicators that the court may draw upon in determining the date of separation. However, each case is fact-specific and must be determined within the circumstances of how the spouses lived, functioned together and held themselves out to others, including government authorities. There should be no presumption that if the spouses were or were not engaged in certain activities subsequent to a specific point in time that means they had reached the point of separation with no reasonable prospect that they would resume cohabitation. The court must not bring to bear any stereotypical notions of cohabitation and alert to what may be a natural evolution of an intact spousal relationship over the course of time.
18Al-Sajee is an instructive decision and reviews the factors that have been found to be relevant in other cases. At paragraph 26, Chappel J. wrote,
Ascertaining when spouses begin to live separate and apart requires a careful analysis of the unique realities of their relationship, routines, social and other habits and practices and living arrangements over time. In deciding how much weight, if any, to give to any particular factor, the court must carefully assess whether there have been any real changes in regard to that factor since the parties were clearly together in a conjugal relationship. In addition, because of the particular dynamics of each relationship, no one factor will be determinative of whether spouses are living separate and apart; a global analysis and weighing of all factors is required.
19Hence, while the jurisprudence is helpful in terms of isolating potentially relevant indicators pointing to the date of separation and how the court weighs these factors, it is not determinative of the relative importance or weight to be given to one indicator over another in the case at bar (e.g., the frequency or existence of sexual relations).
20Also, important to this case is not only determining the point at which the parties were living separate and apart, but when that separation occurred without a “reasonable prospect that they [would] resume cohabitation”. This latter requirement accounts for situations in which spouses may temporarily separate as they continue to try to reconcile or ultimately resume cohabitation only to eventually separate permanently thereafter.
21Under the FLA, the court must have regard to the true intent of a spouse, as opposed to a spouse’s stated intent, in determining when a spouse decided to terminate the spousal relationship: Czepa. It bears noting that it only takes one spouse’s unilateral decision to end the spousal relationship, in accordance with s. 4(1) of the FLA. It does not require a mutual decision.
22As aptly stated by Killeen L.J.S.C. in Czepa, at p. 196,
It is not for a court to expect to find the course of marital conduct to be simple and straight-forward in a given case. Each case of marital discord has its own unique facts. The quest for a valuation date is tied to that date when the marriage is irretrievably broken down and the resumption of cohabitation is not reasonably in the cards. This quest requires the trial judge to look at all the circumstances objectively.
23This passage has particular resonance in the matter before me.
24In this case, both parties agree that before November 30, 2014, they were cohabiting as spouses. This behaviour/conduct is to be compared with the time period between November 30, 2014 and December 18, 2019, and also following December 18, 2019. Therefore, a review of their routines, habits, relations and presentations to or appearances to others (including their children) prior to November 30, 2014 is a strong baseline for determining when cohabitation as spouses within a marital relationship ceased within the meaning of s. 4(1) of the FLA, subject to the important proviso that relationships evolve over time.
25The relevant factual indicators as to the parties’ cohabitation, supported by the jurisprudence, that arose in the evidence before me are as follows:
(a) Weekly and daily routines such as cooking, eating meals together at home, doing domestic chores, childcare and making casual outings;
(b) Family vacations;
(c) Economic relationship between the parties;
(d) Representations of their marital status on income tax returns;
(e) Sexual relations;
(f) Extended family events;
(g) Celebrations of anniversaries and birthdays;
(h) Exchange of gifts between the spouses;
(i) Living physically separate and apart under the same roof;
(j) The date on which Mr. Singh moved into the basement full-time;
(k) Involvement of lawyers in the family law dispute;
(l) Declarations of separation without the prospect of resuming cohabitation;
The Evidence
26Ms. Madho testified on her own behalf. Mr. Singh testified and called two additional witnesses: their daughter, Angilea Singh (“Ms. Singh” or “Angilea”), and his sister, Satie Lall (“Ms. Lall”).
Behaviour and conduct prior and up to November 30, 2014
Ms. Madho
27Ms. Madho testified that at the beginning of the marriage, the relationship “worked”. She did most of the housework and Mr. Singh was employed full-time. Together as a couple, they went to family events, had visits from extended family, went grocery shopping, and cooked and ate meals at home. While Mr. Singh earned an income, Ms. Madho upgraded her schooling at college and then acquired part-time work after the birth of Angilea.
28They originally lived with Mr. Singh’s sister, Ms. Lall. They moved into the matrimonial home at 28 Palmeroy Street at the end of August 1996. They had regular sexual relations and slept in the same bed.
29Prior to the birth of Angilea, however, Ms. Madho became suspicious that Mr. Singh was involved with escorts and with some extended family members. She confronted Mr. Singh, who denied any extramarital sexual affairs.
30From Ms. Madho’s perspective, Mr. Singh was having extramarital affairs throughout their marriage and his mistresses became the status quo. Nonetheless, their relations, routines, habits and appearances/presentations to others remained the same, and she simply lived with this perception.
31After the birth of Angilea on December 11, 1999, Ms. Madho obtained a part-time job in marketing, initially in the afternoons. She and Mr. Singh adjusted their routines so that Mr. Singh would pick up Angilea from Ms. Madho’s aunt’s house. Thereafter she was able to adjust her work hours to the evening and Mr. Singh cared for Angilea until Ms. Madho got home at midnight. They were functioning in a partnership.
32Ms. Madho described her relationship with Mr. Singh, prior to the birth of Sanjay four years later, as being the same as prior to Angilea’s birth, with the exception that they had some fights and disagreements. She found life harder as she fed Angilea at night and would be tired for work the next day. When they had fights, sometimes Mr. Singh would sleep on the sofa or go out and return in the early morning. Nonetheless, they carried on with their same routines, habits and relations. They still went out but now would bring Angilea everywhere they went. They slept in the same bed and went out to dinners, movies, walks, local trips and family events. She became aware, however, that Mr. Singh was surreptitiously tape recording her and this disturbed her. Again, she simply lived with this habit.
33After the birth of Sanjay on April 24, 2004, Ms. Madho described that life became even harder as a result of having to care for two children (though Angilea was now in school) and still working four days a week, while Mr. Singh worked full-time. Still, their routines, habits and relations were substantially the same. They slept in the same bed, though now had the youngest in bed with them and the other in a crib. When they went out to do activities, they always brought the children with them. They still had sexual relations and were intimate, though the frequency reduced.
34After the birth of Ranjeev on January 18, 2006, Ms. Madho reduced her work hours to 20 hours a week so she could be more present for the children while maintaining her work-related benefits. The parties still took the children on any outings they went on. Their “together” time as a couple tended to be spent watching television in the evening, especially on Friday and Saturday nights after the children went to bed.
35It was Ms. Madho’s observation that she and Mr. Singh began having even more fights and disagreements than before. Mr. Singh started going to work on Saturdays while she did the groceries, cooking, cleaning and domestic chores. She also took the children to activities and to the park. Mr. Singh became more emotionally distant from her after the birth of Ranjeev.
36On two occasions, prior to the birth of Angilea, she accompanied Mr. Singh on business trips to San Francisco and to Boston. Otherwise, Mr. Singh went on his frequent business trips alone to Ottawa and the United States.
37Before 2014, they took family vacations to Guyana to see the maternal grandparents. They would stay with her parents for about 16 days. In 2011, they also took a special family vacation to Disney World in Florida. As well, they went to Cuba in December 2013 on a family vacation. However, that vacation was cut short when Mr. Singh’s brother died. They did not take any trips together as a couple, without the children.
38Mr. Singh made more money than Ms. Madho and he paid the mortgage up to 2008. They used Ms. Madho’s inheritance to pay off the balance of the mortgage in 2008 in the sum of approximately $57,000. They divided up expenses with Ms. Madho assuming some of the groceries and children’s clothing, while Mr. Singh paid for the larger purchases, the house bills and family outings. Ms. Madho and Mr. Singh went to Costco every Saturday, and he paid for any purchases made there.
39The matrimonial home is a semi-detached dwelling with a basement apartment unit which was rented out until 2008 when the mortgage was paid and the income was no longer required. Mr. Singh removed the bedroom walls from two of the three bedrooms in the basement to make a large playroom while maintaining one bedroom, kitchen area, bathroom and walk-in closet. It needed work in order to meet building code requirements.
40Ms. Madho testified that when Mr. Singh turned 50 years old in September 2014, she arranged a big birthday party for him. It occurred on September 20, 2014 and his extended family attended. Then, four days later, her mother called her from Guyana with the sad news that her father had died from a massive heart attack.
41In response to this news, Mr. Singh said that he would make travel arrangements for the whole family to attend in Guyana for the funeral. He said he would do whatever was necessary to go. The entire family, including the children, went to Guyana. When they arrived at her mother’s house (where they would be staying), just before the funeral, Ms. Madho woke up at 1:00 a.m. to see Mr. Singh working on his computer. According to her, she moved his mouse and saw escort information. Mr. Singh denied any involvement and said these advertisements were simply pop-ups. Ms. Madho was not so upset about the fact he was (allegedly) searching for escorts, except that it was just before her father’s cremation.
42Then about six days following her father’s cremation, Ms. Madho said that her youngest brother got angry at her, started hitting her, and demanded she leave the mother’s house and take her children with her. She does not know why he did this. When Mr. Singh arrived at the house and was told what had happened, he retrieved their suitcases and the family went to a hotel. They returned to Canada on or about October 5 or 7, 2014, before the special religious ceremony that follows cremation. She learned that the problem was that her brothers believed she was going to make a claim against her father’s estate. She did not pursue any estate claim as she did not wish to fight with her brothers.
43Up to this point in time, according to Ms. Madho, when they returned to Canada, nothing changed in their spousal relationship. They both returned to work. They talked about the fact that her brother had hit her. She told Mr. Singh that her mother might wish to come to Canada to live with them, and Mr. Singh’s response was that they would look for a bigger house.
44Under cross-examination, Ms. Madho agreed that she and Mr. Singh kept their financial arrangements separate. They had their own bank accounts. They jointly contributed to living expenses, but kept those expenses separate. She maintained that their marital relationship, including their relations, routines and habits did not change until December 2019, and they were still living under the same roof at that time.
Mr. Singh
45Mr. Singh explained that when they married, he was working at Celestica as a personal computer design engineer. He was promoted to line technician and then supervisor.
46He recalled that while they were living at his sister’s, during the first month or so of their marriage, he took Ms. Madho out for dinner at a restaurant. At the end of dinner, she got up and left him behind. She later accused him of flirting with the waitress. He testified that this was the beginning of many accusations by Ms. Madho about him allegedly having extramarital affairs, all of which he denied. He claims that later he discovered that Ms. Madho had a boyfriend in Guyana – but this assertion was never put to Ms. Madho in cross-examination.
47Prior to Angilea’s birth, he encouraged Ms. Madho to complete her education, which she did. He “allowed” her to go to night school so she would have an income of her own. He confirmed she came with him on a business trip in 1998 to San Francisco and visited her aunt who lived there.
48He testified that they went out for dinners and anniversaries prior to Angilea’s birth and following her birth. He recalled that his mother-in-law came to visit them one summer from Guyana. They had regular intimacy before and after the birth of Angilea and slept in the same bed. He confirmed that after the birth of Angilea they had to juggle hours so one of them would be home to look after her. Ms. Madho worked part-time hours and they needed her income.
49He described an incident while Angilea was young (before the birth of Sanjay) when they had an argument. He then had a shower and when he came out the police were at the door. He was accused of choking and hitting Ms. Madho and spent the night in jail. His brother bailed him out. He denied having physically assaulted her. Once again, this incident was not put to Ms. Madho in cross-examination. Mr. Singh stated that this triggered a pattern of Ms. Madho calling the police and making false accusations against him. However, again, this was not put to Ms. Madho in cross-examination. He adduced photographs of injuries he says he sustained at the hands of Ms. Madho, but these photographs or the related alleged incidents were not put to her.
50He testified that after the birth of the three children, there was a time when all three children were sleeping in their king-sized bed with him and Ms. Madho.
51Mr. Singh agreed that in December 2013, they took a family vacation to Cuba which was cut short due to his brother’s unfortunate death, and that he and Ms. Madho planned this vacation together and slept in the same bed and hotel room, while the children had an adjoining hotel room.
52Mr. Singh provided little detail regarding their married life prior to 2014 and did not contradict Ms. Madho’s version of events, other than to dispute her allegations that he was engaged in any flirtatious or extramarital relationships. As stated, Ms. Madho was not given the opportunity to respond to his allegations surrounding the police, alleged assaults or allegedly having a boyfriend in Guyana during the marriage and hence that evidence is not admitted as violating the rule in Browne v. Dunn, 1893 CanLII 65 (FOREP).
Angilea Singh
53Mr. Singh called their daughter, Ms. Singh, as a witness on his behalf. Calling children, even if they are adults (Angilea was 24 years old at the time of the testimony, but still living with Mr. Singh), can place them in an untenable situation of appearing to take sides between their parents. Nonetheless, it is the right of a party to summon witnesses whom they believe will support their position at trial.
54Ms. Singh’s testimony was brief. She described her childhood as “a little tumultuous” but said that she had been a “happy kid”. She indicated she did not remember very much about her parent’s relationship while she was growing up. She testified that it was obvious to her that her parents did not like one another very much and that had been the case for most of her childhood. She did not believe her parents to have a “normal” relationship (but did not expand on what she meant).
55She expressed uncertainty with respect to when her parents had separated: probably in middle school, but she was not certain about that. She observed that her parents had many disagreements and never got along very well at all.
56She testified that in or around 2012 or 2013 she remembered that sometimes her father slept in her bed and sometimes not. She specifically recalled however that her father had not yet moved into the basement unit.
57She recalled that throughout her childhood, the family celebrated birthdays, Christmas, New Year’s and Diwali. They usually went out for birthday dinners. She did not recall family trips prior to going to Cuba in 2015 or 2016. She does not recall her parents going on trips without the children.
Satie Lall
58Ms. Lall is Mr. Singh’s sister. She testified that she is “very, very close” to her brother. She acknowledged that she has always had a difficult and estranged relationship with Ms. Madho.
59Before 2014, she visited Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho at their home. However, whenever she went to visit, Ms. Madho was not available to join the visit. Ms. Madho would be physically in the home but would not join them. Ms. Lall would not stay very long.
60Ms. Lall recalls the separation happening in 2013. She visited Mr. Singh in November or December 2013 and he was living in the basement. She was adamant that this was Christmas of 2013 when questioned about her recollection of the date. She saw his workstation and a sofa, and some dishes in the sink. When she asked Mr. Singh why he would have dishes in the sink, he told her that he and Ms. Madho had separated but that because of the children he had to stay in the home. Ms. Lall said that thereafter, she visited him about every three months, sat in the basement and had a coffee with him. She encouraged him to reconcile with Ms. Madho, but Mr. Singh said they had already tried that. As will be seen, Ms. Lall is the only witness to testify that Mr. Singh moved into the basement apartment on a full-time basis in 2013 and to claim that he and Ms. Madho were separated as of then after having tried to reconcile.
61Ms. Lall also testified that she was never very close with Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho’s children. When she would visit, the children would go upstairs. She attended their birthday parties briefly. She recalls attending Angilea’s birthday party in 2006. Some of the extended family was there. The tradition was that each family would bring a dish for potluck at family celebrations or gatherings. She said that the children were unlike her other nieces and nephews, who were close to her and confided in her. She believed the children were sad.
62She recalled that when she was hospitalized in June 2013, Mr. Singh came to visit her and Ms. Madho was with him. However, Ms. Madho did not stay in her hospital room while Mr. Singh visited with her.
Summary of Evidence
63All witnesses agreed that this marriage became very difficult and strained before 2014. The evidence of Ms. Madho, Mr. Singh, their daughter Angilea, and Mr. Singh’s sister, Ms. Lall, reveals a relationship that was undergoing strain and lacked trust and support, a reality which likely became more pronounced sometime after Ranjeev was born. The evolving strain in this relationship manifested in various ways, including arguments and Mr. Singh sleeping elsewhere in the house than the marital bedroom from time to time (including the sofa and Angilea’s bed).1
64Despite Ms. Lall’s testimony, I find that the parties had not separated prior to November 30, 2014, consistent with the parties’ submissions and admissions. Ms. Madho’s evidence in particular (much of which was not disputed by Mr. Singh) provides a baseline of their conduct, routines and habits as a married couple prior to separation of any kind, and was generally supported by Angilea’s testimony.
Behaviour and conduct between November 30, 2014 and December 18, 2019
65The evidence of Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho diverges in many respects during the period in between the two competing dates of separation.
Ms. Madho
66Ms. Madho testified that their overall relationship as spouses did not change materially at and following November 30, 2014 and denies that November 30, 2014 was the date that Mr. Singh moved permanently into the basement apartment.
67She claimed not to know why Mr. Singh chose November 30, 2014 as the date of separation. She said following their return from her father’s cremation, they continued to discuss purchasing a new bigger home, in 2014 and afterwards.
68She testified about family vacations they took after 2014, much like the two family vacations they had taken with the children prior to 2014.
69She explained that their habit, before and after 2014, was to plan these out-of-country vacations together. They would look at options on Mr. Singh’s computer and plan the cheapest flights together. They would look at reviews for accommodations.
70Specifically, she recalled that they took a family vacation to Cuba during the March school break in 2015. At this point, she was working at the Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”).
71They chose Cuba together as it was a less expensive vacation. They also decided on Cuba because their earlier family vacation to Cuba in December 2013 had been cut short when Mr. Singh’s brother died. During this vacation, Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho slept in the same bed in one room, and the children slept together in an adjoining room. She and Mr. Singh would rinse and hang up the bathing suits together. They also went to the beach together, after Mr. Singh reserved the reclining seats first thing each morning. They ate dinners together as a family and at night they went to the square for entertainment – dancing, drinks, etc. Sometimes the children came and sometimes they were alone. She recalled they did a snorkeling excursion together, though she did not go into the water as she does not swim. She recalls that the two of them, without the children, went to a cigar factory and each smoked a cigar, which was a good and happy moment. She said they acted the same as spouses during this trip and during the 2013 truncated trip to Cuba.
72Ms. Madho adduced into evidence a series of emails and a Sunwing vacations booking invoice confirming this Cuba trip. The emails show that the two were discussing booking this trip in honour of Angilea’s birthday. Of note, the booking invoice shows that one room was booked for Ms. Madho and Angilea, while the other room was booked for Mr. Singh and the boys. One room was for single occupancy and the other was for double occupancy. According to Ms. Madho, this was done to save costs. However, when they arrived at the hotel, Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho took the single occupancy room and the children took the double occupancy room.
73In 2015, they celebrated Christmas together with the children like the prior year. They exchanged gifts as a family.
74Ms. Madho testified that from November 2014 to December 2016 nothing really changed in their relationship. They were still sleeping together in the same bed, doing family barbecues together in their backyard and going to get groceries at Costco together on Saturdays, which included having a coffee or breakfast before shopping.
75She testified that Mr. Singh took her out for dinner for Mother’s Day in 2016. This was just the two of them and did not occur very often.
76When her maternal cousin’s daughter had a “sweet 16” birthday, the whole family attended at temple for this event. They shopped for special clothes for the boys – fancy Indian outfits – which Mr. Singh paid for.
77In the summer of 2016, the family went together to a wedding at Vedic Temple.
78Also in 2016, they took a family vacation to the Dominican Republic for the March school break. They planned this trip together in December 2015. It was a seven-day vacation, as it was for the earlier trips. Again, they booked two rooms. She and Mr. Singh shared a bed in one room, and the children stayed in the adjoining room with two beds. Mr. Singh paid for the whole vacation, including her expenses and a boating excursion.
79Ms. Madho testified that she and Mr. Singh socialized together during this trip, without the children. They danced together to Reggae on the beach in the evenings. The children came one of the three nights they did this. They also did an excursion to swim with the dolphins. The children went into the water and the parents watched from the boat.
80Ms. Madho testified that each August up to and including 2019, the family went to the Canadian National Exhibition.
81Sometime between September and November of 2016, Ms. Madho consulted a family lawyer because she and Mr. Singh were having more and more arguments. She wanted to get advice and to “scare” Mr. Singh by showing him she was serious – if things did not improve between them, she would end the marriage. The incident that precipitated this decision was as follows. One workday, Ranjeev was sleeping on the couch because he was ill. Ms. Madho came home for lunch to check on him. She saw Mr. Singh on his way out the door with carry-on luggage. She was angry because he did not tell her in advance of his business trip. When he returned three days later, Mr. Singh acted as if nothing was wrong. He said in front of the children that four people in the house were happy, and one was not, making everyone unhappy, meaning Ms. Madho. He told her to just deal with his business trips or not.
82Ms. Madho’s former lawyer, Mr. Sekhan, sent an email to Mr. Singh advising that she was planning to separate. Mr. Singh responded by sending emails aimed at showing Ms. Madho that the problem was not him. In any event, Ms. Madho did not pursue any further steps and terminated her former lawyer.
83Of note, Mr. Singh’s lawyer did not indicate at that time that from Mr. Singh’s perspective they were already separated.
84Ms. Madho hired a new lawyer in 2017, Veena Pohni, and Mr. Singh hired a lawyer to respond. This time Ms. Madho was more serious about pursuing a separation. Again, there was no indication from Mr. Singh or his lawyer that the separation had already occurred.
85According to Ms. Madho, she and Mr. Singh were still sharing a bed prior to the involvement of the lawyer. Ms. Madho stated that they were not intimate but apart from that, nothing had really changed in their relationship. She stated that she was still cooking for the family and she and Mr. Singh continued their habit of going to Costco on Saturdays. There were no family vacations during this time frame, however.
86Between September 2016 and June 2017, with the involvement of lawyers, Mr. Singh began sleeping on the sofa, even though their other habits as a couple continued. She described this as a brief period of separation.
87In April 2017, Mr. Singh began talking about taking Ranjeev for a birthday dinner and the parties started talking again. In Ms. Madho’s mind, Mr. Singh was trying to smooth things over. Ms. Madho asked her lawyer to put her file on hold on June 27, 2017.
88Ms. Madho testified that they continued to celebrate their anniversaries by going out to a restaurant. However, they did not buy presents for each other as they did not have a lot of money. She recalled that they celebrated their anniversary up to 2018. She recalls that Mr. Singh told the sons that this was their 20th anniversary, and they went to dinner as a family to mark the occasion.
89In June 2017, Mr. Singh took her to dinner at an upscale restaurant called The School - Fine Dining for their anniversary. They used the religious ceremony date as their anniversary date. At the dinner, they talked about working on their marriage for the sake of the children. Ms. Madho enjoyed it and suggested that they return with the children, and they did return for a family dinner. Mr. Singh began giving notice to Ms. Madho of his out-of-town business trips, which had become a great source of tension. Before the end of the summer, Ms. Madho stated that Mr. Singh came back to their bedroom and slept in the same bed with her. She also testified that they became sexually intimate again, they resumed their Saturday Costco routine, were cooking and eating meals together and fell back into their prior routines.
90In January 2018, they took a family vacation together to Orlando, Florida. Mr. Singh rented a house this time with four bedrooms. According to Ms. Madho, she and Mr. Singh slept in one bed and the children had their own bedrooms. They dined together as a family for each meal. They were sexually intimate with each other. They went to Disneyland and Universal Studios. The parties only had time alone later in the evenings. As usual, Mr. Singh paid for this family vacation.
91In August 2018, Ms. Madho’s mother visited them. They did a lot of family activities together, including going to Niagara Falls (Ripley’s Believe it or Not and Marine Land) and a special dinner at The School - Fine Dining. During this summer trip, Ms. Madho’s mother slept with her and Mr. Singh slept elsewhere in the house.
92Then on September 20, 2018, the family celebrated Mr. Singh’s birthday by taking him to the Red Lobster, which was a usual place the family went to celebrate birthdays. Afterwards, they returned home for birthday cake. Photographs of the Red Lobster occasion and birthday cake at home were submitted. The latter photographs featured Ms. Madho feeding birthday cake to Mr. Singh and hugging him, and Sanjay repeating the same actions.
93However, in October 2018, Ms. Madho stated that, after hearing Mr. Singh swear and leave his computer on, she went and looked on his computer and discovered email exchanges between a “Mike Madho” and escorts. She produced these emails which I admitted only for the fact that she forwarded them to herself. Mr. Singh denies that he sent these emails, used the handle “Mike Madho” at any time or otherwise had anything to do with escorts. Ms. Madho did not prove the authenticity of these emails as being sent by Mr. Singh under the alias “Mike Madho”.
94This led to an altercation with Angilea in December 2018 when Ms. Madho tried to talk to her about her father’s possible involvement with escorts. Ms. Madho was recording their conversation surreptitiously. Ms. Singh became upset and locked herself in the bathroom. Eventually, Ms. Singh came out of the bathroom after women from the temple intervened and Mr. Singh came home. Ms. Singh was not questioned about this alleged incident, nor was Mr. Singh.
95There was no discussion of separation in 2018, according to Ms. Madho. In her view, they had reconciled after the turmoil of June 2017. The marriage was in a good place until she found the “Mike Madho” emails. At the beginning of 2019, they carried on with their usual routines and habits, including family barbecues, going to Costco on Saturdays, eating together, celebrating birthdays and family events.
96However, in 2019 Ms. Madho was unhappy about what she believed to be Mr. Singh’s infidelities. When Mr. Singh suggested they go to Jamaica for Angilea’s birthday, Ms. Madho refused. By November, when this discussion occurred, Ms. Madho was contemplating leaving the marriage. She stated that she advised Mr. Singh on December 18, 2019 that she was not going on the proposed family vacation. She viewed this declaration as the commencement of separation without reasonable prospect of reconciliation. She characterized this declaration as her final decision. They stopped sleeping in the same bedroom around this date as well. From October 2018 to December 18, 2019 she noted that Mr. Singh was not always sleeping in bed with her and she described his pattern as sporadic. After December 18, 2019, he never returned to her bed.
97According to Ms. Madho, Mr. Singh moved to the basement apartment in or around December 18, 2019, though he would come upstairs to cook his meals. He then changed the locks on the basement apartment door in April 2020 to lock her out. It was a key lock.
98They continued to keep their own bank accounts. They never had a joint bank account.
99Ms. Madho’s income tax returns for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 list her marital status as “married”. However, her 2018 and 2019 income tax returns list her marital status as “separated”. The same accountant prepared both her and Mr. Singh’s income tax returns.
100Under cross-examination, Ms. Madho stated that since November 2014, she had interacted socially with four of Mr. Singh’s “full” siblings but none of his “half” siblings because Mr. Singh had no interaction with those latter siblings.
101She also stated that during the out-of-country family vacations, Mr. Singh introduced her as his wife to the guides and at his cousin’s wedding. At her daughter’s 16th birthday, she introduced Mr. Singh as her husband.
102She confirmed that neither before nor after 2014 did they attend any joint religious activities, except in 2017 when they went as a family to temple for Diwali. Nor did they engage in community events together either before or after 2014. She also confirmed that, other than the Saturday routine of going for coffee/breakfast and then Costco, they did not do anything as a couple after the birth of the children. All outings included the children. She confirmed they never had any close friends and she did not have any friends at all. However, once a year before and after 2014, her cousin from St. Catherines would come to visit and Mr. Singh would have a beer with him. Once, they attended in St. Catherines for a funeral with her cousin.
103In 2015, Ms. Madho recalled that on Mother’s Day Mr. Singh did a special seafood barbeque in the backyard for her.
104Under cross-examination, Ms. Madho indicated that after 2014 they also went to Moxies together from time to time, for walks in the park, and for breakfast or coffee before shopping on Saturdays at Costco. She admitted she had no bank records or invoices to confirm these outings, but this was because Mr. Singh always paid. She stated that while they never exchanged gifts, Mr. Singh would give her cards and chocolates. She said she kept her cards in her closet but when she returned home from her mother’s funeral in 2020, the cards had been shredded by Mr. Singh. She recalled extended family barbeques with the since deceased brother of Mr. Singh and his family, and his sister also came for family barbeques with their children through to 2018.
105She recalled that during the summers, they would meet in Sunnybrook Park with Mr. Singh’s family members. Also, they went to his cousin’s son’s wedding in the summer of 2016 and his sister’s grandson’s birthday in February of 2017.
106They had their own family doctors.
107When shown a letter from Ms. Pohani dated March 8, 2017 which stated that Ms. Madho wanted to purchase Mr. Singh’s interest in the matrimonial home, Ms. Madho denied giving instructions to take that position. This was during the initial separation.
108She advised that up to 2018 the family would eat together at least three times a week, but that reduced to about two times a week after she discovered the escort emails in 2018.
109She adamantly denied creating the “Mike Madho” escort emails or fabricating them in any way. She denied sleeping in a separate room from Mr. Singh during the Cuba 2018 trip, notwithstanding the fact that the itinerary showed one room in her name and the other in Mr. Singh’s name. She did not resile from her explanation given in chief.
110Ms. Madho was challenged about her assertion that one of the reasons she did not move away from the matrimonial home was financial. She confirmed that she had a joint bank account she opened with Ms. Singh and that the closing balance as of June 16, 2018 was $101,000. She had other solely held bank accounts as well. As of April 18, 2016 she had an opening balance of $141,202.25 in one of her accounts, and the closing balance as of May 17, 2016 was $58,699.01. She transferred $101,000 to the jointly held account with her daughter on June 8, 2018. She was shown other bank account statements showing positive balances. In other words, she had some substantial savings before 2020 upon which she could have survived had she left the matrimonial home.
111She acknowledged that she called the police on Mr. Singh, saying it was only two times, and not the four or five times suggested to her. She explained that he would give her the phone in the midst of arguments and taunt her to call the police.
Mr. Singh
112Mr. Singh testified that due to his religion, impoverished upbringing and close-knit childhood family, he would not leave the home and abandon his children. He did not want the children to be living outside the matrimonial home or with only one of the parents. He believed it was better for the children if he and Ms. Madho lived under the same roof. He did not speak to any of the children about the tumultuous marital situation or about any separation, but he believed they already were aware of it. He also testified that he believed that the children knew the parents were separated by late 2014 because he stated that he moved permanently into the contained basement unit on November 30, 2014. He expressed a fear that their children would be in harm’s way if he left the matrimonial home and left them in the care of Ms. Madho, based on Ms. Madho’s alleged conduct towards him.
113Mr. Singh emphasized his childhood background. He came from a large family of nine siblings. His mother was a vendor in the market and a homemaker, and his father was a farmer in Guyana. His father passed away in 1981 while they were young and accordingly, they all had to pitch in to support his mother and the family. He came from a modest background.
114Mr. Singh immigrated to Canada in 1983. All of his surviving siblings live in Ontario. Four of his siblings have died.
115He said that his children are his life. They are very close with him and they are his responsibility. He explained that he grew up “poor” and lacked opportunity, and hence he wants to give his own children every opportunity to do well in life.
116Mr. Singh described an incident he said occurred on November 17, 2013. He said that during an argument, Ms. Madho threw a phone at him, resulting in a cut to his eyebrow. The boys had been sleeping but awoke to the argument. He said that there was blood on his shirt. Ranjeev called his aunt, who came over. He said that Ms. Singh was upset. He decided not to call the police because he felt that if he did, it would cause irreparable harm to his children’s relationship with their mother. Instead, he left that evening and stayed at his sister’s house for a couple of hours. He did not go to the hospital. He said he could get over the injury, but the children would not get over seeing the police arrest their mother. This allegation was not put to Ms. Madho on cross-examination, so she had no opportunity to respond to it. I attribute no weight to this allegation.
117In or around November 2014, Ms. Madho’s father died so they went to Guyana for the funeral. During this time period, he was laid off from Celestica and had a temporary job at Tyco. However, when they came back from the funeral in November, he took a good job with Cadence, which had been offered to him earlier. He told Ms. Madho that he would have to travel for work once or twice a year and she was not happy with this.
118That same month he was sent to Carolina for training. When he returned from this business trip, his clothes were thrown down to the basement and he moved into the basement unit. He was sick for two weeks. He stayed in the basement until he was well. He said it was cold and no one looked after him. He even had to do his own laundry. He said the children asked him to come back upstairs. He was sleeping in the “back room” upstairs. He said he was sleeping one night when Ms. Madho hit him. His son was yelling to stop it. He moved back to the basement apartment as a result of this incident and never moved back into the matrimonial home bedroom unless he fell asleep there while looking after the children.
119The allegation that Ms. Madho threw Mr. Singh’s clothing into the basement and later hit him while he was sleeping in the “back room” upstairs one night was not put to her in cross-examination.
120Mr. Singh testified that after November 2014, he never again lived in a marriage with Ms. Madho. He never continued going to breakfast and Costco with her on Saturday mornings or ever. He only attended at family events with Ms. Madho and the children for the children’s sake. He was trying to minimize the children’s animosity against their mother (but did not give any details). He felt that by staying in the basement unit, he would be supporting the children.
121He said that before 2014, the family went to temple together sporadically, ate together and went to dinners together, but not after 2014.
122He agreed that they went on three family vacations together after 2014: Punta Cana, Dominican Republic (2015); Varadero, Cuba (2016); and Disney in Orlando, Florida (2018). He said the reason why Ms. Madho came was because he believed the children would be sad if she was absent and she looked after the children while on these vacations. He did not reference having any discussion with Ms. Madho regarding the rationale for her coming on these family vacations at his expense.
123Prior to booking the Dominican Republic trip, he said it was agreed that Ms. Madho would come. He claimed that Ms. Madho wanted her own room, so he booked two adjoining rooms. He said sometimes Ms. Madho slept with the two boys and he slept with Ms. Singh, and sometimes the sleeping arrangements were reversed during this trip. He said that he and Ms. Madho never slept together during this vacation, nor did they do anything together without the children.
124During the Cuba trip, they again had two adjoining rooms. He said one room had three beds and the other room had two beds, so everyone had their own bed. Again, he and Ms. Madho did not share a bed or have sexual relations, nor did they do anything on their own as a couple.
125In 2018, he rented a five-bedroom house in Orlando. He slept in one back room on his own. He claims he did not know where Ms. Madho slept. Again, they did nothing as a couple. All activities included the children.
126He explained that after November 2014, they engaged in intimate relations only on two or three occasions and they were all initiated by Ms. Madho. She would appear in the middle of the night, including in the basement apartment before he put a lock on the door leading to the basement. He could not remember when he changed the lock and put brackets on the door. He said he did this to feel safe from Ms. Madho.
127He denied sending Ms. Madho any cards, letters or gifts after November 2014, or having shredded any cards. He claimed that Ms. Madho put a lock on the matrimonial bedroom door, though did not say when or why.2
128Also, after November 2014, they never prepared meals, did the laundry or shopping, or had meals together. He denied going to Costco any longer with Ms. Madho, even though he continues to shop at Costco. He said he did all the cleaning of the basement and had no idea what was happening upstairs. He and Ms. Madho did not participate in any neighbourhood activities, religious activities, social activities or visit his family. He claimed she did not go on any visits with his family even with the children after 2014, nor did they entertain her family members after 2014. He did go to his extended family events, however, with his children (e.g., in summer of 2017 he and the children went to a family wedding). He denied that she came to any of their backyard barbeques after the separation. Rather, she would look upon him and the children from a window with a smirk.
129He confirmed that he never had a conversation with the children about the separation. He did not see the need since he believed the children already knew. He did not think it appropriate to involve the children in this type of discussion.
130He stated that after separation, he took full responsibility for the children, such as having coffee with Ms. Singh before going to Costco, attending Sanjay’s high school graduation, and Ranjeev wanted to go everywhere with him, including grocery shopping.
131Mr. Singh denied ever taking the family and Ms. Madho’s mother, who came for a visit from Guyana in 2018, to Niagara Falls. He recalled taking them to Ripley’s Aquarium in Toronto.
132He said that in 2017 he started locking down Ms. Madho’s computer.
133Mr. Singh reviewed his respective notices of assessments from 2011 onwards. His 2011 Notice of Reassessment lists his marital status as “single” even though he was undoubtedly married. He explained that his accountant told him to falsify his return so that he could qualify for a larger child tax benefit. He did not call this accountant as a witness to explain the designations or who gave the direction.
134His 2012 and 2013 Notices of Assessment also listed his status as “single”.
135In his 2015 and 2017 tax returns his marital status is “married”. He agreed to this designation to take advantage of income splitting. Between 2006 and 2014 his income from his own consulting company had grown. He stated this was the advice of his financial advisor. However, on his 2016 income tax return, his marital designation was “separated”. Furthermore, he did not end up income splitting with Ms. Madho, and he did not correct his designation later.
136In 2018, he put “separated” as his marital designation on his income tax return.
137His income tax returns are not a reliable indicator of his actual marital status. However, it appears that he was prepared to mischaracterize his marital status over some of these years purely for financial gain.
138Mr. Singh categorically denied ever using the name “Mike Madho” for any purpose and denied that he sent or received any of the emails/text messages using that name. None of the emails were admitted into evidence for the truth of their content as Ms. Madho failed to establish their authenticity.
139He stated that between November 2014 and December 2019 there was no reconciliation. There was no counselling or mediation. Before 2014, Ms. Madho would speak to her brother and his brother about problems, and they would intervene with Mr. Singh – this is how they tried to deal with marital issues. After November 2014, there were no more family interventions. He said he continued to socialize with his family regularly, and his sister, Ms. Lall, sometimes came to the basement apartment and brought him prepared food.
140However, he also said that at the time of Ms. Madho’s mother’s trip to visit them, his mindset was not to separate because it would end up in a fight with Ms. Madho and it would be bad for the children. He also testified that he saw the implications of separation and it was more important to have stability for the children. He says it was the right decision because Ms. Singh has since graduated from university, Sanjay is in university and Ranjeev will complete high school. The children were his priority and because of his decision, they are doing well.
141He denied again taking them to Niagara Falls but confirmed taking them to dinner and Ripley’s Aquarium in Toronto.
142He confirmed that he terminated his former lawyer, Mr. Warren, in December 2017 as it was costing too much money.
143He said the reason why he did not date after 2014 was because his Hindu background prevents him from dating while he is married.
144Contrary to Ms. Madho, Mr. Singh stated that he did buy jewellery as gifts for her prior to separation, including pearl necklaces, gold necklaces and watches. He did not adduce any evidence to confirm any of these purchases.
145He has no idea why Ms. Madho chose December 18, 2019 as a date of separation.
146Under cross-examination, he admitted that after 2014, the entire family (he, Ms. Madho and the children) continued to have family dinners on special occasions and that they mainly went to Red Lobster. They also went to the CN Tower for dinner once to celebrate Ms. Singh’s birthday at her request. He confirmed that he paid for everybody at these dinners and paid for everyone’s expenses for the family vacations.
147He denied taking Ms. Madho for dinner on June 30, 2017 to The School - Fine Dining. However, when presented his credit card statement which showed the corresponding charge, his answer was that he had no recollection who he went to dinner with that evening, even though he agreed that the date was very close to their anniversary (July 14). He also denied that the dinner at this restaurant on July 15, 2017 was for the family, contrary to Ms. Madho’s testimony, notwithstanding the fact that the bill was higher than it was for June 30, 2017. He also could not explain another credit card charge of his from The School - Fine Dining on August 24, 2018 for $462.26, though he admitted that it was possible that he took Ms. Madho, her mother, and the children that evening, consistent with Ms. Madho’s testimony.
148Furthermore, when confronted with his Costco credit card statement showing that on September 2, 2018, he had incurred admission charges for Ripley’s Believe it or Not located in Niagara Falls, his answer was that only the children, and not Ms. Madho or her mother, attended in Niagara Falls, though it is clear that the Ripley’s charge relates to a Niagara Falls location.
149When shown his credit card statement showing a charge at Red Lobster in Scarborough on September 24, 2018, Mr. Singh confirmed that this was for his birthday.
150Mr. Singh confirmed that there was a birthday celebration with birthday cake for him held in the matrimonial home “possibly” in 2018 and that the photographs depicting Ms. Madho feeding him a piece of cake and hugging him were authentic. The photographs were sent by Ms. Singh by text dated September 20, 2018.
151Mr. Singh also acknowledged under cross-examination that in January 2018, when he rejoined Celestica where he still works, he included Ms. Madho on his health benefits and named Ms. Madho as the beneficiary for his employment life insurance benefit and RRSP. When asked why, he explained that Ms. Madho was the only person he could name because the beneficiary had to be at least 18 years old. When it was pointed out that Ms. Singh was 18 years old in 2018, Mr. Singh had no reply. When asked why not use one of his siblings, Mr. Singh replied that he thought the beneficiary had to be someone who was listed on his health benefits. In re-examination he said that he listed Ms. Madho because they lived in the same house and then said he really didn’t think about it when he listed her name.
152He confirmed that throughout their marriage, both before and after the dates of separation, he and Ms. Madho held no joint bank accounts, and that Ms. Madho was not on title of the matrimonial home. He explained that after his brothers transferred title in the matrimonial home to him, Ms. Madho did not want to go on title. The status quo was to keep their financial assets independent from each other.
153With respect to the income tax marital designations, he admitted under cross-examination that he never spoke to Ms. Madho about these matters. He said he never reviewed the income tax returns, but simply signed them. He said that financial matters are different from emotional matters. His accountant prepared the income tax returns for both he and Ms. Madho and therefore had access to Ms. Madho’s financial information. He explained that when he said in his examination in chief that he had had conversations with Ms. Madho about income splitting, he meant to say it was through their common accountant. He said that he did not even know what Ms. Madho’s income was in any of the years.
154He also admitted that his 2016 tax return designation of “separated” was consistent with Ms. Madho’s testimony that they had a temporary separation in 2016 until the spring of 2017, though he maintained they were already separated by that time.
155He did not agree that his designation of “married” in 2017 was consistent with Ms. Madho’s testimony that they had reconciled in 2017 and that his income tax designation is not consistent with his position that they were separated.
156Mr. Singh was confronted with Ms. Madho’s lawyer’s email to him dated March 8, 2017 which referenced that Ms. Pohani had been retained by her in respect of his “recent matrimonial breakdown”. He was also confronted with his lawyer, Mr. Warren’s, response which reflected his instructions and did not dispute or challenge the assertion of a “recent matrimonial breakdown”. He agreed that Mr. Warren’s response was silent on this issue and had no explanation for why.
157He defended having family vacations after 2014 by saying they were not a façade because they did not really go as a family unit because he and Ms. Madho were separated.
Angilea Singh
158Mr. Singh placed a considerable emphasis on Ms. Singh’s testimony as corroborative of his evidence generally, and in particular his date of moving permanently into the basement apartment and the sleeping arrangements during certain family vacations.
159Ms. Singh testified that she recalled that from time to time during her childhood her parents slept apart. She also knows that her father ended up moving into the basement at some point during her high school years. When pressed, she said she believed it was sometime between 2014 and 2017 or 2018, but that this was a vague memory. She had no memory of the exact date and could not narrow the time frame down.
160She confirmed that when she was younger, they celebrated birthdays, Christmas, New Year’s and Diwali together as a family. They usually went out for dinner to celebrate birthdays.
161She said that after her father moved into the basement apartment, he and her mother did not do anything as a couple together, though they did continue to do things as a family.
162She recalled going to the Dominican Republic, but she did not remember much about the vacation. She believes that she likely slept alone since she usually did on these vacations. She cannot recall how many rooms they had or the sleeping arrangements.
163She had a better memory about going to Cuba. She was 15 years old. She recalled that they had adjoining rooms and that she slept with her brothers in one room, and her parents slept in the other room. She recalls that she slept in her own bed and her brothers in the other bed. There were also two beds in her parents’ room.
164She recalled going to Florida and staying in a big house. She had a room to herself. She is not sure where everyone else slept.
165She recalled that the family often ate meals at different times. She did because she had extracurricular activities.
166She said that her parents never did chores together. Whenever she went grocery shopping, it would be with her father, but it was not a regular routine. Sometimes they would go to Costco and sometimes to other grocery stores.
167She identified a photograph of her birthday dinner at Red Lobster. She believes she would have been either 15 or 16 years old (2014 or 2015).
168She also recognized the photographs she took of her father’s birthday on September 20, 2018. She identified Ms. Madho hugging Mr. Singh. She said that her understanding at this time was that their relationship was the same as always. They were posing for the photographs as she would not normally see them hugging.
169She recalled going to one big wedding in 2015. It was held in Mississauga and she went with her brothers, her father and her cousins. She added that she is a little bit religious and sometimes goes to temple with her mother. She could not recall doing anything on her own with her parents since 2015.
170She said that she is close to her father as he has always been there for her. However, she has come to an understanding more recently that her mother is also supportive of her in her own way, and that she did her best in the past. She believes that her relationship with her mother was strained in the past, but thinks it is getting better.
171As for domestic chores, she always has seen both parents working in the house. She did not pay particular attention to this.
172When specifically asked whether her father ever moved back upstairs to sleep or live after 2014, she responded that she was not sure when he moved into the basement. However, once he moved into the basement, he did not move back upstairs until after her mother moved out of the house.
173She recalled some family visits to her home after 2014, including her maternal grandmother’s visit. She did not recall extended family members from either her mother or father’s side of the family coming very often on or after December 2014.
174Under cross-examination, Ms. Singh was clear that she was not always around to see interactions between her parents as she was engaged in extracurricular activities and schoolwork from December 2014 until her mother moved out.
Satie Lall
175Ms. Lall indicated that she saw that Mr. Singh acquired something to cook on in the basement in 2015.
176She identified an email she sent to Ms. Madho on October 6, 2015, inviting the whole family over for Thanksgiving dinner. She did her best to encourage this, but in the end, Ms. Madho did not come, saying that she was not feeling well.
177She testified that Mr. Singh would tell her that they had separated but he was staying home for the sake of the children. She encouraged him to reconcile with Ms. Madho during the COVID-19 pandemic and his response was that he already did that with Ms. Madho before and it did not work out. He would not try this again. However, under cross-examination, she stated that she did not discuss deep personal things with Mr. Singh. They did not discuss intimacy or the details of the family vacations. They did not have time to sit and talk in detail as her visits were brief.
Behaviour and conduct from and after December 18, 2019
Ms. Madho’s Testimony
178As stated, Ms. Madho testified that Mr. Singh never slept in the same bed as her as of December 18, 2019. She made the decision to separate on a permanent basis and communicated that decision by telling Mr. Singh that she would not go on his proposed family vacation.
179She recalled that Mr. Singh moved permanently into the basement apartment in the spring of 2020 and changed the locks on the basement door to prevent her access. It was then that he moved the sofa to the basement to sleep on, as there was no bed in the basement. She recalls that sometimes he would come upstairs to the dining room to work.
180She described a marked change in their routines, habits and relations after December 18, 2019. They no longer had any sexual relations or intimacies. They no longer ever slept in the same bed. They did not eat any meals together. They did not go to Costco on Saturdays. They did no grocery shopping together. Mr. Singh kept his own food in the basement fridge, though he used the stove in the kitchen upstairs. He changed the locks on the basement door. He got new blinds for the basement windows. She was locked out from the basement unit, though she was still able to do laundry in the basement as it was outside the unit. She no longer did his laundry unless some clothes were mixed up with the children’s clothes. He moved the car keys from upstairs and into the basement. They no longer celebrated birthdays together – including the children’s birthdays. There were no more family vacations after 2018.
181When her mother died in October 2020, she went to Guyana on her own. Mr. Singh was aware of her mother’s death because she texted him, but he did not provide any sympathy except to respond by text that he was sorry to hear that. She claims that he destroyed the sympathy cards sent to her.
182She stated that Mr. Singh called her an embezzle and referred to her as a watchman on his tail.
183She described their financial relationship as independent since December 18, 2019. She had been working full-time with the TDSB since May 2018 and she had benefits. She maintained Mr. Singh on her benefits, along with the children. She was also on Mr. Singh’s benefits from 2013 and, to her knowledge, until her full-time employment in 2018. She bought her own car in 2021 after she had an accident in Mr. Singh’s car, and it was written off.
184In her 2019 Notice of Assessment her marital status was listed as “separated”.
185In 2021, Ms. Madho retained her current lawyer, and she commenced these proceedings. She delayed to 2021 as she started to go to a therapist and was in disbelief regarding Mr. Singh’s alleged involvement with escorts during their marriage. By 2021 she was in a financially improved situation and had some savings. She continued to buy groceries for herself and the children and cooked them dinners while living under the same roof as Mr. Singh.
186She testified that there has been no chance of reconciliation since December 18, 2019.
187Ms. Madho left the matrimonial home on October 16, 2022. She chose that point in time because her youngest child was then 16 years old and she was in a better place financially, having been able to save some of her earnings.
188She confirmed that Mr. Singh paid her car insurance until she got into the motor vehicle accident with his car in 2021. Thereafter she got her own car insurance.
189Under cross-examination, she confirmed that the only jointly held account was the children’s RESP, however, she said that she gave him the child tax rebate which was deposited into the RESP. She acknowledged that she continued to receive the child tax benefit for about six or seven months after she moved out of the matrimonial home, even though the children were living with Mr. Singh at the matrimonial home. She explained that it was mid year, and she did not know she had to contact the CRA to change the beneficiary. She claimed that she gave that money directly to the children in 2022.
Satie Lall
190Ms. Lall stated that the last time she saw Ms. Madho was at their brother, Bisson’s, funeral in February 2021. Ms. Madho came to the funeral home, sat in the back row, visited the casket, hugged each of Mr. Singh’s family members and then left.
Credibility Assessment
191I must assess the credibility of each of the witnesses. There is no issue concerning the reliability of their testimony. I will start with the collateral witnesses called by Mr. Singh as that testimony is revealing.
192I can accept all, some or none of the evidence of the respective witnesses.
Angilea Singh
193Ms. Singh was somewhat of a poor historian. However, I find that she was being intentionally vague about the key issue of the date that Mr. Singh permanently moved into the basement unit perhaps because of she did not want to take one parent’s side over the other. She was steadfast in her testimony that the move occurred sometime between 2014 and 2017 or 2018 during her high school years, but specifically disagreed when Mr. Singh’s lawyer premised her question on Mr. Singh’s permanent move to the basement apartment being in 2014. She reiterated that she did not specifically recall the year that Mr. Singh moved permanently into the basement apartment.
194She was not asked by either party to comment on Mr. Singh’s allegation that her mother threw all of his clothes into the basement or the alleged altercation resulting in an injury to Mr. Singh’s eyebrow.
195She had a vague recollection of two of the three family vacations that took place after 2014 but before 2019. However, she gave clear testimony with respect to the sleeping arrangements for the 2015 Cuba family vacation, to the effect that she slept in one hotel room with her brothers, while Mr. Singh slept in the other adjoining hotel room with her mother. This is in clear contradiction to Mr. Singh’s testimony and supports Ms. Madho’s testimony.
196As stated above, Ms. Singh was placed in a difficult situation by Mr. Singh. It is clear to me that she was doing her best to tell the truth while not taking sides.
197I accept her evidence with respect to the sleeping arrangements during the 2015 Cuba family vacation. She was candid in testifying that she did not know of the sleeping arrangements at the house in Florida and had a vague recollection as to the sleeping arrangements during the earlier Dominican Republic vacation. There would be no reason for her to fabricate that testimony, and neither party suggested she did.
198I also accept her evidence that she could not say when it was that her parents separated. Furthermore, I accept her evidence that to the best of her recollection, her parents never got along very well throughout their marriage, throughout her childhood the family celebrated birthdays, Christmas, New Year’s and Diwali, and they usually went out for birthday dinners. I also accept her evidence that in and around 2012 and 2013 (during middle school), sometimes her father slept in her bed.
199Her evidence is inconclusive as to when it was that Mr. Singh moved into the basement apartment on a full-time basis.
200Overall, her evidence is more consistent with Ms. Madho’s history of the marital relationship than Mr. Singh’s version.
Satie Lall
201Ms. Lall’s evidence was not credible. She testified and maintained adamantly that Mr. Singh moved permanently into the basement apartment in 2013. She maintained that Mr. Singh told her of the separation in 2013. This is not plausible and contradicts Mr. Singh’s (and Ms. Madho’s) evidence. Either she was fabricating her evidence, or she was mistaken in her timelines.
202I also find that Ms. Lall was biased in favour of Mr. Singh. She admitted being “very, very close” to her brother and never getting along with Ms. Madho.
203Accordingly, I place no weight on Ms. Lall’s evidence where it diverges from Mr. Singh’s evidence and/or Ms. Madho’s evidence.
Ms. Madho
204Ms. Madho’s evidence was detailed, clear and overall was consistent with the documentary evidence. She did not waver under cross-examination on the material facts.
205Ms. Madho’s evidence was also, in some material respects, supported by Ms. Singh’s evidence.
206It is noteworthy that on some material allegations made by Mr. Singh, Ms. Madho was not given a chance to comment on their veracity or provide her own explanation. It was the responsibility of Mr. Singh to put those allegations to her in cross-examination. Mr. Singh also did not put certain questions to Ms. Singh, his witness, concerning certain events which Ms. Singh was said to be present at, and therefore, presumably, could have provided direct observation evidence about.
207Ms. Madho’s version of events made sense when viewed in the context of the evidence of the collateral witnesses, the impeachment of Mr. Singh with documentary evidence and the documentary evidence itself. For example, her explanation that her decision to separate was in part informed by the fact that she obtained full-time employment with the TDSB, complete with benefits, in 2018, and became more financially secure as a result, makes common sense. In other words, her version is credible when viewed in the context of the relevant surrounding circumstances and given the manner in which she gave her evidence and responded in cross-examination. This is not to say that I accept every aspect of her testimony, however, I accept the preponderance of her evidence as a whole.
Mr. Singh
208Ms. Madho’s evidence is in stark contrast to Mr. Singh’s evidence. On several occasions, Mr. Singh was contradicted by documentary evidence on material events. When confronted with contrary evidence, he would try to provide an explanation or would have selective memory about the event he was contradicted about.
209Ms. Singh contradicted him on a material fact with respect to the sleeping arrangements on the 2015 Cuba trip. Her evidence did not definitively support the date he said he moved into the basement apartment.
210Furthermore, Mr. Singh testified that he allowed his accountant to place false marital status designations (“married”) on some of his income tax returns for financial gain (income splitting) during most of the years he claimed he was separated. Mr. Singh’s explanation that there is a difference between “financial” separation and “emotional” separation is not plausible. Either he falsified his income tax returns for financial gain, or the “married” status designation was in fact true and Mr. Singh used the income splitting explanation to distance himself factually from those designations, recalling his evidence that he never did income split with Ms. Madho.
211Overall, I find that Mr. Singh’s evidence in support of his date of separation was not credible, including his own testimony, his documents, and Ms. Singh’s testimony.
212Accordingly, where their evidence diverges on material facts, I accept Ms. Madho’s evidence over that of Mr. Singh.
Findings of Fact and Application to the Law
213Returning to the list of material factors relevant to this case, as emerged from the evidence, I find the following facts on an objective basis:
(a) Mr. Singh did not make an express declaration as to his posited date of separation until the Answer was filed;
(b) Ms. Madho did not make an express declaration as to her posited date of separation until she commenced these proceedings. However, the precipitating event for her decision to separate was when she advised Mr. Singh that, for the first time, she would not go on a family vacation. Mr. Singh had proposed a family vacation to Jamaica for Ms. Singh’s birthday. She told Mr. Singh of this decision not to attend on December 18, 2019. This marked the first time that Ms. Madho declined to go on a family vacation.
(c) Day to day routines: The parties engaged in many daily or weekly activities before the birth of Ms. Singh. That routine was modified with the birth of each child and Ms. Madho’s employment situation. Furthermore, as Ms. Singh became older, entering high school, the family dinners at home became less frequent due to the children’s extracurricular activities after school. This is a usual evolution. Before and after 2014, however, Ms. Madho did much of the domestic chores on a day-to-day basis, including cooking, cleaning and groceries. The one routine that held up after 2014 was the Saturday routine of Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho going to Costco to shop, and having a coffee or breakfast in advance, with Mr. Singh paying. They also had backyard barbeques most weeks during the summer months at which Mr. Singh barbecued and Ms. Madho and the children ate. There was no significant change that occurred on and after November 30, 2014 up to December 18, 2019.
(d) Economic relationship: The parties always kept their own savings separate. They had no joint bank accounts, but only a joint RESP for the children. They contributed to the mortgage of the matrimonial home with their own separately resourced funds (his employment income, her inheritance). Their pattern of paying for expenses did not alter significantly until after Ms. Madho’s proposed date of separation. Mr. Singh continued to pay for family vacations, family restaurant dinners, family outings, major expenditures, car insurance and the operating expenses for the matrimonial home before and after 2014 up until 2019.
(e) Family vacations: The family continued to take family vacations after 2014 as they did prior to 2014, with Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho jointly planning them, and Mr. Singh paying for them. I find that there were no more family vacations after January 2018 (the Florida trip). I also find that during the family vacations before and after 2014, Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho shared the same hotel room and same bed.
(f) Sexual relations: I find that sexual relations between Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho were declining in frequency after the birth of Ranjeev. There were some sexual relations, though fewer, after 2014; however, as of the beginning of 2014 they were already declining and by sometime in 2018, there were no further sexual relations or intimacies of any kind. Furthermore, Mr. Singh’s pattern of sleeping in various locations, including the marital bed, from time to time was established before 2014 and continued until he moved permanently into the basement apartment.
(g) Representations on income tax returns: I find that Ms. Madho’s income tax returns are overall more consistent with her version of events than Mr. Singh’s income tax returns. This includes her testimony that the parties underwent a temporary separation in 2016 to the spring of 2017.
(h) Extended family events: The parties did not attend many extended family events before or after 2014. However, prior to 2019, they did attend at some extended family events together such as Niagara Falls with Ms. Madho’s mother and a family wedding. They also attended in Guyana for Ms. Madho’s father’s cremation. From and after 2019, the parties attended no extended family events, except for Mr. Singh’s brother’s funeral in 2021 which they attended separately.
(i) Celebrations of anniversaries, birthdays, and Mother’s Day: The parties attended at celebrations held at restaurants for some anniversaries, birthdays and Mother’s Day before and after 2014, up to September 2018. The parties tended to go to the same restaurant for birthday celebrations (Red Lobster) and Mr. Singh always paid. The parties attended at a “new” restaurant, The School – Fine Dining (Markham), for an anniversary in June 2017 and they returned to that restaurant with the children. Ms. Madho organized a birthday celebration for Mr. Singh’s birthday in September 2018 at their home at which he was presented with a birthday cake. In addition, they always went to the CNE as a family from before 2014 to and including August 2019.
(j) Exchange of gifts between the spouses: There was more gift giving before the birth of the children. The parties did not focus on gift giving after the birth of the children. There were no significant gift exchanges after the birth of Ms. Singh. There has been no gift giving since 2019.
(k) Date on which the parties began living separate and apart in the matrimonial home: Mr. Singh did not move permanently into the basement apartment until after Ms. Madho declared her intention not to go on a proposed family vacation on December 18, 2019. He excluded Ms. Madho from the basement apartment in the spring 2020 when he changed the locks on the basement door. Accordingly, the parties started living separate and apart, but within the matrimonial home, as of December 18, 2019 when Ms. Madho unilaterally decided to end the marriage without reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
(l) Date on which Ms. Madho permanently moved out of the matrimonial home: The parties agree this date was October 19, 2022.
(m) Declarations of separation other than on the income tax returns: Mr. Singh and Ms. Madho did not often introduce each other as spouses in public before or after 2014. This is because they rarely went to community or public events and did not have a circle of friends. However, on rare occasions, such as a family wedding, they did introduce each other as “husband” or “wife” after 2014. When Ms. Madho’s first lawyer wrote about the prospect of ending the marriage referencing the “recent separation”, Mr. Singh, through his own lawyer, did not dispute that assertion. The inference which I draw is that is because Mr. Singh agreed that there had been, in 2016, a recent separation, not a separation that commenced two years earlier in 2014.
214I also find that Ms. Madho and Mr. Singh temporarily separated, while living under the same roof, from 2016 to the spring of 2017, during which time Ms. Madho hired a lawyer to commence discussions around ending the marriage. However, the parties reconciled, and Ms. Madho terminated her (first) lawyer’s retainer. Accordingly, they did not separate in 2016 with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.
215Applying the law to the above facts and assessing the facts on a holistic basis having regard to the unique circumstances of their relationship, and the habits, routines, behaviours, appearances and representations of the parties before and after the posited dates of separation, I find that the date of separation with no reasonable prospect that they would resume cohabitation is December 18, 2019, consistent with Ms. Madho’s unilateral decision to separate on that day and as supported by the findings of fact that I have made. By December 18, 2019, the marital relationship had irretrievably broken down and Mr. Singh then moved to the basement apartment on a permanent basis until Ms. Madho moved out from the matrimonial home. The fact that Ms. Madho did not move out of the matrimonial home until 2022 does not alter this finding. Prior to that date, the parties were living separate and apart under the same roof and in different physical quarters of the matrimonial home.
Disposition and Costs
216A declaration shall issue stating that the date of separation for purposes of s. 4 of the FLA is December 18, 2019.
217The parties are encouraged to resolve costs, since the date of separation issue will now hopefully assist the parties in the resolution of the remaining issues. However, if the parties cannot agree, then the Applicant shall provide me with her cost submissions and cost outline within five business days, and the Respondent shall provide me with his responding submissions and cost outline within five days thereafter. The parties shall provide their submissions by email to my judicial assistant, Maria Kolliopoulos, at maria.kolliopoulos@ontario.ca, and upload them to Case Center.
Justice S. Vella
Released: February 3, 2025
CITATION: Madho v. Singh, 2025 ONSC 626
COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-00026086
DATE: 20250203
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DEVIKA MADHO
Applicant
– and –
RAMESH SINGH
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
S. Vella J.
Released: February 3, 2025