Court File and Parties

Newmarket Court File No.: FC-13-43832-00 Date: 2026-02-19 Superior Court of Justice -- Ontario

Re: Sherri Koven, Applicant And: Charles Stephen Blumenfeld, Respondent

Before: Associate Justice Mak

Counsel: Brian Ludmer, for the Applicant David M. Goodman, for the Respondent

Heard: November 13, 2025, by videoconference

Amended Reasons for Decision [*]

[1] The Applicant brings this motion for an Order for outstanding disclosure. The Respondent brings a cross-motion for an Order for outstanding disclosure.

[2] At the commencement of the motion and during the motion hearing, the parties were able to reach consent on certain items of disclosure, and the parties withdrew other items without prejudice.

[3] This decision addresses the remaining outstanding disclosure issues, which the parties confirmed are listed in the draft Orders submitted to the Court for this motion.

Background

[4] The parties were married on June 22, 1994 and separated on February 21, 2013.

[5] There are two children of the marriage, born in 1995 and 1998. Since at least 2013, the children resided primarily with the Applicant. Both children are now over the age of majority. At some point, the elder child moved out and became a practicing lawyer. In 2022, the younger child started attending law school.

[6] On June 29, 2015, Justice Bennett made a temporary order for child support and spousal support. Justice Bennett found for temporary support calculations that the Respondent's income is $620,000 per annum, and imputed an income of $30,000 per annum to the Applicant.

[7] This matter then remained dormant until March 2024.

[8] The outstanding issues include child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses and equalization of net family property.

The Law on Financial Disclosure

[9] There is a general duty in all cases to disclose information that is relevant and material to the case, subject to any claims respecting privilege or other exclusionary rules of evidence. The parties in family law proceedings have a positive duty to provide meaningful financial disclosure to ensure the issues in dispute can be effectively addressed: Spettigue v. Spettigue, 2011 ONSC 6618 at para. 15 ("Spettigue").

[10] The general obligation to disclose information that is material and relevant to the case is reinforced by Rule 19 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, which requires a party, upon request by another party, to produce an Affidavit of Documents listing every document that is relevant to any issue in the case, and is in the party's control or available to the party on request.

[11] Rule 13(6) requires parties who are obliged to serve Financial Statements to make "full and frank disclosure" of their financial situation. For self-employed individuals to satisfy the requirement of full and frank disclosure, they have an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive records of income and expenses: Mah v. Lewis, 2017 ONCJ 165 at para. 19, citing Meade v. Meade at para. 81; Spettigue at para. 17.

[12] Self-employed individuals are not required to provide audited Financial Statements. However, they must provide a package of disclosure from which information regarding the party's income can be reasonably gleaned without needing to carry out cumbersome calculations and costly investigations and examinations: Spettigue at para. 17.

The Applicant's Disclosure Requests

A. The Respondent's Disclosure Brief of March 29, 2018

[13] The Applicant requests a full copy of the Respondent's disclosure brief from March 29, 2018, as stated in paragraph 1A of the Applicant's draft Order.

[14] This March 29, 2018 brief consists of items listed in the Respondent's Form 13A Certificate of Financial Disclosure.

[15] The Respondent signed this Certificate on July 4, 2018, certifying he provided the Applicant with the documents identified in this checklist.

[16] Regrettably, at present neither party has a full copy of this brief.

[17] The Respondent's current co-counsel, Deborah Squires, has made efforts to obtain items in this brief. Ms. Squires states in her affidavit that in December 2024, material from a "huge bin of hardcopy paperwork" was made available from previous counsel for the Respondent, and culled in order to find various missing items from this brief. Respondent's counsel found a number of these items and sent them to the Applicant by correspondence dated January 25, 2025.

[18] The Applicant has requested I strike Ms. Squires' affidavit on the basis that a party's counsel cannot provide evidence but can only make submissions. The Applicant did not provide me with any legislation or case law in support of her argument. I am also not aware of any such legal basis to this argument. I therefore decline to strike Ms. Squires' affidavit.

[19] The Respondent does not deny the items in this brief are relevant. The Respondent's position is that he has provided all earlier disclosure briefs in his possession. On November 13, 2024, his counsel sent the Applicant's lawyer correspondence stating as such.

[20] The Applicant did not provide any evidence to the Court that she took steps to obtain this brief from her previous counsel, including ascertaining whether any of them have the brief.

[21] The Court orders that the parties shall make best efforts to obtain and produce the remaining documents in the March 19, 2018 brief, as per paragraph 115 below.

B. An Updated Financial Statement

[22] The Applicant requests an updated Financial Statement, including supporting documentation for all line items and proof of income for the last 3 years, as stated in paragraph 1B of the Applicant's draft Order.

[23] The Respondent does not dispute his obligation to provide Financial Statements. He states he has provided them as required. The Respondent submits he is not required to produce supporting documentation for all the line items listed in the Financial Statements.

[24] For this motion, the Applicant has not provided to the Court any of the Respondent's previous Financial Statements in support of her position that the Court should order disclosure above and beyond what is prescribed in Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules with respect to required documentation to be attached to Financial Statements. Without an idea of what these line items may be, at this juncture it is premature to order production of this supporting documentation.

[25] As of May 11, 2025, the Respondent's most recent Financial Statement that the Applicant received was sworn August 28, 2024. The Respondent shall therefore provide an updated Financial Statement to the Applicant, as per paragraph 115 below.

C. An Updated Net Family Property Brief

[26] The Applicant requests an updated Net Family Property brief with documentary backup for all the items listed, including an expert valuation report for all business interests at three dates, and the documentation relied upon by the valuator in rendering their opinion, as stated in paragraph 1C of the Applicant's draft Order.

[27] The Applicant submits so long as the parties disagree on Net Family Property, the Applicant is entitled to a corrected and/or current Net Family Property brief.

[28] The Respondent advises that Net Family Property statements were prepared before his current counsel was retained. The Respondent submits the brief was sent to the Applicant in 2014, containing all the relevant documentation.

[29] It is unclear why an updated and/or current Net Family Property brief is warranted at this juncture. For this motion, neither party submitted to the Court either an index or copy of the Net Family Property brief showing what the 2014 brief contains. The Court is therefore unable to comment on whether an updated and/or current NFP brief is warranted, and therefore declines to make this order.

D. Bank Accounts, Credit Cards, and Lines of Credits of the Respondent

[30] The Applicant requests the Respondent produce details, particulars and statements for all the Respondent's registered/unregistered accounts, credit cards, line of credit and any other accounts -- whether singularly or joint, or whether held directly or indirectly -- from 2013 to present, as listed at paragraph 1D in the Applicant's draft Order.

[31] The Respondent has produced some of the statements for some of these accounts. The statements listed in paragraph 1D remain outstanding.

[32] The Applicant also requests all credit card statements, as listed in paragraph 1P of the Applicant's draft Order, from 2013 to present.

[33] Most of the requested documentation appears to have been encompassed by two previous orders, which were attached as exhibits to the affidavit sworn by Grace Castro, law clerk for Applicant's counsel, in support of this motion:

(a) On January 31, 2014, on consent of the parties, Justice Nelson ordered the parties, within 45 days of January 31, 2014, to exchange complete bank statements and credit card statements from January 1, 2011 to present and ongoing until trial for all bank accounts, investment accounts, lines of credit, credit cards and all other accounts held by, on behalf of, or jointly by the party or by the party and another individual, excluding the other party in this proceeding.

(b) Justice Nelson also ordered the parties to exchange ongoing statements on a quarterly basis starting on March 1, 2014.

(c) On December 12, 2014, on consent of the parties, Justice Nicholson ordered Respondent's counsel to prepare authorizations and directions with respect to all accounts, credit cards, loan, lines of credit held by respondent from date of separation to present and ongoing until trial, including but not limited to all accounts in the attached Schedule to this Order, as well as a blanket authorization and direction to Bank of Montreal, RBC, National Bank, CIBC, TD, Scotiabank and any and all other financial institutions with head offices in Toronto. The authorizations/directions shall be in a form agreed upon by Applicant's counsel by December 17, 2014.

(d) Justice Nicholson ordered the authorizations to be signed by the respondent and sent to the various institutions within 3 days of the form being approved by the Applicant's lawyer. Justice Nicholson ordered the Respondent's lawyer to provide to the Applicant's lawyer confirmation the authorizations have been faxed to the various institutions within 2 days, and that the Respondent shall be responsible for the costs of obtaining the disclosure from the various institutions.

[34] The affidavit of Ms. Castro states the Respondent has not complied with the Order of Justice Nelson. The Applicant has not stated specifically whether the Respondent has complied with the Order of Justice Nicholson, although she stated the Respondent has failed to provide documentation since 2015 in accordance with three Orders.

[35] The Applicant submits these statements are relevant to the issues of child support and spousal support in order for the Court can evaluate the means, needs and circumstances of the Respondent.

[36] The Respondent submits that at this juncture, any such document prior to 2018 would be inaccessible because it is beyond seven years. Moreover, this request relates to expenses which are irrelevant because the Respondent's income alone would determine his support obligations, and he is not making any hardship claim. The Respondent also submitted the Applicant's request for these documents from 2013, at this late date, is highly prejudicial.

[37] In his motion materials, the Respondent neither commented on his compliance with these Orders nor acknowledged their existence. Ms. Squires states in her affidavit that apart from requests for information from Marmer Penner in 2023, who the Applicant had retained to conduct an income analysis of the Respondent, there were no further documentation requests and no allegations made that he had ignored any previous requests.

[38] Although the Respondent's position is these records are not accessible prior to 2018 because it has been more than seven years, the Respondent put forth no evidence before me to support this position, including any efforts made to locate and provide these records to the Applicant from prior to 2018, and any responses from non-parties who may possess these records such as banks and other such institutions.

[39] I do not find the Applicant's production request is prejudicial to the Respondent. This is because the Court made two previous Orders which encompass most of the Applicant's current production request. These Orders remain in full force and effect. To the extent that certain documents may not be accessible due to the passage of time, the Respondent shall swear an affidavit detailing the efforts he has taken to obtain these documents and advise the reasons why he has not been able to produce them.

[40] I am not persuaded by the Respondent's submissions on relevance. The Respondent is self-employed. Therefore, he has an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive records of income and expenses, as stated above at paragraph 11.

[41] Further, these records are relevant to the assessment of the Respondent's income. The Applicant alleges blameworthy conduct by the Respondent with respect to his personal finances over the years, which is potentially relevant to the issues in dispute. These documents will assist in determining whether there is any disconnect between the Respondent's lifestyle and the level of income he states he has earned since 2013. I disagree with the Respondent's submissions that only his income, not how he has spent it, is relevant to the trial issues.

[42] The items listed in Paragraphs 1D and 1P of the Applicant's draft Order are encompassed by the Orders of Justice Nelson and Justice Nicholson, to the extent that they are held by, on behalf of, or jointly by the party or by the party and another individual, excluding the other party in this proceeding.

[43] The Applicant also requests, as per paragraph 1HH in her draft Order, that the Respondent produce updated bank, investment, credit card, line of credit, mortgage, RRSP and other accounts both personal and corporate for each account indicated in the July 2018 Disclosure Brief and any new accounts from the most recent statement provided in the July 4, 2018 Disclosure Brief. The Respondent submits these documents are not relevant.

[44] The Court finds these statements for these accounts to be relevant, following the reasoning in paragraphs 40 and 41 above. From the description of the items in paragraph 1HH, most of this documentation appears to be encompassed by the previous Order of Justice Nelson.

[45] As detailed in paragraph 115 below, the Court therefore orders that the Respondent shall produce the documents ordered to be produced in paragraph 1 of the Order of Justice Nelson, within 90 days of today.

[46] To the extent that the items in paragraph 1HH of the Applicant's draft Order are not encompassed by the Order of Justice Nelson, the Respondent shall produce the updated statements for these accounts that are in the July 2018 Disclosure Brief, as well as any new accounts from the July 4, 2018 brief, within 90 days of today.

E. Details of the Home of Respondent and Libera Betty Policelli

[47] The Applicant requests, for 2013 to present, and through completion of this matter, all details, particulars and supporting documentation and narrative for all payments made and by whom, with respect to the purchase, financing, mortgage and line of credit for the Oakville home the Respondent shared with Libera Betty Policelli, and various other expenses with respect to this home, as stated in paragraph 1E of the Applicant's draft Order.

[48] The Applicant also requests all details, particulars and supporting documentation and narrative for all payments made, and by whom, with respect to pet care, repairs and maintenance pertaining to the Respondent's vehicle(s).

[49] The Applicant submits these details are relevant because prior to the Respondent's 2016 bankruptcy, the Respondent purchased a house and registered it in Ms. Policelli's name. The Applicant therefore intends to advance a claim for fraudulent conveyance and wrongful depletion. The Applicant submits these expenses generally are relevant to the Respondent's budget.

[50] The Respondent's position is at this point anything prior to 2018 would be inaccessible because it is beyond seven years. Further, this request relates to expenses which are irrelevant because the Respondent's income alone would determine his support obligation. He is not making any hardship claim.

[51] Although the Respondent's position is these records are not accessible prior to 2018 because it has been more than seven years, the Respondent put forth no evidence before me to support this position, including any efforts made to locate and provide these records to the Applicant from prior to 2018, and any responses from non-parties who may possess these records.

[52] The Applicant did not provide any evidence to the Court regarding the Oakville home, including a parcel abstract supporting the alleged ownership by Ms. Policelli. Further, even though the Applicant ostensibly seeks relief as against the Respondent, if Ms. Policelli has sole ownership of this property, the effect of this relief would be to Order the production of documents and information in the possession of Ms. Policelli, who is a non-party. It does not appear Ms. Policelli was given proper notice of this motion, as she was not served with the Applicant's motion materials. In light of the foregoing, it is premature for the Court to order the production of the documentation with respect to this home, and the Court declines to do so.

[53] However, the other information the Applicant seeks is relevant to the assessment of the Respondent's income. These documents will assist in determining whether there is any disconnect between the Respondent's lifestyle and the level of income he states he has earned since 2013. The Court therefore orders production of this information and documentation, as per paragraph 115 below.

F. Documentation on Life Insurance and Health Insurance

[54] The Applicant requests, for 2013 to present, details, particulars and supporting documentation regarding the following, detailed at paragraphs 1F, 1G, 1H and 1I in the Applicant's draft Order: the Respondent's health insurance coverage and premiums paid by him, directly or indirectly; Manulife Family Term Insurance for Ms. Policelli; Manulife Family Term insurance for the Applicant; and Disability Insurance premiums paid by the Respondent.

[55] The Applicant also requests, for 2013 to present, copies of policy documentation and related annual premiums and statements for the following, detailed at paragraphs 1K, 1L, 1M, 1N and 1O in the Applicant's draft Order: Life Insurance Policy #1166364; Term Life Insurance Manulife Policy #8576282; Accidental Death and Dismemberment Manufacturers Life Insurance Policy #92981; Life Insurance Canada Life Policy #L2152003; and Term Life Insurance Manulife Policy #3622225.

[56] The Applicant submits this requested information and documentation are relevant to the issues in dispute. She requires this proof of policy because she needs to know whether she has coverage for spousal support, whether an appropriate amount of insurance secures this support, and she also therefore requires details such as the policy terms and identities of the beneficiaries.

[57] The Respondent's position is that none of the information requested is relevant to the issues in dispute. With respect to the request for Life Insurance Policy #1166364, and presumably the other related requests, the Respondent states these requests amounts to harassment, and is unfair to the Respondent given the Applicant's delay in requesting this information.

[58] The Court finds the information regarding the Respondent's payment of premiums for these insurance plans from 2013 to present are relevant. They are expenses of the Respondent, and therefore relevant to the issues in dispute for the reasons stated above at paragraphs 40 and 41. To the extent that certain documents may not be accessible due to the passage of time, the Respondent shall swear an affidavit detailing the efforts he has taken to obtain these documents and advise the reasons why he has not been able to produce them. Therefore, the Court orders this information be produced, as per paragraph 115 below.

[59] Pursuant to section 34(1)(i) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, the Court may order that a paying spouse who has a policy of life insurance designate the other spouse or a child as the beneficiary irrevocably. Pursuant to section 34(1)(k), the Court has the authority to order a paying spouse to obtain an insurance policy to secure payment of a support order following the payor's death: Katz v Katz, 2014 ONCA 606 at para. 56.

[60] The parties did not provide to the Court evidence that the Court has made either of the above orders pursuant to sections 34(1)(i) or (k) of the Family Law Act. Without such an Order, the Applicant's stated reasons for obtaining the life insurance policy information are premature, and the Court declines to make this order.

G. Payments on the Loan of the Respondent's Mother

[61] The Applicant seeks, from 2013 to present, all details, particulars and supporting documentation, including bank statements (i.e., promissory notes, loan agreements or other documentation) with respect to the source of advances, deposits and repayment of the loan of the Respondent's mother and related financial arrangements, including any payments in cash/in kind or through transfers or credit card or other payment arrangements; including though the Respondent's funding of his mother's: (A) rent payments/debts/credits; (B) Groceries paid/used; (C) Use of Lyft for transportation; and (D) Allowance - Cash/debit card/credit card use.

[62] The Respondent's position is at this point anything prior to 2018 would be inaccessible because it is beyond seven years. Further, this request relates to expenses which the Respondent takes the position is irrelevant because his income alone would determine his support obligation, and he is not making any hardship claim. The Respondent also submits these information requests amount to harassment.

[63] Although the Respondent's position is these records are not accessible prior to 2018 because it has been more than seven years, the Respondent put forth no evidence before me to support this position, including any efforts made to locate and provide these records to the Applicant from prior to 2018, and any responses from non-parties who may possess these records.

[64] Information pertaining the Respondent's repayment of his mother's loan is relevant to the assessment of the Respondent's income. The information and documents will assist in determining whether there is any disconnect between the Respondent's lifestyle and the level of income he states he has earned since 2013. The Court therefore orders the Respondent to provide an affidavit, within 90 days of today, setting out the details of all repayments he or his three businesses made on his mother's loan, as set out in paragraph 115 below.

[65] However, the Applicant also seeks general information and documentation regarding repayment of the Respondent's mother's loan. The Applicant did not put forth evidence to the Court regarding this loan, including whether the Respondent is a party to the loan agreement. Therefore, even though the Applicant ostensibly seeks relief as against the Respondent, the effect of this relief may be to Order the production of documents and information in the possession of a non-party -- the Respondent's mother. It does not appear the Respondent's mother was given proper notice of this motion, as she was not served with the Applicant's motion materials.

[66] In light of the foregoing, it is premature for the Court to order additional production of documentation and information with respect to the loan as requested by the Applicant, and the Court declines to do so.

H. Documentation and Information with respect to the Van Evans Judgement

[67] The Applicant requests the Respondent provide all details, particulars and supporting documentation/court documents with respect to the Van Evans Judgement, and related pleadings and the positions of the Plaintiff and Defendant.

[68] At the motion hearing and in their motion materials, neither party provided to the Court any details regarding the Van Evans Judgment or litigation, including the identity of Van Evans and the parties generally, the nature of the lawsuit, and whether the monies from a settlement or judgment were paid by the Respondent or in favour of the Respondent.

[69] The Respondent produced to the Applicant email correspondence regarding monies owed to Van Evans dated January 24, 2012, which mentioned a Minutes of Settlement attached, but no such document was attached to this email correspondence.

[70] At the motion hearing, the Respondent did not dispute the relevance of this information. The Respondent's position is this email correspondence is the only documentation they have been able to locate to date, and he will continue to look for the other requested documentation.

[71] The Respondent did not make submissions on any efforts made thus far to retrieve this information and documentation.

[72] Litigation involving the Respondent that results in a judgment and/or settlement may be relevant to equalization of net family property, child support and spousal support. Section 4(2) of the Family Law Act states "damages or a right to damages for personal injuries, nervous shock, mental distress or loss of guidance, care and companionship, or the part of a settlement that represents those damages" does not form part of the spouse's net family property. However, structured settlement annuity payments should be considered as income for the purposes of spousal support and not property under Part 1 of the Family Law Act: Hunks v Hunks, 2017 ONCA 247 at para. 49.

[73] Further, if the Respondent was ordered to pay a judgment or agreed to pay a settlement to resolve this litigation, the amount would be an expense, and therefore relevant to the calculation of his income.

[74] The Court orders the Respondent shall provide details of the Van Evans judgement, as detailed in paragraph 115 below.

I. Documents and Information regarding the Respondent's Businesses

[75] The Applicant seeks production of various documents and information regarding the Respondent's businesses, listed in paragraphs 1R, 1EE, 1FF, and 1KK in the Applicant's draft Order.

[76] Specifically, the Applicant seeks the following:

(a) From 2013 to present, all details, particulars and statements and corporate/business bank, registered/unregistered, credit card, line of credit and any other accounts (whether held singularly or jointly and whether directly held or indirectly held) for North Oakville Dental Inc. ("NODI"), Charles Blumenfeld Dentistry Professional Corporation ("CBDPC") and the Respondent's unincorporated Dental Practice ("Lakeridge Dental"), as listed in paragraph 1R of the Applicant's draft Order.

(b) The income and expense spreadsheets for Lakeridge Dental for 2013, 2017 through 2025, and T4 and T4 summaries for Lakeridge Dental for 2013 to 2015 and 2018 through 2025, as listed in paragraph 1EE of the Applicant's draft Order.

(c) Full details and documentation for all non-arm's length expenses, such as salaries and fees and benefits/business and other compensation of any kind to related parties, charged as business expenses to NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental for the years 2013 to 2025, including Ms. Policelli, her children, and the Respondent's son, Hartley Blumenfeld, as listed in paragraph 1FF of the Applicant's draft Order.

(d) The general ledgers for all of the Respondent's dental practices from 2013 to 2024, partial year to-date 2025, full year 2025 when available and partial 2026 up-to-Trial, as per paragraph 1KK of the Applicant's draft Order.

[77] With respect to the requests listed in paragraph 1R of the Applicant's draft Order, the Respondent submits all relevant information for 2019 forward would have been taken into account in the Respondent's income analysis.

[78] Regarding the remaining requests listed above in paragraph 76, the Respondent submits these records form part of the income analysis. The Respondent submits the income analysis is based on financial statements, income and expenses, but not the underlying "line by line" items and other source documents the Applicant requests, and therefore these items requested by the Applicant are not relevant. The Applicant disagrees with the Respondent's position, and requests the Respondent produce the underlying source documents as they are relevant to the trial issues.

[79] It appears there are at least two income analysis reports provided by Respondent to the Applicant:

(a) In her affidavit, Ms. Squires states on August 12, 2024, the Applicant was provided with an Income Analysis of Fazzari Valuations Inc. dated November 4, 2022. Neither party provided a copy of this report to the Court for this motion.

(b) It is unknown whether the Income Analysis dated November 4, 2022 is the report that the Applicant received from the Respondent by summer 2023. However, the Applicant states that an income analysis report of the Respondent, referred to in correspondence between counsel in summer 2023, was very preliminary and included a disclaimer stating it was the best the accountant could do with the limited information provided. Neither party provided a copy of this report to the Court for this motion.

(c) The Respondent provided to the Applicant an updated Income Analysis, for 2019 to 2023, authored by Equity Trends Valuations Inc. and dated January 13, 2025.

[80] The Applicant retained Marmer Penner to prepare an income analysis of the Respondent. Ms. Squires states Marmer Penner sent out an initial production letter to the Respondent, and the Respondent's accountant forwarded the requested material to Marmer Penner.

[81] The Applicant states in her affidavit at paragraph 15:

(a) The preliminary report from Marmer Penner merely grossed-up the Respondent's income as he was not paying taxes. . . The income report produced so far does not even reflect the non-payment of taxes and does not reference general ledgers of add-backs of cover many items and many forensic inquiries that it is my understanding would have been required for a proper report.

[82] At the motion hearing, the Applicant advised the Court there is currently no report authored by Marmer Penner because they are waiting for the disclosure requested by Marmer Penner, and they need this information and documentation to proceed with questioning. The Applicant did not attach these disclosure request(s) in their motion materials.

[83] Some of the above information and documentation requested is encompassed by the Order of Justice Nelson, which states the Respondent shall provide the Applicant the following within 30 days:

(a) Paragraph 2(b) of this Order states the Respondent shall provide a sworn statement setting out an estimation of all funds provided to the Respondent's son, Hartley, directly or indirectly by the Respondent from January 2010 to present and ongoing quarterly until trial.

(b) Paragraph 2(c) of this Order states the Respondent shall provide general ledgers of all income received by Lakeridge Dental Clinic, including any cash receipts and journals, in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 and ongoing on a quarterly basis until trial.

(c) Paragraph 2(d) of this Order states the Respondent shall provide monthly income statements for all practices from which the Respondent earns income for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 and ongoing until trial, if available. If not, the Respondent shall provide independent third party confirmation of the amounts received by and earned by the Respondent in the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and ongoing on a quarterly basis until trial; and

(d) Paragraph 2(e) of this Order states the Respondent shall provide copies of all agreement entered into by the Respondent with respect to any and all contract work performed by the Respondent.

[84] I am not persuaded by the Respondent's submissions on relevance, for the reasons stated above at paragraphs 40 and 41. I find the following documentation is relevant to the trial issues, and the Court orders the Respondent to produce same:

(a) Complete bank statements and credit card statements from 2013 to present and ongoing until trial for all bank accounts, investment accounts, lines of credit, credit cards and all other accounts held by, on behalf of, or jointly by NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental or by NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental and another individual/business, excluding the other party in this proceeding.

(b) Full details of all non-arm's length expenses, such as salaries and fees and benefits/business and other compensation of any kind to parties related to the Respondent, charged as business expenses to NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental for the years 2013 to 2025, including Ms. Policelli, her children, and the Respondent's son, Hartley Blumenfeld, as listed in paragraph 1FF of the Applicant's draft Order, to the extent that this is not covered by paragraph 2(b) of the Order of Justice Nelson.

(c) The general ledgers for all of the Respondent's dental practices (i.e. NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental) from 2013 to 2024, partial year to-date 2025, full year 2025 when available and partial 2026 up-to-Trial, as per paragraph 1KK of the Applicant's draft Order, to the extent that this is not covered by paragraph 2(c) of the Order of Justice Nelson.

(d) The income and expense spreadsheets for Lakeridge Dental clinic for 2013, 2017 through 2025, and T4 and T4 summaries for Lakeridge Dental Clinic for 2013 to 2015 and 2018 through 2025, as listed in paragraph 1EE of the Applicant's draft Order.

[85] The Court also orders the Respondent shall produce the documents ordered to be produced in paragraphs 2(b) to (e) inclusive of the Order of Justice Nelson, within 90 days of today.

[86] Despite the lack of information regarding the disclosure request(s) of Marmer Penner and the lack of production of the Income Analysis of Fazzari Valuations, I find these records are relevant to the assessment of the Respondent's income. These documents will assist in determining whether there is any disconnect between the Respondent's lifestyle and the level of income he states he has earned since 2013. In addition, non-arms' length expenses invite more scrutiny than arms' length expenses due to the nature of the relationship between the individuals or businesses.

[87] The Applicant also seeks the following documents and information regarding the Respondent's businesses, as listed in paragraphs 1II, 1JJ and 1LL of the Applicant's draft Order:

(a) For the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years, the trial balances at each fiscal year end through June 30 and through September 30, and for December 31, 2025 when available, for CBDPC, NODI and Lakeridge Dental, as stated in paragraphs 1II and 1JJ in the Applicant's Draft Order.

(b) The Respondent's gross revenue report for fiscal year 2024 and for fiscal year 2025 to-date for NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental, as per paragraph 1LL of the Applicant's draft Order.

[88] The Respondent's position is that if the matters proceeds, the income analysis will need to be updated, and this information will form part of that analysis.

[89] I find this information and documentation relevant to the assessment of the Respondent's income, for the reasons stated in paragraph 86 above. The Court order the Respondent to produce this information and documentation.

J. Income Reports of the Respondent's Businesses

[90] The Applicant requests production of an expert income report for the Respondent including NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental and all of the dental offices with which he is or was associated from 2013 to 2025. There is no expert income report for all three business for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2024 and 2025.

[91] The Applicant submits this requested income report would expanding on the Income Analysis of Fazzari Valuations Inc. dated November 4, 2022, which apparently only references 2019, 2020 and 2021. The Applicant states the report does not properly adjust for taxes not paid (i.e. gross-up). The Applicant appears to have requested in the draft Order for this issue to be corrected in the Respondent's report.

[92] As previously stated, the Court was not provided with a copy of this report.

[93] The Respondent does not deny the relevance of the request. He was unsure whether the Applicant had previously made this request. His position is that an income analysis for 2019 to 2023 has been provided to the Applicant. This report was attached to Ms. Squires' affidavit.

[94] The Applicant also requests, with respect to one or both reports, all documents relied upon by the report provider pursuant to Rule 20.2(5) of the Family Law Rules. The Respondent did not dispute this request or its relevance. Ms. Squired states in her affidavit "that matter is being followed up and it is expected the relied-upon information will be produced to the Applicant shortly".

[95] The Court orders the Respondent produce an expert report for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2024 and 2025, and to provide the documentation for this report pursuant to Rule 20.2(5), as well as the documentation pursuant to Rule 20.2(5) for the Income Analysis of Fazzari Valuations dated November 4, 2022, and the Income Analysis for 2019 to 2023 of Equity Trends Valuations Inc. dated January 13, 2025.

[96] The Court declines to order the Respondent and/or his expert valuators correct the Income Analysis of Fazzari Valuations. The Court was not provided with this report and therefore cannot meaningfully assess the Applicant's concern regarding the report.

K. An Updated Copy of the Respondent's Unredacted Passport

[97] The Applicant seeks an updated copy of the Respondent's unredacted passport, from that which was provided on March 29, 2018 to the Applicant, disclosing all travel since 2013.

[98] The Applicant submits this information is relevant because the Respondent is or was bankrupt, but the Applicant alleges that the Respondent travels extensively.

[99] The Respondent submits this information, which would show the places and number of trips of vacations he has taken, is not relevant.

[100] I find this information is relevant to an assessment of the Respondent's income. The Respondent's level of travel can be considered in assessing whether there is any disconnect between the Respondent's lifestyle and the level of income he states he has earned since 2013.

[101] The Court orders the Respondent to produce an updated passport from March 19, 2018 to present.

L. Bankruptcy File for the Respondent's 2016 Bankruptcy

[102] The Applicant requests full copies of the entirety of the bankruptcy trustee's file for the Respondent's 2016 bankruptcy resulting from the November 5, 2015 proposal, for the period from commencement to present including all of the reports to, and of, inspectors and creditors, monthly and other summaries of all surplus income paid to the trustee (and/or owing to the trustee), full list of creditors in the bankruptcy and amounts owed, and all documentation related to the pending discharge from bankruptcy, all reports from the trustee, and all minutes of meetings of the Inspectors and the creditors in the bankruptcy.

[103] The Applicant submits this bankruptcy file is relevant to the issues in dispute because it will provide a clear picture of the Respondent's debts that have been or will be discharged, and the Respondent's income and cash flow since 2016.

[104] The Respondent submits the bankruptcy trustee's file is not relevant. He did not provide any further submissions on this issue.

[105] Neither of the parties advised whether the Respondent's bankruptcy proceeding has completed. The Applicant has stated the bankruptcy may not have been discharged.

[106] The bankruptcy file is relevant to the family law proceedings, for the following reasons:

(a) Certain issues in dispute such as equalization of net family property in this proceeding may in fact be stayed due to the Respondent's bankruptcy, pending the Applicant applying to lift the stay; and

(b) As stated previously, the records will help show whether there is any disconnect between the Respondent's lifestyle and the level of income he states he has earned since 2013. The documents in the bankruptcy file should provide a detailed account of the Respondent's assets and liabilities, from 2016 to present or to the date when the Respondent is or was discharged.

[107] Therefore, the Court orders the Respondent to produce the bankruptcy trustee file, as detailed in paragraph 115 below.

M. Net Income and Net Worth Statements and Reports of the Respondent

[108] The Applicant requests all net income and/or net worth statements and reports for the Respondent prepared for any purpose from 2013 to date -- other than the "Fazzari Report", which the Court presumes to be the Income Analysis prepared by Fazzari Valuations Inc. dated November 4, 2022 -- including but not limited to loan and credit applications as the borrower, co-borrower or guarantor, as listed in paragraph 1DD of the Applicant's draft Order.

[109] I find these documents are relevant to the assessment of income, as stated above at paragraph 41. However, the Court declines to order disclosure of loan and credit applications, as the relevant information regarding loans, credit products and other such expenses is encompassed by Justice Nelson's Order for the Applicant to produce all bank accounts, investment accounts, lines of credit, credit cards and all other accounts held by, on behalf of, or jointly by the party or by the party and another individual, excluding the other party in this proceeding.

The Respondent's Disclosure Request

[110] The Respondent requests complete details of the use of the matrimonial home from the date of separation to date, including who was residing in the home and when, whether any rental income was received, back up documentation for any rental income received and all expenses paid related to the home and who paid these expenses.

[111] In her responding affidavit, sworn May 14, 2025, the Applicant states: "I continue to use the home as my principal long-term residence. It has not been leased or rented and remains a private home to which I can return to my leisure and as required by the terms of my E2 Visitors Visa." The Court was not provided with any other evidence regarding this issue.

[112] The Applicant does not dispute the relevance of this information. The Court also finds this is relevant to the trial issues, as this information will assist in the assessment of the Applicant's income.

[113] I disagree with the Applicant's position that she has fully answered the Respondent's request in her motion materials. The language in her statement regarding this issue speaks only to the present use of the matrimonial home. It does not speak to the use from the February 21, 2013 to date.

[114] The Court orders the Applicant to provide the details of the use of the matrimonial home from the date of separation to date, as per paragraph 115 below.

Order to Issue

[115] For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

(a) The Applicant shall correspond with all previous counsel within 14 days of today as to whether they have the March 29, 2018 brief or any of the missing items from the brief, and the Applicant shall ask them to provide the brief and/or these missing items to her.

(b) The Applicant shall keep the Respondent apprised as to whether any of her previous counsel has the March 29, 2018 brief and/or the items, and to produce these items to the Respondent forthwith after they are provided to her.

(c) The Respondent shall make best efforts to produce the remaining documents in the March 19, 2018 brief.

(d) The Respondent shall provide his updated and complete sworn financial statement in Form 13.1, along with all required documentation under Rule 13(3.1) and (3.3) of the Family Law Rules, within 30 days of today or within 60 days of the Respondent's most recent financial statement provided to the Applicant, whichever is later.

(e) The Respondent shall produce the documents ordered to be produced in paragraph 1 of the Order of Justice Nelson, within 90 days of today.

(f) To the extent that the items in paragraph 1HH of the Applicant's draft Order are not encompassed by the Order of Justice Nelson, the Respondent shall produce the updated statements for these accounts that are listed in the July 2018 Disclosure Brief within 90 days of today, as well as any new accounts from July 4, 2018 brief, within 90 days of today.

(g) The Respondent shall prepare and serve an affidavit on the Applicant, within 90 days from today, setting out details about the Oakville house, including the ownership, who purchased it, when it was purchased, the amount of downpayment provided to purchase the house, who provided the downpayment and in what amount(s), details of the home expenses, who pays for these expenses and the amounts of these expenses.

(h) The Respondent shall prepare and serve an affidavit on the Applicant, within 90 days from today, setting out details regarding pet care, including when the pet(s) were purchased, who purchased the pet(s), details of their expenses with respect to care of the pet(s), who pays for these expenses and the amounts of these expenses.

(i) The Respondent shall prepare and serve an affidavit on the Applicant, within 90 days from today, setting out details regarding repairs and maintenance pertaining to his vehicle(s), including details of the expenses with respect to the repair and maintenance of his vehicles, who pays for these expenses and the amounts of these expenses.

(j) The Respondent shall, within 90 days of today, provide to the Applicant the amounts of the annual premiums he has paid from 2013 to present, whether by him directly or on his behalf, for the insurance policies listed at paragraphs 1F, 1G, 1H, 1I, 1K, 1L, 1M, 1N and 1O of the Applicant's draft Order.

(k) The Respondent shall provide an affidavit, within 90 days of today, setting out the details of all repayments he or his three businesses made on his mother's loan, including dates and amounts.

(l) The Respondent's affidavit shall also set out whether the Respondent made payments on his mother's loan by providing her with payments in cash or in kind, or through transfer or credit card or other payment arrangements, such as funding her rent/debts/credits, groceries paid/used, use of Lyft for transportation, and allowance including cash/debit card/credit card use.

(m) To the extent these repayments as per paragraph (l) are not memorialized in the statements ordered produced by Justice Nelson, the Respondent shall advise the Applicant.

(n) The Respondent shall prepare and serve an affidavit on the Applicant setting out the details and particulars of the Van Evans Judgment, including the amounts paid by or to him and/or any of his businesses, and the nature of the lawsuit.

(o) The Respondent shall contact all parties and counsel involved in this Van Evans litigation within 14 days of today, and request they provide him with the Minutes of Settlement as mentioned in the January 24, 2012 email correspondence, and all publicly available court documents regarding this litigation, including pleadings.

(p) The Respondent shall produce complete bank statements and credit card statements from 2013 to present and ongoing until trial for all bank accounts, investment accounts, lines of credit, credit cards and all other accounts held by, on behalf of, or jointly by NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental or by NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental and another individual/business, excluding the other party in this proceeding, within 90 days of today.

(q) The Respondent shall produce full details of all non-arm's length expenses, such as salaries and fees and benefits/business and other compensation of any kind to parties related to the Respondent, charged as business expenses to NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental for the years 2013 to 2025, including Ms. Policelli, her children, and the Respondent's son, Hartley Blumenfeld, to the extent that this is not covered by paragraph 2(b) of the Order of Justice Nelson, within 90 days of today.

(r) The Respondent shall produce the general ledgers for all of the Respondent's dental practices (i.e. NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental) from 2013 to 2024, partial year to-date 2025, full year 2025 when available and partial 2026 up-to-trial, to the extent that this is not covered by paragraph 2(c) of the Order of Justice Nelson, within 90 days of today.

(s) The Respondent shall produce the income and expense spreadsheets for Lakeridge Dental for 2013, 2017 through 2025, and T4 and T4 summaries for Lakeridge Dental for 2013 to 2015 and 2018 through 2025, within 90 days of today.

(t) The Respondent shall produce the documents ordered to be produced in paragraphs 2(b) to (e) inclusive of the Order of Justice Nelson, within 90 days of today.

(u) The Respondent shall produce, for the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years, the trial balances at each fiscal year end through June 30 and through September 30, and for December 31, 2025 when available, for CBDPC, NODI and Lakeridge Dental, within 90 days of today.

(v) The Respondent shall produce his gross revenue report for fiscal year 2024 and for fiscal year 2025 to-date for NODI, CBDPC and Lakeridge Dental, within 90 days of today.

(w) The Respondent shall produce an expert report for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2024 and 2025, and the documentation for this report pursuant to Rule 20.2(5), as well as the documentation pursuant to Rule 20.2(5) for the Income Analysis of Fazzari Valuations dated November 4, 2022, and the Income Analysis for 2019 to 2023 of Equity Trends Valuations Inc. dated January 13, 2025.

(x) The Respondent shall produce an updated copy of the Respondent's unredacted passport, from March 19, 2018 to the date it is produced to the Applicant, within 90 days of today.

(y) The Respondent shall produce to the Applicant the entire bankruptcy file of the bankruptcy trustee for the Respondent's 2016 bankruptcy, as stated exactly in paragraph 1MM of the Applicant's draft Order, within 90 days of today

(z) The Applicant shall provide to the Respondent, within 90 days of today, the complete details of the use of the matrimonial home from the date of separation to date, including who was residing in the home and when, whether any rental income was received, back up documentation for any rental income received and all expenses paid related to the home and who paid these expenses.

(aa) For any documents and information ordered to be produced in this Order that are not produced in accordance with this Order, the party shall prepare and serve on the other party, within 90 days of today, an affidavit detailing the efforts made to locate these documents and/or information, and the reason(s) why they have not been provided.

(bb) For any documents ordered to be produced in this Order that are not in the possession of the party, they shall sign an authorization and/or direction to any third parties who may be in possession of the documents to provide them to the other party.

[116] Given the amount of disclosure the Court has ordered to be produced, the Court has elected for most of these items to provide 90 days for the parties to comply, instead of a shorter period.

Costs of the Motions

[117] If the parties cannot agree to the disposition of the costs of the motions, they may make submissions in writing, not exceeding three pages each -- the plaintiffs within 20 days and this defendant within 10 days thereafter -- and send them to the attention of the Trial Coordinator for my consideration.

Associate Justice C. Mak

Release Date: February 19, 2026

[*] Paragraph 106(a) has been amended.