Nov 6, 2020

Summary of Krammer v Ackerman

Krammer v Ackerman, 2020 SKQB 207 (CanLII)
Civil Procedure – Queen’s Bench Rules, Rule 15-38, Family Law – Child Support – Imputing Income – Disclosure of Financial Information
The parties had been embroiled in litigation for 10 years regarding the appropriate level of child support each of them were to pay in a shared custody arrangement. They each applied for an order varying the level of child support, but preliminary to that determination, they each sought disclosure of financial information from the other as well as from non-parties. In their most recent previous application for disclosure of financial information, the court had decided that income should be imputed to the respondent under s. 19 of the Guidelines, but declined to deal with the petitioner’s argument that the respondent was diverting income to his wife because they worked through the same real estate brokerage. The court granted the respondent’s application for disclosure from the petitioner regarding imputation of income to her because of income she might have earned through sales of items on Varagesale (see: 2017 SKQB 294). However, the issue of the petitioner’s income was never set down for hearing after the decision. In these applications, the petitioner sought full income disclosure from the respondent and from the respondent’s wife, her corporations, and any other companies in which she held shares. The petitioner alleged that the respondent and his wife were both involved in purchasing, renovating and reselling residential homes. The respondent’s wife opposed such disclosure because she operated her own independent real estate business and because the issue was res judicata as a result of the 2017 decision. The respondent sought detailed income information from the petitioner including her resume, agreements, summary of hours worked monthly or annually, job applications, solicitation of business and a list of s. 7 expenses. He also sought full disclosure of the all items the petitioner may have sold on Varagesale over the last five year as well as a list of all vacations taken since 2015 and complaints that she had made about him to his professional association or the police going back to 2013. The respondent also applied for disclosure from the petitioner’s boyfriend if the petitioner’s application was successful regarding his wife.
HELD: Each of the parties’ applications were granted in part. The court found with respect to the petitioner’s requests that it would order the respondent to produce his personal income tax returns and financial statements and corporate tax returns for his professional real estate corporation from 2016 to 2019. Respecting disclosure from the respondent’s wife, it held that the matter was not res judicata because the petitioner’s request in this application was based on different evidence. The authority to order disclosure fell under Queen’s Bench rule 15-38, regardless of the fact that there was no undue hardship claim being advanced. It ordered the respondent’s wife to produce her personal income tax returns from 2017 to 2020 as well as the corporate tax returns and financial statements for the same period for the corporation through which she operated the selling of homes and rental of apartments. However, she was not required to provide information for all corporations in which she held shares, as that was over-reaching. The petitioner was ordered to provide a current resume, a list of s. 7 expenses and job applications, income tax returns from 2015 to 2020, monthly summary of hours worked since 2016, sales from 2015 to 2020 of items sold over the value of $500, and vacations taken out of the country since 2015. The other requests were denied.