Chandra v. Chandra, (2002) 212 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 138 (NFFC)

• Judge: Wells, J.
• Case Date: February 08, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2002), 212 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 138 (NFFC)

Chandra v. Chandra (2002), 212 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 138 (NFFC);

    637 A.P.R. 138

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. AP.025

Shakti Chandra (plaintiff) v. Ranjit Chandra (defendant)

(1994 No. 0680; No. 94/07335)

Indexed As: Chandra v. Chandra

Newfoundland and Labrador

Supreme Court

Unified Family Court

Wells, J.

April 17, 2002.

Summary:

A husband and wife, both medical doctors originating from India, separated in 1993 after 21 years of marriage. The wife was an associate professor earning $60,000 per year. She had raised their son (age 19) and daughter (age 26) and the husband's two daughters from his first marriage. The hus­band, a world renowned expert and lecturer, held assets all over the world. The financial disclosure that was made still did not make it possible to determine the value of his assets, their source and whether the assets constituted marital property. The wife peti­tioned for a divorce and sought child sup­port, compensatory spousal support, occupa­tional rent for the marital home and a deter­mination and division of marital property.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Unified Family Court, in a decision reported at 196 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 47; 589 A.P.R. 47, ordered an equal division of marital prop­erty, awarded the wife $50,000 lump sum spousal support and ordered the husband to pay the wife $41,500 for occupational rent of the marital home for 83 months. As to the husband's numerous bank accounts, the level of disclosure fell below the standard required to accomplish an equitable division of monies in the accounts absent sufficient information to determine the monies in the account at the date of separation and what portion of the monies were marital property. The court gave the spouses 90 days to reach an agreement. Failing that, the court would exercise its discretion under rule 35 to appoint a chartered accountant to inquire into the matter and report to the court. The court appointed an accountant under rule 35.01(1). He was unable to express an opinion on the probable amounts in the accounts without the husband's full disclosure and cooperation.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Unified Family Court, inferred the amounts in the accounts. The court remained unable to make an order respecting land in India where there was no evidence as to value before the court. The court awarded the wife 50% of her taxed solicitor and client costs in addition to party and party costs. The court ordered that the husband bear the account of the court-appointed expert under rule 35 where it was his nondisclosure that made the appointment necessary.

Family Law - Topic 966

Husband and wife - Actions between hus­band and wife - Practice - Costs - A hus­band refused to make proper financial disclosure in a matrimonial property action - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Unified Family Court, awarded the wife 50% of her taxed solici­tor and client costs in addition to party and party costs where this failure to cooperate prolonged the trial - The court also ordered that the husband bear the account of a court-appointed expert (accountant) under rule 35 where it was the husband's nondisclosure that made the appointment necessary - See paragraphs 17 to 21.

Practice - Topic 7102

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Costs payable on solicitor and client basis - [See Family Law - Topic 966 ].

Practice - Topic 7103

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - For reprehensible or inefficient conduct by party - [See Family Law - Topic 966 ].

Cases Noticed:

Cunha v. Cunha (1994), 99 B.C.L.R.(2d) 93 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Burnett v. Burnett, [1999] O.T.C. Uned. 657; 50 R.F.L.(4th) 223 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

Counsel:

David Day, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

Nicholas Avis, Q.C., for the defendant.

This case was heard on February 8, 2002, by Wells, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Unified Family Court, who delivered the following decision on April 17, 2002.