Testimonials

Read what some of our clients and the Courts have said about us:

"I was impressed with the evidence of Mr. DeBresser for the plaintiff. I found him to be very precise and very convincing. He avoided the opportunity to exaggerate or to take his client's position further than his views permitted."

"I was impressed with Mr. DeBresser's thoroughness and organization in what was a very difficult job in piecing together bits and pieces of often contradictory disclosure made over a prolonged time period."

"Steve Ranot has a vast amount of experience in this area and in my view, his approach is the fairest and least complicated of the two approaches."

"The evidence of James DeBresser is more persuasive and I accept it in preference to the evidence of [the other expert]…I did not find that [he] acted as an advocate. While it is the role of the court to draw the appropriate inferences where documents which should have been produced have not been, it would not be possible to do so in this case if there was not expert evidence as to the proper financial calculations."

"Much of the evidence is only before me because of a tireless struggle by the wife's counsel and Mr. DeBresser, to locate assets."

"Mr. Ranot is a Chartered Accountant, a Chartered Business Valuator and has been a partner for 9 years with Marmer Penner, an accounting firm specializing in litigation accounting. The husband's solicitor accepted that Mr. Ranot was qualified as an expert valuator. Mr. Ranot calculated what pre-tax income the husband would have to earn to have a disposable income that he received or had paid on his behalf for the years 2001 to 2004 as follows: 2001 - $750,000; 2002 - $720,000; 2003 - $790,000; 2004 - $790,000. I find that the husband's income, on a conservative basis, should be imputed at $750,000/year."

"It was after the wife presented her evidence at trial – after Mr. DeBresser testified – that the parties resolved the issues between them, and they did so on terms very close to those suggested by Mr. DeBresser…I come to the conclusion that Mr. DeBresser's work was necessary to resolve this case…[and] for the reasons stated, I find that [75% of the expert's fees] must be paid by the husband to the wife as costs."

"I wanted to let you know that your attendance [at the mediation was very helpful and to thank you for your contribution to the process. I'm not sure we could have settled without your input."

"The first report was prepared by Marmer Penner Inc. for [the plaintiff] and was presented by Steve Ranot, C.A., C.B.V. of the firm. At my request, Mr. Ranot prepared a revised report which recalculates the projected loss assuming only the breaches of their respective contracts. I accept the Marmer Penner report both with respect to the projected average monthly sales and the projected gross margin of profit."

"Your report was instrumental in obtaining this decision and I want to thank you very much for your assistance."

Watson v. Watson, 2018 ONSC 2254

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario

I am satisfied that the approach taken by Mr. Ranot in his calculation of Mr. Watson’s income for support is well-founded and fairly addresses the amount of disposable income available to Mr. Watson. I accept that Gregory Watson’s income for support was $430,000 CDN in 2015 and $416,000 CDN in 2016.

Berta v. Berta, 2014 ONSC 3919 (CanLII) — 2014-08-20

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario

[…] Evidence of Steve Ranot [62] Mr. Ranot was also qualified as an expert to give his opinion with respect to the determination of income for support purposes. […] I agree with Mr. Ranot. [71] I find that Mr. Ranot’s calculations reflect the proper approach to calculating income for support purposes as outlined in the guidelines. […] I agree with Mr. Ranot. [75] I accept Mr. Ranot’s opinion as to the available income of Ray for support purposes. […]

König v. Hobza, 2014 ONCA 691 (CanLII) — 2014-10-09

Court of Appeal for Ontario — Ontario

[…] [51] The trial judge accepted Mr. Ranot’s evidence on the methodology for the calculation of damages.

D’Ovidio v. Clement, 2013 ONSC 5002 (CanLII) — 2013-07-26

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario

Mr. Ranot’s report further indicates that all of Mr. D’Ovidio’s income was fully taxable and therefore there is no basis to gross it up. […] [17] I accept the report of Mr. Ranot and find that Mr. D’Ovidio’s income for 2011 was $37, 152. […] [18] I also accept Mr. Ranot’s view that all of Mr. D’Ovidio’s income was fully taxable and should not be grossed up. […]

Ritchie v. Ritchie, 2017 ONSC 4130 (CanLII) — 2017-07-04

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario

[23] Steve Ranot (“Ranot”) was the expert retained by the applicant to determine the current value of KDL. He was accepted as an expert by both parties. […] [35] Secondly, the losses of KMI are not included by Ranotfor the purposes of his “high” calculation. […] [38] Therefore, I accept the high value as calculated by Ranotand in his report. […]

Colivas v. Colivas, 2017 ONSC 4730 (CanLII) — 2017-09-14

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario

[…] My review of the evidence of Steven Ranot leads me to a similar conclusion. […]

Berta v. Berta, 2015 ONCA 918 (CanLII) — 2015-12-23

Court of Appeal for Ontario — Ontario

[44] The trial judge accepted Mr. Ranot’s evidence concerning the Husband’s annual income in 2010 to 2012. […]I accept Mr. Ranot’s opinion as to the available income of [the Husband] for support purposes.

Goled v. Wilks 2012 ONSC 5158 (CanLII)

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario

[53] I accepted the testimony of Mr. Golec’s expert witness (Steve Ranot) as to the value of the businesses as at the date of separation. Despite Ms. Wilk’s heartfelt belief that High Tech Physiotherapy was the more valuable company , the figures together with the opinion of the valuator did not support her belief. I accepted that the valuation date value of High Tech Physiotherapy is $265,000 and of Physiotherapy Active Rehab $300,000.

Geishardt v. Ahmed, 2017 ONSC 5513 (CanLII) — 2017-09-25

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario

[…] [178] The figures upon which I rely in this section are set out in the report of Mr. Steve Z. Ranot of Marmer Penner Inc., who was Dr Ahmed’s expert. […]