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

"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."

Andrea Maida v. Frank Maida

Court File No. 03-FA-012373FIS

"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."

"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."

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.

Golec 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. […]

Bordeianau and Taimish 2018 ONSC 6668

“At this stage of the proceeding, I prefer the income figure assessed by Mr. Ranot. At the same time, I appreciate that it is possible that the figure of $890,000 is too high; but the breadth of missing disclosure, most recently consolidated and ordered in Justice Kaufman’s endorsement of August 14, 2018 persuades me that Mr. Ranot’s assessment of 2016 income is the best evidence of Dr. Taimish’s 2018 income for support purposes.”

Rothschild v. Rothschild, 2019 ONSC 568 – 2019-01-28

[54] Ranot has offered a reasoned analysis supporting his determinations of the Applicant’s income for 2015 to 017.....Although WR has raised a number of concerns regarding Ranot’s conclusion regarding the Applicant’s 2017 income, Ranot has provided reasoned responses to the concerns identified.

Rachiele v. Rachiele, Ontario Court Case 91-FL-860

One of the authors of the valuation report, Steve Z. Ranot, CA, CBV, testified that the value of 100% of the shares of old Metaform was $612,000..... Mr. Ranot testified that the value of the husband’s shares on the assumption that the two partners on valuation date were continuing to operate as a going concern was $450,000. I, therefore, find the husband and wife’s assets on the valuation date to be...Old Metaform $612,000....Metaform’86 $450,000 ....

Fielding v. Fielding 2019 ONSC 833

Without the assistance of Craig’s counsel, supported by Ranot, the task of assessing the reliability and validity of this expert evidence would have been immeasurably more difficult.

Montemarano v. Montemarano, 2018 ONSC 1481 (CanL II)

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario

The total of the yearly income amount in the table provided by Mr. Ranot is $2,830,000. The average of those four years is $707,500.

For purposes of this motion for temporary child and spousal support, I find that the Respondent’s income for 2017 and currently is $707,500.

...the court must follow the scheme of s. 3, 16, 17 and 18 (of the Federal Child Support Guidelines). The analysis prepared by Mr. Ranot more closely follows the scheme than does the analysis prepared by Mr. S.

Lesko v. Lesko, 2019

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario

[41] I would also agree with the Applicant’s submission that the second Marmer Penner report more accurately reflects the respondent’s true income for support purposes in the years under consideration, and it more accurately reflects the true value of Mr. Paint at the date of separation.

[61] I assess that the second Marmer Penner report captures the income earned by the Respondent for support purposes in 2013 to 2017 more accurately than the second _____ Valuations Report. I accept the evidence of Mr. Ranot regarding such income in determining the quantum of support payable by the Respondent to the Applicant in those years.