Court File and Parties

Citation: LaRue v. LaRue, 2008 ONCA 213

Date: 20080331

Docket: C46953

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Before: Doherty, Gillese and Epstein JJ.A.

Between:

Constance Marie LaRue

Applicant/Respondent

and

Larry Denis LaRue

Respondent/Appellant

Counsel:

Shawn Campbell for the appellant

Constance LaRue, appearing in person

Heard and released orally: March 25, 2008

On appeal from the order of Justice Kenneth A. Langdon of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 27, 2006.

Endorsement

[1] When the parties’ relationship broke down, they resolved all issues related to spousal and child support by means of Minutes of Settlement executed on July 18, 2003. A court order of the same date reflects the terms of the Minutes of Settlement.

[2] On September 16, 2006, Mr. LaRue moved to vary child and spousal support because of a change in his financial circumstances. He sought to have all support arrears (child and spousal) rescinded and to have his on-going support obligations reduced.

[3] By order dated October 27, 2006 (the “Order”), Langdon J. disposed of the motion. Among other things, the Order established the contribution which Mr. LaRue must make towards the children’s s. 7 post-secondary education expenses and varied the original order by postponing payment of spousal support until after Mr. LaRue fulfills his support obligations in relation to the children.

[4] Mr. LaRue appeals. He asks this court to: reduce the quantum of s. 7 post-secondary education expenses and terminate his obligation to pay spousal support effective December 2, 2003.

[5] The primary thrust of the appellant’s argument in respect to s. 7 expenses is that it was an error in principle for the motion judge to allow expenses such as monthly bus passes, telephone and internet, food and household supplies, and laundry and clothing. The expenses in question are all referable to the school year.

[6] We reject this argument. These expenses are both necessary and reasonable within the meaning of s. 7, particularly given that the appellant has no obligation to pay child support while the children are in attendance at a post-secondary education facility. Apart entirely from that consideration, we wish to note that the amounts claimed, both individually and cumulatively, are very modest. It is completely understandable why the motion judge accepted the expenses as appropriate within the meaning of s. 7.

[7] In relation to spousal support, the appellant argues that as the motion judge accepted that there had been a material change in circumstance, spousal support should have been reduced or eliminated. Again, we disagree.

[8] The appellant does not go so far as to say he is unable to pay spousal support in accordance with the variation. The variation in spousal support addresses the appellant’s reduced financial circumstances. Further, when spousal support was settled between the parties, the appellant knew he had back problems. The spousal support ordered pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement is very modest in amount and duration. Accordingly, it was entirely within the motion judge’s discretion to do as he did – postpone payment of spousal support until after the appellant met his child support and s. 7 obligations. In respect of child support, we note that the appellant takes no issue with the child support ordered of $3,600 for Holly in 2004.

[9] We accept the appellant’s contention that it is appropriate that the Order reflect that of the total arrears of $36,764, spousal support consists of $4500 and $6300. As para. 2 of the Order makes that clear, we see it as unnecessary to order a variation to that effect. These reasons shall be taken, however, to declare that of the global support ordered in the Order, $4,500 plus $6,300 are spousal support payments.

[10] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent did not seek costs. Thus, we make no order as to costs.

“Doherty J.A.”

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”

“G. Epstein J.A.”