Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Marin v. Baiu, 2020 ONCA 444

Date: 20200707

Docket: C67604

Before: Doherty, MacPherson and Benotto JJ.A.

Between

Angela Marin – formerly Baiu

Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)

and

Lucian Baiu

Respondent (Appellant in Appeal)

Counsel:

Lucian Baiu, acting in person

Angela Marin, acting in person

Heard: in writing

On appeal from the judgment of Justice George MacPherson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 8, 2019.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This appeal is in relation to the dismissal of the appellant’s motion to vary child support. This court recently dismissed another appeal by the appellant arising from the dismissal of his motion to change another family law order: see Marin v. Baiu, 2019 ONCA 769.

[2] The appellant moved to change his child support obligations with a retroactive reduction to May 2015. The motion judge concluded that his income had not changed for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 but that there had been a change for 2018 and 2019. The child support was adjusted accordingly.

[3] The appellant alleges that the motion judge erred (i) in attributing income to him based on deposits made to his bank account; (ii) by not reducing his income by the amount equal to a four-week vacation for 2019; and (iii) by requiring him to secure the payments with life insurance. He also submits that the motion judge failed to answer his question about why he was not credited with a debt in the equalization payment.

[4] The underlying matrimonial litigation has gone on for nearly nine years. The appellant has been twice to this court and his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. A recurrent theme in the various orders and the judgment is the appellant’s inadequate financial disclosure. The motion judge relied on the appellant’s corporate financial statements, income tax returns and bank statements to establish his income. It was open to him to do so.

[5] Likewise, it was open to the motion judge to pro-rate his income on an annual basis without deducting a notional four-week holiday.

[6] The life insurance provision was a term of the original judgment and remains outstanding. It was not a change ordered by the motion judge.

[7] All issues regarding the equalization payment were res judicata having been the subject of the previous appeal. The issue was not properly before the motion judge.

[8] The appeal is dismissed. If the parties do not agree on costs, they may exchange with each other and then provide to the court, written submissions limited to 3 pages within 15 days of the release of this decision.

“Doherty J.A.”

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”