Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Brampton 323/10 Date: 2012-04-03 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Andrew Stephen Weatherbee, Applicant

— And —

Sophie Anne Wojtyczka, Respondent

Before: Justice J.C. Baldock

Addendum to Ruling on Motion Released March 5, 2012

Released on April 3, 2012

Counsel: Jacqueline B.G. King .............................................................................................. for the applicant Hugh M. Evans ................................................................................................... for the respondent

BALDOCK, J.:

[1] Counsel have requested that I address the issue of Guideline child support.

[2] The existing order in this regard was that of February 3, 2011, paragraph 10 of which states:

The applicant shall pay child support to the respondent in accordance with the incomes of the parties and the Child Support Guidelines. Unless otherwise agreed, the payments will be administered by the Family Responsibility Office.

[3] At the time, it was anticipated that the parties would be able to come to terms as to the appropriate amount.

[4] Unfortunately, an agreement has not been reached as to the income of the applicant father.

[5] Prior to returning to university he earned approximately $41,000.00 a year.

[6] The respondent takes the position that the applicant is intentionally under-employed, now having only a minimal income from his job as a teaching assistant.

[7] "Intentionally under-employed" does not only apply to a person who is unemployed or accepts lesser paid work in order to avoid a support obligation, but also to a person who knowingly and purposely embarks on a course of action which he or she knows will result in a significantly reduced income.

[8] I find that while the applicant father's pursuit of a higher education may well have a long term benefit in terms of income and may meet the reasonable educational needs of the applicant, it has a very negative effect in the short term. It is not reasonable that the whole burden of raising a child fall on one party, when the other has, or should have, an ability to contribute.

[9] I find the applicant is intentionally under-employed within the meaning of s.19 of the Child Support Guidelines.

[10] Nevertheless, it must be recognized that the applicant has a reasonable prospect of higher earnings in the future and that to accomplish this, he is not currently able to earn the income he did previously.

[11] I therefore decline to impute income at the earlier level but attribute income at the modest level of a person working at $10.00 per hour for a 42 hour week, or $21,840.00 per year from September 1, 2011.

[12] On this basis, the applicant shall pay for the support of one child the sum of $186.00 per month commencing September 1, 2011, decreasing to $174.00 per month effective January 1, 2012, in accordance with the Revised Guidelines.

[13] For the period April 1, 2011 to August 30, 2011, the applicant shall pay the sum of $371.00 per month based on his then income of $40,000.00.

[14] Counsel may now file their costs submissions as previously ordered.

Released: April 3, 2012

Justice J.C. Baldock