ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 66/10
(Orangeville)
DATE: 2012-07-25
BETWEEN:
ANGELA NICHOLS Applicant – and – JAIME NICHOLS Respondent
Gillian Shute, Counsel for the Applicant
Self-Represented
HEARD: March 19, 21 and July 20, 2012
FINAL JUDGMENT
MURRAY J.
[ 1 ] After an uncontested trial in March, 2012, on April 4, 2012 I made an interim judgment in which I ordered the payment of $43,563.27 by the respondent to the applicant as an equalization payment. This interim calculation was based on the respondent’s debts and other liabilities being $34,358.28 on the date of separation. At trial, the applicant asserted that the respondent’s debts were $24,372.14 on the date of separation. The interim calculation also used an RRSP value for the applicant of $20,000 on valuation day as suggested by the respondent and not as recently valued by her as $14,000.
[ 2 ] As noted in the interim award, two issues relating to the calculation of the equalization payment caused me concern.
[ 3 ] The first issue related to the applicant’s calculation of her NFP. On March 4, 2010, her affidavit set out her net family property on the date of separation as $0.00. In her affidavit of June 14, 2010, she calculated her net family property on the date of separation as negative $9,467.82, being composed of debt and no property. In the most recent calculation prepared before trial, she indicated an RRSP valued at $14,000 and other personal property valued at $100 for an aggregate property value of $14,100 on the date of separation offset by debts in the amount of $3,779.12, for an NFP of $10,320.88. There was no explanation provided as to why calculations made by the applicant of her net family property on the date of separation differed. Unfortunately, I was not aware of these differences until I made a more thorough review of the file after the applicant had given her testimony in the uncontested trial. I offered the applicant an opportunity to re-attend to provide further explanation as to the value of her RRSP on the date of separation.
[ 4 ] The second issue related to the respondent’s assertion in his previously filed material that he had debts and other liabilities of $34,358.28 on the date of separation whereas the applicant claimed his debts were $24,372.14. The respondent provided details of the $34,358.28 debt shown in his net family property statement. I offered the applicant an opportunity to re-attend to provide further explanation as to why she rejected his calculus of his debts on the date of separation.
I decided to make an interim judgment so that the applicant would start receiving support payments and so that the respondent could pay to the applicant an interim amount towards equalization, an amount conservatively calculated based on the evidence before me. Therefore, on an interim basis, I ordered the payment of $43,563.27 by the respondent to the applicant as her half of NFP. This equalization payment of $43,563.27 was calculated on the basis that: 1) the respondent had debts and other liabilities of $34,358.28 at separation and not on the basis that his debts were $24,372.14 as claimed by the applicant; and 2) on the basis that the applicant’s RRSP was worth $20,000 on valuation day and not $14,000. In my interim decision, I ruled that the interim award of $43,563.27 could only be fairly adjusted after final determination of the two issues that required clarification. Therefore, I allowed the applicant an opportunity to provide the Court with further information regarding these issues, both of which have an impact on the calculation of the equalization payment owed by the respondent to the applicant.
[ 5 ] The applicant appeared before me on July 20, 2012 in order to provide further information. She satisfied me that on the date of separation, her RRSP was properly valued at $14,000. I am further satisfied that the applicant fully explained the conflict in NFP calculations filed by her. I accept the accuracy of the most recent calculation of the applicant’s NFP on the date of separation indicating an RRSP valued at $14,000 and other personal property valued at $100 for an aggregate property value of $14,100 on the date of separation offset by debts in the amount of $3,779.12, for an NFP of $10,320.88.
[ 6 ] I am also satisfied that the calculation of the respondent’s NFP debts and other liabilities on the date of separation should remain as stated by him as $34,358.28. In light of my decision to accept the calculation of Mr. Nichols’ debts and liabilities as made by him, I am not providing him with an opportunity to provide further evidence.
[ 7 ] Applying these numbers to the NFP calculations results in the applicant’s NFP being $10,320.88 and the respondent’s NFP being $105,347.03 at the date of separation. This results in an equalization payment by the respondent to the applicant of one half of $95,026.15 or $47,513.08 as his equalization payment.
[ 8 ] For the reasons given herein, this final judgment reflects the change in the calculation of the equalization payment described herein. Except for that change, the orders made in the interim judgment are now final.
Conclusion
[ 9 ] On a final basis, it is therefore ordered that:
- The respondent, Jaime Nichols, shall pay to the applicant, Angela Nichols, spousal support in the amount of $1,200 per month commencing May 1, 2012 and on the first of each and every month thereafter;
- Commencing in 2013, and each year thereafter, Jaime Nichols and Angela Nichols shall each disclose their annual income for the previous calendar year together with supporting documentation to the other spouse by March 1 st ;
- The respondent, Jaime Nichols, shall forthwith pay to the applicant, Angela Nichols, a lump sum of $7,312.50 for retroactive spousal support; and
- The respondent, Jaime Nichols, shall pay an equalization payment to the applicant, Angela Nichols, in the amount of $47,513.08 as her half of net family property.
[ 10 ] S.D.O to issue.
MURRAY J.
Released: July 25, 2012
Duplicate Release Block
COURT FILE NO.: 66/10
(Orangeville)
DATE: 2012-07-25
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ANGELA NICHOLS Applicant – and – JAIME NICHOLS Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MURRAY J.
Released: July 25, 2012