COURT FILE AND PARTIES
COURT FILE NO.: F1434-03
DATE: 2012-05-24
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
FAMILY COURT
RE: DON DWAINE ANDERSON, Applicant
AND:
VANESSA WADE, Respondent
BEFORE: MITROW J.
COUNSEL: D. Anderson, Self Represented
V. Wade, Self Represented
HEARD: On application filed
ENDORSEMENT
[ 1 ] This court received an application from Mr. Don Dwaine Anderson (“Mr. Anderson”) pursuant to s. 32 para. 2 of the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act , 2002 S.O. 2002, c. 13 (the “Act”). Mr. Anderson had completed a Uniform Support Petition in Michigan seeking to modify his support order.
[ 2 ] Mr. Anderson failed to disclose on page 6 of his “General Testimony” form any details regarding the current order he seeks to modify.
[ 3 ] There is, however, a court order made in this court dated January 20, 2004 made by the Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell requiring Mr. Anderson (whose name as Respondent is shown as “Don Ricardo Anderson”) to pay to Vanessa Briane Wade (“Ms. Wade”), the applicant in that case, the sum of $345 per month child support based on an income of $40,000, this being the table amount based on the Child Support Guidelines then in force in the Province of Ontario. The child support is for the child Kieara Anisa Briane Wade born April 21, 2000.
[ 4 ] It is unknown whether this is the order that Mr. Anderson seeks to modify.
[ 5 ] In dealing with Mr. Anderson’s application, this court is required pursuant to Section 35 para. 2 of the Act , in determining the amount of child support to apply the law of Michigan (this being the jurisdiction where the person liable to pay support resides).
[ 6 ] This court was not provided with any documentation from Mr. Anderson as to the law in Michigan, and in particular, no information was provided regarding the Michigan Child Support Formula and how to apply it.
[ 7 ] Mr. Anderson’s application appears based on a decrease in his income. He shows $1,200 gross monthly income.
[ 8 ] It should be noted that Ms. Wade was personally served with a notice of hearing, together with Mr. Anderson’s documents, but Ms. Wade has failed to file a financial statement as required by Rule 37(3) of the Ontario Family Law Rules . I mention this because if Ms. Wade’s income is necessary to apply the Michigan Child Support Formula, this may entail further delays.
[ 9 ] I am not satisfied with the extent of Mr. Anderson’s financial document disclosure consisting only of three pay statements from his employer. More information is required as set out below.
[ 10 ] In providing his response, Mr. Anderson may wish to consider whether he is prepared to consent to his child support obligation being calculated having regard to the Child Support Guidelines in Ontario which are based on his gross income.
[ 11 ] Accordingly, pursuant to s. 34(2) of the Act , this proceeding is adjourned and the clerk of the court shall forward to the Designated Authority in Ontario a copy of this endorsement, and the Designated Authority to directed to request the following additional information and documents:
a) Copies of Mr. Anderson’s 2009, 2010 and 2011 Federal and State income tax returns, and if in any of those years Mr. Anderson filed Canadian income tax returns, then copies of those returns should be produced together with the notice of assessment (or re-assessment) for those years;
b) A fresh “General Testimony” form, properly completed, which includes the details of the order Mr. Anderson seeks to modify;
c) Pay statements or other verification of Mr. Anderson’s gross year to date income in 2012 from all sources;
d) Mr. Anderson’s position as to whether he would consent to the child support amount being determined having regard to the Child Support Guidelines in Ontario, in the event this court determines it is appropriate to modify Mr. Anderson’s child support payments; and
e) If Michigan has a Child Support Formula, then details of same shall be provided together with sufficient information on how to apply this formula.
“ Justice Victor Mitrow ”
Justice Victor Mitrow
Date: May 24, 2012