BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-1390-00

DATE: 20120615

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

JANE ELLEN SHAKES

Applicant

– and –

PAUL STEVEN SHAKES

Respondent

J. Ironside, for the Applicant

(H. McLeish student-at-law assisting)

K. Kieller, L. Aylwin for the Respondent

HEARD: May 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 29 and 30, 2012

M.P. EBERHARD, j.:

[1] Jane and Paul were married on May 16, 1981 and separated July 21, 2010. I granted their divorce during the proceedings on May, 25, 2010 effective 31 days from that date.

[2] They cohabited on their horse farm for more than 30 years.

[3] Proceeds from sale of the farm remain in trust in the amount of $221,756.24

[4] After seven days of trial I distil facts from the evidence, some undisputed, some my findings on disputed issues, to summarize their story:

[5] After a stint in professional hockey, Paul purchased the farm in 1973. Jane joined him there in 1980.

[6] They had a son, Brad, in 1982.

[7] Although Paul was principal trainer in the farm operation for training horses Jane helped out in various ways, particularly before Brad was born and as needed when Paul was involved in racing and for the short period in the late 1980s when Paul was employed at Nacan. Jane also sometimes had employment in dental offices.

[8] Their personal finances and business finances were entirely commingled.

[9] Paul and Jane took the trouble to name their enterprise Maple Lane Farms but never registered any formal documentation. Farm income on tax returns was split between the couple.

[10] Paul brought the farm property into the marriage and he should have a credit for the land which has been valued. Otherwise, as they acquired personal property and property to operate the training business, it was a joint enterprise. Even if the numbers were before me, because of the comingling, it would be impossible to unravel the interconnectedness of personal and business spending. They were in this together, for better or for worse.

[11] Paul had entire control of the business assets and bookkeeping.

[12] They lived a comfortable lifestyle.

[13] For all periods in which evidence was provided, the couple was chronically in debt. However witnesses refer to a period in the early 2000s when the horse racing industry was booming and they had a winning horse. In 2007 and other times they cashed in RSPs which must have come from who knows where, who knows when.

[14] Jane may have had a general sense of debt but was never made aware of particulars. Jane signed any documentation that Paul put before her. When son Brad became involved in the enterprise he too was blissfully unaware of the extent of whatever debt existed.

[15] Numerous examples appeared in the evidence where a debt owed was paid on credit either from a credit card, or bank financing, or personal borrowing or payments in advance of training services being provided. Then RSPs would be cashed (2007) or the real property owned was refinanced (2008) to pay out the credit thus created.

[16] A winning horse or continued appreciation in the value of land might have allowed this strategy to continue but for two developments, beginning in 2009, which may be either the cause or the symptom of this precarious pattern: A now mature Brad recognized the financial implications on his own position so realistically pointed out that the spend-athon had to stop; and, the marriage broke down.

[17] Brad’s position was impacted because, at about age 15 he began to participate in the work of the farm. Brad is now 30. The parties tend to indicate that his formal involvement in the business was around 2004 and Brad testified he was one-half owner since 2004, the very year that their horse was bringing in winning purses.

[18] Brad and Paul did register Shakes Stables but have allowed that registration to lapse.

[19] Like Maple Lane Farms, it was a name that stood for the proprietorship of the participants but Paul still did all the contracting in his own name. Hence, the debts are in his name and the financing is in his name or with Jane on the farm, or Jane and Brad on the house on Third Street when they were joint titled owners of the real property.

[20] In 2009 Brad took a greater interest in the financial aspects of their horse training business. Brad began to insist on payment of business expenses from business revenues but Jane and Paul continued to spend the revenue on personal expenditure.

[21] In 2010 Jane was drinking a lot coincident with the breakdown of the marriage. Paul was inattentive to the horses. Separation occurred July 2010. Brad and his girlfriend Melissa (who received some sort of wage) continued to provide the horse training services to the existing owners and Brad began paying necessary bills for feed and vets as they arose, still making use of Shakes Stables equipment and enjoying the benefit of the farm facility. In December, Brad and Melissa took the useful equipment and all the remaining horses to a training facility in Cambridge.

[22] Much anger and estrangement was generated in the chaos and hurt that accompanies the end of a long family life and the disentanglement of financial enmeshment. To the extent it is necessary, to interpret the numbers proposed in the Net Family Property Statements and assess income issues, as Trial Judge, I must assess credibility.

[23] Largely, Jane was kept in the dark about the financial dealings so has little substance to add. Because of Jane’s drinking there is some lack of reliability in her reports of conversations and meetings that might have taken place among the three of them.

[24] Brad is the only reliable witness on the details of financial issues of which he was aware but his awareness is limited because of historical patterns. He has communication with Paul and considerable convergence with his views, naturally enough because he does the same kind of work, but also simply because he hears only one side of the story. He is estranged from his mother due to the litigious events between the parents which had significant consequences for him and because he has the viability of his own finances to worry about. The reliability of his evidence is therefore compromised by his limited vantage point.

[25] These reservations about the reliability of testimony contrast with lack of credibility from Paul. About many issues I do not believe Paul for reasons including the following:

(a) Paul has throughout the litigation been evasive in his disclosure. It has been a concern that he has not provided 2010 or 2011 Income Tax Returns. He blamed this on his records being in the matrimonial home. A computer hard drive he sought was ordered and no results available. As a reason for not filing a 2010 Income Tax Return this is weak enough, and no reason at all for 2011, but is further diluted when, after being questioned in cross-examination about an asset in issue (miniature horse) he returned the next day with an invoice for the purchase. I conclude from that episode that he has records relevant to the issues, sought and not disclosed.

(b) The series of financial statements filed by Paul in this litigation demonstrate more than the excusable omissions or mistakes corrected over time as better information became available. They show more inconsistency than can be attributed to a change in legal representation. On disputed issues such as debt on date of marriage, the disparities are stark and unexplained: the insistence at trial on minimal date of marriage debt, which at one time showed up on his Net Family Property Statement but no longer does; and in the face of evidence of regular payments, which he could not otherwise explain coming out of his bank account immediately adjacent to date of marriage, to a vendor take back mortgage and to his parents who the evidence indicates did loan him money; indicate that, at best, Paul is careless in his assertions.

(c) Hiding farm assets, whether from Jane or from the secured creditor, became an interesting subject for ingenuous explanation. Paul said the tractor was moved to Melissa’s grandfather’s property because it needed to be repaired. Brad said dad took it to my girlfriend’s grandparent’s place because there was lots of theft in area, only Mom at home, and people knew that. There would have been more consistency in their answers if there was a true excuse other than secreting the asset.

(d) The material Paul previously filed on a motion showed Jane had been removed as beneficiary of life insurance. Paul was then ordered to send proof that Jane was the beneficiary. Paul relies on the assertion that the policy wasn’t changed back - it was always in Jane’s name which had never been removed. This is just silly rationalization when his further evidence is that he had asked agent McEachren to remove Jane from the policy but, unknown to anyone, it turned out that the agent hadn’t gotten around to doing so.

(e) Paul testified he transferred the business to his son for no consideration, with no contract, for no payment or bartered benefit right after separation in September/October 2010. He described what was transferred: “he took over $15,000 debt not in here” (referring to the Net Family Property Statement), “for the equipment and trailer”. This timing is inconsistent with Paul’s other evidence and Brad’s evidence that they were joint owners since 2004. After separation Paul abandoned his interest in the assets to Brad but chose to keep most of the debt. This is just too convenient to his Family Law Act position regarding date of separation net worth to be believed.

[26] Because I find Paul’s evidence largely unreliable and often lacking credibility, I am frequently left in an evidentiary vacuum about income and property at any given time because the other two principle witnesses simply did not know.

[27] Brad seems to account for his income through his training earnings and his earnings from winning purses. This contributes to a completely indecipherable combination of expense allocation. He does not take into account that a proportion of the expenses associated with training was borne by Shakes Stables. Brad had his own horses for which he paid certain expenses from his own pocket. However he paid nothing for the stables or the equipment available at Shakes Stables. Other horses he was training were Shakes Stables horses. Still others belonged to independent owners. The feed, stables and equipment are in no way apportioned. It is impossible to know whether Brad was taking a larger share of the earnings then was justified by the loose partnership. This is not Brad's fault. It is because Paul just spent from the Shakes Stables funds and financing so it cannot be determined at all what money was available from earnings and what money was simply credit.

[28] In 2007 both Jane and Paul retired some RRSPs to put money back into the business. I am not persuaded that Jane new the extent of debt at that time.

[29] In 2008 Jane's father sold his Third Street property to the family for $80,000. It was worth at least $130,000 since Paul and Jane (and Brad) immediately financed at it that figure. Title went into the name of Paul and Jane and Brad. Brad lived in the house and made some improvements (partially paid for by grandfather and partially by his own effort) Also in 2008 Paul transferred title of the farm to himself and Jane and they borrowed $230,000 dollars on it. This financing from both properties paid off an earlier farm mortgage and many debts in Jane's name and in Paul's name.

[30] It now appears from the debts Paul claims that the 2008 refinancing did not pay off all of the farm indebtedness since some debts, or an indecipherable proportion of them, now showing on Paul's net family property statement, predate 2008. The refinancing did pay off quite a bit of credit card indebtedness from both and yet by Valuation Date in July of 2010 both showed substantial credit card debt.

EQUALIZATION

[31] Legal submissions from the Respondent focussed on a strict Family Law Act section 5 Valuation Date crystallization[^1] which, because debts put forward on Paul’s side exceed assets, would result in an equalization payment by Jane to Paul of some $64,500.

[32] The Applicant’s submissions invoked Family Law Act 5(6) unconscionability[^2] as a means of taking into account events subsequent to separation, including the shifting of all horse trainer assets and some debt to Brad, the actual discounted amounts paid to retire various debts;[^3] applying realistic numbers to paper debts; and reasonable estimates to values not proven by Paul; which would result in an equalization payment by Paul to Jane of some $55,600.

[33] I accept as a fact that there were discussions and general agreement by both parents that Brad should enjoy the benefits of continuing the horse training enterprise that had sustained the family over the years. The idea of Brad continuing the business, the parents selling the farm and retiring the debt to live in a modest country home did rise to a shared aspiration. Ah, but the devil is in the details and the pesky debt, which Paul relies on now as grounds for his claim for an equalization payment, is the devil.

[34] Paul magnanimously proclaims that he didn't want to saddle Brad with the debt. I have no doubt that parents everywhere, including Jane, warm to this sentiment. However this notion means, in effect, that Paul prefers to benefit Brad with Jane paying the price. It says, in effect, ‘Brad, you take the assets, which are the assets, or progeny of assets, I accumulated while Jane and I were in joint enterprise. I will take the debt and Jane will pay the equalization, so that I will get the greater share of the proceeds of the sale of the only asset we kept, our jointly owned (and encumbered) farm’. This is using the Family Law Act Valuation Day principle as a sword.

[35] But, I find, what really happened, of legal significance, was this:

[36] From 2004 Brad and Paul shared the business. The extent of the value of the business in 2004 is indecipherable because such debt as may then have existed is and always has been comingled with family debt.

[37] No formality is anticipated among these three to reflect the admission of Brad into sharing the business enterprise that had up until then been the shared, comingled enterprise of the couple. These folks never engaged in such formality. Nor are revenues or profit capable of calculation. The complicated payment strategies for providing training services; for acquiring ownership of horses; cash deals; bartering services; and living off the farm expenses; simply prevent reliance on such mundane instruments as tax returns. Moreover none were provided for this 2004 period of changeover. I only know that Paul and Jane continued to share the enterprise 50/50 on tax returns.

[38] When Brad moved into the Third St. property in 2007, Shakes Stables paid the mortgage. So the comingling expanded to Brad’s own living expenses.

[39] My point is, contrary to the assertion that at Valuation Day Paul had assets and debt associated with Shakes Stables, in fact, the enterprise had become joint between Paul and Brad in 2004. It wasn’t until 2009 that Brad looked at the books and immediately objected to the obvious draining of business resources for Paul and Jane’s personal spending. Brad was outraged. He understood the sleight of hand couldn’t continue. And, it has to be said that in 2008 by refinancing Third St and the farm property, Jane and Paul had already shifted a huge amount of their personal indebtedness to encumbrance on their property. Otherwise Brad would have been introduced to an even grimmer picture.

[40] So it is that my judgment becomes an exercise not in looking to events after Valuation Day, but in assigning debt and assets in accordance with the fact that Brad and Paul were, and saw themselves to be, half owners of the business which they called Shakes Stables. Shakes Stables used the equipment, horses and assets (or their replacements) of Maple Lanes Farm. Shakes Stables paid the undifferentiated personal expenses of the Shakes family while Brad lived at home, then the undifferentiated expenses of Jane and Paul and the partially differentiated expenses of Brad and Mellissa and Mellissa herself who earned a wage, unlike the others, of $400-$500 a week. All the while Shakes Stables showed remarkably modest income in tax returns.

[41] I have analyzed the evidence of when and for what the debts were incurred. Since Shakes Stables was not a registered entity many of the debts appear in Paul’s name. He may be the one pursued to pay them. Brad has had assurances from some creditors that they will not pursue Brad for payment. From 2004 Paul has signed personally for business debt for the benefit of an enterprise which he and Brad claim as shared. That was Paul’s choice. I find he cannot assert that choice to Jane’s detriment.

[42] I have readjusted the Net Family Property Worksheet, that was helpfully provided by counsel for the Respondent, to reflect the respective positions of the parties. The figures inserted in bold font represent my findings on the various disputed items and even a few of those where the parties had indicated, by an “X”, that they were in agreement. I also created a column for Brad. He is not a party and I do not purport to bind him by my order. But showing my findings about Brad’s involvement is a means of expressing the facts as found.

[43] Notes on Judgment Net Family Property Worksheet:

(i) Joint with Brad since 2004;

(ia) Joint with Brad since 2004, assumed by Brad;

(ii) Business and Family debt;

(iii) Business asset predating Brad’s co-ownership and retained by Paul;

(iv) Not proven;

(v) Goods or services provided to the family. Jane remains in the area and must continue to access these creditors’ goods and services;

(vi) Paid off by loan from Lambe – cannot count it twice;

(vii) Findings based on the evidence;

(viii) Consistent with Paul’s estimates on Valuation Day for similar equipment

[44] Based on these findings, express in the Net Family Property Statement Worksheet, I find Jane owes Paul an equalization payment of $$31,455.03. Adjustment in Paul’s favour, by agreement, $15,966.73 paid for insurance paid but not credited for spousal support interim order. Adjustment in Jane’s favour, by agreement, $6,360.41 for payment of Lambe (Suda) debt from proceeds. (See Schedule “A” attached)

SPOUSAL SUPPORT

[45] Currently Paul shows employment income as a T4 employee of his nephew Peter Shakes training first one, then two of Peter’s horses in another barn at the same facility Brad operates from in Cambridge. Income from such employment was $2000/month from August 2011 to December in 2012 and $600 a week since January 1, 2012. Peter acquired the second horse in February. Paul’s current pay scale annualizes to $31,080. However, owner Peter Shakes did not suggest in his evidence that the usual five percent of the purse from a winning horse would be eliminated. Paul’s evidence is unclear on the point, musing that with winnings Peter is probably breaking even.

[46] The Respondent argues his income is limited now by his age, (59 in a young man’s occupation), the downturn in the horse racing industry resulting from legislation depriving them of a percentage of slots revenue which augmented the purses (predicting that there will be no races, no horses, no trainers) and he now has no farm from which to operate the business so would face additional expense both to house the horses and himself.

[47] Since the date of separation Paul has used contacts that he has in the industry in British Columbia and went there to take up employment. It was cash work. He has no proof of his earnings. His stint in BC was combined with a motivation to be near a new relationship and interrupted by the death of his mother.

[48] The circumstances of his situation now are rife with unanswered suspicions. If he can find T4 employment to train two horses, why not more? Since his relationship with Brad remains good, Paul has opportunity to re-establish himself working for Brad, working in partnership with Brad, reviving contacts through Brad, taking on excess work that Brad is too busy to handle.

[49] But I do not find that Paul’s future is dependent on Brad. Several people, former co-owners or persons Paul had trained for, have provided Paul significant amounts of money both before and after separation. Paul testified if he can’t pay those debts he will work them off. Paul testified the money was leant because ‘they believe in me”. The common sense inference is that Paul intends to work as a trainer and at least some of his former co-owners or customers have expected him to do so.

[50] Paul has, like Jane and so many others, endured a tremendous set back in the emotional and financial upheaval consequent upon separation. It is not surprising that he would need some time to get his bearings. Paul is also, like so many others still engaged in the litigation process, aware that much turns on the determination of his income. For these reasons, more than because of any industry downturn, Paul is underemployed.

[51] The challenge is to assess an income he should be making when the history of his income is so illusive and the environment in which he will now provide horse training is now without the advantages and disadvantages of owning the premises.

[52] The evidentiary vacuum and the non-productive conduct of the Respondent facing the Motions Judge on April 21, 2011 has been addressed to the extent that as Trial Judge I can move away from an imputation of income based on life style and expenditures. It is now clear that credit, not income, supported those patterns. Although not instructive as to what Paul did earn over the years, the financial statement dated October 2011 did at least begin to provide information on post separation earnings. I will adjust monthly support owed from November 2011 to May 2012 on imputed income (from employment and value otherwise received for work) of $35,000 at $507/month.

[53] Paul’s post separation earnings, as previously observed, are modest because of emotional and financial catastrophe, and strategy for trial date poverty.

[54] For the purposes of spousal support hereafter, I impute his income, higher than the $31,080 shown as current annualized employment income but still realistic having regard to and based on challenges arising from age, industry and having to develop a new model of service with the farm.

[55] Jane’s income is stated at $23,000 from employment and $50 non taxable. I find she does not have current credentials to resume dental assistant work. She has achieved regular employment and augments it with casual employment. There is no basis for a finding that she could be doing more, so I am able to rely on the income she reports.

[56] Both parties have provided me with spousal support guideline calculations.

[57] Previously, Paul’s income was from self-employment which generated a reduction of expenses from revenue. Currently he is a T4 employee. However, owner Peter Shakes, did not suggest in his evidence that the usual percent of the purse from a winning horse would be eliminated. Paul’s evidence is unclear on the point, musing that with winnings Peter is probably breaking even. The SSAG calculations have been presented for both employment income and self-employment income, wisely, since the current income is from employment and the past income was from self-employment which I infer will someday again be Paul’s income source in whole or in part.

[58] The age of the parties is a relevant consideration. Almost 60, Paul’s productive work years are limited. The work he does is physically demanding and evidence from an insider suggests that the industry can be unkind to older participants. There is a pension listed in Paul’s Net Family Property Statement but no-one advanced evidence of any payout details. On principle, based largely on the financial interdependence of long cohabitation, Jane would be entitled to support without a definite termination date. However, realistically, the end of Paul’s working days is foreseeable and would generate need for a reconsideration.

[59] Another factor to recognize is that Paul has never demonstrated a pattern of paying his obligations on a current basis. This is more than the spousal support which he has paid only after non-compliance with orders created arrears, litigation imperatives and then he borrowed to pay. This is an overarching pattern in his financial history. I am confident in finding that monthly spousal support would rarely be paid and the need for litigation on enforcement issues would continue to plague them both.

[60] I am confident that Paul’s income picture will improve upon the end of this litigation but the more so if he is reassured that his obligation for spousal support will not increase if his income increases.

[61] For these reasons I utilize the SSAG calculation to provide a lump sum from June 1, 2012, based on a finite working future and bear in mind calculations for both employment and self-employment income.

[62] Using a combination of the SSAG calculations provided showing these variables, I fix a lump sum of spousal support payable from Paul to Jane, based on income part from employment, part from self- employment totalling $60,000; for a definite period of 5 years, 6 months; generally at the midrange of SSAG calculations. This finding still requires some averaging since the employment/self-employment proportions are not and cannot be precisely calculated. The figure owed from June 1, 2012 for lump sum spousal support is $80,000.

[63] As a result, having found that Jane owes Paul an equalization payment of $31,455.03. subject to the agreed adjustments, it is set off against Paul’s lump sum support of $80,000 to Jane leaving Paul’s lump sum payment to Jane for spousal support at $48,544.97.

[64] Such a payment has not factored in the effect of costs. I advised the parties that I would receive cost submissions in writing as by forwarding to my Judicial secretary as follows: cost submission of no more than two type written readable size font pages; offers; bill of costs. Applicant within two weeks of the release of these reasons; Respondent two weeks thereafter; Reply one week thereafter.

EBERHARD J.

Released: June 15, 2012

SCHEDULE “A”

ONTARIO

Court File Number

Superior Court of Justice Family Court Branch

FC-10-1390-00

(Name of Court)

75 Mulcaster Street, Barrie, Ontario

NET FAMILY PROPERTY WORKSHEET

(Court office address)

Full legal name

Jane Ellen Shakes

Full legal name

Paul Steven Shakes

JUDGMENT NET FAMILY PROPERTY WORKSHEET

Valuation Date:

July 1, 2010

Statement Date:

NATURE & TYPE

OF OWNERSHIP

(State percentage interest where relevant)

NATURE & ADDRESS

OF OWNERSHIP

COMMENTS PER COUNSEL

Tab/Ref.

Agreed?

Facts as Found

APPLICANT

Jane

RESPONDENT Paul

Brad

Matrimonial Home

6749 Local Airport Rd. R. R. #4, Stayner

Sold Nov. 7/11 #1063

$265,000.00

Third St. Collingwood

254 Third St. – 1/3 owners

Net value ( 33.3% of $176,000 less debt of $111,068) #1007

vii

$16,399.21

(A) TOTALS: Value of Land

$281,399.21

$16,399.21

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

COMMENTS

Tab/Ref.

Agreed?

Facts as Found

APPLICANT Jane

RESPONDENT Paul

Brad

Household goods

Household Contents

$2,500.00

& furniture

Cars, boats,

2003 Silverado

406000 KM

iii

$10,000.00

vehicles

2009 Silverado

BMO Loan against truck price with co-signor loan for $64,337.64 – Debt approximately$59776.80

Cdn. Black book value - $27,237.50

$64,273.64 was purchase price - #1096a and #1096b

$30,000.00

Jewellery, art,

electronics, tools,

Jewellery

$3,000.00

sports & hobby,

Hockey equipment, memorabilia and trophies

$500.00

equipment

Lawn Mower

$1,000.00

(B) TOTALS: Value of General Household Items and Vehicles

$6,500.00

$40,500.

$30,000.00

1046c

$1,536.75

Tackmaster

June 30/10 - #1044a and #1044b – Brad assumed

$1,383.40

Barrie Equine

Agree on amount not liability- #1041

$1,704.68

Anna Lee Ramage

#1055

Greta Simonato

#1065

1,200.00

CRA Arrears

#1093

vii

$5,600.00

TOTALS: Value of Debts and Other Liabilities, (TOTAL 2)

$ 189,762.66

278,953.98

$84,520.21

CATEGORY AND DETAILS

COMMENTS

Tab/Ref.

Agreed?

Facts as Found

APPLICANT

RESPONDENT

Brad

Assets (excludes matrimonial home value)

Appraisal from HG Appraisers - #1122

vii

$72,000.00

General household items & vehicles

vii

$1,000.00

$1000.00

Bank Accounts, Savings, securities pensions

vii

$500.00

One ton truck and horse equipment

More consistent with his estimates of 2003 and eq

vii

$5,000.00

TOTAL OF PROPERTY ITEMS

$78,000.00

Debts and other liabilities

Mortgage 60% vendor take back

vii

$6,000.00

Loan from parents 60%

vii

$6,000.00

Truck loan

vii

$7,000.00

TOTAL OF DEBTS ITEMS

$0.00

$19,000

NET VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON DATE OF MARRIAGE (NET TOTAL 3)

$1,500.00

$59,000

ITEM

COMMENTS

Tab/Ref.

Agreed?

Facts as Found

APPLICANT

RESPONDENT

TOTALS: Value of Excluded Property (TOTAL 4)

$0.00

TOTAL 2: Debts and Other Liabilities

$189,762.66

$278,953.98

TOTAL 3: Value of Property Owned on the Date of Marriage

$1,500.00

$59,000.00

TOTAL 4: Value of Excluded Property

$0.00

TOTAL 5: (TOTAL 2 + TOTAL 3 + TOTAL 4)

$191,262.66

$337,953.98

TOTAL 1: Value of Property Owned on Valuation Date

$289,972.46

$373,753.72

TOTAL 5: (from above)

$191,262.66

$337,953.98

TOTAL 6: NET FAMILY PROPERTY (Subtract: TOTAL 1 minus TOTAL 5)

$98,709.80

$35,799.74

Facts as Found

EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS

Applicant Pays To Respondent

Respondent Pays To Applicant

$31,455.03

[^1]: Schreyer v. Schreyer 2009 MBCA 84, 2009 CarswellMan 403 ;Skrij V. Skrlj, 2 R.F.L {3d) 305 (ONT. H.C.J.); Berdette v. Berdette, 1991 CanLII 7061 (ON CA), 33 R.F.L (3d) 113 (ONT. CA), LeVan v. LeVan, 51 R.F.L. (6’^) 237 (ONT. CA.)

[^2]: A.P. v. G.P, 2006 CanLII 9976 (ONT. S.C.J.) ;Araujo v. Araujo, 1996 CarswellOnt 1288 (ONT. O.C.J.) ;Dillon v. Dillon, 2010 ONSC 5858 ; see Parmigiani v. Parmigiani 2006] O.J. No. 1268

[^3]: Poole v. Poole, 2001 CanLII 28196 (ON SC), 2001 CarswellOnt 1939 (ONT. S.C.J.) ; see Okel V. Misheal [2007]O.J.No.910 Ill;

Jane Ellen Shakes v. Paul Steven Shakes, 2012 ONSC 3537

Case Summary

EQUALIZATION

SPOUSAL SUPPORT

1046c

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 2