NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-034809
DATE: 20120912
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: TALIN KARAJIAN, Applicant
AND:
ARA KARAJIAN, Respondent
BEFORE: THE HON. MADAM JUSTICE M.P. EBERHARD
COUNSEL: M. Greenstein, Counsel, for the Applicant
A. Karajian, on his own behalf
HEARD: by written submissions
SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT
[1] On August 29, 2012 I released my Reasons for Decision. On August 31, 2012 Mr. Greenstein, counsel for the Applicant, wrote to request a telephone conference to clarify paragraphs 46 and 47. He also asked for a expedited conference so that the cost submissions due by September 20 could be accomplished. I instructed my assistant to seek details as to the clarifications required, which came by letter received September 7, 2012 as follows:
Paragraph 4: Has Your Honour signed the order appointing the Office of the Children's Lawyer? Please advise, as there is strict timelines for the parties to complete the intake forms to submit to the OCL;
Paragraph 26: Can Your Honour order that there be production of the insurance policy on the family automobile? Following the rendering of your judgment Mr. Karajian sent me a hand written note indicating that my client would have to commence paying auto insurance on Sept. 10, 2012 without any verification as to when the present policy of insurance expires. I have asked for proof of the policy expiration but it has not thus far been forthcoming;
Paragraph 32: Is your endorsement satisfactory to have the pension divided at source?
Paragraphs 46 and 47: There is a suggestion that there is to be retroactive spousal support payable by Mr. Karajian to Mrs. Karajian to the date of separation in the amount of $673.00 a month without a specific order being stated in the endorsement. Can you please clarify your position on the quantum of retroactive support before March 2012?
[2] I also received correspondence from the self represented Respondent dated September 5, 2012 stating:
Please I need to set up a conference call with Honorable Justice Eberhard and the applicant lawyer Mr. Mark Greenstein to clarify [sic] some issues with the judgment in my separation case.
I do not have fax service, my internet will be activated by tomorrow my e-mail is (karakarajian@rogers.com) my cell is 416 576 6399.
[3] A further fax was received on September 10, 2012 as follows:
Please there are a couple of issues in your judgment that are not clear to me and if you don't mind I will list them below:
As per your August 13, 2012 endorsement/order I have rented a one bed room apartment in Markham moved out from the house with my son Karnig on August 30, 2012, moved my son bedroom his games and his books and clothing’s. My son is attending Markville high school with all his friends finally our life started moving forward.
My daughter Armig told me that she is taking this year off from going to university I disagreed with her but that is her dissension she was accepted in tow [sic] universities Ryerson down town Toronto and university of laurite.
Regarding to our matrimonial house your order/endorsement of august 13, 2012 paragraph 3 the house to be listed forthwith. but unfortunately Until today the house is NOT LISTED.
Regarding Child Support calculation please note in the endorsement Paragraph 50 is regarding two children residing with the mother or one child residing with the mother. I would like to know how the support payment will work if the two of my children's reside with me.
What kind of attendance proof is acceptable by you regarding my daughter Armig attending university.
Regarding the car insurance I do not have accesses to the car the insurance slip is in the glove compartment and to my best knowledge the expiry of the policy is end of August I have not seen the renewal letter from the insurance company most probably thrown out by my wife.
Regarding spousal support I would like to know that if your order will automatically replaced the order from Justice Kaufman spousal support payment of $550 deducted every month from my pay.
Regarding my frozen bank accounts. And with your permission I would like to have an order unfreezing the bank accounts and my RRSP account.
Paragraph 24 of your order regarding the royal Doulton and Mikasa set I was denied access to collect them.
With Grate [sic] respect I ask your honor your view regarding the money I owe to my landlord $56,000.00.
I have reported stolen property to York region police department and it is under investigation. On march 8, 2012 My wife stole my TD bank safety deposit box key the box is registered in my name only and only I have access to this box but apparently according to the TD bank consumers manager a mistake was done and my wife gained access to the deposit box and emptied all content which contained highly voluble [sic] documents such as land and property deeds in Turkey belong to my grandfather before the genocide of 2.000,000 Armenians, and my grandfather and grandmother birth certificates in turkey and many more items and historic documents.
A copy of this letter is faxed to Mr. Greenstein.
[4] It is the responsibility of counsel for the Applicant to take out orders arising from my reasons for decision. It is within my mandate as trial judge to consider clarifications to facilitate that process. For this reason I have accepted the correspondence above-noted in the nature of submissions for the purpose of clarification. My jurisdiction following trial is limited. I do not intend to adjudicate or comment on issues not raised at trial. I also do not intend to comment on enforcement issues except to say that once the order arising from my decision has been issued and entered, both parties can then take enforcement steps as may be necessary.
[5] With these limitations in mind I make the following responses to the correspondence received:
Applicant
( 1 ) I have not yet signed the order appointing the Office of the Children's Lawyer. Counsel may prepare such an order for me to sign. When it is signed it can be issued and entered and then the strict timelines will apply.
( 2 ) The insurance policy issue has been answered in the fax from the Respondent. If the policy is not where he has suggested it might be found then the Applicant may make direct inquiries. I do not intend an order unless it is necessary after the practical steps have been exhausted.
( 3 ) It is my intention that the pension be divided at source. It is up to counsel to draft an order that will accomplish this.
( 4 ) The issue of retroactive spousal support was argued. A temporary spousal support order was made by Justice Kaufman. I made a finding as to when separation took place in March of 2010. Unfortunately, paragraph 52 has a typographical error in stating that the retroactive spousal support is for shortfall since March 2012. I set out a quantum for spousal support commencing September 1, 2012. It is my intention that Justice Kaufman's order for spousal support of $550 a month be in force from September 1, 2011 until August 31, 2012. In addition to that, for the entire period from March 2010 to August 31, 2012 I have ordered a retroactive payment of $10,000 for shortfall. I regret the error in paragraph 52 which was merely typographical but certainly would create confusion.
Respondent
(1) This fact scenario is addressed in my reasons for decision paragraph 50 (b)(d)(f).
(2) This fact scenario cannot be addressed in response to correspondence.
(3) This is an enforcement issue.
(4) This fact scenario cannot be addressed in response to correspondence.
( 5 ) This question cannot be addressed in response to correspondence.
( 6 ) See response to Applicant issue number two.
( 7 ) See response to Applicant issue number four.
( 8 ) This request should not be addressed until the order arising out of my decision has been issued and entered or upon the written consent of the Applicant. Any substantive issues that arise must be put before the court in a formal motion.
( 9 ) This is an enforcement issue.
( 10 ) My findings as to debts are contained in Schedule A of my judgment.
( 11 ) This fact scenario cannot be addressed in response to correspondence nor was it a matter that was before me in the trial.
[6] I expect that counsel for the Applicant will draft a judgment to comply with my reasons for decision, that he will prepare an order requesting the involvement of the Children's Lawyer for my signature and if there are further problems that the appropriate formal litigation steps will follow.
[7] Costs to date should be addressed as set out in my reasons for judgment.
EBERHARD J.
Date: September 12, 2012