ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-0272
DATE: 2012-12-19

B E T W E E N:

Lorilee Morton

Kelly Labine , for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

Craig Morton

Unrepresented

Respondent

HEARD: December 14 , 2012, in Thunder Bay, Ontario

McCartney J.

Reasons For Decision

[ 1 ] In this uncontested divorce trial, the applicant seeks the following relief from the respondent:

A. Divorce

B. Child Support

C. Spousal support (retroactive to March 2012)

D. Section 7 expenses

E. Equalization of Net Family Property

F. Continuation of extended health care benefits for herself and the children

G. Exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and contents

H. Costs

[ 2 ] The evidence was presented partly vive voce by the applicant, and partly by affidavit (see affidavit of Lorilee Morton dated December 6, 2012).

[ 3 ] The parties were married on December 3, 1988 in Thunder Bay and separated in November of 2009, a marriage of 21 years. They have two children Dane Joshua Morton born June 18, 1991, and Keir William Morton born June 27, 1995. Dane is in his second year at Lakehead University and Keir is in grade 12 and intends to go to University as well. The evidence indicates that the applicant is entitled to a divorce, and it is so ordered.

[ 4 ] Regarding the claims for support, it is apparent that the wife is entitled to support as will become evident, and is also entitled to receive child support from the husband since the children are living with and being supported by her.

[ 5 ] Regarding the claim for child and spousal support and section 7 expenses, particularly educational expenses, a determination must first be made as to the income of the parties.

[ 6 ] The applicant made approximately $41,000.00 in 2011, but at that time she was working as a book keeper for the respondent’s business as well as for a license issuer. In 2012 she worked on both of these jobs, but was fired from her bookkeeping job on April 5, 2012, so she estimates her total income for the current year will be reduced to a maximum of $28,000.00. She, of course, expects to make less in 2013 because she now only has one job, as well as having rheumatoid arthritis which prevents her from working full time. She estimates she could earn as little as $15,000.00 annually in the future.

[ 7 ] As far as the respondent is concerned, he has two income sources. He operates the golf pro shop at a local country club, as well as receiving a retainer from the club. Even though the respondent has apparently refused to provide proof of income for 2010, 2011, and 2012, the evidence indicates that he earned $96,932.00 in 2008 and $103,861.21 in 2009. Based on these figures the applicant asks that income be imputed to the respondent of $100,000.00 annually, and I agree.

[ 8 ] So, based on these figures, if I accept the applicant’s present income at $28,000.00 and the respondent’s at $100,000.00, ongoing child support would be set at $1,416.00. As far as spousal support is concerned, the mid-range suggested in the Spousal Support guideline table would be $1,245.00. The application itself did not claim for retroactive support.

[ 9 ] As far as section 7 expenses (special expenses) are concerned, these mostly deal with ongoing educational expenses for the two children, based on a ratio of 78/22 % which will be in favour of the applicant according to their personal incomes for the respondent of $100,000.00, and for the applicant of $28,000.00.

[ 10 ] As far as equalization of Net Family Property is concerned, an amended copy of the Net Family Property Statement dated December 13, 2012, was filed this date, showing an equalization payment in favour of the respondent $18,859.28 which I accept. It should be noted, however, that the figures in the statement may not be accurate since the respondent has refused to file proper financial material.

[ 11 ] Regarding extended health care cost, the respondent should be responsible to continue to carry this coverage for the benefit of the applicant and the children for as long as they are available to him through his employment.

[ 12 ] As far as the claim for exclusive possession is concerned, under the circumstances this is no longer necessary.

[ 13 ] Finally, the applicant has asked for costs of the proceedings, and her counsel has filed copies of billings to her client to date of $5,004.22, exclusive of today’s trial work. In this regard, I am prepared to allow the applicant all inclusive costs in the amount of $4,500.00.

[ 14 ] In summary therefore:

A. A divorce order is to issue

B. The respondent shall pay child support to the applicant of $1,416.00 monthly commencing December 1, 2012.

C. The respondent shall pay spousal support to the applicant in the amount of $1,245.00 monthly, commencing December 1, 2012.

D. Special expenses, and in particular educational expenses for the children, shall be shared on the bases of 78/22%, based on the respondent’s income of $100,000 per annum, and the applicant’s income of $28,000.00 per annum.

E. The applicant shall pay to the respondent an equalization payment in the amount of $18,859.28.

F. The respondent shall continue to cover the applicant and the children under his extended healthcare benefit coverage – as long as it is available through his employment.

G. The claim for exclusive possession is dismissed.

H. Costs are awarded to the applicant in the amount of $4,500.00.

The Hon. Mr. Justice J. F. McCartney

Released: December 19, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-0272

DATE: 2012-12-19

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Lorilee Morton Applicant - and – Craig Morton Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION McCartney J.

Released: December 19, 2012

/mrm