COURT FILE NO.: 409/09
DATE: 2013Jan08
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Nancy Catherine Myers
Applicant
– and –
Gregory George Myers
Respondent
Lucienne MacLauchlan, for the Applicant
Lindall McDonald, for the Respondent
HEARD: November 26, 27 and 28, 2012 at Napanee
TAUSENDFREUND j.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] The issues in this Application evolve around support. Each of the parties seeks spousal support from the other. At issue also is the quantum of child support and extraordinary expenses. The determination of those questions involves the consideration of income imputation. The Applicant/mother alleges the self-employed Respondent/father under-reported his income. On the other hand, the Respondent/father alleges that the Applicant/mother is under-employed. All remaining issues arising from their marriage to each other were previously resolved by a series of court orders.
BACKGROUND
[2] The Applicant and Respondent are now ages 44 and 48. They were married March 21, 1992 and separated March 1, 2008. They are the parents of two children, Montana, age 16 and Nolan, age 12.
[3] The parties relocated from Toronto to Napanee in 1992. The move was driven by the Respondent’s enrolment in a six year plumbing apprenticeship program in the Kingston area. He then obtained his qualification as a Master Plumber. For the next seven years, he was associated with the Plumbers’ Union and worked in various locations in Ontario and Quebec. With the assistance of the Applicant, he then started his unincorporated plumbing business known as Advanced Plumbing & Mechanical. He was and continues to be the driving force of that business which he operates from the refurbished garage of the former jointly owned matrimonial home in Napanee.
[4] The Applicant had started with Legal Aid Ontario (“LAO”) in Toronto in 1989. As a result of the parties’ move in 1992 to the Napanee area, she obtained a transfer and continued her employment. Eventually, she became the administrator of the Napanee office of LAO.
[5] In the early years of the Respondent’s business, the Applicant assisted in the office by maintaining the books and answering the phone. That continued until the first of several sequential office assistants was hired.
[6] The parties agree that during their married years, they had both been gainfully employed and were hard and dedicated workers. They also agree that competitive sports for their children, particularly hockey and baseball, played a large part of their family activities. Both supported those endeavours. That included regular attendances at the children’s activities, both at home and away. It was part of their family lifestyle.
[7] After separation, they maintained their separate residences relatively close to one another in the Napanee area. They developed and maintained an equal time sharing regime for the children, who moved seamlessly from one parent’s home to the other. This continued until that arrangement was disrupted as a result of an incident in August 2010 during a baseball tournament in New Brunswick. Montana’s baseball team was playing for the champanionship. The Respondent/father, a spectator, became involved in an incident which found several of the parents confront one another on the playing field. Montona was embarrassed and angry at her father. Their relationship unfortunately deteriorated to the point where Montona has refused to see her father as of December 2010. Since then, she has resided in the sole care and custody of her mother and has not had any contact with her father. Although this unfortunate estrangement could and should have been resolved a long time ago, it continues to linger. In my view, a little goodwill and some humility would likely restore the prior unblemished relationship of father and daughter. They both owe it to one another. Nolan continues with the original sharing arrangement, spending equal time with each parent.
[8] I will now address each of the issues the parties have raised in this Application.
ANALYSIS
Wife’s Income
[9] Initially, the parties’ separation did not impact the Applicant’s employment with LAO. She continued in her capacity as the administrator of the Napanee office. However, the winds of change were blowing within LAO. In 2010, restructuring was well underway within the entire organization of LAO. Offices were being closed across Ontario and layoffs were expected. In March 2010, the Belleville and Napanee offices of LAO were closed. Staff was laid-off except for one newly created position. In the face of the restructuring process, the Applicant had proactively applied for other positions within LAO. She was successful and was offered the only position left in the Napanee area with LAO. She had previously been offered a severance package by LAO in the amount of $145,000. She had 10 days to make a decision. At that time, she had just been served by the father with documents responding to the Application she had started some months earlier. That response included a claim by the father for spousal support. It was in that setting that she accepted the new position offered her by LAO. It was for two years. She felt it would provide greater security than the alternative which was the lump sum severance package. Under those circumstances, I find that this was a prudent decision by the Applicant. Her employment with LAO may well have continued indefinitely, but for a curious complaint the Respondent then made to LAO.
[10] In November 2010, the Applicant was contacted by the investigations department of LAO. She was advised that the Respondent had filed a complaint alleging that she was directing legally aided clients to her own lawyer. LAO changed her work assignment. She was removed from the front lines and instructed to work from home. She gradually became depressed and struggled with her work. Her family physician recommended a leave of absence. She sought counselling which continues to this day. Eventually, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
[11] Prior to this complaint, the Applicant had an unblemished work record at LAO. She had received exceptional appraisals over the years. As a result of her depression and anxiety and based on medical advice, she took a leave of absence from LAO on August 18, 2011. Initially, she was placed on short-term and later, on long-term disability. She received EI benefits from December 2011 to March 2012 and again in June and July 2012.
[12] With respect to the Respondent’s complaint made to LAO, she has and continues to deny it. She states there is no substance, nor factual support for the complaint. In confronting the Respondent, he admitted to her that “if you throw enough s***, something will stick.” Additionally, the Respondent told her that if she were to discontinue her Application, he would withdraw his complaint to LAO. In this trial, the Respondent called no evidence to substantiate any of the allegations of his complaint to LAO. In fact, he admitted that he had no facts to support his complaint and that it was entirely an unsubstantiated feeling upon which he had acted. Nevertheless, it had a drastic adverse consequence for the Applicant. Despite her prior unblemished work record, she was in effect put on a dead end track by LAO, pending the outcome of the investigation launched as a result of the complaint. To this day, the investigation does not appear to have reached an official conclusion.
[13] I find the complaint made by the Respondent to be malicious and without substance. By his own admission, the Respondent acknowledged the complaint was in retaliation by him to the Applicant’s actions in attempting to identify the particulars of any cash transactions in which he may have been involved with respect to his business. He acknowledged that he had no information regarding the Applicant’s status of her employment with LAO and had no information regarding her emotional disability resulting from the complaint which he launched. To his credit, he has accepted that the Applicant has gone through a difficult period as a result of his unfounded complaint.
[14] The Applicant’s current employment status with LAO is unclear. It may very well be that she continues officially to be an employee with that organization. Yet she has not returned to LAO, nor has she sought to return. I find that to be quite understandable in the face of the still unresolved investigation. She has since taken steps to qualify as a paralegal. She was successful and obtained her licence in September 2012. The Applicant has now opened her own office in Napanee. She plans to continue to develop a paralegal business which currently is still in its infancy stage.
[15] The Applicant’s income with LAO was as follows:
2007 - $67,755.00
2008 - $74,550.00
2009 - $80,917.00
2010 - $78,350.00
2011 - $68,477.00
[16] Her 2011 income is a combination of employment with LAO, short-term and long-term disability and EI benefits. I find her projected income for 2012 to be $28,000. Optimistically, the Applicant’s business will likely grow and her income improve. Based on her long years with LAO, I find that her career choice as a paralegal makes sense. I expect that she will likely do well. I impute her projected income for 2013 to be $35,000 and to increase to $50,000 in 2014.
[17] The Respondent urges that I should find that the Applicant is purposely under-employed. The Respondent also urges that the Applicant was imprudent not to have accepted continued employment with LAO rather than taking the severance package of $145,000.
[18] I note these comments by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Taylor v. Taylor, 2009 ABCA 354 at para. 21:
21 ... parents continue to enjoy substantial rights regarding employment choices. So long as those choices are not designed to evade support obligations they should be respected. It is an error of law to use employment law principles relating to wrongful dismissal in deciding the issue of whether a paying spouse is intentionally evading support obligations.
[19] On the issue of alleged under-employment, I also note these comments by D.L. Chappel J. in Szitas v. Szitas 2012 ONSC 1548 at para. 56:
56 The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that in determining whether to impute income on the basis that a party is intentionally underemployed or unemployed pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines, it is not necessary to establish bad faith or an attempt to thwart child support obligations. A parent is intentionally underemployed within the meaning of this section if they earn less than they are capable of earning having regard for all of the circumstances. In determining whether to impute income on this basis, the court must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances.
58 ... Section 19(1)(a) [Ontario Child Support Guidelines] stipulates that underemployment or unemployment that is required by the health needs of the spouse is not a ground for imputing income. Where health issues impact on a payor's ability to earn income, the payor nonetheless remains under a positive obligation to search for and pursue the best alternate employment available to them taking into consideration their health problems and other circumstances, and income may be imputed ... if they fail to do so
[20] Section 19(1) of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines as it relates to issues raised in this Application states:
Imputing income
- (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,
a) the parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, ...
d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these guidelines;
f) the parent or spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;
g) the parent or spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income;
[21] Based on the unfounded allegations made against her resulting in a change of job description requiring her to work from home in an isolated setting, I find it quite understandable that the Applicant would likely have become depressed. It is also understandable that the Applicant may no longer have felt comfortable in pursuing her employment with LAO. She actively and appropriately sought a change in her career path. She has successfully become a qualified and licensed paralegal, a career choice which I find to be entirely appropriate in her circumstances. I dismiss the Respondent’s suggestion that she is under-employed, let alone, purposely so. Her projected level of income for 2012, being the start-up period of her new business, I find to be in the acceptable range. As stated, I impute her projected income for 2013 and 2014 to be $35,000 and $50,000 respectively.
[22] The Respondent raised the fact that the Applicant has recently retired a number of debts. I accept her explanation in that regard. It was funded in part by an advance from her mother based on her expected inheritance. In any event, it does not impact on the question of her employment or ability to earn income. I find that her debt retirement is not an issue of significance.
Husband’s Income
[23] As already noted, the Respondent is the sole proprietor of his unincorporated plumbing business known as Advanced Plumbing & Mechanical. His income tax returns present the following information:
2009
2010
2011
Gross Sales
$297,947
$314,174
$322,262
Net Income
55,851
117,225
83,405
[24] The Respondent’s business account indicates deposits in 2010 of $344,859, an increase of $30,685 over his declared sales and for 2011, deposits of $366,586, an increase of $44,324 over his declared sales.
[25] For the first nine months of 2012, deposits into the Respondent’s business account total $316,580. Projected over twelve months, this would indicate likely deposits of $422,106 for 2012.
[26] The Respondent did not address in his evidence the apparent inconsistencies between declared gross sales and the substantially larger amounts of deposits into his business accounts for the years 2010, 2011 and projected 2012. The Applicant urges that for this, among other reasons, I should impute an income to the Respondent in an amount greater than what is reflected in his income tax returns. In addition to the above noted apparent inconsistencies, the Applicant points to two other areas all of which she states clearly support the conclusion that the Respondent has under-reported his income. One is the issue of unreported cash sales and the other is that of inflated business expenses to artificially reduce net income. I will now address the latter two issues.
Cash Sales
[27] The Applicant testified that in the early years of the Respondent’s plumbing business, she attended to his books. For that reason, she knew about the income the business generated and its sources. The replacement of hot water tanks was and remains the largest source of income. Hot water tanks, once replaced, were either rehabilitated or sold for scrap. The Respondent had and still maintains a business relationship with the supplier of hot water tanks. He became, for that supplier, the sole person attending to that business in the Eastern Ontario area, south of Highway 7 from Belleville in the west to Gananoque in the east. The Applicant stated that the Respondent encouraged his employees to generate cash sales. She overheard the Respondent on the telephone with prospective customers. He would quote two pay scales. The lower was cash. The higher involved a paper trail. The Respondent would provide the Applicant with cash for groceries and pay the restaurant bills with cash. He told her he rarely had to attend at an ATM machine as he was generally flush with cash. From January to April 2012, his personal account indicates only two withdrawals. One for $100 in January and another of $1500 in March. On one occasion, the Respondent handed the Applicant eleven $100 bills which he had received from a cash job. The Respondent did not challenge the Applicant’s evidence with respect to the cash part of his business.
[28] Sheila Lazier, general manager and bookkeeper of Greater Napanee Recycling Ltd, testified that she knew the Respondent and his business and that she knew and recognized his employees. The Respondent’s business regularly sold scrap metal to Greater Napanee Recycling. The Respondent was always paid in cash. Between August 2006 and October 2010, transactions totalled $18,418.00 or about $4,500.00 per year. At the Respondent’s request, the account for the business was changed into the name of his son, Nolan Myers. The Respondent did no further business with her company after October 2010.
[29] Ann Calver, office manager of Napanee Scrap Metal, testified that the Respondent started doing business with her company as of late 2010. Her company purchased scrap metal from the Respondent and paid in cash. Initially, the account was in the name of the Respondent’s business. In early 2012, the Respondent’s employee Susan Armstrong phoned. Ms. Calver recognized her voice. Ms. Armstrong asked that the account be changed into her name. This continued until September or October 2012 when the account was changed back to the Respondent’s business at the request of Ms. Armstrong.
[30] The average amount of cash purchases her company made from the Respondent over last two years was $9,200.00 per year.
[31] Ewan Esford worked for the Respondent as a plumber/labourer on a full-time basis between 2005 and 2009. He left that employment on acrimonious terms. For that reason, I must view his evidence with caution.
[32] Mr. Esford stated that he was instructed by the Respondent to give prospective customers two quotes. One was for a cash job which was a lower amount and the other at a higher amount involving a paper trail. At least one job a week involved a cash transaction. The Respondent’s account with Napanee Recycling Ltd. initially was in the name of his business. That account was later changed to the name of the Respondent’s son, Nolan Myers who was then less than 10 years of age.
[33] Mr. Esford estimated that about 20-30% of the Respondent’s business during those years involved cash transactions.
[34] Sherry Shaw had a personal relationship with the Respondent in 2009. During that time, she prepared the income tax return for the Respondent and his business for 2008. The Respondent gave her all of his records for that period including his receipts. The amount of business the Respondent generated during that year of 2008 was on average $25,000.00 per month gross or $300,000.00 per year. It did not include any cash jobs. The Respondent told her that his cash jobs, for which there was no paper trail, represented a substantial part of his business. The Respondent did not challenge her evidence.
[35] The Respondent admitted that his business, over the years, involved cash jobs for which there was no paper trail. This was income he did not declare. He did not keep track of these transactions and admitted that he could not state the amount or value which his cash business generated. He estimated it to be about 5% of his reported gross sales. That would be about $15,000.00 per year on assumed reported sales of $300,000.00.
[36] The Respondent stated that Susan Armstrong has been his employee since February 2008. She is now also his girlfriend. She lives with him and maintains his house. In fact, he intends to marry her.
[37] He stopped doing business with Greater Napanee Recycling and changed to Napanee Scrap Metal. He later changed the name of the account as a result of the notoriety which his cash transactions raised in the course of this application. The Respondent has since arranged to have the cash received from Napanee Scrap Metal paid to Susan Armstrong. He assumes that she will declare it as income.
[38] Based on the above evidence, I find that the Respondent generated cash sales from his business in the amount of at least 10% of his annual declared gross sales. He did not report these cash sales as income. For that reason, I attribute an additional 35% based on the 10% value of his cash sales. That would represent the amount of income tax liability, had the Respondent reported that income. Limited to the addition of his unreported cash sales, I impute the Respondent’s income for the years 2009 to 2011 as follows:
2009
2010
2011
Declared Gross Sales
$298,000
$314,000
$322,000
Add: 10% imputed income
from cash sales
29,800
31,400
32,200
35% income tax
10,430
10,990
11,200
Additional Imputed Income
$ 40,230
$ 42,390
$ 43,400
Declared Net Income
55,851
117,225
83,405
Total Imputed Income
$ 96,081
$159,615
$126,805
Round-off
$ 96,000
$160,000
$126,800
Business Expenses
[39] Salaries, wages and benefits for 2011 were shown as $148,963.00 compared to the amount indicated in 2010 of $104,021.00. That included two unexplained payments of $15,000.00 each to Susan Armstrong. In fact, the income of Susan Armstrong more than doubled in 2011 from $24,300.00 to $57,900.00, an increase of $33,600.00. The Respondent did not advance an explanation why such a salary increase for Susan Armstrong was warranted.
[40] On the question of deduction of business expenses, I note the following comments of Chappel J.’s in Szitas v. Szitas 2012 ONSC 1548 at para.60:
60 Where it is claimed that business expenses are being unreasonably deducted from income, the burden of proof is on the party claiming that expenses are unreasonable. However, the parent who seeks to deduct business expenses from his income for child support purposes cannot simply put forth numbers for alleged business expenses with no justification or evidence to support those numbers, and then put the other party to the expense of disclosure motions and questioning in an effort to prove that the expenses are unreasonable. The party claiming the deductions as against income has an obligation to explain the reasons for the expenses and how they were calculated, and must provide documentary proof of the expenses in an organized manner so that the court can make a proper determination as to the reasonableness of the expense from the standpoint of the child support calculation. This obligation flows from the party's general obligation to provide relevant information respecting their case, and to make full and frank disclosure of their financial situation in the context of a child support case. If the party seeking to deduct business expenses from income fails to provide meaningful supporting documentation or other evidence in respect of those deductions, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court in making the income determination.
I take these comments to apply to both child and spousal support obligations. I find that the Respondent failed to justify or even attempt to explain the salary increase granted to Susan Armstrong in 2011. Accordingly, I will not consider that increase in determining the Respondent’s income from his business in 2011.
[41] I impute his income in 2011 based on the following:
a. An increase of $8000.00 of reported gross sales from 2010.
b. Deposits to the business account in the amount of $366,586.00 compared to $344,859.00 in 2010, an increase of $21,727.00. Additionally, this deposit is greater by $44,324.00 over declared sales. No explanation was given for such a disparity.
c. An unexplained salary increase to Susan Armstrong in the amount of $33,542.00.
In addition to my finding on the cash sales issue, I impute an income to the Respondent in 2011 as 5% more than the income I imputed to him for 2010 of $160,000.00. His income for 2011 for the purposes of child and spousal support I find to be $168,000.00.
[42] With respect to the Respondent’s 2012 income, I have already noted the deposits into his business account for the first nine months of 2012 to be $316,580.00. These deposits, projected for the entire year, would translate to gross sales in 2012 in the amount of $422,106.00. Yet, in my view, a 20% increase over the declared 2011 gross sales of $322,262.00 is more appropriate. I calculate that amount to be $386,000.00. In addition, there is the matter of the cash sales which I found to be an additional 10% of those gross sales amount plus 35% for the tax component. That would amount to imputed gross sales in 2012 of $438,500.00. Despite these calculations, I find that the 2012 imputed income for the Respondent is his 2011 imputed income plus 10%. I calculate that income to be $184,800.00.
[43] In summary, I impute the Respondent’s income to be:
2009
2010
2011
2012
96,000
160,000
168,000
184,000
CHILD SUPPORT
[44] The child Montana has not resided with her father since September 2010. The Order of Trousdale J. of January 24, 2011 recognized that reality. The applicable paragraphs of that Order with respect to child support are:
Without prejudice, the Respondent, Gregory George Myers, shall pay to the Applicant, Nancy Catherine Myers, the sum of $944.00 per month for two children, Montana Myers born September 19, 1996 and Nolan Myers born May 22, 2000, based on an imputed gross income of $63,000 per year; and the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent the sum of $680.00 per month for one child, Nolan Myers, born May 22, 2000, based on a gross income of $75,000 per year; for a net payment by the Respondent to the Applicant of $264.00 per month commencing October 1, 2010 and on the first day of each month and every month thereafter.
The Respondent’s gross annual income for 2009 is $55,902.19 as per his 2009 income tax return plus home office expenses of $3,100 and $4,000 for scrap metal for an imputed income of $63,000, without prejudice to either party to argue at trial that the child support should be more or less, including a retroactive change to temporary support.
Year 2010
[45] The Applicant’s income for 2009 was $80,917.00. Her obligation for child support for Nolan, based on the Guidelines, from October to December 2010 was $726.00 per month. The Respondent’s imputed income for 2009 I found to be $96,000.00. His child support obligation, based on the Guidelines amount, for two children was $1,355.00 per month. The difference between those two amounts I calculate to be $629.00, less the amount paid by the Respondent of $264.00 per month. This leads to a net amount owing by the Respondent to the Applicant of $365.00 per month or $1,095.00 for the period October to December 2010, to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant for retroactive child support for that period.
Year 2011
[46] The Applicant’s income for 2010 was $78,350.00. This would require her to pay child support to the Respondent for Nolan in the amount of $709.00 per month. I imputed the Respondent’s income for 2010 at $160,000.00. I find that the child support obligation by the Respondent for two children, based on that income, is $2000.00 per month. The difference between these two amounts is $1,291.00 less $264.00 per month already paid by the Respondent for a net amount due per month of $1,027.00. I calculate that to be $12,324.00 of arrears of child support due by the Respondent to the Applicant for 2011.
Year 2012
[47] The Applicant’s obligation for support for Nolan based on her 2011 income of $68,477.00 is $632.00 per month. I imputed the Respondent’s income for 2011 at $168,000.00. I find that the Respondent’s child support obligation based on that income is $2,100.00 per month for two children. The difference between these two amounts and less the sum of $264.00 already paid by the Respondent is $1,204.00 per month. I calculate the arrears of child support owing by the Respondent to the Applicant for 2012 to be $14,440.00.
Year 2013
[48] The Applicant’s income for 2012 I imputed at $28,000 and her child support obligation for Nolan based on that income is $246.00 per month. I imputed the Respondent’s income for 2012 to be $184,000.00. I find that his child support obligation for two children based on that income is $2,250.00 per month. The net child support obligation for 2013 due to the Applicant by the Respondent is $2,004.00 per month.
Year 2014
[49] I imputed the projected income for the Applicant in 2013 to be $35,000.00. Her child support obligation based on that income for Nolan would be $325.00. I impute the Respondent’s projected income for 2013 to be $184,000.00. Based on that income, I find that the Respondent’s child support obligation for two children is $2,250.00 per month. On a net basis, the child support due to the Applicant by the Respondent for 2014 is $1,925.00 per month.
[50] Based on the available evidence, I feel comfortable in projecting the income of these parties to the end of 2014. For 2015 and beyond, I will leave to these litigants and/or others to resolve.
EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES
[51] Special or extraordinary expenses are covered by Section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines of the Family Law Act. I will refer to these expenses as “s.7 expenses.”
[52] Up to December 2010, these parties shared s.7 expenses equally. The Applicant seeks a retroactive claim for contribution from the Respondent for s. 7 expenses paid by her.
[53] Based on the disparity of income between these parties, I find that for 2011 and 2012 the obligation for s. 7 expenses to be 40% for the Applicant and 60% for the Respondent.
[54] After reviewing the s. 7 expenses paid by each of these parties separately in 2011, I find they met their respective obligations that year on the 40/60 split.
[55] In 2012, the Applicant paid a total of $14,604.00 which she states qualify as s. 7 expenses. Based on my review of these expenses, I find that $11,670.00 paid by the Applicant qualify as s. 7 expenses. The Respondent’s 60% obligation of that amount is $7,002.00. Based on my review of the expenses paid by the Respondent in 2012, I allow $1,161.00 as s. 7 expenses. The Applicant’s obligation of that amount at 40% is $465.00. Accordingly, I find that the net amount of reimbursement due by the Respondent to the Applicant for s. 7 expenses paid by the Applicant in 2012 is $6,537.00.
LAO EXTENDED HEALTH PLAN
[56] LAO seeks reimbursement from the Applicant for premiums paid on her behalf by LAO from February to July 2012 in the amount of $2,540.00. It is not clear from the information provided by the Applicant that these benefits for which these premiums were paid included the children and that they as such qualify as s. 7 expenses. Even if that were so, it is unclear if part of these premiums would relate to the children. In my view, this is a bilateral matter between the Applicant and LAO. I decline to make an Order for this part of the Applicant’s claim.
SPOUSAL SUPPORT
[57] For reasons that are not clear, the Respondent advanced a claim for spousal support. His claim remained a live issue until it was withdrawn at the conclusion of the evidence.
[58] This was a long term marriage. The Applicant had assisted the Respondent in the early years of his plumbing business. There is now a disparity in their incomes. Based on that disparity and recognizing the Respondent’s child support obligation, I find that the Applicant is entitled to spousal support from the Respondent in the amount of $1,750.00 per month for 2012, $2,000.00 per month for 2013 and $1,500.00 per month for 2014. For 2015 and 2016, I find that the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant spousal support of $1,250.00 per month, without prejudice to either side to seek a change in that obligation, based on their actual incomes for those two years. As of 2013, these spousal support obligations are due on the first of each month.
[59] I decline to order that spousal support should terminate as of 2017 or that it should continue. The appropriate order for 2017 & beyond, if any, would depend largely on the then respective income of these parties. I will leave it to be reviewed in due course, if required.
COSTS
[60] In the normal course and absent any offers, costs of this Application would be due to the Applicant by the Respondent. If the parties are unable to resolve this issue within 30 days of the release of these Reasons, I would be prepared to entertain written submissions from both sides, within a further 15 days.
The Honourable Mr. Justice W. Tausendfreund
Released: January 8, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: 409/09
DATE: 2013Jan08
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Nancy Catherine Myers
Applicant
– and –
Gregory George Myers
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tausendfreund J.
Released: January 8, 2013