Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FC-08-1811-1
Date: 2013-12-20
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Joanne Evelyn Dumoulin, Applicant
And
Gregory Norman Davis, Respondent
Before: Justice Patrick Smith
Counsel:
Ron Paritzky, Counsel for the Applicant
Respondent self-represented
Heard: Via written submissions
Endorsement
[1] On November 6, 2013 the parties attended before me at a Case Conference.
[2] At that time, it was agreed that each party would provide written submissions to me and that I make a final order after reviewing those submissions.
[3] Submissions have now been received. Based upon those submissions I am of the view that both parties have had the opportunity to provide the court with their respective positions as well as the reasons and evidence in support thereof.
[4] The issue in dispute involves the quantification of the Respondent’s child support obligations including the correct Table amount for calculating ongoing periodic support as well as s. 7 contributions.
[5] On May 6, 2010 the parties, both of whom were represented by legal counsel, consented to an order incorporating the terms of Minutes of Settlement dated February 19, 2010 following a Trial Management Conference.
[6] The Applicant has incurred difficulty enforcing the provisions of the said order. Specifically, the FRO has refused to enforce the provisions dealing with adjustments to periodic support and to s. 7 expenses. As a result, the Applicant requests an order quantifying the support provisions to allow for enforcement.
[7] The position of the Applicant is that “the Respondent must comply with the agreed upon (and court ordered) adjusting mechanisms in the consent Order and that the Respondent should not be allowed to unilaterally adjust support without having the order varied.”
[8] The Respondent’s position is that, subsequent to the issuance of the consent Order, he moved from Ontario to Nova Scotia and experienced two changes in his employment. His submissions, contained in a letter dated November 16, 2013, provide his calculation of what support he should be paying from May 2010 to the present based upon his actual income as it has fluctuated.
Analysis
[9] The terms of the consent order are clear and should be enforced.
[10] The matter before the Court is not an application to vary the terms of the May 6, 2010 order. For that reason, many of the submissions of the Respondent are not relevant. A person who is unable to pay support because of a change in circumstances experienced since the granting of an order has an obligation to act quickly to vary the order.
[11] The matter before the court is to clarify and quantify the terms of the existing Order so that it may be enforced.
[12] Paragraphs 12-15 of the said Order were designed to provide for a simple mechanism to adjust support. The submissions of the Respondent do not accord with the terms of the Order.
[13] Paragraphs 16 and 18 of the said Order deal with section 7 expenses. The Applicant submits that the cost of summer camp, orthodontia and piano lessons are proper and reasonable. The draft Order that counsel have submitted for approval contains provisions for future orthodontic treatments, summer camp fees and piano lessons so that future court attendance and legal costs can be avoided.
[14] The Respondent disagrees. His position is that sending the children to a summer camp was unilateral decision and unreasonable and further that there are no current s. 7 expenses. His position is also that his contribution should be adjusted for fluctuations in his income.
Conclusion
[15] An order shall issue as per paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11 of the draft Order provided by counsel for Applicant.
[16] Notwithstanding the rationale of the Applicant for requesting an order regarding the payment of future s. 7 expenses (piano, orthodontia and summer camp) the request is declined.
The evidence before the court is too speculative and incapable of being quantified with any certainty at this point in time. I anticipate that there will be future issues regarding s. 7 expenses and, for that reason, have included paragraph 11 of the draft Order in this decision to provide for an inexpensive and quick method to resolve disputes.
Justice Patrick Smith
Date: December 20, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: FC-08-1811-1
DATE: 20131220
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Joanne Evelyn Dumoulin, Applicant
AND
Gregory Norman Davis, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice Patrick Smith
COUNSEL: Ron Paritzky, Counsel for the Applicant
Respondent self-represented
ENDORSEMENT
Justice Patrick Smith
Released: December 20, 2013