SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FC-05-2788-4
DATE: 20140605
RE: Tanya Léger, Applicant
- and –
Matthew Léger, Respondent
BEFORE: Hackland J.
COUNSEL:
Tanya Léger on her own behalf
Matthew Léger on his own behalf
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is a motion by Mrs. Léger to change the final order of Power J. dated October 6, 2008 in which Mr. Léger was ordered to pay child support to Mrs. Léger in the sum of $615 per month based on his then income of $31,000 annually. The couple has three children, ages 11, 13 and 14 who reside with Mrs. Léger.
[2] Mrs. Léger’s position is that Mr. Léger’s disclosed income is now (for 2013) the sum of $52,810 annually, with the result that he should pay her the child support guideline amount of $1,020 per month. Further, she claims an amount of $750 annually being a rough estimate of half the children’s expenses for sporting activities. This assumes that the parties earn approximately the same income, which I find to be the case.
[3] Mrs. Léger currently earns about $46,000 annually as an orderly in a hospital and she receives an ODSP benefit for one child, plus the applicable child tax credits.
[4] Mr. Léger is a property manager and his 2013 T4 shows an income of $52,810. He points out that he receives $41,451 in salary and the balance of $11,359 is income attributed to him as the value of the “free” rental accommodation supplied to him by his employer. Mr. Léger supports three children of his current relationship who are ages 12, 7 and 21 months. His current partner does not work outside of the home due largely to the cost of daycare and the ages of the younger children.
[5] Mr. Léger argues that extraordinary circumstances exist her to justify a reduction in his child support obligations, specifically his second family of three dependent children and he relies on his modest income. He also points out that he often works very long hours and is currently pressed financially.
[6] While not specifically referred to by Mr. Léger, he would appear to be relying on the undue hardship provision, s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines which recognizes that in certain special circumstances an amount less than the ordinary guidelines should be ordered if payment of the guideline amounts would create undue hardship on the payor. One of the criteria or circumstances applicable in that regard is the situation where the payor has a legal duty to support children, other than children of the marriage, as is the situation here.
[7] In the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that it would be an undue hardship on Mr. Léger to require him to pay the full child support amount of $1,020 per month, having regard to his support obligations of the three children in his current household, in addition to three children he had with Mrs. Léger. I am of the view that an appropriate child support payment would be the sum of $885 per month, being an increase over the current amount of $270 per month, (of this sum $200 is referable to child support and the $70 per month is referable to Mr. Léger’s one-half share of the children’s extraordinary expenses).
[8] In summary, I order that the respondent, Mr. Léger, pay child support to the applicant, Mrs. Léger, in the sum of $885 per month, based on his 2013 taxable income of $52,810, which payments are to commence January 1, 2014. The Family Responsibility Office is directed to adjust their records accordingly.
[9] I would also add that the payments ordered herein would maintain a roughly equal standard of living in the respective household of both parties. I recognize that these are hard-working people of modest means who certainly appear to have prioritized the interests of their children.
[10] The parties were self-represented and no claim is being made for costs.
Mr. Justice Charles T. Hackland
Released: June 5, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: FC-05-2788-4
DATE: 20140605
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
Tanya Léger
- and –
Matthew Léger
ENDORSEMENT
HACKLAND R.S.J.
Released: June 5, 2014