ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 57/12
DATE: 20140612
BETWEEN:
Donna Loy Lemieux
In person
Applicant
- and -
Pierre Raymond Lemieux
Mr. Blackburn, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: June 11, 2014
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Conlan J.
Introduction and the Background of the Litigation
[1] This is a refreshingly simple case with a relatively short litigation history, culminating in a three-hour, two-witness trial in Walkerton on June 11, 2014.
[2] Only the parties testified at trial. There were just a few documents marked exhibits, on consent.
[3] The parties were married in June 1988 and separated in August 2007. They are now divorced. They have one child, a daughter who was born in September 1993.
[4] The Respondent, Pierre Lemieux (the “husband”), is now in his mid-fifties and works as the head tunnelman with Canada Steamship Lines. He has worked in the marine industry for many years.
[5] The husband’s total income in 2011 was $70,269.09; it was $75,681.66 in 2012; and it was $86,513.00 in 2013.
[6] The Applicant, Donna Lemieux (the “wife”), is now in her early sixties and is unemployed. Her current total income is about $20,400.00.
[7] The husband has brought a Motion to Change the final Order of Brennan J. made on March 23, 2007. Specifically, he wants to have his child support obligation terminated (it had been $763.00 monthly based on his then annual income of $85,540.00). And he wants his spousal support obligation terminated effective January 1, 2015 (it had been $1700.00 monthly until May 2013, at which time this Court’s Temporary Order reduced the quantum to $1500.00 per month starting January 2012).
[8] The only issue in dispute is with regard to spousal support.
Analysis
Child Support
[9] On consent, this Court’s Temporary Order made on May 8, 2013, which terminated the husband’s child support obligation effective June 1, 2013, is confirmed as a Final Order.
[10] In the event that the child goes to school in the future, then the matter will have to be re-addressed at that time, as contemplated by clause 3(g) of the Final Order of Justice Brennan.
[11] Currently, it is clear that the child is not a dependant and not entitled to child support.
Spousal Support
[12] The wife, self-represented at trial but assisted by me with regard to procedure and the fleshing out of the issues and her positions on those matters, submits that spousal support should be higher than the current $1500.00 per month and continue until she dies.
[13] I disagree with the wife’s position.
[14] First, I accept that she currently needs spousal support, even though her expenses include unnecessary items. She has health problems stemming largely from a major heart attack sustained in March 2013.
[15] Second, I fix the husband’s annual income at an average of the last three years - $77,487.00.
[16] Third, I fix the wife’s annual income at $20,400.00, the amount indicated in her Financial Statement sworn earlier this month.
[17] Fourth, although the Final Order of Brennan J. provided that spousal support continue until the wife dies, I conclude that the duration of spousal support may be revisited by this Court, for two reasons. The wife has not complied at all with clause 4(c) of the said Order of Justice Brennan – to make reasonable efforts to support herself and to make reasonable efforts to find a full-time job or become self-employed. And, secondly, the husband’s annual income has declined, constituting a material change in circumstances as per clause 4(d) of the said Order.
[18] By the wife’s own testimony at trial, she has not complied with clause 4(c). Taking odd housecleaning jobs and relying solely upon word of mouth for that business cannot be considered to be reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient.
[19] There is no dispute about the decline in the husband’s annual income.
[20] In my view, given all of the circumstances including but not limited to the ages of the parties, their employment histories, their health, their skills, the length of the marriage and the roles of the parties during the marriage, I conclude that the husband’s spousal support obligation ought to terminate on January 1, 2017, close to ten years after it began.
[21] Fifth, in terms of quantum, the current $1500.00 per month shall continue. That represents an approximate mid-range amount as per the Advisory Guidelines given the annual incomes fixed above.
Conclusion
[22] A Final Order shall issue as per these Reasons for Judgment.
[23] The husband was entirely successful on the issue of child support, although there was no dispute about that by the wife at trial.
[24] The husband was entirely successful on the issue of the quantum of spousal support.
[25] The husband was partially successful on the issue of the duration of spousal support.
[26] The husband is entitled to his costs, however, I will likely temper the award given the wife’s precarious health condition and relatively modest financial circumstances.
[27] I will accept written submissions on costs. The submissions shall not exceed two pages, double-spaced, excluding attachments such as offers to settle and dockets. The deadline for the husband’s submissions is 4:00 p.m. on June 18, 2014. The deadline for the wife’s submissions is 4:00 p.m. on June 25, 2014.
Postscript
[28] This case is an example of the necessity to balance the objectives of spousal support. Yes, the husband had and still has a duty to support his former wife. But, at the same time, the wife has a duty to become self-sufficient and not treat the spousal support as a perpetual entitlement.
Conlan J.
Released: June 12, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: 57/12
DATE: 20140612
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Lemieux
Applicant
- and -
Lemieux
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Conlan J.
Released: June 12, 2014