ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
JUDITH LYDIA CHARRON
Samantha Filipovic, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
ROLAND ALEX CHARRON
Tiffany Boisvert, for the Respondent
Respondent
Heard: December 19, 2013,
at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Before: Mr. Justice J. deP. Wright
Decision On Motion
Relief Claimed
1The wife seeks the following relief:
A temporary order for spousal support in the amount of $3153.per month retroactive to September 17, 2013.
A temporary order that the wife be included as the beneficiary on any healthcare plan available to the husband through his employment and that he forth with provide her with details of such coverage and the information required to access it.
A temporary order that the wife be made the beneficiary of any life insurance on the life of the husband which he may have through his employment
a temporary order that the wife be designated as the beneficiary of any survivors benefits available through his pension plans
That the matrimonial home located at 3 Rouse St., Red Rock, be listed for sale for on a multiple listing basis at a price to be agreed upon by counsel
that the husband pay to the wife the sum of $500 per month for occupation rent of the matrimonial home
costs of this motion
costs of the motion to compel the removal from the record of the husband's solicitor.
Costs Of The Motion To Remove Husband's Solicitor
2Dealing with the last issue first. Subsequent to these proceedings being initiated a law clerk employed by the solicitor for the wife left her employment with that firm and took employment with the firm representing the husband. The wife took exception to this and asked the solicitor for the husband to resign. He apparently asked his client to retain another solicitor who would file a notice of change of solicitor. My understanding is that the husband could not understand the need to incur the expense of switching lawyers and declined to retain a new lawyer. The wife who felt strongly about having to deal with a firm that employed her previous legal assistant brought a motion to remove the husband's solicitor from the record. The solicitor eventually was removed from the record but only after this motion had been brought. The wife now asks for the costs of the motion. The motion seems to have been made necessary as a result of the husband’s failure to retain other counsel.
3When it was not done the wife was put to the expense of initiating a motion. The husband shall pay to the wife for the costs of initiating the motion to remove the solicitor the sum of $250.
Claim For Spousal Support
4The couple were married in 1973. They separated in the summer of 2012. They had two children who are now independent. The wife played a traditional role in the marriage. The husband was employed as an instrumentation technician in the local mill until it was closed. In early 2012 he was working in the Hemlo Mine but ceased that employment June 22 2012. The next recorded employment was with URS Flint Infrastructure in Alberta. He worked there between May 23 2013 and August 7 2013. In the meantime, this application had been commenced. Two days after his lay-off from URS Flint the husband received an offer of employment with the regional municipality of Wood Buffalo in Alberta. $54.39 an hour to start ($113,131), $56.15 an hour three months later ($116,792) plus a COLA of $480 ($12,480). Total $129,274 per year. The husband claims he went out but was unable to find suitable residential accommodation so he rejected the job and returned home. The wife claims he has a recreational trailer he could have lived in.
5Both parties are now 60 years of age. The husband is in receipt of pension income of $24,369 a year. In 2012 his combined income other than RRSP withdrawals totaled $74,181. The wife asks for an order for spousal support of $3,153 a month based upon imputed income of $94,181. The wife earns about $320 per week with potential of about $15,000.
6Until now the husband has been drawing down his RRSPs. One can argue that he has had no incentive to find gainful employment for the time being. This has changed. An order was granted to the wife freezing withdrawals from the RRSPs so that they will be available to fund the net family property allocation. The husband will pay to the wife the sum of $200 a month for spousal support commencing September 17, 2013.
7The jointly owned house is located in a small mill town where the mill has closed. I am told that there is still a market for residential real estate. The wife wants an order for the sale of the matrimonial home on a multiple listing basis at a price to be agreed upon after consulting with the realtor. The husband can live there relatively inexpensively. It does not make sense to force him out of the house during the winter when there is no one to look after it. Order to go for the sale of the matrimonial home located at number three Rouse Street on a multiple listing basis at a price to be agreed upon after consultation with the realtor or as determined by the court. The house is not to be placed on the market until after 1 April. Carriage of the sale will be handled by the wife's solicitor with the net proceeds of the sale to be held in trust pending further order of the court.
8The wife asks for occupation rent as a result of the husband remaining in the matrimonial home. On the other hand, the wife has left the home. The remedy is a discretionary one requiring the balancing of the relevant factors to determine whether occupational rent is reasonable in the totality of the circumstances of the case. Casey v. Casey, 2013 SKCA 58, [2013] S.J. No. 308 (C.A.). Such an order is premature at this stage.
9A temporary Order shall go directing the husband to:
pay to the wife spousal support fixed at the amount of $200 per month commencing September 17 2013,
Include the wife as the beneficiary on any healthcare plan available to the husband through his employment and that he forthwith provide her with details of such coverage and the information required to access it when he gets employment.
Designate the wife the beneficiary of any life insurance on the life of the husband which he may have through his employment
designate the wife as the beneficiary of any survivors benefits available through his pension plans
notify the wife forth with upon taking employment and provide her with proof of income
directing that the matrimonial home located at 3 Rouse St., Red Rock, be listed for sale for on a multiple listing basis at a price to be agreed upon by counsel after consultation with the realtor or determined by the court. The solicitor for the wife shall have carriage of the sale. The net proceeds of the sale shall be paid into court pending further order of the court. Referring the issue of occupation rent to the trial judge.
10I may be spoken to with respect to costs and any other matter not disposed of.
“Original Signed By”
The Hon. Mr. Justice J. deP. Wright
Released: January 22, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-0090
DATE: 2014-01-22
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
JUDITH LYDIA CHARRON
Applicant
- and –
ROLAND ALEX CHARRON
Respondent
DECISION ON MOTION
J.de.P. Wright, J.
Released: January 22, 2014
/nf