ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-1099-01
DATE: 20140926
BETWEEN:
HEATHER ARNAUD
Applicant
– and –
MICHAEL JOHN CHIDDENTON
Respondent
L. Paterson-Kelly, for the Applicant
Self-Represented
HEARD: May 26, 27, 28 and 29, 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION
GRAHAM J.:
Basic Background and Issues
[1] The parties met in 1993, lived together briefly before marriage, married in 1994, and separated in 2010.
[2] On March 8, 2011, the parties entered into final minutes of settlement that required Mr. Chiddenton to: pay spousal support in the amount of $1,350 per month, maintain Ms. Arnaud on his workplace extended health benefits during payment of spousal support for as long as coverage was available at no extra cost to him, and maintain Ms. Arnaud as the sole beneficiary of his life insurance policy during payment of spousal support. Mr. Chiddenton was also required to make an equalization payment to Ms. Arnaud. It was also stipulated in the minutes that the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home would be split evenly between the parties with a proviso that a personal bank loan taken out by Ms. Arnaud’s daughter and guaranteed by Mr. Chiddenton would be paid in full from Ms. Arnaud’s share of the sale proceeds. The minutes also formalized the division of personal property. In addition, the last paragraph of the minutes incorporated a schedule into the minutes that addressed review of spousal support, variation of spousal support, pension double dipping, and releases.
[3] The spousal support review part of the schedule stated:
Review of Spousal Support
It is acknowledged by the Applicant that she is currently completing courses to upgrade her computer skills and plans to complete further courses to become a Veterinary Technician. She anticipates that she will complete these studies in approximately 2 years times [sic].
In consideration of the foregoing, spousal support may be automatically reviewed, without the need to establish a material change in circumstances, on or after August 8, 2013.
[4] The minutes were filed with the court upon execution, and Wildman J. made a final order, the same day, incorporating the provisions in the minutes relating to spousal support, extended health benefits, life insurance, equalization, and the division of personal property, but Wildman J.’s order did not mention the last paragraph of the minutes incorporating the schedule into the minutes nor did it mention any of the terms set out in the schedule.
[5] On October 11, 2011, pursuant to the Family Law Rules, a Form 14B was filed, with the consent of the parties, requesting the following final order: “Spousal support may be automatically reviewed, without the need to establish a material change in circumstances, on or after August 8th, 2013.”
[6] On October 20, 2011, Mulligan J. made the order requested in the Form 14B.
[7] On October 26, 2011, at the request of Mr. Chiddenton, the parties were granted an uncontested divorce by Kaufman J.
[8] Not long thereafter, Mr. Chiddenton remarried and had Ms. Arnaud removed from his workplace health benefits.
[9] On July 19, 2013, Mr. Chiddenton served Ms. Arnaud with a Motion to Change returnable September 9, 2013.
[10] The motion to change relies on the review provision in Mulligan J.’s order and requests: a reduction of spousal support from $1,350 per month to $1,000 per month effective August 1, 2013, a review of spousal support without the need to establish a material change in circumstances every two years “to promote the Applicant’s economic self-sufficiency”, and termination of spousal support 8 years from the date of the parties’ divorce (i.e. October 26, 2019 – which is roughly 9 ½ years post-separation).
[11] The motion to change was erroneously drafted to seek a change to the order of Mulligan J. made on October 20, 2011, but, at the commencement of the trial, Ms. Arnaud consented to an amendment to clarify that the order sought to be changed is the order of Wildman J. made on March 8, 2011.
[12] Ms. Arnaud responded to the motion to change by seeking: an increase in spousal support, a cost of living increase provision for spousal support, reinstatement onto Mr. Chiddenton’s workplace benefits, reimbursement for $4,000 in medical costs she incurred since being removed from Mr. Chiddenton’s benefits, annual written proof that Ms. Arnaud continues to be the sole beneficiary of the amount of life insurance required to secure spousal support, and a review of spousal support every 3 years rather than every 2 years on the basis that Ms. Arnaud cannot afford to return to court every 2 years.
[13] No detailed evidence of medical expenses incurred by Ms. Arnaud since she was removed from Mr. Chiddenton’s workplace health benefits was presented at trial. Furthermore, in her closing submissions, Ms. Arnaud’s counsel made no reference to reimbursement for past medical expenses although she did submit that the absence of health insurance for Ms. Arnaud should be a factor affecting the quantum of spousal support going forward. Accordingly, the claim for reimbursement of $4,000 made by Ms. Arnaud will be treated as abandoned and, therefore, dismissed.
[14] Thus, the issues to be determined at this review are:
Should spousal support be reduced or increased?
Should a termination date be set?
Should another review date be set?
Should a cost of living provision be made for spousal support?
Should an annual date be set for Mr. Chiddenton to provide proof of life insurance?
Detailed Background
[15] While Ms. Arnaud was in the midst of grade nine in Toronto, her parents decided to move to the United States. They sent her ahead to live with a grandmother in Buffalo while they sold their house and otherwise prepared to move. Ms. Arnaud was not enrolled in school in Buffalo for the remainder of that school year nor was she enrolled in school the following year although her parents were by then living with her in Buffalo. Her family then moved to Florida where she was enrolled in grade 10 (normally she would have been in grade 11). When she was part way through grade 10, her father died. Her mother was terribly upset and moved back to Toronto.
[16] At that point, at age 16, Ms. Arnaud started working because her mother was “a wreck” and they needed money to survive.
[17] Over the next 13 years, Ms. Arnaud had various jobs in retail, manufacturing, and food services.
[18] The parties met at a child’s birthday party in Toronto in 1993.
[19] Mr. Chiddenton was then 30 years old and working as a tool and die maker in Toronto. He was living at his parents’ residence. He had previously taken some college courses.
[20] Ms. Arnaud was then 29 years old and temporarily unemployed. She was living in her own residence with her 8 year old daughter from a previous marriage. She was receiving $800 per month in child support from her daughter’s father.
[21] Not long after meeting Mr. Chiddenton, Ms. Arnaud started working at a manufacturing company in Toronto.
[22] Ms. Arnaud testified that Mr. Chiddenton moved into her home in Toronto around the start of November, 1993 and that the parties moved to Penetanguishene, Ontario in early September of 1994.
[23] Mr. Chiddenton agreed that the parties moved to Penetanguishene shortly prior to their wedding on September 29, 1994, but also testified that he didn’t start cohabiting with Ms. Arnaud until just before the wedding.
[24] Ms. Arnaud’s daughter testified that she recalled Mr. Chiddenton living in her home in Toronto. She testified that she remembered him being at her Toronto home during the Christmas prior to the wedding and she remembered him proposing to her mother in the hallway by the stairs in that home. While she conceded that she could not say where Mr. Chiddenton was living when she was visiting her father on alternate weekends while living in Toronto, she also testified that she remembered Mr. Chiddenton being at her home daily when she came home from school in Toronto.
[25] Mr. Chiddenton had some difficulties with his memory while testifying. For example, he testified more than once that the parties were married in 1999. Eventually, he had to look at his opening statement to refresh his memory about the year of the marriage. At another point in his testimony, he stated that he had trouble with dates and, at another point, he testified that he might have been wrong in his earlier testimony about the chronological order of Ms. Arnaud’s jobs during the marriage.
[26] Ms. Arnaud also had some difficulties with her memory while testifying. For example, she testified that she did not receive any temporary spousal support until thirteen months after separation, but Mr. Chiddenton filed temporary spousal support cheques cashed by Ms. Arnaud on January 11, 2011, February 17, 2011, and March 3, 2011 (i.e. ten, eleven, and twelve months post-separation, respectively).
[27] On the other hand, Ms. Arnaud’s daughter, who was 28 years old at the trial, appeared to have a good recollection of Mr. Chiddenton living in her home for a longer period of time than indicated by Mr. Chiddenton. Although Ms. Arnaud’s daughter was testifying about events that occurred when she was 7 or 8 years old, she was testifying as an adult.
[28] Given that parties agree that they moved to Penetanguishene in early September of 1994, the court finds that Ms. Arnaud’s daughter’s recollection of coming home from school and seeing Mr. Chiddenton at her home daily must be in relation to the previous school year which is an indication that Mr. Chiddenton moved in earlier than he recalls.
[29] Upon reviewing the evidence on this issue, the court finds, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Chiddenton started cohabiting with Ms. Arnaud in early November of 1993.
[30] As previously indicated, the parties and Ms. Arnaud’s daughter moved to Penetanguishene in early September of 1994.
[31] The parties were married on September 29, 1994.
[32] Mr. Chiddenton’s initial job in the Penetanguishene area was as a senior technical advisor at the Industrial Research and Development Institute (IRDI). After a couple of years at IRDI, he left for a position at TRW as a tooling engineer. He stayed with TRW for about seven years until he was let go.
[33] Ms. Arnaud’s initial job in Penetanguishene was at Dollarama. Because that job was only 20 to 22 hours per week, she also took on a second job at A & P. Later, she changed jobs and worked at Tim Horton’s because she they guaranteed her 40 hours per week. Then she got a job at a high school cafeteria in nearby Midland. She was head cashier, cook, and clean up person. She worked at the high school cafeteria for more than seven years.
[34] During this period of time, the arrangement between the parties was that Ms. Arnaud was responsible to pay for household utilities, family groceries, her vehicle expenses, and her daughter’s needs. She arranged to have food delivered in bulk to save money.
[35] At the end of this period, Ms. Chiddenton went on sick leave due to surgery for endometriosis.
[36] Several months after being let go, Mr. Chiddenton secured a position with an automotive industry firm in Aurora, Ontario, where he still works. He commuted from Penetanguishene for a brief period but stopped commuting after being involved in a serious motor vehicle accident.
[37] Concerned about the safety of the commute for Mr. Chiddenton, the parties sold their home and bought a house in Beeton, Ontario.
[38] Mr. Chiddenton testified that he discovered that Ms. Arnaud had an undisclosed $17,000 debt when he went to finance the new home. He said that he had to pay off the loan. Ms. Arnaud recalled that she had a line of credit and that Mr. Chiddenton phoned her from the bank about it but she did not remember whether he rolled it into the new mortgage or resolved it in some other manner.
[39] Ms. Arnaud was still recovering from her surgery and was on EI as a result, but, nevertheless, she started working at a pizzeria in the Beeton area. After a short period there, she got a job at a high school cafeteria nearby. She was let go from there after a short time as a result of a dispute between her manager and the manager’s supervisor.
[40] She registered with a temp agency and obtained a position with an automotive parts company working on the paint line, assembly line, welding, etc. with full time hours. After ten months, she passed a test and was hired as a full-time employee. She worked there until she was laid off in 2009, due to the recession.
[41] Ms. Arnaud’s income in 2008 was $26,425, consisting of $23,862 from employment and $2,562 from a CPP death benefit in relation to her deceased spouse.
[42] Mr. Chiddenton’s 2008 income was not provided to the court.
[43] Ms. Arnaud registered again with a temp agency and obtained a position with another automotive industry company. She was required to pass a math test to get hired on permanently. Despite considerable preparation for the test, with the assistance of Mr. Chiddenton, who tutored her and gave her practice tests based on actual tests, she failed the math test three times and, as a result, was let go.
[44] Ms. Arnaud testified that she has a great deal of difficulty with math. The court observed that to be so during the trial. She had considerable difficulty using a calculator and understanding certain math that was not complex.
[45] In 2009, Ms. Arnaud sold a piece of land she had inherited for proceeds of $25,087 which she used to pay down a line of credit, and to pay for household utilities, groceries, her vehicle expenses, some of her daughter’s college expenses, and some household items.
[46] Mr. Chiddenton did not contribute to the cost of Ms. Arnaud’s daughter’s college education.
[47] Ms. Arnaud was looking for work at that point, but the economy remained slow.
[48] When Ms. Arnaud’s daughter graduated from college, she asked her mother to co-sign a bank loan so she could travel abroad. Ms. Arnaud refused. Mr. Chiddenton, however, agreed and co-signed the bank loan because he believed that Ms. Arnaud’s daughter should have a travel opportunity after college.
[49] Ms. Arnaud’s income in 2009 was $26,358, consisting of $8,275 from employment, $2,407 from CPP, $12,344 from EI, and $3,331 from taxable capital gains from the sale of the land.
[50] Mr. Chiddenton’s income in 2009 was $89,027 consisting of $87,743 from employment, $890 from EI, and $394 in taxable dividends.
[51] Mr. Chiddenton was asked during cross-examination whether he suggested to Ms. Arnaud that she should take the opportunity, while she was unemployed, to go to school to further her education. He replied that he did not suggest that to her and that she would not have been interested in any event. He testified that she was cleaning houses during this period.
[52] Mr. Chiddenton added that he and members of his family had offered to “retrain” Ms. Arnaud but she refused. He also testified that he offered to establish a budget for her but she refused because she didn’t want him to know how she spent her money.
[53] The court finds, however, that Mr. Chiddenton’s testimony that he and his family were offering to “retrain” Ms. Arnaud was inconsistent with his testimony that he did not suggest to Ms. Arnaud that she should return to school while she was unemployed.
[54] Mr. Chiddenton also testified that Ms. Arnaud had a substance abuse problem that was not alcohol. He stated that it was financial issues, culminating with Ms. Arnaud making an unauthorized withdrawal from his bank account, which led to the end of the marriage. He did not, however, offer any further details or proof to support these bald allegations.
[55] Ms. Arnaud, on the other hand, testified that she did not and could not make any withdrawal from Mr. Chiddenton’s account. She testified that they never had a joint account and that she never had access to his bank account.
[56] The court finds that Mr. Chiddenton’s allegations about Ms. Arnaud’s conduct during the period of her unemployment, after she lost her job following three failed math tests, were not proven on a balance of probabilities.
[57] The parties separated on March 16, 2010.
[58] At that point, Mr. Chiddenton was 46 years old and Ms. Chiddenton was 45 years old.
[59] They both remained in the matrimonial home in Beeton until May 5, 2010, when Ms. Arnaud moved to Bradford, Ontario because she found that living in the home with Mr. Chiddenton was too tense for her daughter and herself. She borrowed her first and last month’s rent from an uncle.
[60] The matrimonial home was sold in July of 2010.
[61] At the request of Ms. Arnaud, each party received $20,000 of the sale proceeds on July 20, 2010.
[62] Ms. Arnaud used her share of the initial proceeds to pay for her daily living expenses.
[63] Ms. Arnaud’s income for 2010 was $9,172 consisting of $6,755 from employment and $2,417 from CPP. She also withdrew $1,000 from an RRSP. She did not receive any spousal support that year.
[64] Mr. Chiddenton’s income for 2010 was not provided to the court.
[65] Ms. Arnaud attended a literacy school in Newmarket for math and computer training to improve her chances of finding work.
[66] Ms. Arnaud started to receive temporary spousal support in the amount of $1,235 per month in January of 2011.
[67] She was taking the literacy training when she signed the final minutes of settlement on March 8, 2011.
[68] She testified that she didn’t really understand the terms of the minutes of settlement and that her lawyer told her that the minutes said certain things and that she should sign. She testified that she signed without the minutes being explained to her point by point. She testified that she did not understand, for example, that she would no longer be covered by Mr. Chiddenton’s workplace health insurance upon divorce.
[69] The minutes establish that Mr. Chiddenton was to pay spousal support of $1,350 per month based upon an income of $85,078 for Mr. Chiddenton and an imputed income of $26,358 for Ms. Arnaud.
[70] Ms. Arnaud testified that, at the time the minutes were being negotiated, she said that she would like to become a veterinary technician simply because she likes animals and thought she would enjoy the work. She testified that she did not know then what studies were required to become a veterinary technician, but, when she later made enquiries at Ontario Works, she learned that a high school diploma and computer skills were pre-requisites and she felt that she could not pursue the required course of study and also support herself, so she continued to look for work.
[71] Mr. Chiddenton testified that the schedule to the minutes provided for a review after about 2 ½ years because it was recognized at the time that Ms. Arnaud’s plans for retraining “could be an issue”. He believed that she was in retraining when she signed the minutes.
[72] On March 17, 2011, pursuant to the minutes, $4,735 of Ms. Arnaud’s share of the remaining matrimonial home proceeds was used to pay off her daughter’s bank loan that Mr. Chiddenton had guaranteed and Ms. Arnaud had refused to guarantee. The balance of Ms. Arnaud’s share, $38,442, was paid to her lawyer in trust. Presumably, she received most of those funds after payment of her legal account but there was no evidence directly on point. Ms. Arnaud used the net proceeds for living expenses and to reduce her debt that had accumulated since becoming unemployed.
[73] In accordance with the minutes, she started to receive spousal support in the amount of $1,350 per month on April 1, 2011.
[74] In accordance with the minutes, Ms. Arnaud received $49,005 for equalization by means of an RRSP rollover from Mr. Chiddenton. Those funds would be taxable income for Ms. Arnaud upon withdrawal. The actual amount would have been $49,680 but Mr. Chiddenton had overpaid spousal support in April and, therefore, deducted the overpayment of $675 from the equalization payment.
[75] Ms. Arnaud used $10,000 of the equalization funds to pay down debt she had accumulated while unemployed and kept the balance in an RRSP.
[76] Her 2011 income was $3,845, consisting of $1,387 from employment and $2,458 from CPP. She also received $15,900 in spousal support and she withdrew $12,500 from an RRSP.
[77] Mr. Chiddenton’s 2011 income was $86,739 from employment.
[78] Through a temp agency, Ms. Arnaud eventually obtained a three month contract with an automotive industry company.
[79] She testified that she dropped out of the literacy course because it interfered with her working hours.
[80] She subsequently obtained a position at a restaurant in Bradford where she worked for about nine months.
[81] She then worked at Swiss Chalet for about 1 ½ years until the spring of 2013 when she was offered a position at a café in an automotive industry plant.
[82] Her 2012 income was $17,355 consisting of $14,828 from employment and $2,527 from CPP. She also received $16,200 in spousal support and she withdrew $10,168 from an RRSP.
[83] Mr. Chiddenton’s 2012 income was $87,527 from employment.
[84] Ms. Arnaud’s 2013 income was $17,193 consisting of $14,621 from employment and $2,572 from CPP. She also received $16,200 in spousal support and she withdrew $16,000 from an RRSP to pay legal expenses.
[85] Mr. Chiddenton’s 2013 income was $92,401 from employment including a $5,000 bonus which he does not receive every year. He also withdrew $25,000 from an RRSP.
[86] Ms. Arnaud worked at the café until February7, 2014 when an incident occurred.
[87] Mr. Chiddenton testified, based on information he had received from Ms. Arnaud’s employer, Themis Mavarkakis, who owned the café and who had also been Ms. Arnaud’s employer at the restaurant in Bradford, that Ms. Arnaud quit her job at the café that day.
[88] Ms. Arnaud testified that Friday, February 7th was a very busy and difficult day at the café and Mr. Mavarkakis was very stressed and rude to her and pushed her out of his way a few times. She said that he noticed that she was upset and he asked her what was the matter. She testified that she told him that she was upset with how he had been treating her that day. She testified that he replied, “Heather, if you don’t like the fucking way I talk to you and you don’t like the fucking way I treat you, you can get the fuck out.”
[89] She testified that she left immediately and as soon as she got home she called the labour board to complain about what had happened. She testified that she arranged for a human resources person at the plant to accompany her to the café on the next business day, Monday, February 10th, so she could get her pay owing. She testified that Mr. Mavarkakis asked her to sign a paper setting out how much he paid her. She testified that she signed the paper and asked the human resources person to make her a photocopy. She testified that the human resources person did that, gave Ms. Arnaud a copy, and returned the original to Mr. Mavarkakis.
[90] Ms. Arnaud testified that the reason she was receiving EI at the time of the trial was that she did not quit her job. Rather, as her counsel put it, she was constructively dismissed.
[91] Mr. Mavarkakis testified that Ms. Arnaud walked off the job on Friday, February 7th. He gave no explanation for her leaving during working hours other than to say that she had a personality conflict with him and other staff. He testified that she was a good worker, except that she always got to work a few minutes late and her attendance was spotty – sometimes calling in sick at 7 a.m. He denied that he ever swore at Ms. Arnaud or that he said what she alleged. He testified that he wrote out a paper for Ms. Arnaud to sign that detailed her last pay and also confirmed that she had quit. He testified that when she came to collect her last pay she signed the paper in front of a representative from human resources.
[92] During cross-examination, Ms. Arnaud’s counsel asked Mr. Mavarkakis about the wording of the document Ms. Arnaud signed. At a certain point, he disagreed that counsel’s version of the document was correct. Counsel asked to examine the original document that Mr. Mavarkakis had with him in the witness box. Counsel then advised the court that the original possessed by the witness and the copy she had been given by her client were different. Ms. Arnaud’s photocopy stated, in part, “Heather Arnaud came in to pick up her Final pay on Monday February 10th”. The original, however, stated, “Heather Arnaud came in to pick up her Final pay AFter Quiting [sic] on Monday February 10th” [italics added].
[93] The original was entered into evidence as Exhibit 20. The photocopy eventually became Exhibit 23.
[94] It is apparent, upon examination, that the document provided by Ms. Arnaud is a photocopy of the document provided by Mr. Mavarkakis, except the original has the additional words, “AFter Quiting” [sic]. A close examination indicates that is more likely that the original was altered after the photocopy was made than it is that a second photocopy was made from an altered original photocopy sometime later.
[95] During cross-examination, Mr. Mavarkakis testified that he has a criminal record. He also stated that he had been released from jail about a month before testifying at the trial. He also stated that he had been convicted of personation.
[96] Upon consideration of all of the relevant evidence on this issue, the court finds, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Arnaud’s version of what happened on February 7th, and the photocopy she provided (Exhibit 23), are accurate.
[97] Accordingly, the court does not accept that Ms. Arnaud “quit” her job on February 7, 2014. In so finding, the court does not suggest that Mr. Chiddenton was aware of the truth and attempted to mislead the court. The court finds that Mr. Chiddenton was simply repeating what he had been told by Mr. Mavarkakis and, therefore, believed to be true.
[98] Ms. Arnaud looked for work, without success, from February 7, 2014, until the end of the trial.
[99] She updated her résumé, contacted temp agencies, searched classified ads in the Bradford and Newmarket newspapers, checked internet job sites, applied to possible jobs, filed lists of where she applied with EI, checked for jobs with Ontario Works, and was assigned a counselor at Ontario Works to assist with her job search.
[100] On March 28, 2014, a temp agency phoned her about an available position, but she was in court for a trial management conference that day and when she got the message at the end of the day, the job had been filled by someone else. No other jobs came available prior to the end of the trial on May 29, 2014.
[101] Ms. Arnaud broke her foot accidentally about ten weeks before the trial. She removed the cast to improve her chances at a job interview. She subsequently borrowed an air cast from a friend because she could not afford to buy one for herself. She was wearing the air cast during the trial.
[102] She testified that she would be willing to work any shift near her home and that she had recently applied for a midnight shift at a grocery store near her home because she would be able to attend the trial during the day and work at night. She explained that she could not work a midnight shift too far away from her home because she has poor night vision and, as a result, she does not feel safe driving far at night.
[103] She testified that she felt “destroyed” by Mr. Chiddenton’s motion to change as a result of legal costs that depleted her savings, court attendances that interfered with her employment at the café and subsequent employment opportunities, and being followed in the community by Mr. Chiddenton’s current spouse who was monitoring Ms. Chiddenton’s activities. She stated that the days she missed work at the café were due to court appearances and that Mr. Mavarkakis was aware of that.
[104] Ms. Arnaud filed a financial statement dated May 23, 2014 (Exhibit 25).
[105] Her income at the time of trial consisted of $872 net per month from EI and about $200 per month from CPP. Her only other income was spousal support.
[106] Her assets consist of: a 2010 Honda CRV valued at $15,000, a 2007 Honda motorcycle valued at $3,500, and $2,500 in an RRSP; for a total of about $21,000.
[107] Her debts consist of: a line of credit at $17,000, credit card debt at $2,000, a car loan at $18,200, a motorcycle loan at $5,500, and taxes owed to CRA at $3,900; for a total of $46,000.
[108] Her net worth is negative.
[109] Her claimed annual cost of living is about $41,000, including about $10,000 for debt payments and $11,124 for rent.
[110] She is almost 50 years old.
[111] Mr. Chiddenton filed a financial statement dated May 16, 2014 (Exhibit 18).
[112] His estimated income for 2014 is $87,527 – i.e. his 2013 income less the $5,000 bonus he received in 2013.
[113] His assets consist of his half share of the equity in his $650,000 matrimonial home (his share of the equity is about $85,000), a 2006 Acura valued at $3,000, a bank balance of $1,500, and an RRSP worth $100,000.
[114] His debts consist of the mortgage on the matrimonial home (this was deducted above to calculate his share of the home equity), credit card debt of $14,000, and a line of credit at $5,000.
[115] His net worth is $170,500.
[116] Mr. Chiddenton’s claimed annual cost of living is about $83,390, including about $24,000 for income tax, CPP, and EI deductions, about $30,000 for mortgage, taxes, and house insurance payments, and $4,200 for debt payments.
[117] He testified that his current spouse pays most of their expenses and, as a result, his standard of living has increased since separation.
[118] He is 50 years old.
[119] Ms. Arnaud testified that she plans to try to obtain her high school diploma (GED) while working.
[120] She indicated that she is qualified to work as a cashier, or in the automotive industry, or in food services.
[121] She does not want to take an on-line GED course because she is uncomfortable with using a computer to that extent. She would prefer to take the courses in a classroom with direct contact with the teacher.
[122] She estimates that she might be able to obtain a GED in a year. She hopes that if she is able to obtain a GED, she would then be in a position to consider further education or retraining to improve her employment prospects. She had recently learned that Canada Works offers to pay candidates for retraining if they have a GED.
[123] She has various medical and dental needs that are not being met because she cannot afford the expense. She needs new glasses, some medication, and would like to have a dental check-up because it has been some time since she last saw a dentist.
[124] She looked into the cost of private medical and dental coverage and found that the premium for the cheapest plan she could find was about $175 per month. She did not say what sort of coverage that would provide.
[125] Mr. Chiddenton testified that Ms. Arnaud was a very good worker and generally worked steadily during their marriage but, he said, she bounces from job to job because of conflicts she creates at her places of employment. He did not recall Ms. Arnaud ever earning an annual income from employment greater than $26,000 during the marriage.
[126] He testified that GED courses are available on-line and require two months of study followed by a five hour exam.
(Decision continues verbatim with the Position of Mr. Chiddenton, Position of Ms. Arnaud, Analysis, Orders, and Costs sections exactly as provided in the source HTML.)