ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
David Rautiainen
Applicant
– and –
Nicolle Rautiainen
Respondent
Nicola Munro, for the Applicant
Christopher D. McInnis, for the Respondent
HEARD: November 16, 2014
DECISION ON MOTION
del frate j.:
1The respondent brings a motion for two prayers of relief being spousal and child support.
2The issue of child support was resolved pursuant to a consent order. What remains to be determined is interim spousal support.
3The parties started living together in October 1999 and were married on October 17, 2004. They have lived together since 1999 until the date of separation being October 31, 2012. They have two children: Alicia born December 13, 2000 and Aaric, born September 5, 2005. Custody, access and support for the children have been resolved.
4Since their separation, the applicant has had exclusive possession of the matrimonial home with him paying all of the costs associated with the maintenance and mortgage. The house was listed for sale in September 2013, but as of now, no acceptable offers have been received.
5In February 2013 the respondent purchased a home with the assistance of her parents who not only funded the purchase of the home, but are presently holding a mortgage on that property.
6The applicant is a school teacher earning approximately $94,600 per year. The respondent was employed by the company owned by her father and she was receiving in the range of $36,000 per year. In January 2013, her father sold the business, thus she is no longer employed.
7The respondent during their marriage was a stay at home mom and was involved in a quilting business that she operated from the home. Unfortunately, this business was not very successful and very little if any income was derived from it.
8Since the separation she has attempted to obtain a broker agent licence however she failed the program on two occasions.
9Subsequently she entered a learning initiative program in May of 2014 from which she derives the sum of $752 every two weeks. She has no other source of income except for the child support of $1,000 per month and the child credits.
10She resides with her present fiancée who earns approximately $15,000 per year.
11She has had to withdraw $25,000 from her RRSP.
12The respondent submits that the criteria for granting interim spousal support have been met and she is seeking the sum of $1,129 monthly based on the applicant’s income of $94,600 and allotting herself the sum of $24,000 as imputed income.
13The applicant resists any spousal support on the basis that she does not have the need since the expenses for caring the home are attended to by her parents. Secondly, her monthly expenses are exaggerated and thirdly, she has done very little to obtain alternate employment or to retrain herself. He further submits that he does not have the ability to make any payments for spousal support since he has been maintaining all of the household expenses and has been paying $1,000 for child support.
Discussion
14This is an interim application and in determining support, different principles apply than in a final order. See Singh v. Singh [2013] O.J. No. 4699.
15This is a relationship of some permanency from which the couple have two children. Throughout their marriage, the applicant was the primary wage earner. He was quite content to have his spouse as a stay at home mom who dabbled in quilting even though it was obvious that the quilting business was not a money making operation. There was no real necessity for her to work outside the home due to the generosity of the applicant’s parents who paid her some $39,000 yearly for her work in her parents’ business.
16Unfortunately, that source of income is no longer available to the respondent. The respondent made the application for spousal support following the termination of this income. Just because she did not insist on spousal support while she was still deriving an income from her father’s business, does not mean that the applicant’s obligation to support her would have been extinguished.
17I agree with the applicant that the respondent would have an obligation to pursue employment in a viable business and undertake retraining if necessary. Realistic attempts at obtaining employment must also be pursued.
18The fact that the respondent is agreeing to an imputed income of $24,000 is a realistic factor to consider. Even with that amount, she is still entitled to some support considering her expenses.
19In my view, considering that the applicant is carrying all of the expenses for the matrimonial home and is already contributing $1,000 towards the support of the children, the sum of $814 per month being the low end of the Support Guidelines is in order. This payment is to commence on December 1, 2014, and monthly thereafter until further order of the court. Should there be an issue on the retroactivity of the payment, that can be addressed at a later stage.
20I have already heard submissions on costs and since the respondent has been successful, costs of $2,500 plus GST and disbursements are payable within 60 days.
21Order to issue as per Reasons.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert G.S. Del Frate
Released: November 28, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: D20427-13
DATE: 2014-11-28
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
David Rautiainen
Applicant
– and –
Nicolle Rautiainen
Respondent
DECISION ON MOTION
Del Frate J.
Released: November 28, 2014