COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-00379691

DATE: 20141218

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

NATASA LAZAREVIC

In person

Applicant

- and -

DJORDJE LAZAREVIC

In person

Respondent

HEARD: November 25, 26, 27 and 28, 2014

MESBUR J

Introduction:

[1] This high conflict divorce action has been going on for more than two years. The parties have been unable to agree on any of the major issues, apart from a divorce itself, and the label of joint custody regarding custody of their three children. At the end of the trial, I granted a divorce, but reserved my decision on the balance of the issues. These issues are:

a) Parenting arrangements for the parties’ three daughters, including residential arrangements, decision making, holidays, passports and other incidents necessary to parent the children effectively;

b) Child support, including s. 7 expenses. This issue requires both a determination of both parties’ incomes, and a decision on whether the children spend more than 40% of their time with the respondent, father;

c) Equalization of net family property, and whether, as the applicant wife suggests, it would be unconscionable to equalize the value of the parties’ respective net family properties;

d) Spousal support; and

e) Various post-separation adjustments each party claims.

Background and factual findings:

[2] The parties, as is not uncommon today, met online. Both are of Serbian origin, and the respondent husband was looking for a Serbian partner. He had recently ended a common law relationship, and thought he might have better success with someone of similar cultural background.

[3] At the time the parties first connected online, the husband was living and working in the IT industry in California, in what is called “Silicon Valley”. He had a good job, and had purchased a home.

[4] The wife was living with her parents in Belgrade. She had completed her university education in economics, and was working in a bank.

[5] After the parties communicated online for about a month, the husband travelled to Serbia so they could meet. After knowing one another in person for only three days, he proposed, and she accepted. He returned to California and made arrangements for a visa for her. Since he did not have a green card in the United States, he could only obtain a fairly limited visa for her. The wife followed shortly after and joined the husband in California. They were married there on June 9, 2001. They immediately moved into the home the husband had owned prior to their marriage.

[6] The wife became pregnant almost immediately. The parties’ daughter Stefana was born March 23, 2002, about 10 months after her parents married. Her sister Sofia followed two years later, on April 15, 2004. The husband made sure the wife had the best of care for her deliveries, and arranged for her to give birth in a private hospital, at a cost of about $40,000 for each delivery.

[7] Initially, the husband was working in a well-paying job. He resigned from that position, to take an even better paying job. Unfortunately, that position did not last, and the husband was let go. The economic climate had changed after the terrible events of “9/11”, and it was very difficult for him to find another job. He did not have a green card granting him unlimited permission to live and work in the United States, so he decided to pursue additional education. He was already trained as an engineer, but embarked on doctoral studies in business administration in California, eventually earning a doctorate in around 2005. While he did so, he was not working. The wife did not have a visa permitting her to work in the United States either. In any case, she had two young children for whom she was the primary caregiver.

[8] The parties sold the husband’s home in December of 2002 for a sale price of US$477,500. After paying all mortgages, loans, commissions and adjustments on sale, there were net proceeds of US$154,574.96. The parties used these funds to pay in part for the husband’s education, and their living expenses until they immigrated to Canada. The husband estimated his doctoral studies cost about US$ 50,000.

[9] The house proceeds were insufficient to maintain the family for the four years before they moved to Canada. They incurred significant debt of more than US$80,000 to meet their living expenses. Ultimately, they both declared bankruptcy, prior to coming to Canada in 2005.

[10] The parties arrived in Canada jobless, with two little children. After six months in Canada, the wife found some part time work. The husband ultimately found a job about two months after that. Even with both parties working, the family’s financial challenges continued, while their family grew. A third daughter, Sara, was born on July 8, 2007. The husband worked, but somewhat sporadically. The wife, too, began to work full time in 2006, but then was faced with the challenges of caring for a newborn, as well as the two older girls.

[11] The parties ultimately managed to purchase a home on Gothic Avenue, in the High Park area of Toronto. The wife was very attached to the home and neighbourhood, particularly because of the benefits she saw there for the children. They had many friends on the street, and the neighbourhood was friendly and safe. Ultimately, the children were enrolled in the local school.

[12] The marriage was not stress free. The husband initially wanted to separate as early as 2009. They persevered with the marriage. Nevertheless, the parties continued to experience significant problems.

[13] The wife’s friend and neighbour Nina Hewitt testified that when the wife’s employment became precarious during this time, both parties were under terrific strain. Ms. Hewitt observed it was very hard for both of them. She fairly stated that she could not speak for the husband, but felt the wife did her best under tremendously stressful circumstances, namely the combination of a lack of certainty about money, three small children, and the fear that as immigrants they could be the first to lose employment. Ms. Hewitt described the wife as a wonderful parent. Ms. Hewitt also noted the wife tried to go back to school to upgrade her skills, but this did not work out. The husband was busy at night when the wife was to go to class. Ms. Hewitt described this as a trying time.

[14] Ultimately, the wife discovered the husband had been unfaithful. She learned he had been frequenting online dating sites, looking for a new partner, and describing himself as single. She was devastated. Ultimately, the parties separated. The husband vacated the matrimonial home in March of 2012.

[15] At first the husband lived in a rented room in someone’s apartment. As a result, he could not have the children stay with him overnight. Nevertheless, he saw the children often, coming to the matrimonial home to see them, or take them out, often taking his meals in the home.

[16] Eventually the husband found an apartment in the same area as the matrimonial home. It has sufficient space for the children to spend overnights with him. He was very anxious, however, to have the matrimonial home sold. He says the wife agreed to sale, but reneged. She was desperate to keep the children in their home, and did not want to move. There were motions and orders made regarding the house. Ultimately, the house was sold. The net proceeds have been divided between the parties.

[17] At the time of trial, the children were spending alternate weekends from Friday to Monday morning and every Wednesday overnight with the husband. This arrangement arose as a result of an order of Kiteley J dated January 31, 2013.

[18] In mid-June of 2013 the parties attended a trial management conference with Goodman J who made an order seeking the assistance of the Office of the Children’s lawyer, describing the case as a high conflict one. The OCL agreed to take on the case, and provided services to this family under s. 112 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

[19] The OCL’s initial report in October of 2013 recommended a change to the arrangement Kiteley J had ordered. They recommended the following, among other, ancillary matters:

a) Joint custody. Each parent to make day to day decisions while the children are in that parent’s care. Major decisions to be jointly made after discussion by email.

b) Mother should have primary residence;

c) Father to have the children with him on the following schedule:

• Week 1: Friday after school until Monday morning and Wednesday, overnight with all three children;

• Week 2: Tuesday with Stefana from after school or 6 to 8 pm

Wednesday with Sofia, as above

Thursday with Sara, as above

[20] The OCL made this recommendation in large part to encourage the bond between the children and both parents. Their report also opined the children would benefit from one on one time with their father in order to develop their own relationships with their father, and he with them.

[21] Stefana had raised the idea of one on one time, saying this was an idea she “stole from her father but she thought it was a good one.” She told the clinical investigator that instead of Wednesdays, each of the girls could have one day in the week with their father for a dinner or another activity, but no overnight.

[22] This recommendation was never implemented. Neither party sought to do so. Instead, the initial temporary order continued. The parties returned for various conferences with Goodman J. They had another settlement conference with Horkins J. The case did not settle. Meanwhile, father moved to reduce his child support payments. Kiteley J granted his motion on December 19, 2013 and reduced his child support to $1,283.18 per month, with effect January 1, 2014. This figure was based on father’s 2012 line 150 income of $65,999.

[23] The parties then had a trial management conference before Horkins J on 21 February, 2014. She made a final order, on consent, for the parties to have joint custody of the children. She identified the remaining issues as the access schedule, child support, including s.7 expenses, spousal support, and equalization of net family property. Horkins J fixed the trial for June 2, 2014, for 4-5 days.

[24] The endorsement went on to note that the children were no longer living in the matrimonial home, since it had been sold. Both parents were living in apartments. She ordered that the OCL investigator be advised of this change. She went on to order that if the OCL investigator concluded this change in living conditions required a further investigation and updated report, then that should be done.

[25] The OCL agreed to update their report. As a result, the June trial date was vacated. The OCL saw the children and the parents again, and produced a second report in July of 2014.

[26] The OCL’s clinical investigator, Zaria Duncan, testified at the trial. She had prepared both the first and second reports. She noted that all three children want to have a relationship with both of their parents. The children are aware of the fact that their father seems to have the closest relationship with Sara, the youngest. Stefana, in particular, would like to develop that kind of bond with her father, with whom she currently has what Ms. Duncan calls a “challenging” relationship.

[27] I asked Ms. Duncan about the children’s wishes. She was able to express them very simply. They want the conflict between their parents to stop. They have no interest in being in the middle. They would like to have a relationship with both parents.

[28] Ms. Duncan testified that what stood out for her is that the children really want to have a relationship with their father. All three children have tried to be “fair” and not hurt either parent. She observed the girls are protective of their parents. While Ms. Duncan described Sara as very quiet and shy, her older sisters were more vocal about what they thought and felt. In spite of both of their parents doing hurtful things, they love both parents and want a relationship with them. Sadly, the children exhibit more parenting skills than their parents. It should be the parents, not the children, who should focus on being fair, protective, and not hurtful.

[29] The children have continued to express a wish to spend one on one time with their father. Stefana was disappointed the previous recommendation had not been put in place. Ms. Duncan now recommends each girl have a solo overnight with her father every two weeks in addition to the current schedule. Ms. Duncan described the recommendation as giving the children a chance to repair their relationship with their father, one on one. She recommended overnights to reduce contact between the parents, and reduce the children’s exposure to parental conflict.

[30] Mother is concerned about separating the girls for these additional overnights. She observes that the children have always been together, both at her home and their father’s to sleep. She worries about the effect this new arrangement would have. While the mother does not oppose one on one time for each girl with her father, she objects to that time being an overnight.

[31] Father not only supports these additional recommendations, he goes further and says the arrangement should move to equal time as soon as possible. During his cross-examination of Ms. Duncan, she testified she had occasionally felt pressured by him on his quest for equal time, although she said she was able to redirect him, and did not feel threatened by him. When asked whether she sensed father was “passionate” about fifty/fifty time, Ms. Duncan responded he was presenting his position very strongly, and was quite animated and forceful at times. The father presented in much the same way in the courtroom.

[32] The father’s testimony was animated, forceful, and relentless. He pressed his position for fifty/fifty time as the obvious result, even though he purported to accept the OCL’s recommendations. Clearly, he does not. He sees them only as a stepping stone to his ultimate goal of equal time.

[33] Ms. Duncan has made some very important observations in her report from last summer. She described father as an active parent with the children’s education and social activities. Mother acknowledged that father exposes the children to educational and cultural activities, and feels this is valuable for the children.

[34] Ms. Duncan’s report goes on to observe “that the issue in this case does not stem from an unequal residency arrangement. The real issue in this case is the lack of respect the parents have for each other and the quality of relationship the children have with their respective parents.” She faulted each parent for perpetuating conflict.

[35] More importantly, however, she said:

Mr. Lazarevic seems so focussed on his palpable dislike and mistrust of Mrs. Lazarevic that this has blinded him to his own responsibility and accountability for his relationship with his children.

[36] I observed much of the same during the course of the trial. I was particularly troubled by the fact the father could find nothing positive to say about the mother, or their marriage. He criticized her constantly, and put her down at every opportunity. His testimony focused very little on his children’s needs and how he could meet them; instead he belittled the mother as a parent, a wife and a human being. His anger toward her was palpable throughout both his cross examination of her, his own evidence in chief, and her cross examination of him. His manner in the witness box was forceful, relentless and angry.

[37] In contrast, the mother testified that she was “proud” the father was the father of their children. She readily said she respected his ambition and education. She acknowledged the father had much to offer the children. She did say, however, that he will never give up on his quest for equal time. She suggests the primary reason for his position is to avoid having to pay table support for the children. I tend to agree.

[38] Father testified he “will fight my whole life for equality”, that he “cannot be a subordinate parent”, that the children will “not survive this tide”, he “cannot influence her parenting”, and therefore he should be given “equality” on that. He then almost immediately went on to calculate carefully how much time Ms. Duncan’s recommendation would have the children residing with him. He suggested since it would result in them living with him more than 40% of the time, a simple set-off of table support between him and the mother would be appropriate.

[39] Ms. Duncan’s report noted the two older girls would like to feel loved by their father in the same way that Sara feels loved by him. Ms. Duncan observed that father needs to listen to his two older children. While it is clear, she says, that he wants to be a father to his children she observed:

Being a good and equal parent is not about the quantity of time one spends with the children but rather the quality of time a parents spends with their children. The children want to feel close to their father. Mr. Lazarevic needs to learn how to develop a positive, emotionally safe relationship with his daughters and stop blaming Mrs. Lazarevic for his relationship with his children. What may help is imposed one on one time with each child and Mr. Lazarevic. One on one time should not be dependent on the whim of any parent but rather a structured part of the shared parenting schedule. In that way Mr. Lazarevic may have an opportunity to get to know his children, in particular Sofia and Stefana, in the hopes of enhancing his relationship with them.[^1]

[40] As a result, the OCL strongly recommends Mr. Lazarevic spend one on one time with each of the children on alternate weeks, from 5 p.m. overnight. The reason for this recommendation is so that “he should focus on getting to know each child and building a positive relationship with each child.”[^2]

[41] The children’s comments to Ms. Duncan were very telling in her first report. They observed their father treating their oldest sister, Stefana differently. As I have mentioned, during the first OCL investigation, Stefana mentioned having one on one time with her father. She mentioned this was an idea she “stole” from her father, but she thought it was a good one. She suggested instead of the Wednesday overnights, each girl could have one day in the week with their father for a dinner or another activity, but no overnights.

[42] In 2013, Sofia said she would prefer to spend more time with her mother than her father. She complained her father’s house is often dirty, and she and her sisters spend their time cleaning. She is sad her parents don’t get along. She said her life would be better if her parents would be happy, and if they would stop fighting with each other. How sad it is that a 9 year old would see her parents’ happiness as the key to her own happiness, instead of the other way around.

[43] Since January of 2013, the children have lived primarily with their mother. The order Kiteley J made in January of 2013 implemented a schedule where the children are with their father alternate weekends from Friday until Monday, and every Wednesday, overnight. Mother testified that the children have adjusted to this schedule, and it works reasonably well. While she does not object to each child having one on one time with their father, she objects to the children being separated overnight.

[44] In her second report, Ms. Duncan observed that the conflict between the parents has increased, rather than diminished between the dates of her two reports. She strongly recommends that the children participate in counselling, in a programme like Families in Transition. She testified that the children desperately need their own private space in which they can express their own feelings. Ms. Duncan also recommends each parent find counselling as well.

[45] The OCL recommends that in addition to the current alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights, each of the children should have one-on-one time with her father. The OCL recommends this should be one overnight with each girl in alternate weeks. The recommendation is for each girl to have a single overnight with her father every other week.

[46] Mother takes the position the girls are accustomed to being together when they are with their father. She says the proposed schedule would be very disruptive to them, particularly with overnights.

[47] Father says he accepts the OCL’s recommendations, but nevertheless thinks the arrangement should immediately move toward equal time. He is obsessed with the idea of equality.

[48] This essentially sets out the parties positions on the parenting issues, and the OCL’s recommendations about them. I now turn to discuss the history of the financial arrangements between the parties.

[49] The husband is trained as an engineer and holds a doctorate in business administration. Despite these stellar credentials, significant North American work experience, and obvious intelligence and drive, he has had difficulty in finding and maintaining employment. He has held positions paying more than $136,000 a year, but suggests they have been contracts, which have not been renewed. In late September he found employment at an annual salary of $118,000 plus benefits.

[50] The wife works on contract for the Bank of Nova Scotia as a project control officer in their IT department. She is paid $33 per hour for a 37.5 hour week. She testified this is the best paid job she has ever had in Canada. Before this, she was only able to earn between $23 and $25 per hour. Although the wife holds out hope she might become a permanent employee with Bank of Nova Scotia that is not the case now. Under her current contract, the wife receives no pay when she is not at work – she has no paid vacation or sick days. On the basis of her working 50 weeks a year, her income is $61,875. This is the income I will use to ultimately calculate her child support obligations.

[51] As far as I can tell, the husband began to pay some child support at some point. There was an order, effective March 1, 2013 (a year after the separation) requiring him to pay $2,253 in monthly table support, based on income of $136,000. The support amount was later reduced to $1,283 per month, effective January 1, 2014, based on his stated 2012 income of $65,999. Although the husband found new employment in late September at an annual salary of $118,000, he takes the position his child support obligations should be based on what he claims his 2013 income was. That, he says, was about $35,000.

[52] I do not accept the husband’s argument. As the wife pointed out, even though the husband is an employee, he nevertheless has his salary paid to a numbered company that he controls. In this way, he is able to control the income he receives as an individual. The husband’s corporate bank statements were in evidence. They show that from April to September of 2013 there were deposits totalling more than $58,000, which were then transferred into the husband’s personal account. This is income the husband earned. I would attribute it to him as part of his adjusted income for child support purposes, and find his 2014 income remained in the same range as his 2012 income. Accordingly, I make no adjustment for 2014.

[53] As for 2015, it seems to me the husband’s income will likely remain at its current level of $118,000. This is the income I will use to ultimately calculate his child support obligations.

Discussion:

[54] I must determine first the appropriate residential arrangements for the children. I must then decide on the appropriate child support to be paid. After doing that, I will deal with equalization of net family property, including the wife’s claim under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

[55] Finally, I will address the wife’s claim for spousal support, and each party’s claim for various post-separation adjustments.

The children

[56] The wife takes the position the husband has been relentless in his quest for equal time with the girls so that he will not have to pay much child support. Having witnessed the husband both in the witness box, in cross-examining the wife, and in making submissions, I agree completely with this characterization.

[57] I have no doubt the husband loves the children, and they have a deep and abiding love for him. His manner, however, is indeed relentless. He is driven by a quest for equal time. He will not give up on the idea of equality. He has parsed the potential time he will spend with the children strictly with a view of meeting the 40% threshold, and reduce his obligation to pay child support.

[58] I found the evidence of Ms. Duncan helpful and accept her recommendation that the children remain in their mother’s primary care. I am not persuaded, however, she has provided a compelling rationale for her new recommendation of one on one overnights for each child, in addition to the Wednesday overnights. Stefana, in particular, has clearly stated her wish that the one on one be for dinner or an activity. The father continues to favour Sara, with whom he has a warm and loving bond. While Ms. Duncan observed a comfortable relationship between the father and Sofia, she did not characterize it as warm or loving. Ms. Duncan observed a strained relationship between the father and Stefana. She described Stefana as uncomfortable around her father. Father did not smile at Stefana when he spoke to her, nor was his tone loving as it had been with Sara.

[59] It seems to me the major thrust of Ms. Duncan’s recommendations for additional one on one overnight time for each girl is designed to help the father build a better relationship with his children. She described “imposed one on one time with each child” as a helpful way to accomplish this and as a way for father to “have an opportunity to know his children, in particular Sofia and Stefana, in the hopes of enhancing his relationship with them.” I see this recommendation as being focused on the father’s needs, rather than on the children’s. While I recognize the girls would like one on one time, I would approach it in a much more limited way, recognizing as well that as the children get older, they will no doubt want to have much more independent time to pursue their own interests.

[60] The conflict between the parents has been extraordinarily destructive to these children. Both parents are to blame. The wife was devastated by the separation and her discovery of the husband’s infidelity. It has taken her a long time to accept the end of her marriage. It has taken her a long time to accept the sale of the matrimonial home and neighbourhood, which she saw as a stable, safe haven for her girls.

[61] The husband’s rigid, relentless and controlling attitude has made things worse. He has a view of how things should have unfolded, and how they should unfold in the future. If they do not, he is simply unable to accept it, or alter his expectations in any way. It is telling the husband had nothing good to say about the wife – as a wife, a mother, or as a human being. He hammered away with his characterization of her as essentially a worthless person. I worry about his attitudes being applied to his daughters in the future.

[62] To her credit, the wife was able to say very sincerely that she is proud her husband is the father of her children. She recognizes his strengths, and what he has to offer their daughters.

[63] The wife does not agree with the OCL’s recommendations, particularly the addition of one on one overnights for the girls. She says they have finally adjusted to the current arrangement. She says they have never been away from one another overnight, and should not begin now.

[64] Of course, the girls are away from one another all day at school. They do, however, spend their evenings together, and always sleep in the same home. They are close and supportive to one another. I worry about adding individual overnights for them.

[65] Husband says he agrees with the OCL’s recommendations, but in the next breath says that within three to six months he would expect the arrangement to be fifty-fifty. He then calculates that even if the children are with him as the OCL recommends, he would have all three children overnight every Wednesday, and all three children overnight alternate Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Thus, he says he would have all three children 5 nights out of every fourteen.

[66] He then reasons that having each child for a single overnight every other week equates to having all the children the equivalent of one overnight every two weeks, for an additional night out of fourteen. Thus, he says the proposed arrangement would be equivalent to his having the children 6 nights out of fourteen, or more than 40% of the time. He says child support should simply be a setoff between the table amount he should pay and what the wife should pay.

[67] The husband’s reasons for wanting half time relate far more to him and his wishes to pay less than what is good for the children. He is, indeed, relentless in his drive for equal time. Given the tenor of his evidence, I am persuaded he is driven more by finances than by the interests of his children. The OCL’s most recent observations also support this conclusion.

[68] The OCL’s observations and meetings with the children include the following in the report dated July 4, 2014:

[Stefana] said she doubts that he [her father] will ever believe what she and her sisters say because it is not what he wants to hear. She said that her father told her to tell this clinician that she wanted to be with him 50% of the time. She said that this is not what she wants because she does not have a good relationship with her father. She said that she feels safer and more comfortable with her mother. She said her mother told her to say what she wanted to say to this clinician.

[Sofia] said that her father wanted her to say that she would like to spend 50% of the time with him. She said that she does not want to spend half her time with her father. She said her mother told her that she should tell this clinician what she wants and that she should not be afraid to share her feelings … she says that no matter what she says, if it’s not what her father wants, he says that her mother told her to say it. She said that her father does not understand that it is his “yelling and anger” that makes her feel the way she does. Sofia left the interview in tears…

Sara presented as very shy … [she] refused to answer any questions that were related to her parents, even benign ones like “Tell me about your favourite thing to do with mom/dad?”

[69] Given the kind of pressure the father puts on the children, I am extremely worried about the impact the increased time under OCL’s most recent recommendation would have on the children. As I see it, the current arrangement is working reasonably well in terms of the time the children are with each parent. I recognize, however, that the OCL testified that Stefana in particular would like to have one on one time with her father, in order to repair their relationship. She also suggested that the other girls might benefit from one on one time as well.

[70] As I see it, the best way to accomplish this would be to implement the OCL’s original recommendation from 2013. It would be in the best interests of these girls. I am not persuaded that having the one on one time as an overnight is appropriate. The girls are close, and protective of one another. I worry about father putting too much pressure on them if his one on one time is extended to overnight. In these circumstances, the individual child would lack the support of her sisters to stand up to their father’s relentless manner.

[71] I know the OCL recommended these overnights in order to minimize contact between the parents. While that is often a laudable goal, the children’s interests are paramount. When I balance all these factors, I conclude the OCL’s original recommendations about parenting time are in the children’s best interests.

[72] Ms. Duncan expressed significant concern about the children’s continued exposure to parental conflict. I share this concern. Ms. Duncan strongly recommends counselling for the children, and individual counselling for the parents. As she put it in her 2014 report:

This family needs therapeutic help … These children have witnessed years of parental conflict and they need therapeutic support in processing the impact of that exposure. Parents need counselling to help them deal with their own emotional issues. All three children should receive counselling in order to ensure that they can discuss and process their feelings and find adaptive ways to cope with their current situation.

[73] I could not agree more with this recommendation. I only hope it is not too late for these children. I also hope it is not too late for these otherwise intelligent, caring parents to gain some insight into how destructive their conflict has been for their daughters.

[74] Accordingly, the parenting arrangements shall be as follows:

a) The children will continue to reside primarily with the mother;

b) The children will reside with the father on the following schedule:

• Week 1: Friday after school until Monday morning and Wednesday, overnight with all three children;

• Week 2: Tuesday with Stefana from after school or 6 to 8 pm

Wednesday with Sofia, as above

Thursday with Sara, as above

c) Neither parent shall initiate calls, texts or Facebook messages with any of the children while they are with the other parent;

d) Father shall have his own set of clothes at his home for the children;

e) Statutory holidays (with the exception of Christmas) will be spent with the parent on whose weekend the holiday falls. In the case of Good Friday, if it falls on father’s weekend, his weekend will begin on Thursday after school and continue until Monday morning;

f) The children’s Christmas holiday will be shared equally. Commencing with Christmas in 2016, the children will spend the first half of the children’s Christmas vacation with the father in even-numbered years, and with the wife in odd-numbered years. The children will celebrate Orthodox Christmas with the father in odd-numbered years and with the mother in even numbered years;

g) The children will spend Halloween, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:30 p.m., with the mother in odd numbered years and with the father in even numbered years;

h) The children will reside with each parent for half of March break. If the father’s regular weekend precedes March break, his half of the break will continue until the Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. If his regular weekend is at the end of March break, then his half of the break will commence on Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. and continue until the following Monday morning;

i) The children will reside with each parent for half of their summer vacation, on a 2 week on/2 week off schedule, with mother having the first 2 week block of time each summer. The parent with whom the children are not residing may telephone the children at bedtime each Wednesday and Friday, to say goodnight, for no more than 5 minutes. If the children are away, the parent with whom the children are not residing may send a brief text, instead;

j) Each parent is free to arrange travel with the children during his or her summer holiday time, or to arrange travel for the children to visit family, without the written consent of the other parent, on the following terms and conditions:

• The travelling parent shall advise the other parent, in writing, at least 30 days prior to travel, of the travel plans. Once final travel plans are made, the other parent shall be provided with a full itinerary, including flights, location where the children will be staying, and a contact number where the children can be reached. If travel is because of an emergency such as a death or serious illness in the family, the advice and itinerary shall be provided as soon as is practical.

• The mother will be custodian of the children’s travel documents. She shall provide the father with the children’s travel documents for the purpose of his travel with the children as soon as she receives the itinerary, as set out above. When the children return from travel with the father, he shall immediately return the travel documents to the mother;

k) The parents shall strictly adhere to this schedule;

l) Each parent is expressly prohibited from making any negative or derogatory comment about the other parent in the presence of the children, or in circumstances where the children could reasonably be expected to hear such comments;

m) The parents shall forthwith enrol the children (and themselves, if it is a necessary condition for the children to be involved in the programme) in the “Families in Transition” programme, offered by Family Service Toronto.

n) The children shall engage in individual counselling with a counsellor or agency recommended by their paediatrician. Counselling shall begin as soon as a referral can be made;

o) Each child is free to contact either parent as she wishes, regardless of whose home she might be in at the time;

p) Each parent will make necessary day to day decisions for the children while the children are in that parent’s care. Major decisions concerning health or education will be made by the parents first consulting one another and discussing the issue in good faith. If they are unable to reach agreement within two weeks, the mother will ultimately make the decision.

[75] I hope the parents will be able to put their children’s needs ahead of their own and end the conflict between them. If they fail to do so now, their daughters’ future will be bleak indeed. Each girl has clearly articulated a wish for an end to parental conflict. Only the parents can accomplish this. They must do so in order to assist their daughters in growing up to be the happy, well-adjusted women they hope to be.

[76] The next child-related issue I must decide is child support. This includes both table support, and section 7 expenses.

Child support:

[77] The parenting arrangement set out above does not meet the “40%” threshold that would engage s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines (CSGs). Accordingly, the father will pay table support for the three children, based on his income.

[78] Under s. 16 of the CSGs, table support is based on the parent’s annual income “determined using the sources of income set out under the heading “Total income” in the T1 General form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency and is adjusted in accordance with Schedule III.”

[79] The court has some discretion if simply determining income under s.16 would not be the fairest determination of that income.

[80] Here, father’s income has fluctuated somewhat, as he has had various contracts over the years, some renewed and some not. He has also used the vehicle of a corporation to receive all or part of his income. The corporation has a July 31 year end, meaning some income can be “smoothed” over two calendar years.

[81] The current order for temporary support was based on father’s 2012 line 150 income of $65,999. Father now suggests I should use his 2013 income tax return to determine his child support obligations in 2015. He seems also to suggest I should retroactively adjust his 2014 payments to reflect his 2013 line 150 income. I disagree.

[82] In 2013, father’s line 150 income from his personal tax return was $37,500, made entirely of dividends from his closely-held corporation. He actually received dividends of $35,000. What his income does not reflect is the actual amount of money he deposited into his business bank account in 2013.

[83] Father’s banking records for his corporate account for the period April 1 to October 31, 2013 show total deposits into that account of $58,665 and then transfers of those funds to his personal account. On an annualized basis, those deposits would suggest income of just over $100,000. I recognize that some of that money has been reflected in the dividends shown on father’s 2013 tax return. The money he deposited after July 31, 2013 however, will show up in the corporation’s 2014 fiscal year. Anything paid out to father will not show up until he files his 2014 tax return.

[84] In the period August 1, 2013 to October 31, 2013, the father received deposits into his corporate bank account totalling just under $29,000. Since I do not have the bank statements for the balance of the year, I can only guess at what additional funds came into his hands. Taking into account the money the father actually has had at his disposal, I have no hesitation in finding his income for child support purposes in 2013 remained at the same level as in 2012, and thus his child support should not be adjusted in any way from Justice Kiteley’s temporary orders.

[85] The father experienced some unemployment in 2014. He has now procured what he describes as full time permanent employment at a salary of $118,000 plus benefits. I see that salary as the fairest determination of father’s prospective child support obligations. Accordingly commencing January 1, 2015 father will pay monthly table support for the 3 children of $2,128 per month, based on his income of $118,000

[86] As I have said, the mother is a contract employee, working for an agency that secures contract positions for her. She is currently earns $61,875 (which I will round to $62,000). On the basis of the parties’ incomes, if there are any section 7 expenses, they should share them with the father paying 65% and the mother paying 35%.

[87] Section 7 expenses will include will automatically include the cost of therapy for the children, and the cost of medical/dental coverage premiums that are attributable to the children, and the cost of any medical or dental costs for the children that are not covered by insurance. The parties will only share any additional s.7 expenses if they have first agreed in writing to share the expense.

[88] I turn now to the issue of equalization of net family property.

Equalization of net family property

[89] In order to determine equalization of net family property, I must first decide the value of each party’s net family property (NFP). But for the issue of the value of a property the husband owned prior to marriage, the calculations would be straightforward.

[90] I have attached at Exhibit A to these reasons a net family property statement in which I have entered the values of the assets each party owned on the date of separation, the value of any deductions each has proven, as I have determined these issues below.

Land

[91] The parties were joint owners of their matrimonial home on Gothic Avenue in Toronto when they separated in March of 2012. It was sold more than a year later.

[92] Because the matrimonial home was sold more than a year after the separation for $750,000, and since the Toronto market has been consistently rising year over year, I have used a slightly discounted value to reflect the home’s value on valuation day. I have entered a value of $340,000 to reflect the home’s value to each party on valuation day.

General household items and vehicles

[93] I have inserted no value for the household contents, since the parties divided them in some fashion, and I have no evidence as to what the value was. As for other items such as jewellery and electronics, I have accepted the wife’s estimate of their value, adjusting the husband’s share down to $1,000. The wife testified her figure of $5,000 for the husband’s share was a mistake, and his estimate of $1,000 was correct.

[94] The wife placed a value of $20,000 on the husband’s vehicle. Her sworn financial statement shows it was purchased for $26,000 just a few months before the separation. I accept a valuation day value of $20,000 as reasonable in the circumstances.

Bank accounts, savings, securities and pensions

[95] The parties had little in the way of bank accounts and savings. I have used the figures in the wife’s NFP statement for these amounts. They do not differ materially from the husband’s figures.

Business interests

[96] The husband had an interest in two corporations at the date of separation. One is a holding company into which he pays his salary. The other is inactive. I accept the husband’s evidence that neither had any value on valuation day.

Accounts receivable

[97] Although the husband failed to list it on his financial statement, it is clear from his 2011 income tax return and notice of assessment that he was owed a tax refund of $6,745 for the taxation year 2011. He had not yet received it at the date of separation, and therefore the whole amount was owing to him on valuation day. I have included that amount as an account receivable in calculating the husband’s NFP.

Debts and other liabilities

[98] As to debts, the parties owed on their mortgage, a joint secured line of credit, and a joint unsecured line of credit. I have discounted each party’s RRSPs by notional income tax at 20%.

[99] The wife claims an additional debt to her parents of more than $30,000. She testified that her parents advanced this money to her over the years to assist in paying household expenses. She says they always considered these amounts a loan.

[100] A person claiming a deduction for debts at the date of separation bears the onus of proving them. I have no independent evidence to confirm either the actual amount of money the wife’s parents advanced, nor any evidence to confirm the money was a loan, as opposed to a gift. I am not satisfied the wife has met her onus. I deduct nothing from the wife’s NFP on account of parental loans.

Property, debts and other liabilities at the date of marriage

[101] The wife came into the marriage with nothing. The husband, however, owned a home. There is no question about this. The real question is its value at the date of marriage, and the amount of liabilities the husband owed in relation to it.

[102] The husband presented a great number of documents to prove the value of his home at the date of marriage. I found none of them particularly helpful or compelling. While he did commission a real estate appraisal for the property at date of marriage, the appraiser did not testify, and did not even provide the court with a sworn acknowledgement of an expert’s duty. I cannot accept the appraisal as a proper opinion as to value in the circumstances.

[103] The husband’s home was sold about a year and a half after the parties were married. Although there may be an element of hindsight in this approach, I find the actual sale price and actual net proceeds received are the best indicator of the home’s value at the date of marriage. I have the closing documents on that sale. They show that after payment of all liens, encumbrances and closing costs, the husband received net proceeds of sale of $154,574 US. The husband has provided information about the exchange rate between the Canadian and American dollar at midnight the day before the parties’ wedding day, which was a Saturday for which no exchange rates were published. I accept that rate of $1.52 CAD as appropriate. I reject the wife’s argument that I should use the exchange rate at the date of separation. There is absolutely no basis for that argument. Accordingly I fix the net value of the husband’s home at date of marriage at $234,952.00. He is entitled to a deduction in that amount.

[104] The husband also claims premarital deductions for a car and a bank account. He presented no evidence at all to confirm either his ownership or values of either. He has failed to meet his burden of proof. Under those circumstances, I allow no deduction for those items.

[105] On the basis of these factual findings, the husband’s NFP is $0 and the wife’s is $71,913.48. The wife therefore owes the husband an equalization payment of $35,956.74 unless she can show an equal division would be unconscionable, having regard to the factors set out in s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act. (FLA)

The wife’s claim under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act

[106] Section 5(6) of the FLA allows the court to depart from the general equalization scheme in limited circumstances. The section provides:

Variation of share

(6) The court may award a spouse an amount that is more or less than half the difference between the net family properties if the court is of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable, having regard to,

(a) a spouse’s failure to disclose to the other spouse debts or other liabilities existing at the date of the marriage;

(b) the fact that debts or other liabilities claimed in reduction of a spouse’s net family property were incurred recklessly or in bad faith;

(d) a spouse’s intentional or reckless depletion of his or her net family property;

(e) the fact that the amount a spouse would otherwise receive under subsection (1), (2) or (3) is disproportionately large in relation to a period of cohabitation that is less than five years;

(f) the fact that one spouse has incurred a disproportionately larger amount of debts or other liabilities than the other spouse for the support of the family;

(g) a written agreement between the spouses that is not a domestic contract; or

(h) any other circumstance relating to the acquisition, disposition, preservation, maintenance or improvement of property.

[107] The wife claims an unequal division. She says allowing the husband to deduct the value of the home he owned at the date of the marriage will result in his profiting from his financial mismanagement. She points out he was unemployed between 2001 and 2006. She was at home with two young children, living in a foreign country where she had no ability or permission to work. During that time, she says he used all the proceeds from his former home to pay for his own education, obtaining a doctorate, and also supporting the family. She says the result will be to visit all the financial misfortunes on her. She will be left with nothing – or less than nothing. She claims the result of equalization in this fashion will be to leave her destitute.

[108] I agree with the wife there is some unfairness in equalization. Fairness is not, however, the test. The test is a very high one: the conscience of the court must be shocked in order to depart from the general equalization scheme of the FLA. As I see it, the wife has failed to show equalization would be unconscionable, having regard to any of the factors set out in s. 5(6). The wife therefore owes the husband an equalization payment of $35,956.74, ($35,957, rounded) subject to my findings on spousal support and any post-separation adjustments each party owes the other.

Spousal support:

[109] The wife claims spousal support. Since this is a divorce action, section 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act governs spousal support. It sets out the factors the court must consider in making a spousal support order. It reads:

Factors

(4) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including

•(a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;

•(b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and

•(c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.

[110] The parties lived together for eleven years. That is considered a reasonably lengthy marriage.

[111] During cohabitation, the wife was primarily responsible for all the child care and household management, while the husband pursued enhancing his professional credentials while the family lived on the capital he had acquired prior to the marriage, and for which he is entitled to a premarital deduction. The family also incurred significant debt during this time to maintain family expenses. That debt, however, was extinguished when the parties jointly declared bankruptcy in the United States.

[112] Because of her immigration status in the United States, the wife was unable to work there. It was only when the family moved to Canada that she was able to do so. She began to work as soon as she could, but then became pregnant again, diminishing her earning capacity for a time. The husband has had no such diminution of his earning capacity during the marriage; instead, he has enhanced his education to some degree at the family’s expense. He earns significantly more than the wife. He earns more than she does now, and historically has been able to find work that pays him much more than she has ever been able to earn.

[113] The husband suggests that because there is an order dismissing the wife’s claim for temporary support that should bar the wife’s claim now. I disagree. Unlike the motions judge, I have a full evidentiary record on which to determine the issue. I find the wife is entitled to spousal support having regard to the factors I have described, above. The question is what kind of order will be appropriate here. To answer that question, I must look at both the objectives of a spousal support order, and also consider the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

[114] Section 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act sets out the objectives of an order for spousal support as follows:

Objectives of spousal support order

(6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should

• (a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

• (b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

• (c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

• (d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

[115] There is a significant disparity between the parties’ incomes. I also accept the wife’s argument that the roles she took on in the marriage had a detrimental effect on her own earning capacity. For the 4 years the parties were in the USA she was unable to work. During this time, the husband pursued his educational goals, earning a doctorate to enhance his credentials. The wife has had no such similar opportunity to upgrade her skills, and was thus economically disadvantaged while the husband was economically advantaged.

[116] As a result of the equalization payment I have ordered, the wife will suffer economic hardship and disadvantage as a result of the breakdown of the marriage. She should not be left economically destitute as a result of the marital breakdown.

[117] When I look at the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and apply them to the facts as I have found them, they propose a range of spousal support from a low of $0 per month, to a midrange of $180 to a high of $596, for an indefinite period of time, but an expected range of between 5.5 to 11 years of support before a review or termination.

[118] If I were ordering periodic support, I would have ordered it at the higher end of the range. I recognize that the wife’s motion for temporary spousal support was dismissed. Unlike the motions judge, I now have a full evidentiary record on which to make the determination. I see this as a case where the roles the wife took on in the marriage have had a detrimental effect on her ability to become self-supporting. This is a case for compensatory support, particularly having regard to the overall means and circumstances of the parties.

[119] Given the high level of conflict between the parties, I see this as an appropriate case for a lump sum, in order to effect a clean break between the parties. The SSAGs propose a range of about $14,000 to $38,000 for a lump sum in these circumstances.

[120] In my view, a lump sum of $25,000 in full and final settlement of the wife’s claims for both retroactive and prospective spousal support is appropriate. Accordingly, the husband will pay the wife a lump sum of $25,000 for spousal support.

Post-separation adjustments:

[121] Each of the parties claims post-separation adjustments from the other. Some are agreed, while others are not.

[122] The wife claims the following from the husband:

a) Half the cost of the roof repair = $1,900;

b) Half of the cost of mortgage and property taxes on the matrimonial home from date of separation to date of sale = $15,900;

c) Half the cost of paying out the joint overdraft protection loan = $2,500;

d) Half the cost of interest payments wife made on joint lines of credit = $3,775

e) Condo maintenance fees (1/2) = $1,770

f) Half the cost of dental expenses for children = $301

[123] The husband agrees with paying the roof repair and dental expenses, but nothing else. I am not persuaded the husband owes anything on account of the carrying costs in relation to the matrimonial home post separation. The wife and children were in possession of the home, and the husband had expenses of living elsewhere. The wife was receiving some rental income to apply to the carrying costs of the matrimonial home. As I see it, all those costs and expenses essentially offset one another, including any claim by the husband for occupation rent.

[124] The wife paid out the parties’ joint overdraft protection loan in full. She paid $5,000 to do so. Half of the responsibility is the husband’s. He therefore owes her $2,500.

[125] The wife maintained the interest payments on the joint lines of credit, and paid them off to close the account. The lines were half the husband’s responsibility. He therefore owes his half share, namely $3,775.

[126] I reject the wife’s claim for half the condo fees for the same reason I rejected her claim for half the mortgage post-separation.

[127] Finally, the husband should pay half the children’s dental costs. He owes $301 on that account.

[128] Therefore, the husband owes the wife a total of $$8,476 on account of post-separation adjustments $1,900 + $2,500 + $3,775 + $301 = $8,476).

[129] The husband claims the following from the wife:[^3]

a) $719.63 of his 2012 tax refund, which the wife took without his consent;

b) The Legal Aid lien of $3,493.75 which was paid out of the gross proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home;

c) Half of the cost of the premiums for health coverage cost for the children for 2014;

d) Half the cost of Red Pine Camp for the children;

e) Status certificate cost for the house (1/2 the amount) = $120.63

f) Grocery bill (promised) = $140

g) Rental income (half) = $3,900

h) Mortgage share help refund – October - November (5 times bi-monthly = $2,169.85

i) Mortgage March- June (1/2 amount owned by applicant) = $5,742

j) Ski costs = $2,000

k) Fees of maintaining the real estate escrow account ($200 per month after house sale) = $1,000

[130] The wife should not have taken money from the husband’s tax refund. She therefore owes him $719.63.

[131] As for the legal aid lien, the wife concedes this cost is her responsibility. She rightly points out, however, that she has already absorbed half of that cost with the lien being paid “off the top”. She owes the husband the other half, namely $1,746.87.

[132] The husband says half of the premiums for his medical and dental coverage relate to the children. I agree. Since he began his new job, and acquired this coverage he has paid the premiums of $66.43 in each of the 14 pay periods to the end of the year. The cost for the children is $33.21 per pay period. The parties’ income was roughly equivalent for 2014. Thus, the wife owes the husband $116.55 on account of medical and dental coverage.

[133] The husband claims the cost of Red Pine Camp as a s. 7 expense for the children. First, he did not discuss the expense with the wife, or obtain her consent to contribute to it. More importantly, he attended the camp with the three girls. Essentially, this was his vacation with the children. The wife has no obligation to contribute to it.

[134] I heard no evidence about the status certificate, or what this entailed. I make no adjustment on this account.

[135] The grocery bill is petty. I am not persuaded the wife has any obligation to repay this amount, particularly since the husband purchased groceries for the household at a time when he was coming and going from the matrimonial home, and often taking meals there.

[136] I have already determined there should be no adjustment on account of the modest rental income the wife received from Japanese students who briefly rented rooms from her after the separation.

[137] As to the amounts the husband characterizes as “mortgage help” or “mortgage”, I do not know what he is claiming. As far as I can tell, the first child support order in this case was made in February of last year, with effect March 1, 2013. It has since been changed to reflect certain changes in husband’s income. The parties separated in March of 2012, and husband had an obligation to pay child support from that time onward. As I see it, if he made contributions to the mortgage over that time, those payments would fulfil his child support obligations. I make no adjustment on that account.

[138] Ski costs are recreational costs for the children the husband incurred on his time with the children. He did not consult with the wife, or obtain her consent to incurring these expenses. Like the camp costs, these are expenses the husband incurred with the children, for both his and their benefit. They are not a s.7 expense the wife must contribute to.

[139] The wife owes the husband $2,583 (rounded) on account of post-separation adjustments ($719.63 + $1,746.87+ $116.55 = $2,583.05)

[140] Thus, the husband owes the wife the net amount of $5,893 on account of post-separation adjustments ($8,476 - $2,583 = $5,893).

[141] The wife owes the husband an equalization payment of $35,957 (rounded).

[142] The husband owes the wife a lump sum payment for spousal support of $25,000.

[143] Accordingly, the wife will pay the husband a net payment of $5,064 in full and final settlement of all claims for equalization of net family property, spousal support, and all post-separation adjustments.

Conclusion:

[144] Therefore, a final order will issue in the following terms:

a) The children will continue to reside primarily with the mother;

b) The children will reside with the father on the following schedule:

• Week 1: Friday after school until Monday morning and Wednesday, overnight with all three children;

• Week 2: Tuesday with Stefana from after school or 6 to 8 pm

Wednesday with Sofia, as above

Thursday with Sara, as above

c) Neither parent shall initiate calls, texts or Facebook messages with any of the children while they are with the other parent;

d) Father shall have his own set of clothes at his home for the children;

g) The children will spend Halloween, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:30 p.m., with the mother in odd numbered years and with the father in even numbered years;

k) The parents shall strictly adhere to this schedule;

n) The children shall engage in individual counselling with a counsellor or agency recommended by their paediatrician. Counselling shall begin as soon as a referral can be made;

o) Each child is free to contact either parent as she wishes, regardless of whose home she might be in at the time;

q) Commencing January 1, 2015 the husband will pay the wife table support of $2,128 for three children, based on his income of $118,000;

r) The parties will share s. 7 expenses in proportion to their incomes with the wife paying 35% and the husband 65%. These proportions are based on the wife’s income of $62,000 and the husbands of $118,000;

s) Section 7 expenses include the cost of the husband’s medical and dental coverage attributable to the children, the cost of therapy for the children, and any other expenses and activities the parties agree in writing are appropriate s. 7 expenses. Their agreement in writing must be obtained before any obligation to share the expense arises;

t) A Support Deduction Order shall issue;

u) Commencing in January 2016, and each January after that, the parties will exchange income information setting out all income received either personally or corporately for the prior calendar year, and will adjust both table support and their proportionate share of s. 7 expenses, with effect January 1, 2016, and on January 1 thereafter;

v) The wife will pay the husband the sum of $5,064 in full and final settlement of all claims between the parties for equalization of net family property, prospective and retroactive spousal support, and all post-separation adjustments.

[145] Since the parties have been representing themselves, and much of their dispute revolved around the parenting issues regarding the children, I do not see this as an appropriate case for costs. Accordingly, there will be no order as to costs.

___________________________

MESBUR J

Released: 20141218

Court File Number

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FS-12-00379691

SCHEDULE “A” TO REASONS FOR DECISION IN

LAZAREVIC v LAZAREVIC

(Complete the tables by filling in the columns for both parties, showing your assets, debts, etc. and those of your spouse)

Table 1: Value Of Assets Owned on Valuation Date (List in the order of the categories in the financial statement)

PART 4(a): LAND

Nature & Type of Ownership

(State percentage interest)

Address of Property

APPLICANT

RESPONDENT

Matrimonial Home

$340,000.00

Totals: Value of Land

$340,000.00

TORONTO

Form 13B: Net Family

Property Statement

(Court office address)

PART 4(b): GENERAL HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AND VEHICLES

Item

Description

APPLICANT

RESPONDENT

Household goods

& furniture

Divided in kind

Cars, boats,

Toyota Hylaner (paid $26,000, January 2012)

$20,000.00

vehicles

Jewellery, art,

various

$4,000.00

$1,000.00

electronics, tools,

sports & hobby,

equipment

Other special

items

Totals: Value of General Household Items and Vehicles

$4,000.00

$21,000.00

PART 4(c): BANK ACCOUNTS AND SAVINGS, SECURITIES AND PENSIONS

Natasa Lazarevic v. Djordje Lazarevic, 2014 ONSC 7348

Case Summary

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Introduction:

Background and factual findings:

Discussion:

The children

Child support:

Equalization of net family property

Land

General household items and vehicles

Bank accounts, savings, securities and pensions

Business interests

Accounts receivable

Debts and other liabilities

Property, debts and other liabilities at the date of marriage

The wife’s claim under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act

Spousal support:

Factors

Objectives of spousal support order

Post-separation adjustments:

Conclusion:

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Expert Witnesses

Issues

Legislation 2