ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: Weaver v Peltonen, 2015 ONSC 1097
COURT FILE NO.: FS-09-0023-0001
DATE: 2015-02-18
B E T W E E N:
CATHERINE WEAVER A.K.A.CATHERINE PELTONEN
Samantha A. Filipovic for the Applicant
Applicant(s)
- and -
ARI PAUL PELTONEN
Self-Represented
Respondent(s)
HEARD: February 5, 2015,
at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Decision On Motion
[1] This is a motion by the applicant mother for a temporary order changing the final Order of Justice Warkentin dated January 21, 2010 with respect to:
a) child support;
b) special and/or extraordinary expenses for the child;
c) health care coverage for the child; and
d) designation of the child as the sole beneficiary under the father's life insurance policies.
[2] There is one child of the marriage, aged 13, who resides primarily with his mother.
[3] The final Order provided that the father was to pay child support of $488 per month based on annual income of $48,565.01.
[4] As the father's income has increased substantially, the mother seeks a temporary order based on the father's present income. The mother seeks retroactive support to December 1, 2014 as this motion was originally returnable on November 20, 2014. This is without prejudice to her right to seek further retroactive child support prior to December 1, 2014 at trial.
[5] At a settlement conference held January 7, 2015, Shaw J. ordered that the father file any material responding to this motion by January 23, 2015. The father did not file any responding material but did make submissions on this motion.
Child Support
[6] The father's amended financial statement shows annual employment income of $120,000. An exhibit to the mother's affidavit is the father's paystub showing year-to-date earnings to September 30, 2014 of $94,983.68. Projected, that is equivalent to $126,644.90 annually. There was no other current documentation with respect to the father's earnings before the court. Although the father claimed to have documentation indicating that his current income was slightly less, the mother objected to the introduction of any additional evidence. In light of the prior production order of Shaw J. I declined to receive any additional documentation.
[7] Based on the evidence before me, I find that the father's annual income is $126,644.90. The monthly child support payable is $1,089 according to the Child Support Guidelines.
[8] Therefore, I order that the first sentence of paragraph 4 of the final Order is deleted and the following substituted:
4.1 That on a temporary basis, the Respondent, Ari Peltonen, shall pay child support to the Applicant, Catherine Peltonen, for the child of the marriage, Justin Peltonen, born November 4, 2001, of $1,089 per month commencing December 1, 2014 based on the Respondent's annual income of $126,644.90. The child support is payable in two equal installments of $544.50 on the 1st and 15th of each month.
[9] The second sentence of paragraph 4 of the final Order which reads "The Respondent shall disclose to the Applicant, his income tax return and notice of assessment every year by June 1." shall remain in effect.
Special and/or Extraordinary Expenses for the Child
[10] The final Order did not provide for payment of special and/or extraordinary expenses. The affidavit evidence of the mother confirms that her son had no special needs then but now has numerous health care and extracurricular activity expenses. According to her financial statement, the mother's annual income is $43,326. The apportionment of special expenses shall be 25.5% to the mother and 74.5% to the father based on their respective incomes. The father did not dispute these expenses but, in submissions, claimed to have contributed to these expenses. However, he did not provide particulars or evidence of any contributions.
[11] Therefore, it is ordered that the final Order be amended to include a new paragraph as follows:
4.2 That on a temporary basis, commencing December 1, 2014 special and extraordinary expenses shall be apportioned 25.5% to the mother based on her annual income of $43,326 and 74.5% to the father based on his annual income of $126,644.90.
Health Care Coverage
[12] The mother also seeks a temporary order that the father name the child as a beneficiary of any health care coverage that he has available to him through his employment and, to facilitate that coverage, provide to the mother a health benefits card and executed claim forms. The father submitted that the child is already a beneficiary under his employment health care coverage and does not object.
[13] Therefore, it is ordered that the final Order be amended to include a new paragraph as follows:
4.3 That on a temporary basis, the father shall continue to name the child as a beneficiary of any health care coverage that he has available to him through his employment and that he shall provide a health benefits card and executed claim forms to the mother .
Life Insurance
[14] The mother also seeks a temporary order that the father name the child as the sole irrevocable beneficiary of any life insurance that the father has available through his employment and/or privately.
[15] The father advised that he has approximately $150,000 in life insurance coverage designating his son of this marriage and another adult child, not of this marriage, as co-beneficiaries.
[16] The mother deposes that the other son of the father is 26 and working full time. The father did not dispute that assertion.
[17] The purpose of the life insurance designation is to provide for support in the event of the death of the party obligated to pay support. The current support obligation, excluding special expenses, will be over $13,000 annually. The support obligation will continue at least for another five years. If the child goes on to pursue postsecondary education the support obligation will be much greater. The father objects to making the son of this marriage the sole beneficiary because of his wish to benefit his adult child also . What must guide me here is ensuring adequate support. If support obligations continue past 18, the sum required to provide support will exceed 50% of the life insurance payable.
[18] Therefore, it is ordered that the final Order be amended to include a new paragraph as follows:
4.4 That on a temporary basis, the father shall name the child, Justin Peltonen, born November 4, 2001 as the sole beneficiary of any life insurance the father has available through employment and/or privately as long as the father has an obligation to pay child support. The father shall provide to the mother proof of this designation within 30 days of this order.
[19] I did not order that this beneficiary designation be irrevocable in recognition of the fact that the support obligation is not indefinite. If the support obligation changes then the parties may need to change this provision.
Costs
[20] The mother seeks $1500 in costs for this motion and in support of the claim for costs states that this motion would not be necessary if the father complied with his obligation to disclose income tax returns and notices of assessment annually. The wife deposed that, before these proceedings, the only time the father provided proof of his income was in 2011 despite her repeated requests for this information. I also note that father did not provide any financial disclosure until after he was ordered to do so at the case conference.
[21] In the circumstances, I therefore, award the mother her costs of this motion fixed in the amount of $1500. I further order that these costs are enforceable as an incident of child support.
___”original signed by”
The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Released: February 18, 2015
CITATION: Weaver v Peltonen, 2015 ONSC 1097
COURT FILE NO.: FS-09-0023-0001
DATE: 2015-02-18
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
CATHERINE WEAVER A.K.A.CATHERINE PELTONEN
Applicant(s)
- and -
ARI PAUL PELTONEN
Respondent(s)
DECISION ON MOTION
Newton J.
Released: February 18, 2015
/cs