ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: S.E. v. S.H., 2015 ONSC 1101
COURT FILE NO.: 43/13
DATE: 20150213
BETWEEN:
S.E.
Self-represented
Applicant
- and -
S.H.
Self-represented
Respondent
HEARD: February 13, 2015
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Conlan J.
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] These two individuals have been at each other for years in the Court. They now act for themselves, probably because the wells have run dry.
[2] The Applicant mother (“mother” or “S.E.”), in July 2013, brought a Motion to Change the Order of Healey J. dated September 24, 2010.
[3] Specifically, the mother asked that child support for the daughter G.H. (born […] 1991) and the son D.H. (born […] 1993) be terminated effective June 1, 2011.
[4] Further, S.E. asked that the spousal support owing to her be fixed at $6986.00 as of June 10, 2013 and be paid by the Respondent father (“father” or “S.H.”) at the rate of $1000.00 per month.
[5] Finally, S.E. asked that “the equalization payment be made as quickly as possible within three months of the Final Order”, relief which, on the face of the Motion to Change, is incomprehensible. I later discovered what that refers to.
[6] In his Response, among raising arguments about improper service of documents and being in the wrong jurisdiction, the father resists any change to the child support payable by S.E. Further, he denied being in arrears of spousal support. Finally, he denied owing anything to S.E. by way of an equalization payment.
[7] Not surprisingly, given her self-representation, the mother filed a Trial Record which was incomplete and containing improper documents such as “evidence”.
[8] This trial was held in Owen Sound on February 13, 2015. Both parties were self-represented. The trial took one-half day to complete, including closing addresses. There were just two witnesses – the parties themselves. Other than the Memorandum referred to below, only one Exhibit was filed – a typed document prepared by S.E. which purports to show the father’s spousal support arrears.
[9] Prior to the start of the trial, both parties received and acknowledged having read a comprehensive Memorandum used in the Central West Region of the Superior Court of Justice. That twelve-page Memorandum is designed to provide self-represented litigants in family proceedings with basic information about the trial process. That Memorandum was marked Exhibit A at trial so that there is a record of what the litigants received and reviewed before the trial began.
II. ANALYSIS
Spousal Support
[10] While testifying, it became clear that S.E. wants this Court to extend the termination date for spousal support being paid by the father.
[11] In clear and unequivocal language, in the Final Order under review, at clause 5, Healey J. directed that S.H.’s final spousal support payment would be made on May 1, 2015.
[12] As I explained to the mother during the trial, I decline to entertain any request to extend the said termination date for spousal support. First and foremost, that request was not pleaded by S.E. Second, the evidence at trial does not justify any such extension. Currently, S.E. is employed full-time and lives in Toronto. Her income is fairly limited, however, I have no evidence that anything material has changed since the date of Justice Healey’s Final Order. Although, tragically, the mother was diagnosed with cancer in late 2011, she is now in remission and has a decent job.
[13] Trials, even with self-represented litigants, cannot be by ambush. If S.E. wanted to extend the said termination date for spousal support, she ought to have included that request in her Motion to Change or a subsequent amendment thereto.
[14] On the issue of the alleged arrears owing by S.H., the mother has failed to prove that claim on a balance of probabilities. I have no evidence from the Family Responsibility Office. I have no documentation to support where the figures and calculations contained in Exhibit 1 come from. I have no reliable testimonial evidence from S.E. to explain the basis of Exhibit 1.
Child Support
[15] At clause 6 of the Final Order under review, Justice Healey ordered that S.E. pay child support for two children at the rate of $375.00 per month, based on an imputed income of $25,000.00 and without any termination date.
[16] I accept the evidence of the mother that the two children that were the beneficiaries of Healey J.’s child support Order became self-sufficient and were no longer properly considered eligible for child support as dependants effective June 1, 2011.
[17] S.H. offered no evidence to the contrary.
[18] The son has lived and worked in Montreal and has been independent since June 2011. And he has not attended school except for a very brief period in late 2014, which program of education at Concordia University he left voluntarily without completing.
[19] The daughter started living on her own in Toronto prior to starting her second year at University of Toronto in September 2011. She never returned to the program for the 2012 or 2013 school years. Although she has now re-started the degree program as of September 2014, I am satisfied that she has been independent, working and paying her own expenses (with the help of some student assistance) since June 2011.
[20] As such, I agree with S.E. that her child support obligation ought to have terminated effective June 1, 2011, and I so order.
Equalization
[21] At paragraph 1 of the Final Order under review, Healey J. ordered that S.H. pay to S.E. the sum of $85,000.00, plus interest, as an equalization payment. Clause 2 of the said Order directed that the said payment, including interest, shall be satisfied at the rate of $5000.00 per month starting June 1, 2015.
[22] While testifying, it became clear that the father wants this Court to wipe that equalization payment out.
[23] As I explained to the father during the trial, I decline to entertain any request to do so. First and foremost, that request was not pleaded by S.H. Second, the evidence at trial does not justify any such action. The husband’s total income for the 2014 tax year was more than $100,000.00. He has the ability to pay.
[24] The father alleges that he paid some of the mother’s legal fees. I accept that. But it has nothing to do with the equalization payment ordered by Justice Healey.
[25] The father alleges that the said $85,000.00 was based on a flawed and incomplete assessment of the parties’ financial circumstances, their assets and the proper valuation date. There is no reason for me to go behind the Order of Justice Healey. Those arguments by S.H. are not relevant to my role today in dealing with the mother’s Motion to Change.
[26] The Order of Justice Healey stands, in terms of the equalization payment.
[27] I decline the mother’s request to hasten the time for payment of that amount. The terms set out by Justice Healey are confirmed.
III. CONCLUSION
[28] The relief sought by the mother is allowed in part. The child support obligation is terminated in accordance with these Reasons. Otherwise, the requests to fix spousal support arrears and order their repayment and to amend the equalization payment provisions are denied.
IV. COSTS
[29] Success has been divided. The mother was successful on the child support matter. The father was successful on the spousal support issue. Neither was successful at changing the equalization payment provisions.
[30] As such, no costs are ordered.
Conlan J.
Released: February 13, 2015
CITATION: S.E. v. S.H., 2015 ONSC 1101
COURT FILE NO.: 43/13
DATE: 20150213
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
S.E.
Applicant
- and -
S.H.
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Conlan J.
Released: February 13, 2015