Thuraisingam v. Ratnam, 2015 ONSC 1141

CITATION: Thuraisingam v. Ratnam, 2015 ONSC 1141 COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-18899 DATE: 20150401

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SUNITHIRA THURAISINGAM Applicant

– and –

JEGANATHAN RATNAM Respondent

COUNSEL: Pamela S. Jacobson, for the Applicant In Person

HEARD: February 2, 3, 4 and 5, 2015

AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

McWATT J.:

[1] The applicant, Sunithira Thuraisingam, and the respondent, Jeganathan Ratnam, were married on May 2, 1997. They stayed together for five years until 2002. After their separation, the couple’s first son was born December 10, 2002. The applicant named him Sarujan Thuraisingam, using her name for the child’s surname.

[2] The parties litigated family matters in the Brampton Superior Court in 2003 and were divorced in August of 2004.

[3] In 2005, they lived together in the applicant’s condominium in Toronto for a short period between June to October in an attempt to reconcile. The attempt failed.

[4] They reconciled again in 2008. But, before that, on October 18, 2007, the applicant consented to an order in the Brampton proceedings rescinding all arrears of child and spousal support, terminating spousal support payments and ordering ongoing child support of $321.00 per month commencing November 1, 2007.

[5] Two months after that, on December 27, 2007, Ms. Thuraisingam signed a Notice of Withdrawal of Child Support Provisions for the November 1, 2007 Order. She re-filed that Child Support Order in 2012 after the couple had once again separated.

[6] On January 14, 2008, the Family Responsibility Office deposited $811.20 into the applicant’s bank account. Because the parties were on good terms, Ms. Thuraisingam refunded $800.00 of the amount to the respondent. She also changed Surujan’s surname to Jeganathan to reflect that the respondent was the child’s father.

[7] Mr. Ratnam has four children.

1. a daughter, born February 11, 1998 (with a woman I shall refer to as K.S.);
2. Sarujan, born December 10, 2002 (with the applicant);
3. a son, born November 5, 2006 (with K.S.); and
4. Devesh, born November 2, 2010 (with the applicant).

It was Ms. Thuraisingam’s discovery of the respondent’s double life, which had produced two other children, that precipitated the couple’s separation in 2002 before their first son Sarujan was born.

[8] In a second attempt at reconciliation, the couple travelled to India and Germany together with their son and the respondent’s mother in December 2008 to January 2009. When they returned, they lived with their respective mothers – the applicant in Mississauga and the respondent in Scarborough.

[9] During this period and up to their final separation in 2012, Ms. Thuraisingam claims she gave Mr. Ratnam $50,000 to purchase the home he eventually bought at 60 Cantwell Crescent in Ajax on August 31, 2010. She claims that she expected to be a co-owner. She testified she gave him:

5. $6,000 while they were in India in January 2009;
6. a further $10,000 in August 2009;
7. $19,000 in early June, 2010;
8. $10,000 cash in August, 2010; and
9. $5,000 in August, 2010.

[10] Ms. Thuraisingam got pregnant in October 2009, but miscarried on December 10 of that year. The couple became pregnant again by the beginning of 2010. Mr. Ratnam and the parties’ son, Sarujan, moved into the home in September, 2010. Ms. Thuraisingam had a difficult pregnancy and the couple’s second son was born prematurely on November 2, 2010, remaining in Mt. Sinai Hospital until March 2011.

[11] On July 6, 2012, the applicant moved out of the home with the two children because Mr. Ratnam had moved his two other children in. Those two children live at the home with him up to the present time.

[12] I do not believe Ms. Thuraisingam’s claim that Mr. Ratnam “kicked her and her children” out of the home. Mr. Ratnam testified that he wanted all four of his children living with him. I accept that evidence as true. He appears to have wanted to take care of all four of them together, which the applicant could not accept and which caused her to leave the home in 2012.

[13] Throughout her testimony, Ms. Thuraisingam, demonstrated to me that she was profoundly hurt by the double life the respondent had been living, - having had two children during the same times he and the applicant were together. On a number of occasions, she referred to the mother of Mr. Thuraisingam’s other two children as “that woman”. She has every right to feel the way she does. At the same time, that obvious anger has created some doubts in my mind about her ultimate reliability as a witness.

[14] Both the applicant’s and the respondent’s versions of what took place in their relationship leave me with some doubts about each of their credibility in this proceeding.

[15] Ms. Thuraisingam claims the following:

1. Child support for the two children of the marriage from July 6, 2012 based on the respondent’s employment income for each year since the couple’s separation;
2. Spousal support as defined by the Family Law Act R.S.O. 1990, C.F. 3 as amended; and
3. A $90,000 judgment and sale of the respondent’s home or a declaration that she is an owner of 60 Cantwell Crescent, Ajax, Ontario and sale of the home because Mr. Ratnam has been unjustly enriched by the $50,000.00 she gave him for the purchase of the property.

The Respondent’s Income

[16] The applicant submits that the fairest approach to determine child support for the children is to impute income to the respondent pursuant to sections 19(a) and (g) of the Child Support Guidelines (SOR/97-175, as amended).

[17] I am not satisfied the respondent is intentionally unemployed pursuant to subsection 19 (a) of the Guidelines. I accept Mr. Ratnam’s testimony that his job with Roger’s Cable Company was related to Blackberry technology. He was specialized in that area and must now retrain to bring his I.T. skills up to date after being laid off from his position at the company. I also accept that, as part of collecting E.I. benefits, he must provide job search evidence to the government and he is, in fact, looking for employment.

[18] I conclude, however, that Mr. Ratnam unreasonably deducts expenses from his employment income pursuant to s. 19(g) of the Guidelines and that income should be imputed to him as a result. Through cross-examination on his record of employment and income tax returns for the three years in question, the respondent admitted that he made personal deductions to reduce his gross income. The deductions were permitted by the Canada Revenue Agency on the basis that Mr. Ratnam ran a small business servicing technology clients. However, the business made no income in the past except for the year of 2013. In 2013, an income of $5,000 was declared from his business, but deductions from his total income of $77,797.37 amounted to $37,820.38.

[19] The applicant testified that Mr. Ratnam did not actually do any work for the business, but merely uses the business claims to write off income. Mr. Ratnam’s evidence, in response to the applicant’s assertion, that he did service clients, did not convince me at all that he did. He was vague in his response to questions from counsel in cross-examination about any actual work he provided and he has no evidence he had done such work. I am left with the conclusion that the business was an accounting method used to reduce his tax burden. And, indeed, he did receive healthy refunds from his income tax claims from 2012 to 2014.

[20] In 2014, when Mr. Ratnam lost his job at Rogers, he received income from January to the end of June. He earned $54,527.64 from his employer during that period, $8,892.45 from a severance payment from Rogers and $7,453 from E.I. benefits for a total of $70,873.06. His employment income for that year was $70,873.00.

[21] I am prepared to find, therefore, that the respondent’s income from employment for 2012 is $79,784.00. For 2013, it is $77,797.00. And for 2014, it is $70,873.

[22] Mr. Ratnam was employed at Rogers Cable Company until June, 2014. He is now receiving Employment Insurance benefits of $2056. each month which will expire in September 2015. I find that his income for 2015 is no less than $18,500.

Child Support

[23] The respondent has made no actual claim for undue hardship in order to pay child support lower than that set out in the Child Support Guidelines. However, Mr. Ratnam has testified that he is unable to pay child support at the level claimed by the applicant in this trial because he has custody of his other two children and gets no child support from their mother.

[24] I have no evidence to consider the standards of living test required by section 10(2)(4) of the Child Support Guidelines, which could convince me that a lower level of child support is warranted.

[25] As well, during these proceedings, an investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer commenced regarding the issue of the respondent’s access to the children – which he has maintained no claim for in this trial. The investigation was frustrated by the respondent when he did not allow the Children’s Lawyer to speak to significant collaterals at his home. He prevented the investigator from interviewing his daughter, Konsiya, family members or someone identified as a nanny at the home. His actions in that investigation leave me with doubts about any claim the respondent might make about an inability to pay appropriate child support for his children, Sarujan and Devesh.

[26] Commencing August 1, 2012 and on the 15th day of each month, the respondent shall pay to the applicant child support for the two children, Sarujan Jeganathan (born December 10, 2002) and Devesh Jeganathan (born November 2, 2010). The amounts are as follows and are set out in the Divorcemate Calculations filed at Ex. 1, Tab 24 of the trial.

2012

$1,170.00 per month for two children based on the respondent’s employment income of $79,784.00;

2013

$1,144.00 per month for two children based on the respondent’s employment income of $77,797.00;

2014

$1,049.00 per month for two children based on the respondent’s employment income of $70,873.00.

[27] Commencing January 1, 2015 and on the 15th day of each month, the respondent shall pay, to the applicant, child support in the amount of $284.10 per month.

[28] No later than June 30 in each year commencing 2015, he shall provide, to the applicant, a copy of his income tax return as filed (including schedules and attachments) and his Notice of Assessment. Within two business days of attaining employment, he shall provide, to the applicant, a copy of the contract or written confirmation of the terms of employment.

Spousal support

[29] The applicant’s claim for spousal support is a modest one in the circumstances of this case. She has a Management Certificate from York University and a Bachelor’s Degree in Administrative Studies from York University. She worked full-time at various Banks and a Trust Company. She was unemployed for part of 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

[30] She now works full-time in a contract position with B2B Bank since December 1, 2014.

[31] Her total income is set out in her tax returns at line 150 as the following. It was not challenged by the respondent.

2008 Income from UCCB $1200, EI $10152, Interest $89, support $3500 and RRSP $596 amounted to . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$15,537

2009 Income from Employment $8620, Support $6000 and RRSP $596 amounted to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$15,216

2010 Income from Employment $11848, UCCB $200, EI $7671 and RRSP $1217 amounted to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$20,736

2011 Income from UCCB $1300, EI $7650 and RRSP $1217 amounted to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$8,867

2012 Income ($3996 of which was Social Assistance) amounted to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,975

2013 Income ($7454 of which was Social Assistance) amounted to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$8,671

2014 Income to year end $17,114.04 plus social assistance $2,155.12 amounts to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$19,269.16

[32] Ms. Thuraisingam could not work during the latter part of her pregnancy with the couple’s second son, Devesh. From approximately June, 2010, the respondent supported the family and the applicant contributed what she could.

[33] Devesh needed extra care due to medical conditions and complications from a premature birth. He stayed in hospital almost four months after he was born. After that, Ms. Thuraisingam could not accept full time employment due to the child’s physical needs.

[34] The applicant stayed home with the two boys and then received social assistance in part of 2012, all of 2013 and part of 2014. When she started working part-time in February 2014, her employment earnings reduced the amount of social assistance she was eligible to receive.

[35] On occasion, the applicant borrowed money from a high school friend, but has paid back all debts to her friend at present.

[36] Pursuant to section 29(b) of the Family Law Act, the applicant was the respondent’s spouse as natural parents of Sarujan and Devesh.

[37] It is clear on the evidence I do accept that Mr. Ratnam intended for the respondent and the children to move into the Cantwell home when they reconciled after 2008. He took Sarujan to live there and registered him in the local school while Ms. Thuraisingam was hospitalized and later tended to Devesh in hospital until March 2011. All four family members remained in the home until July 6, 2012. Ms. Thuraisingam was a dependent person to whom Mr. Ratnam had an obligation to provide support at the time of the separation.

[38] The period for which spousal support is payable is August 1, 2012 for 24 months, as requested by the applicant.

[39] The applicant’s Divorcemate calculations at Tab 24 of Exhibit 1 at trial do not correspond to the $200/month claim advanced. The calculation is also based on a nine-year relationship, which was not the argument advanced at trial. However, the claim is a reasonable one and justified, based on the applicant’s dependence on Mr. Ratnam along with her child care obligations. The amount of $288.00 on the employment income of $70,873.00 is a mid-range support amount.

[40] Commencing April 1, 2015, the respondent shall pay, to the applicant, on the 15th day of the month, spousal support in the amount of $200 each month for 24 months. A Support Deduction Order is to issue.

The Unjust Enrichment Claim by the Applicant

[41] Ms. Thuraisingam’s claims that the respondent was unjustly enriched by money she gave him. Mr. Ratnam maintains that he actually wanted custody of his other children he had with K.S. and did not initially want to live or buy a house with the applicant. Mr. Ratnam has admitted to receiving at least $35,000 of the $50,000 the applicant claims she advanced to him. However, he denies the funds were given to him to purchase the Cantwell home.

[42] This aspect of the trial is hinged on the parties’ credibility. The respondent’s income and the corresponding child and spousal support findings were reached by me through financial records filed in the trial which, for the most part, were admitted or unchallenged by the parties. The context of the couple’s life together is telling in terms of this claim.

[43] For Ms. Thuraisingam to succeed, she must satisfy me of the following, as set out in Peter v. Beblow, 1993 CanLII 126 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980:

(a) an enrichment of Mr. Ratnam;

(b) a deprivation suffered by her; and

(c) the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment.

[44] I do not believe that the applicant and respondent ever contemplated buying the Cantwell property together. I am also not satisfied that the money advanced to the respondent from Ms. Thuraisingam was for the purpose of the couple co-owning any property.

[45] It turns out that, before marrying Ms. Thuraisingam (May 2, 1997), Mr. Ratnam began an affair in 1997 with K.S. An affidavit sworn September 4, 2012. [Ex. #1, Tab 19] in support of a motion for custody/access of with his two children with K.S. was filed in the Brampton Superior Court. It outlines the time lines of his relationship with K.S. And it appears, from the document, that he was living two lives during most of the parties’ life together.

[46] The affidavit is self-serving in some parts. He claims, in those proceedings, to be living a happy life with Ms. Thuraisingam and their two sons, Sarujan and Devesh, which I know to be untrue because Ms. Thuraisingam had already moved out of 60 Cantwell by July 6, 2012. The untruth is clearly told in order to present a picture of a stable household to the court in order for the respondent to get custody of his other children.

[47] I accept, without hesitation, that Mr. Ratnam is motivated by the love for all four of his children and the affidavit sworn in the litigation over the other children is supportive, to some extent, that he was interested in having a home, in order to house all of the children.

[48] The affidavit, which I can rely on to the extent that it paints a picture of his two lives, shows that:

1. The respondent and K.S. began an affair around the time these parties married in 1997;
2. Mr. Ratnam and K.S. had their daughter in early 1998;
3. Ms. Thuraisingam learned from K.S. about her husband’s affair and the existence of his daughter with K.S. that led to the parties divorce, which was granted in 2004 after litigation;
4. After the failed attempt at reconciliation in 2005 with Ms. Thuraisingam, Mr. Ratnam reconciled with K.S. and they had a second child born in November, 2006. However, the two never lived together;
5. Mr. Ratnam and K.S. separated July 19, 2007 when Mr. Ratnam was charged with assaulting her;
6. From September 2007 to December 2009, Mr. Ratnam parented his two other children with K.S. while he was seeing his son Sarujan and the applicant;
7. Mr. Ratnam’s relationship with K.S. continued throughout 2010 to 2012. The respondent had access to their children. More criminal charges were laid against the respondent by K.S. due to the couple’s unstable relationship.

[49] Mr. Ratnam testified that he and Ms. Thuraisingam never reconciled, in spite of their trip to India in 2008 and conceiving their second son, Devesh, in 2010. While I doubt his credibility about this fact, I find that the reconciliation did not include an agreement to buy a house together.

[50] The parties had a tumultuous relationship after the respondent’s other life came to light. The divorce was litigated and was not convivial. The 2005 reconciliation failed, and Mr. Ratnam still retains bitterness over a feeling of being cheated out of a share in a condominium Ms. Thuraisingam owned during their short period of co-habitation there. It appears that Ms. Thuraisingam “threw him out” at Thanksgiving of 2005. She sold the condominium afterwards. They lived with their respective mothers after that.

[51] Ms. Thuraisingam’s evidence that the parties agreed to own the 60 Cantwell property together is not credible in light of the couple’s past circumstances. She is incensed, to this day, about the respondent’s treatment of her while they were together. She is convinced that Mr. Ratnam is now living in the home with K.S. and their children although he has testified that he is not. Ms. Thuraisingam has obvious reasons to colour her version of the events she has testified to in the trial.

[52] I accept Mr. Ratnam’s testimony that any reference in email correspondence to Ms. Thuraisingam as “honey” or any other endearing terms, and asking her to view houses with him, is just as consistent with his position they were not buying a house together, as the applicant’s contention that the parties were planning to buy the home together. Ms. Thuraisingam had experience in the real estate market, which the respondent did not have but needed. This email correspondence does not necessarily support her claim that they were reconciled to the point of owning a property together.

[53] The applicant’s contention that Mr. Ratnam deceived her by, at the last moment, leaving her off the title to 60 Cantwell because she was unable to go to the lawyer’s office, is at odds with her position at this trial that she and the respondent were a happy couple and completely reconciled, as she used the emails referring to her as “honey” to point out. The two positions are contradictory. Her testimony on this point was unconvincing. In cross-examination about this claim, Ms. Thuraisingam was not able to persuade me that she was duped in any way.

[54] Both parties filed income tax returns separately and not as a couple. I find that this is some evidence they did not intend to share ownership in the property.

[55] Ms. Thuraisingam’s income, as set out previously, is sound evidence that she depended on Mr. Ratnam financially throughout their reconciliation. In 2008, her line 150 income was $15,537.00; in 2009, $15,216.00; and in 2010, $20,736.00. Mr. Ratnam was working full time making a much better living. It makes more sense, on the facts, that any money from Ms. Thuraisingam to the respondent was to assist in the couple’s expenses and life together.

[56] The parties had an intention to move in together, but I am not satisfied that Mr. Ratnam intended Ms. Thuraisingam to be a co-owner in any property he sought to purchase. There was never any intention by the parties to co-own the Cantwell property.

The Specific Transactions

1. The $6,000 transfer in January, 2009

[57] The couple travelled for two months to India and Germany in December, 2008. Mr. Ratnam testified that he paid for most of the trip. I believe him. He may have been reimbursed by the applicant for her and Sarujan’s air fare, however, the trip cost thousands of dollars more. The applicant did not have the money to travel without the respondent in such a fashion at that time.

[58] Ms. Thuraisingam transferred $6,000 to Mr. Ratnam in January, 2009 from her line of credit. I find that money was, as the respondent claims, money she contributed to their expenses of that trip. There is no other conclusion to be drawn on the evidence before me. The timing of the advance, along with the fact that the couple were on holiday in India and Germany at the time, is convincing circumstantial evidence that the money had nothing to do with the purchase of a home.

[59] When questioned why she would advance $6,000 from her line of credit in January 2009 for a house purchased by August 31, 2010, Ms. Thuraisingam could provide no reasonable explanation.

[60] Mr. Ratnam testified that he could never afford a house in the past and only decided in March of 2010 to start trying for home ownership. That testimony is supported by his financial evidence.

[61] The applicant’s testimonial stretch in this regard has hurt her credibility on her claim of unjust enrichment. I find her claims regarding the rest of the money unreliable as a result.

2. The $10,000 transfer in August, 2009

[62] The applicant also borrowed $10,000 against her line of credit and gave it to the respondent in August, 2009.

[63] The respondent does not deny receiving the money. He claims however, that it was because the applicant was paying him back for appliances and furniture he purchased for her condominium where he stayed for a period in 2005.

[64] Again, the timing of the advance is more consistent with that than the applicant’s claim to be contributing money for the purchase of a house with Mr. Ratnam. His evidence that he was in debt due to the trip to India and Germany, the money he contributed to her condominium in 2005 and generally assisting with taking care of her and Sarujan financially, is consistent with his evidence that he needed to pay down his debt in order to afford a home. There is evidence that Ms. Thuraisingam did try to contribute to the couple’s living expenses. She gave Mr. Ratnam back $800 in January 2008 from money garnished from his wages by FRO because she and the respondent had reconciled and the respondent was, apparently, supporting her and Sarujnan.

[65] I am not satisfied by the applicant that this money was meant to help Mr. Ratnam purchase a home with her.

3. The $19,000 transfer in June, 2010

[66] This advance from Ms. Thuraisingam to Mr. Ratnam is closer to the acquisition of the 60 Cantwell property than the others. Ms. Thuraisingam owned a condominium she had rented out from October, 2009, and she was living with her mother and her son in Mississauga. In June, 2010, she advanced $19,000 to Mr. Ratnam. She claims it was for the purchase of the Cantwell property.

[67] Mr. Ratnam testified that he was owed this money from the applicant when he loaned it to her in 2005 to purchase her condominium, and pushed her to pay him back so that he could purchase the Cantwell home. He used the money to pay down debt and eventually put 5% down on the purchase price by cashing in his RRSPs and his Roger’s company stock. His mother was coming to live with him and would pay $800.00 of the $1800 mortgage payment negotiated with the bank.

[68] The applicant has failed to satisfy me of her claim in relation to this sum. Although it seems to be more closely tied with the purchase of the home and I do have doubts about Mr. Ratnam’s evidence on the reason for her advance to him of this sum of money, the applicant’s lack of credibility about the two previous amounts transferred to Mr. Ratnam does not allow me to trust her evidence about this sum.

4. $10,000 cash in the latter part of June 2010 from the sale of the applicant’s jewelry

[69] For reasons already stated, related to the applicant’s weak credibility in her claim, I find this difficult to believe. The respondent denies receiving this cash from Ms. Thuraisingam, although does admit to receiving it from a friend as a loan.

[70] It is difficult to accept either version about the funds. Ms. Thuraisingam claims she got the $10,000 in cash for her wedding jewelry from an uncle who is a jeweler in order to contribute to the Cantwell property purchase. She has no independent evidence of this claim in the form of a receipt or the uncle’s testimony about the transaction. In fact, it is not impossible that the applicant’s evidence on this point is a fabrication, created after reviewing Mr. Ratnam’s banking records and seeing the deposits, in an effort to boost the amount of her claim. I am led to that possibility because of her dubious testimony about some of the other funds and the rancorous state of their relationship.

[71] Whatever the truth about the money, the applicant’s claim fails in relation to this amount as well. I do not accept that the funds were received by the respondent from the applicant.

5. The $5,000 transfer in August, 2010

[72] Ms. Thuraisingam claims she gave Mr. Ratnam a further $5,000 for closing costs of the Cantwell property in early August, 2010. Mr. Ratnam denies receiving the money from her.

[73] There is no evidence, as with the alleged $10,000 cash from the sale of jewellery, that this money came from Ms. Thuraisingam. I find, due to her lack of testimonial reliability on this issue, that it was not.

[74] A total of $35,000 from January 2009, August 2009, and early June, 2010 went from the applicant to the respondent.

[75] Any money Ms. Thuraisingam contributed to the household expenses while she lived in the house with the respondent, whether cheques she wrote contained the word “mortgage”, is not evidence I would accept, on the facts of this case, to support any expectation she had in receiving an interest in the Cantwell property. That money was a contribution to regular expenses to support her day to day life there and with the respondent from the time of their reconciliation.

[76] The applicant has failed to prove Mr. Ratnam was unjustly enriched by the $35,000 she gave to him. The funds were either repayment of debt and/or financial contribution to their lives together. As well, the timing of the advances have no causal connection to the property in question [Sorochan v. Sorochan, 1986 Carswell Alta 143 (S.C.C.)].

[77] The fact that Mr. Ratnam was able to obtain a mortgage because the money advanced from the applicant helped him pay down his debts was not a contribution to the property direct or substantial enough to claim he was unjustly enriched.

[78] The parties’ relationship, while on and off over almost 15 years, was actually quite short in relation to this claim for unjust enrichment. She and the respondent lived together for less than two years in the Cantwell property.

[79] It is also telling that Ms. Thuraisingam readily moved out of the house when the respondent brought his other children to the home in July 2012. Both her and his actions, at that time, show that it was probably understood between them that Mr. Ratnam owned that home. I do not believe that he would have moved his other children in without telling her about it and the applicant would not have abandoned the property so quickly if she had any real financial interest in the home.

COSTS

[80] The mixed success in this judgment should have an impact on costs. I encourage the parties to attempt to resolve the issue. If they are unable to do so, then the applicant shall submit no more than three pages of written argument on the issue to me within fourteen days from the release of these reasons. The respondent has a further fourteen days to respond.

ORDER

[81] Commencing August 1, 2012, Mr. Ratnam is ordered to pay child support to Ms. Thuraisingham for their two sons, Sarujan and Devesh, in the amount of $1,174.00 per month for the year 2012; $1,144 each month for 2013; and $1,049.00 per month for 2014. He shall pay $284.10 per month from January 1, 2015.

[82] Mr. Ratnam shall pay spousal support commencing April 1, 2015 for a period of twenty four months, to Ms. Thuraisingam, in the amount of $200.00 per month.

[83] Ms. Thuraisingham’s claim of unjust enrichment against Mr. Ratnam is dismissed.

McWatt J.

Released: April 1, 2015