SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Joan Griffin, Applicant
AND:
Charles Edward Griffin, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice Louise L. Gauthier
COUNSEL: Helen Florentis, Counsel for the Applicant
B. Grewal, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: March 24, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
1Currently, the Respondent is paying spousal support in the amount of $897 per month, plus $50 per month towards arrears, pursuant to the Order of Del Frate J. made on July 30, 2012.
2While the parties agree that it is appropriate to reduce the spousal support, on a temporary basis, pending trial, given that the Respondent’s income has been reduced effective November 1, 2014, there is disagreement as to the appropriate amount of reduced spousal support.
3The Respondent’s affidavit states that his 2014 income from all sources was $47,784.52. The affidavit goes on to provide evidence of the ongoing income received. On an annualized basis, and based on the figures provided in the affidavit, the Respondent’s yearly income currently would be in the amount of approximately $32,000, without gross-up.
4SSAG calculations were attached as exhibits to the Respondent’s affidavit. It is not clear to me whether the income figures set out above were used or not. The guideline calculations attached yield two scenarios:
a. Low $577; Mid $673; and High $769 spousal support payable;
b. Low $168; Mid $196; and High $224.
5I note that both these calculations impute income of $28,617 to the Applicant. That amount includes the spousal support paid to her.
6At the hearing of the motion, counsel for the Respondent advised that she had a new range of spousal support based on the SSAG. That range was from a low of $422, a mid of 493 and a high of $563.
7Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the Survivor Benefits received by the Respondent should not be included in income for purposes of calculating the spousal support, given that those benefits relate to the death of the Respondent’s former spouse. That is a matter best addressed at trial, and supported by jurisprudence.
8Yet another range of spousal support was discussed, this one being from a low of $432, a mid of $504, and high of $576. This was provided by the Applicant and was based on the Respondent receiving $528.70 per week (written confirmation from WSIB dated October 23, 2014 put in evidence by the Applicant), plus $7,118 annually for combined C.P.P. and Survivor Benefits. The calculation included income of $16,110 being attributed to the Applicant. That figure is net of spousal support.
9The Order that I am making is temporary in nature. It is based only on the evidence which is before me. There may or may not be a conflict in the evidence about the Respondent’s actual income. There certainly is conflict in the SSAG calculations provided to me. Those calculations are not, in and of themselves, evidence and are meant only to assist in arriving at the appropriate amount of spousal support.
10Based on the evidence before me, I prefer the Applicant’s SSAG calculations which appear to reflect the current income being received by the Respondent, and the correct income (for support purposes) being received by the Applicant.
11In this case, the calculations provided by the Respondent cannot be relied upon as they include an imputation of income to the Applicant, which includes spousal support. That is not appropriate.
12For the reasons set out above, I will make the following Order:
Effective April 1, 2015, the Respondent shall pay the sum of $504 per month as spousal support to the Applicant. In addition, he shall continue to pay the sum of $50 per month toward arrears of support.
If the parties are unable to agree on the costs of the motion, they are to communicate with the Trial Co-Ordinator, within 20 days, to set up a date and time at which they may argue the issue of costs. That hearing will have a duration of no more than 30 minutes and the parties may participate by teleconference if they wish.
If the parties do not communicate with the Trial Co-Ordinator within 20 days of today’s date, they will be taken to have agreed on the costs of the motion.
13There is a procedural matter that should be addressed. The trial of this matter was set to proceed on April 28, 2015. Ms. Grewal is no longer available, given her involvement in a continuing child protection matter in her region. If Ms. Florentis agrees (or has agreed) to an adjournment of the trial, then a new date will have to be set. Counsel should communicate with the Trial Co-Ordinator to set such new date. Although this was discussed at the hearing of the motion, no final agreement was reached.
The Honourable Madam Justice Louise L. Gauthier
Date: March 25, 2015