Cameron v. Cameron, CITATION: 2015 ONSC 196

COURT FILE NO.: D23860/13

DATE: 2015-01-12

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Michiko Cameron, applicant

AND: Robert Cameron, respondent

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL: Ms Faye Guilbeault for the applicant; the respondent self-represented

HEARD: January 7 and 9, 2015

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The parties began living together in the spring of 2006. They married on June 6, 2009 and separated on January 9, 2013. They have agreed on a parenting plan that provides for both children to spend half their time with each parent. Each one asks that his or her residence be named the principal residence and that provision be made for settling disagreements on major issues. The applicant seeks child support, spousal support and equalization of net family property.

[2] The applicant brought her daughter, Chelsea, into the relationship when it began in 2006. Chelsea’s biological father has little to do with her and does not pay the child support of $350 a month that the court ordered. The respondent agrees that he has demonstrated a settled intention to treat her as a child of the marriage. The applicant has refused to allow him to adopt the child.

[3] The respondent earns $82,000 a year. The applicant earned very little income in the year after the separation. She earned about $12,000 in 2014. She has, with OSAP loans and grants, and subsidized housing, managed to take courses at Niagara College. She has excelled in these courses and will graduate as a social service worker. If she gets a job, she can earn in the $30,000 to $35,000 a year range. Given her 91% average mark, I think that she can find a job within a reasonably short time after graduating.

[4] The present application was brought on February 5, 2013. Temporary orders have been made. On May 19, 2013 Maddalena J. ordered the respondent to pay child support of $1208 a month based on his then annual income of $83,000, retroactive to January 9, 2013. She also ordered spousal support of $850 a month commencing May 19, 2013, without prejudice as to amount or retroactive support. After engaging a parenting co-ordinator the parties agreed to a joint parenting arrangement that Reid J. put into the form of an order on consent at the settlement conference. Under the terms of this order, the children reside with the applicant on Mondays and Tuesdays and with the respondent on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and alternate between parents on the weekends. Both parties wish this arrangement to continue.

[5] Initially the applicant made efforts to restrict the respondent’s access to the children. This is unfortunate, and she must be assigned responsibility for this, but it is clear that since the intervention of the parenting co-ordinator both parents respect the rights and position of each other and the importance to the children of maintaining a good relationship with both parents. Also, the applicant got some very bad advice from her then lawyer (who was not Ms Guilbeault). The lawyer actually wrote to the respondent’s lawyer several times and indicated that further access would not be considered until the respondent complied with his demands for production. I find this shocking, but I am inclined to assign more blame to the lawyer than the client for this particular aspect of the affair.

Primary residence and dispute resolution

[6] Designation of primary residence is requested for the benefit of third parties such as schools. It seems to me that the court order should reflect the reality, which is that both residences are primary residences.

[7] The parties are sophisticated. They know the options available to them to settle disputes. The applicant asks me to require them to go to the parenting co-ordinator if they cannot agree on major issues. The respondent would prefer that I require them to go to arbitration. I think that they will be able to agree on the most practical manner of settling disagreements. If they cannot, they can come back to court. I do not expect that to be necessary.

Child support

[8] The parties agree on table child support, subject to the offset for shared custody. With the respondent earning $82,000 a year and the applicant $12,000, the amount is $1080 a month.

Spousal support

[9] The applicant was financially advantaged, rather than disadvantaged by the marriage. The respondent took her in at a time when she was not earning much money and she had a daughter to take care of, without a reliable father. He took on the daughter and took care of them both while the applicant made her contribution in the home. He also funded an English course. However, the applicant is disadvantaged by the breakup and is in need of support. She is also due compensation for her contribution to the home.

[10] The applicant is 42 years old. She is hard working and has above average intelligence. She has applied herself to her education and will have put herself into a position to earn money independently reasonably soon. For the time since separation, in which her income has not been above $12,000 a year, I think that $850 a month is appropriate. This figure falls in the range suggested by the SSAG. The respondent has been receiving this amount since May 2013. I would make this retroactive to the date of separation by ordering a lump sum of $1,600, as suggested by the applicant, which reflects the $3,400 that would have been paid less $1,800 credit for voluntary payments made by the respondent.

[11] The applicant’s income will no doubt increase to something in the range of $30,000 a year, but the timing is somewhat uncertain. As with many government jobs nowadays, she may have to accept part-time work for a period of time before being taken on full time. Ms Guilbeault suggests that spousal support should continue for two or three more years without being reduced. I am going to order that it continue for a further year and a half, which will result in a total of three and a half years of spousal support.

Equalization

[12] The parties’ consensus seems to be that the difference in net family property, without taking into account the respondent’s pension from work, is $98,000. Equal division would require him to pay $49,000 to the applicant. The applicant asks for equal division, considering the $60,000 gift from her mother for the down payment for the matrimonial home. I consider that to have been a gift to both parties. I give greater weight to the length of the marriage, which is only 3.5 years, together with the respondent’s contribution and the compensatory aspect of spousal support. I order the respondent to pay $39,200 to the applicant, which is 40% of the difference in net family property.

[13] I also order him to assign to the applicant the family law value of her interest in his CBSA pension in the given permitted amount, which is $22,103.

Conclusion

[14] An order may issue in the following terms:

a. The parties shall have joint custody of the children of the marriage, Chelsea Seaward born November 1, 2002 and Miles Cameron born March 19, 2007;

b. The children shall reside with the applicant on Monday and Tuesday of every week, with the respondent on Wednesday and Thursday of every week, and with the applicant or respondent on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays of alternate weeks.

c. Both residences shall be considered the children’s principal residence.

d. The party with whom the child is residing shall make day to day decisions for the child. Major decisions shall be made in consultation between both parents.

e. The respondent will pay child support to the applicant for both children fixed at $1080 per month, which is calculated by deducting the applicant’s table amount based on $12,000 annual income from the respondent’s table amount based on $82,000 annual income, pursuant to s.9 of the Guidelines, commencing February 1, 2015;

f. The parties will exchange copies of their income tax return and assessment every year on or before May 31 for the previous taxation year, commencing May 31, 2016. Child support shall then be adjusted annually with effect from June 1 of each year to reflect the incomes of the parties in the previous taxation year.

g. The applicant shall make reasonable efforts to locate Chelsea’s biological father and to collect child support from him and on May 31 every year the applicant shall report to the respondent in writing the efforts she has made to do so in the previous year and the results achieved, unless and until the respondent adopts Chelsea.

h. The respondent will pay retroactive spousal support to the applicant in the sum of $1,600.

i. The respondent will pay spousal support to the applicant fixed at $850 a month commencing February 1, 2015 and ending August 31, 2016;

j. The respondent will maintain the children as beneficiaries of his insurance benefits at work as long as they remain children of the marriage;

k. The respondent will maintain the applicant as beneficiary of his life insurance policy in trust for the children as long as he is required to pay child support;

l. The parties will split the cost of dental work, orthodontics and prescription drugs in proportion to their respective incomes. Insurance payments for such expenses count toward the contribution of the party who is the policyholder.

m. The respondent will pay $39,200 to the applicant on account of equalization of net family property;

n. The respondent will assign to the applicant the family law value of her interest in his CBSA pension in the permitted amount for the applicable period, which is $22,103.

o. As between the parties, each one is responsible for 50% of the debt incurred on the joint line of credit before January 9, 2013.

[15] A support deduction order will issue.

[16] The applicant may make three pages of written submissions to costs, attaching a bill of costs and any offer to settle, by January 19, 2015. The respondent may respond in like form by January 26, 2015.

J.A. Ramsay J.

Date: 2015-01-12