Watson v. Watson, 2015 ONSC 2091

Case Summary

Following a trial in a matrimonial proceeding, the court determined issues of equalization, spousal support, child support, and access. The court found that shares held by the respondent were beneficially owned by his father and excluded them from equalization. The court declined to grant the applicant a right of first refusal to purchase the matrimonial home, ordering its sale absent agreement. For support purposes, the respondent's employee retention bonus was included in his 2014 income. Spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, as the court found the applicant's new relationship was not yet spouse-like. Access was ordered according to the respondent's requested schedule, but made subject to the 14-year-old child's wishes.

CITATION: Watson v. Watson, 2015 ONSC 2091

COURT FILE NO.: 36176/13

DATE: 2015-03-31

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

TARA WATSON

Applicant

– and –

GREGORY ALLEN WATSON

Respondent

Peter M. Callahan, for the Applicant

Earl Taylor, for the Respondent

HEARD: November 25, 26, 27 & 28 and December 1 & 2, 2014

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GRAY J.

[1] The trial in this matrimonial case primarily involved equalization; spousal support; child support; access; and a variety of miscellaneous issues.

Background

[2] I will here recite some relatively non-controversial background facts, and I will expand on some more specific facts when I discuss the issues in dispute.

[3] The parties began cohabiting in June, 2000, and they married on February 16, 2006. They finally separated in September, 2012. There was a brief separation in 2009.

[4] The applicant has certain health issues, but they are currently under control.

[5] The parties have one child, Brock Mitchell Watson, born April 28, 2001. The respondent has a daughter from a prior marriage, Natasha Watson. She commenced living with the parties in 2001, when she was eight years old.

[6] The parties met while they were working for the same employer. In 2003, the applicant was dismissed after a corporate restructuring. The respondent remained in his employment with the

Watson v. Watson, 2015 ONSC 2091

Case Summary

Background

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 2

Legal Tests 2