Harrison v. Harrison, 2015 ONSC 3051
COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-1624-00
DATE: 20150512
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: NELSIE FLORES HARRISON, Applicant
AND:
WILLIAM HARRISON and GEORGIAN COACH LINES INC. and GEORGIAN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES INC., Respondents
BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice R.E. Charney
COUNSEL: Peter M. Callahan Counsel, for the Applicant
Self-Represented, for the Respondent
HEARD: BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
ADDENDUM TO ENDORSEMEnT RELEASED MAY 1, 2015
[1] Following the release of reasons on May 1, 2015 I received submissions from counsel for the Applicant advising that the Applicant’s calculation of retroactive support arrears owing pursuant to Justice McDermot’s January 15, 2015 Order was $9,320 as of March 26, 2015, the date on which this motion was brought (see para. 12 of my May 1, 2015 Endorsement). Mr. Harrison was served with these submissions and did provide a reply. I agree with counsel for the Applicant that the intent of my May 1, 2015 Order was to place a charge on the former matrimonial home for arrears of support up to the date of my decision. Counsel points out that there were two more months of arrears between the date he filed his notice of motion and the date of my endorsement. This amount is not in dispute. Since monthly support payments are $1,864.00, there should be an additional $3,728.00 added to the calculation of money owing at para. 21 of the Endorsement, so that the total charge on the former matrimonial home set out at paras. 2(b) and 25(b) of the Endorsement is amended to read “$44,298.00”, and those paras. now read as follows:
$44 298 will be a charge on the former Matrimonial Home at 23 Old Hickory Lane, Wasaga Beach, (Lot 61, Plan 51M-761; S/T ease over PT 6 51R32458 IN SC184541; Wasaga Beach) and paid in Trust to the Applicant’s lawyer when the property is sold to pay the retroactive support, severance payments and costs owed to the Applicant. If the property is closed within 60 days from the date of this order, the Applicant’s counsel shall hold back $8,126.19 from the payment made to the Applicant until the Respondent’s motion in relation to the Maila debt is dismissed or a different Order is made by this Court.
[2] I have also reviewed Mr. Callahan’s submissions regarding costs, and his explanation that there was an error in his cost outline which made it appear as though he was including time for March 12, 2015, which should have been for April 29, 2015. My costs award of May 1, 2015 did take into account the amount of time appropriate for the hearing of this motion on April 29, 2015, and I will therefore not make any change to the costs ordered in the May 1, 2015 Endorsement.
CHARNEY J.
Date: May 12, 2015