CITATION: Johnson v. Johnson, 2015 ONSC 3875
COURT FILE NO.: FS-02-820-5
DATE: 2015/06/16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Michael Quinn Johnson
Applicant
– and –
Michele Denise Johnson
Defendant
Self-represented
Self-represented
HEARD AT OTTAWA: May 21, 2015
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KERSHMAN J.
introduction
[1] This motion is brought by the Respondent (“Mother”) to vary the amount of child support payable between the period January 1, 2013 and April 30, 2015.
[2] By order of Justice Kane dated March 19, 2012 the Mother was obliged to pay child support for two children, Taren Johnson, date of birth August 4, 1994 and Tevin Johnson date of birth February 16, 2000 in the amount of $322 per month.
CONSENT
[3] The Mother agrees that she should pay child support to the Applicant (“Father”) from May 1, 2015 for one child Tevin, based on her annual income of $21,000 per year. According to the Child Support Guidelines the amount of child support is $168 per month. The Father agrees that this amount would be payable from May 1, 2015. The Court orders that as of May 1, 2015 child support shall be $168 per month for Tevin Johnson based on her income of $21,000 per year.
Issue: Where did Taren live between 2013 and 2015 and what was he doing at the time?
Position of the Parties:
[4] The Mother argues that Taren moved from his Father’s home in January 2013 and began living with her and remained there until the end of 2014. From January to June 2013 the Mother’s evidence is that he did not attend school because he was having problems with drugs and other issues. From the summer of 2013 to the summer of 2014 Taren earned $6,000. He went to adult high school from September 2014 to December 2014 when he graduated. Thereafter, he was no longer in school. The Court does not know whether he was working after he graduated.
[5] The Father argues that he should not have to pay child support for Taren while he was not in school and working. Furthermore, while he was in adult high school, Taren was only taking part-time courses.
Analysis:
[6] Based on the evidence, the Court finds that Taren moved from his Father’s home to his Mother’s home in January 2013. While he was not in school between January and June 2013, based on his issues, the Court finds that child support should be paid. From July 2013 to August 2014 no child support is payable because Taren was earning income. From September 2014 to December 2014 the evidence was that he was in adult high school and completed his course. Therefore, the Court finds that the Father should pay child support from September 2014 to December 2014, even though he may have been in part-time attendance. Thereafter, no child support is payable for Taren.
Issue: How much Child Support should the Respondent pay for Taren from January 2013 to June 2013 and from September 2014 to December 2014?
Analysis:
[7] There is no actual income tax information about the Father’s income in 2012. The Court notes that his 2013 income tax return shows a total income of $56,854, of which $29,706 was from a withdrawal of pension monies. The Court imputes income to the Father for 2012 at $30,000 based on his 2013 income tax return. Child support for one child based on the income of $30,000 is $245 per month. Accordingly, the Father owes child support to the Mother of $245 per month for Taren for the period January 1, 2013 to June 1, 2013 inclusive, for a total of $1,470.
[8] In relation to the period from September 2014 to December 2014, the Father’s income was $56,854. The child support payable for one child based on that income in accordance with Child Support Guidelines is $516. The total amount of child support payable for Taren for that period of time was $2,064.
[9] Therefore, the total amount of child support owed by the Father to the Mother for Taren is $3,534.
Issue: How Much Child Support Should the Mother pay for Tevin?
[10] Tevin lived with the Father from 2013 to 2015 and still remains with his Father.
[11] At the present time Tevin is approximately 15 years old and child support is payable.
[12] According to the income tax returns filed by the Mother, her income in 2012 was $33,066, and her income in 2013 was $37,139. Her income in 2014 is only partially available. She started to work at the Canadian Medical Alliance in August 2014. Notwithstanding that fact, the court imputes income to her for 2014 of $21,000. Based on the aforesaid amounts, child support payable by the Mother for Tevin is as follows:
| Year | Income | Child Support Payable |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 | $33,066.00 | $ 281.00 x 12 = $3372.00 |
| 2014 | $37,139.00 | $ 326.00 x 12 = $3912.00 |
| 2015 | $21,000.00 | $ 168.00 x 5 = $840.00 |
| TOTAL: | $8124.00 |
[13] From January 2013 to December 31, 2014, the Mother owes the Father $8,124 and the Father owes the Mother $3,534 which leaves a net amount owing by the Mother to the Father of $4,590. In the event that there are any child support arrears prior to January 1, 2013, those arrears still are due and payable.
[14] In relation to past section 7 expenses from January 1, 2013, reasonable section 7 expenses are to be paid in proportion to the parties’ incomes and based on which child was living with which parent.
[15] The parties shall exchange income tax returns and Notices of Assessment on a yearly basis by July 1 of each year commencing July 1, 2015 and child support shall be amended commencing August 1 of each year.
[16] In addition, going forward reasonable section 7 expenses shall also be paid in proportion to the parties’ incomes.
[17] The payment of all arrears of child support including section 7 expenses and arrears are collectable by FRO and are payable at the rate of $150 per month commencing July 1, 2015.
Issue: Undue Hardship Claim by the Mother
Position of the Parties
[18] The Mother argues that due to financial hardship that she should not have to pay any child support arrears. Her evidence is that her second husband was not working for a period of time due to a medical problem and that she was supporting the whole family. In addition she claims that her eldest child moved back in with her and her family therefore creating an additional burden.
[19] The Father argues that the Mother does not have an undue hardship claim.
Analysis:
[20] The Court has reviewed the s.10(2) of the Child Support Guidelines. Based on the evidence, the Court does not find that the Mother falls into any of the categories set out in that section. There is no evidence as to whether the Mother’s new husband was earning some form of income whether from disability, employment insurance or otherwise. Furthermore, the evidence is that the eldest child had moved in with the Mother and that she was working and was earning an income.
[21] Therefore, the Court finds that the Mother’s undue hardship claim fails.
Costs:
[22] Success was divided. On that basis, the Court orders that there is no order as to costs.
[23] Order accordingly.
KERSHMAN J.
Released: June 16, 2015
CITATION: Johnson v. Johnson, 2015 ONSC 3875
COURT FILE NO.: FS-02-820-5
DATE: 2015/06/16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Michael Quinn Johnson
Applicant
– and –
Michele Denise Johnson
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KERSHMAN J.
Released: June 16, 2015