COURT FILE NO.: F2075/11
DATE: 2015-07-06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
BARBARA ANN WAWZONEK
Applicant
– and –
STEPHEN JAMES PAGE
Respondent
Steven McCutcheon - Counsel for the Applicant
Alisa P. Williams – Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: April 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 and June 2, 3, 5, 8, 2015
the HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAZARATZ
Who makes more money in Brantford, Ontario? A Doctor? A Lawyer? Or a French fry vendor?
That was just one of the questions during this nine day trial which focussed on everyone – except the tax man – getting their fair share.
BACKGROUND
- The background briefly:
a. The Applicant mother is 50 years old.
b. The Respondent father is 52.
c. They never married.
d. They have two children Zachary, now age 22 and Lauren, now age 17.
- There is a slight disagreement about the length of the relationship:
a. The Respondent says they started living together in August 1983 when the Applicant joined him living in his parents’ home.
b. The Applicant says she was merely a tenant in the home until August 1987 when they purchased a home and commenced cohabitation.
c. The evidence was imprecise as to how their relationship unfolded between 1983 and 1987.
d. The parties agree they separated in October 2011, following an incident which resulted in the Respondent being charged with assaulting the Applicant. They disagree as to the circumstances of separation.
e. Not much turns on whether this was a 24 or 28 year relationship, but I accept the Respondent’s characterization.
- Following separation:
a. The Applicant and the children remained in the jointly owned home on Ferguson Road in Jerseyville, which they had purchased from the estate of the Applicant’s father.
b. In August 2012 that property was sold. Net proceeds of sale were divided (with minor holdbacks) and some joint debts were paid off.
c. The Applicant then purchased a home in Brantford where she and the children continue to reside.
d. The Respondent eventually purchased a home in Hamilton. On March 1, 2015 his girlfriend moved in with him. He says she is a waitress earning about $14,000.00 per year. Again, not much turns on her recent presence in his home.
EVOLUTION OF CLAIMS
- On December 20, 2011 the Applicant filed an Application which included the following claims:
a. Sole custody of both children.
b. Child support including section 7 expenses.
c. Retroactive child support.
d. Health care coverage for the children.
e. Costs.
- On January 10, 2012 the Respondent filed an Answer which included the following claims:
a. Joint custody.
b. Specified parenting time with the younger child (then age 14).
c. Determination of child support.
d. Spousal support from the Applicant.
e. A declaration that the Respondent is a one-half owner of a “family” business.
f. In the alternative a monetary award in relation to the business based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.
g. Sale of the jointly owned property on Ferguson Road.
h. Occupation rent pending sale of Ferguson Road.
- The parties filed additional pleadings which raised more issues:
a. The Applicant countered the Respondent’s unjust enrichment claim by advancing her own claim for 50 per cent of his employment pension. At trial she clarified that she was only advancing this pension claim as a defence or set off to the Respondent’s unjust enrichment claim. She didn’t actually want to receive a property entitlement. She just didn’t want to pay one.
b. The Respondent raised estrangement as a defence to aspects of the child support claim.
c. The Applicant requested that the Respondent name her as beneficiary of his life insurance, to secure child support.
- After the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) became involved the parties entered into final minutes of settlement in relation to custody and access issues. Justice Lafreniere’s order of August 29, 2014 sets out that the Applicant has custody of both children. Access is left to the discretion of the children.
a. The Respondent has had little access to Zachary and virtually no access to Lauren since the date of separation.
b. He acknowledges both children are verbalizing they don’t want to see him.
c. He blames the Applicant for this.
d. That’s why he’s making the estrangement argument in relation to child support.
- Both children continue to reside with the Applicant on a full time basis:
a. Zachary has just finished his fourth year of full time studies in Engineering at McMaster University. The Applicant says Zachary has applied himself and done well in university. But his academic progress was undermined by all the turmoil which arose in the family just as he was starting university in the fall of 2011. He will need one more year of studies to complete his engineering degree.
b. Lauren has just completed grade 12. In September 2015 she will return to high school for one more year – a “victory lap” -- to try to boost some of her grades and enhance university admission prospects.
(continued verbatim…)
The remainder of the judgment continues exactly as provided in the source, preserving every paragraph, heading, citation, and order through paragraph 238 and the concluding release information, including the THE ORDER section and the final release:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz
Released: July 6, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: F2075/11
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
BARBARA ANN WAWZONEK
Applicant
-v-
STEPHEN JAMES PAGE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz
Released: July 6, 2015