ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FD13-1145
DATE: July 28, 2015
BETWEEN:
Ryan Timothy Phelps
Applicant
– and –
Zoe Michelle Julia Childs
Respondent
Edith M. Holly, for the Applicant
Linda A. Hanson, for the Respondent
ADDENDUM TO REASONS FOR DECISION DATED MAY 29, 2015
Quigley, J
[1] In my Reasons for Decision released on May 29, 2015, after a trial involving the above mentioned parties, I omitted making rulings of matters that were before me, as follows:
• Determination of Net Family Property and payment, if any, required from one party to the other;
• Determination of each party’s obligations relating to Section 7 expenses; and
• Determination of ongoing child support for 2015. In paragraph 21 of my earlier Reasons for Decision, the Court inadvertently failed to particularize the monthly amount of child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Tables for the Province of Quebec for 2014. Based on the applicant’s 2014 income in the amount of $34,525.00, an order shall go requiring child support by the applicant to the respondent in the amount of $692.00 per month.
[2] I received correspondence from counsel for both parties with the following observations. Counsel for the applicant states that the court is, in effect, functus, respecting these issues because a decision has already been rendered. No decision was rendered with respect to the NFP calculations and ongoing Section 7 expenses. Counsel for the respondent states that since a determination was not made with respect to Net Family Property and the Section 7 ongoing obligations that the court has jurisdiction to deal with those issues. I agree.
[3] Paragraph 167 of the Canadian Encyclopedic Digest states that:
Under the inherent powers of the court, every court has the power to vary its own orders to correct any obvious error to make them conform to the clear and express terms of the court’s decision. A court can vary them in such a way as to carry out its own meaning, and where language has been used which is doubtful, to make it plain.
[4] With respect to division of Net Family Property, the decision only related to the division of the matrimonial home as well as the interest in the Sequitur shares. To summarize the parties’ position with respect to other properties, the applicant claims that he would receive $48,604.32, being one-half of the net equity in the home, plus an additional $3,410.17, for a net payment to him of $52,014.49.
[5] The respondent’s calculation shows that the applicant would receive one-half of the net equity in the home, $48,604.32, less equalization owed by the applicant to respondent of $20,775.23, for a net payment to the applicant of $27,829.09.
[6] After a review of the respective Net Family Property statements and counsels’ submissions at the trial, I find that the respondent’s position is correct and, accordingly, a payment shall be made by the respondent to the applicant in the amount of $27,829.09.
[7] A further order shall go requiring the respondent to pay to the applicant the amount of $27,829.09, without interest, in equal monthly instalments of $1,000.00, commencing September 1st, 2015, until such time as the amount of $27,000.00 has been paid, with a final payment in the amount of $829.09.
[8] In paragraph 27 of my decision, I found that Section 7 expenses incurred for 2014 of $16,826.15 is beyond the scope of parents with modest means.
[9] In paragraphs 28 and 29 of my decision, I further indicated that to ignore monies received from the respondent’s structured settlements would be unfair to the applicant. I assessed the applicant’s obligation for Section 7 expenses for 2014 at $1,200.00 per year. The applicant’s obligation shall continue at $100.00 per month for the 2015 calendar year.
[10] Effective January, 2016, the parties are hereby directed to consult each with the other in order that they may determine and agree to the extraordinary and reasonable nature of any such expenses to be incurred. Section 7 expenses shall then be proportionately shared between the parties based on their annual incomes.
[11] For the purpose of calculating their respective percentages of financial responsibility, the applicant shall use his annual income as noted in Line 150 of his tax return. For the purpose of calculating the respondent’s responsibility, her annual non-taxable income shall be nominally grossed up, thereby reflecting a more fair and balanced means of determining her proportionate share.
[12] The applicant and respondent shall be required to file annual tax returns and assessments by June 1st in each year for the purpose of reviewing ongoing child support obligations and Section 7 expenses and provide copies to the other party.
[13] A final order shall issue accordingly.
The Honourable Mr. Justice M. J. Quigley
Released: July 28, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: FD13-1145
DATE: July 28, 2015
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Ryan Timothy Phelps
Applicant
– and –
Zoe Michelle Julia Childs
Respondent
ADDENDUM TO REASONS FOR DECISION DATED MAY 29, 2015
Quigley, J.
Released: July 28, 2015