CITATION: W.G. v. K.G., 2015 ONSC 6160
COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-7636
DATE: 20151005
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
W.G.
David Reid, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
K.G.
Mary Anne Cummings, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: June 15, 16, 17 and 18, 2015
REASONS FOR DECISION ON COSTS - ADDENDUM
Conlan J.
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] After a four-day family law trial, in Reasons for Judgment reported at 2015 ONSC 4010, I ruled in favour of the Respondent mother, K.G. The main issues at trial were spousal support for K.G., child support to be paid by the Applicant father, W.G., medical benefits coverage for K.G., and whether W.G. had complied with an earlier Order made by Justice Price. On those contentious issues, K.G. was clearly successful.
[2] After receiving and reviewing written submissions on costs, in Reasons for Decision reported at 2015 ONSC 5226, I ordered that W.G., within thirty days of the release of those Reasons, pay to K.G. costs in the total amount of $54,700.00.
[3] By letter from her counsel dated 23 September 2015, K.G. asked that the Court issue an Addendum to its decision on costs to stipulate that the costs Order is enforceable under the provisions of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 31, as amended (“Act”).
[4] The said letter from K.G.’s counsel stated that the costs Order had not been paid and that W.G. had filed for bankruptcy. Authority for the request to issue an Addendum was provided, including the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in very similar circumstances, in the case of de Somer v. Martin, 2012 ONCA 908.
[5] W.G. was given the opportunity to respond to the letter from K.G.’s counsel. Counsel for W.G. submitted that “a court would not have the authority to make this Order once the declaration [the filing for bankruptcy] has been made” because “having already declared bankruptcy, the debt is effectively extinguished in law”.
[6] I do not accept that submission by W.G., for two reasons. First, the permanent extinguishment of certain debts does not occur on the filing for bankruptcy but rather upon discharge. Second, certain debts, such as support payments, are not extinguished at all. It would be grossly unfair to K.G. to refuse to grant the relief being sought simply because the costs did not become payable until after W.G. filed for bankruptcy, even though it is clear that the filing for bankruptcy occurred very shortly after the costs Order was made and was designed, no doubt, to try to avoid that liability.
[7] Having regard to de Somer, supra, I am satisfied that I have the authority to do what is being requested by K.G. Further, it is clear that spousal support and child support were key issues at trial. As such, the costs Order ought to be treated as a “support order”, as that term is defined in subsection 1(1) of the Act, be part of the support deduction order and be enforceable under the provisions of the Act. So ordered.
Conlan J.
Released: October 5, 2015
CITATION: W.G. v. K.G., 2015 ONSC 6160
COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-7636
DATE: 20151005
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
W.G.
Applicant
- and -
K.G.
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION ON COSTS - ADDENDUM
Conlan J.
Released: October 5, 2015