SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
CITATION: Rahim v. Adil, 2015 ONSC 79
COURT FILE NO.: 36676/14
DATE: 2015-01-07
RE: Amir Rahim v. Wajiha Adil
BEFORE: André, J.
COUNSEL: Amir Rahim, In-person
Wajiha Adil, In-person
HEARD: December 17, 2014, Milton
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The sole issue in this trial is whether the Applicant, Mr. Amir Rahim, should be ordered to obtain additional life insurance, with the Respondent, Ms. Wajiha Adil, named as irrevocable beneficiary, to secure his obligation to pay spousal and child support. Ms. Adil maintains that given the viccicitudes of the market and the uncertainty of Mr. Rahim’s employment, he should be ordered to obtain life insurance coverage in the amount of $370,000. Mr. Rahim, on the other hand, oppose Ms. Adils’ request on the ground that he has sufficient insurance coverage from his employment to secure his support obligations.
FACTS
[2] Mr. Rahim and Ms. Adil were married in 2006.
[3] They separated in 2013.
[4] The parties have a child, Mishal Rahim, who was born on July 18, 2010.
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
[5] The parties consented to a final court order dated September 26, 2014, which provided as follows:
(1) Paragraph 1 - The parties shall have joint custody of the child of the marriage namely Mishal Rahim, born July 18, 2010, with primary residence with the Respondent’s mother.
(2) Paragraph 5 - The Applicant shall pay child support in accordance with the guidelines, in the amounts of $1,154 per month, based on the father’s income of $135,364 for 2013, with payments to be made on the first month, commencing October 1, 2014.
(3) Paragraph 6 - The Applicant/Respondent shall pay for s. 7 expenses proportionately based on their respective incomes from time to time, with the Applicant’s income being $135,367 and the Respondent’s income being $84,000 for this purpose for the next 12 months.
(4) Paragraph 9 - The Applicant Husband shall pay the Respondent Wife periodic spousal support in accordance with the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, for the amount of $103 commencing October 1, 2014, and on the first day of each month thereafter up to and including March 1, 2018, at which time spousal support shall terminate on a full and final basis, with such payment being taxable to the wife and deductible to the husband.
(5) Paragraph 12 and 13 - That the Applicant Husband name the Respondent Wife as the irrevocable beneficiary and owner on any existing or future life insurance policies on the life of the Applicant through his employment, in order to secure any child and spousal support payments and requiring the Applicant to maintain same in good standing and to provide proof thereof forthwith when requested in writing by the Respondent to do so in the form of independent written verification from the insurance company.
(6) That the Applicant Husband’s estate be charged with his child support obligation.
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
[6] Ms. Adil submits that pursuant to s. 34(1)(i) of the Family Law Act, (“FLA”) R.S.O. 1990 c. F.3, Mr. Rahim should be required to take out an additional $370,000 insurance coverage, over and about the $189,000 coverage he already has, to secure his support obligations and to ensure that the education for the couple’s child is fully covered. She submits that Mr. Rahim will have paid $211,000 in spousal/child support by 2021. The parties, she contends, will require an additional $140,000 to cover the cost of their child’s post-secondary education for four years. Such additional coverage, Ms. Adil submits, is necessary, given that Mr. Rahim could easily remove her as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy from his present employer if he remarries. She also maintains that Mr. Rahim’s employment with Blackberry, his current employer, is uncertain, given the difficulties the company has recently experienced.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISISOINS
[7] Mr. Rahim vigorously opposes the order sought by Ms. Adil on the ground that it is grossly unfair for the following reasons:
(1) His current insurance with his company has coverage of $190,000 which is adequate to ensure his spousal and child support obligations which amount to $192,000 approximately.
(2) He has worked as a software engineer with Blackberry for six years. During the period, he has risen to the position of manager. He works on a number of contracts which his company has with governments and a few Intelligence institutions. He also works as an Adjunct Professor for the University of Waterloo and the University of Ontario. His employment is secure and hence there is no need for him to be required to take out additional insurance coverage to secure his support obligations.
(3) Requiring him to have additional coverage in the amount of $370,000 would result in Ms. Adil being the beneficiary of insurance coverage of approximately $560,000 almost three times the amount required to secure his support obligations.
ANALYSIS
[8] Ms. Adil indicates that s. 34(1)(i) of the FLA justifies the order that she seeks. The order she maintains, would ensure that their daughter’s post-secondary education needs are protected in the unlikely event that Mr. Rahim predeceased her.
[9] With great respect, I decline to make the order requested by Ms. Adil for the reasons that follow.
[10] First, Mr. Rahim has adequate insurance coverage to secure his support obligations to Ms. Adil.
[11] Second, paragraph 12 of the parties Final Minutes of Settlement mandates Mr. Rahim to name Ms. Adil as irrevocable beneficiary and owner on any existing or further life insurance policies on his life throughout his employment. It also affords Ms. Adil an opportunity, to request in writing, confirmation that Mr. Rahim has designated her as irrevocable beneficiary of his existing life insurance. She is entitled to receive written verification from the insurance company that she has been named irrevocable beneficiary of Mr. Rahim’s existing life insurance policy.
[12] Third, paragraph 13 of the Minutes of Settlement charges Mr. Rahim’s estate with his child support obligation. Therefore, in the event that Mr. Rahim predeceased Mishal Rahim, the amount of child support payable by Mr. Rahim to Ms. Adil could be claimed against his estate.
[13] Fourth, in my view, it would be patently unfair to have Mr. Rahim bear the expense of obtaining additional insurance coverage well exceed the amount of spousal and child support he is obligated to pay to Ms. Adil. It is difficult to justify such an order when Mr. Rahim’s support obligations is already protected by the provisions of the Minutes of Settlement both parties signed not too long ago.
[14] The only concern I have about the relevant provisions in the Minutes of Settlement dated September 28, 2014, is that it does not specifically mandate Mr. Rahim to obtain insurance coverage in the event he loses his present insurance coverage through his employment. This omission assumes a great deal of significance in this case given Mr. Rahim’s testimony that for religious reasons, he is opposed to the idea of seeking insurance coverage. Given his belief, it therefore behooves me to specifically order him to seek insurance coverage in an amount commensurate with his support obligations in the event that he loses insurance coverage through his employment.
DISPOSITION
[15] I, therefore, order that:
(1) In the event that Mr. Rahim loses his insurance coverage through his employment, he shall obtain a life insurance policy in an amount of $200,000, naming Ms. Wahija Adil as the sole irrevocable beneficiary of the policy, to secure his obligation to pay spousal and child support pursuant to s. 34(1)(i) of the FLA.
(2) Mr. Rahim shall provide Ms. Adil with written documentation annually that confirms the policy is in full force and effect. Mr. Rahim shall also direct his insurance carrier to notify Ms. Wahija Adil if there is a default in the payment of the premiums or coverage, to ensure that the policy does not lapse. Furthermore, Mr. Rahim shall direct the insurance carrier to provide confirmation regarding the status quo and details of the insurance policy to Ms. Wahija Adil whenever she requests it.
(3) Each party shall bear his or her own costs.
André, J.
DATE: January 07, 2015
CITATION: Rahim v. Adil, 2015 ONSC 79
COURT FILE NO.: 36676/14
DATE: 2015-01-07
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Amir Rahim v. Wajiha Adil
BEFORE: André, J.
COUNSEL: Amir Rahim, In-person
Wajiha Adil, In-person
ENDORSEMENT
André, J.
DATE: January 07 2015