Christakos v De Caires, 2016 ONSC 1501

CITATION: Christakos v De Caires, 2016 ONSC 1501

NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-13-42937-00

DATE: 20160302

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

Peter Panagiotis Nick Christakos Applicant

– and –

Gina Santos De Caires Respondent

M. Tweyman, for the Applicant

R. Heft, for the Respondent

HEARD: June 1-5 and November 16, 18, 19, 20, 2015

ADDENDUM TO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NICHOLSON J.:

[1] I released my reasons for judgment in this matter pertaining to the nine day trial on January 29, 2016. The issues for trial addressed in my judgment were spousal support and equalization. Although not a major focus during the trial, both counsel requested that my final order include an order that the parties be divorced. I inadvertently neglected to include the order for divorce and as such do so now. The Applicant Husband and Respondent Wife are hereby divorced and the divorce order takes effect 31 days from now.

[2] The issue of divorce and a further issue pertaining to life insurance were addressed by counsel for the Applicant Husband in supplemental submissions, which were submitted together with the Husband’s costs submissions. The Respondent Wife has responded to the Applicant Husband’s supplemental submissions. She agrees with the court making the order for divorce but is opposed to any variation of the insurance order. She argues that the Applicant Husband should be required to either bring a motion to change or appeal my original order.

[3] The Applicant Husband argues my order regarding life insurance should be amended as it far exceeds the aggregate child support obligation the Applicant Husband would have for the children. A consent order had previously been granted based upon set-off child support pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175. The Applicant Husband argues that the life insurance provision should not have taken into consideration the spousal support award in light of the fact that the spousal support was ordered as a lump sum amount. He has provided a DivorceMate calculation including the life insurance component showing the Husband’s obligation for life insurance amounts to $362,159 to secure child support. He further argues that my order should reflect that the life insurance be specifically identified as securing child support such that he be entitled to deal with the policy as he pleases after the child support obligation ends.

[4] I find that I have jurisdiction to address this issue of insurance under r. 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.

[5] I am guided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision of Katz v. Katz 2014 ONCA 606, 377 D.L.R. (4th) 264. In para. 74 of that decision the court stated: “Careful consideration should be given to the amount of insurance that is appropriate. It should not exceed the total amount of support likely to be payable over the duration of the support award.” The Applicant Husband has filed DivorceMate calculations to show the appropriate amount of insurance to secure the child support. The Respondent Wife has not filed any calculations to suggest that the original order for $1 million of insurance was appropriate.

[6] I agree with the Applicant Husband that the order I made with regard to life insurance could result in a windfall for the Respondent Wife. This was not my intention. The Applicant Husband has offered to maintain the designation of his sister as the beneficiary in trust for the children for the difference between the $1 million policy and the approximately $362,000 required to secure child support. As such the order with regard to life insurance should be amended and replaced with the following order proposed by the Applicant Husband:

[7] The Applicant Husband, Dr. Peter Christakos, shall maintain the Respondent Wife, Gina De Caires, in trust for the children as the revocable beneficiary on an insurance policy having a face value of $400,000, as security for support payments pursuant to s. 34(1)(i) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. When the child Isabel turns 16, the value of the policy may be varied to a face value of $100,000. The Applicant Husband may remove the Respondent Wife as irrevocable beneficiary entirely and deal with the policy as he pleases once the last child is no longer eligible to receive child support.

[8] No further order for costs will be made in relation to this Addendum.

Mr. Justice Paul Nicholson

Released: March 2, 2016