Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CITATION: Blondin v. Blondin, 2016 ONSC 1588
COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-1068
DATE: 20160304
RE: Guy Blondin, Applicant
AND
Elspeth Blondin, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice Mackinnon
COUNSEL: Thomas Curran, for the Applicant
Katherine Shadbolt, for the Respondent
HEARD: February 25, 2016
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Mr. Blondin moves for a temporary order for spousal support. Entitlement is conceded for the purposes of this motion. Ms. Blondin moves for child support and contribution to section 7 expenses for the parties’ three children.
[2] Only a brief statement of facts is necessary for the determination of these motions. The Blondin’s were married for 23 years. Mr. Blondin is 52. Ms. Blondin is 48. He has always been financially dependent upon her during the marriage. For the most part he worked as a parts manager through a company he co-owned called Motor Sports World. With the exception of one year, thought to be 1999, he earned minimal income. His recent earnings have been in the range of $5,000 per annum. Ms. Blondin is independently wealthy. She has a high net worth from which she derives her income. Her average income over the past three years is $315,000.
[3] The parties have three children. The oldest is currently residing in Halifax on a break year from Dalhousie University. Her mother supports her. The expectation is she will resume her university studies this September. The middle child attends McMaster University in Hamilton. He travels home to his mother’s to visit and for vacations. The youngest child resides at home and is a full time high school student at Ashbury College. Combined for three children, the education section 7 expenses total $67,000. To date the children have not been asked to contribute to these expenses.
[4] The parents agree all three children are dependent children at this time.
[5] Each party asks for income to be attributed to the other. I am satisfied to use Ms. Blondin’s three year average for the purpose of the motion. It reflects what the family has more or less been living on. Ms. Blondin submits that the court should impute income to Mr. Blondin because he voluntary left his job at Motor Sports World, is able bodied, and has long standing work experience. She submitted information showing a median salary for full time parts managers in Canada of $50,000 per annum.
[6] Mr. Blondin did leave his employment voluntarily, however it was not very lucrative employment. He has chosen to switch careers, to that of personal trainer. He says he is working towards building a career as a trainer by helping out in his friend’s studio, in the office and with some clients. He says in one affidavit, his income remains well below $1,000 per month. In his more recent affidavit, he says he is “interning” which usually means working without compensation.
[7] Mr. Blondin‘s current plan seems fairly vague, in terms of how his career will develop, the timing of it and his reasonable income expectation. Although he was financially dependent upon his spouse during cohabitation, now that they have separated, he has a legal obligation to use his best efforts to attain self-sufficiency and to contribute to the support of his children. There are some other deficiencies in his support claim as well. He has not provided financial statements for Motor Sports World. It may be that the company has some retained earnings in so far as he deposed that he and his business partner had been trying to accumulate funds to finance a move to what they hoped might be a more lucrative location. His only personal financial statement in the record is dated March 2015 and is admittedly out of date. Since delivering that financial statement Mr. Blondin has moved, and is currently sharing accommodation with the same friend who has the personal training business. I do not know what their shared expenses are or what her contribution to them is.
[8] Although Ms. Blondin did not ask me to, I considered dismissing the spousal support motion on the basis of incomplete and out of date financial information. Instead I will address those issues when I come to consider the appropriate commencement date for my order, and quantum in relation to need.
[9] I am satisfied that Mr. Blondin could easily earn $25,000 annual income either through full time work at slightly more than a minimum wage, or part time work as a parts manager. With his skills, and experience, and were he to devote the time and effort he is now devoting to his athlete/training endeavours, this is a low amount easily within reach.
[10] Both parties referred to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. Mr. Blondin asked for spousal support at the high end of the range having regard to the duration of the relationship, the dependency it created and the economic disadvantage he has sustained as result of its breakdown. He asked for the spousal award to commence on May 15, 2015, being the date he commenced his application. Ms. Blondin proposes low end support commencing as of the current date.
[11] Temporary spousal support will commence as of the date of issuance of the notice of motion, namely October 1, 2015. In my view, this date is appropriate to reflect the issues I have noted with respect to the applicant’s financial disclosure. The amount of spousal support ordered is $4,600 per month, intended to fall between the low end and midpoint of the SSAG ranges. I have selected this amount because in my view it reflects the amount of support the applicant has shown he needs, based on his out dated budget, with reductions for shared living expenses, but also with an overall budgetary increase to reflect a more customary standard of living enjoyed during cohabitation. It is supported by an adverse inference I have drawn from Mr. Blondin’s failure to provide a current financial statement reflecting his current living situation and his friend’s contribution.
[12] A temporary child support order shall also issue as of October 1, 2015 requiring Mr. Blondin to pay Ms. Blondin $304 per month child support and $823 per month for section 7 expenses, until further order of the court. No amount for the oldest child’s post-secondary expenses have been factored in to this award.
[13] Ms. Blondin asks the court to fix a timetable for disclosure and for a settlement conference. The parties shall complete documentary disclosure and questioning, if any, within 60 days. Either party may thereafter schedule the settlement conference.
[14] I encourage counsel to agree on the issue of costs of these motions. Failing agreement, I will receive written submissions not to exceed two pages plus attached bills of cost and any offers to settle the motion. These should be exchanged between the parties and delivered to me by April 15, 2016.
The Honourable Madam Justice Mackinnon
Date: March 4, 2016
CITATION: Blondin v. Blondin, 2016 ONSC 1588
COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-1068
DATE: 20160304
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Guy Blondin, Applicant
AND
Elspeth Blondin, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice Mackinnon
COUNSEL: Thomas Curran, for the Applicant
Katherine Shadbolt, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
J. Mackinnon J.
Released: March 4, 2016