COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-897-2 DATE: 2016/07/21 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Robert Charron, Applicant AND Nicole Denyse Carrière, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice A. Doyle
COUNSEL: Lorna F. Baldwin, Counsel for the Applicant Hunter Phillips, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: June 30, 2015 at Ottawa
Endorsement
[1] The applicant is applying to vary child and spousal support provisions of the separation agreement signed by the parties on March 20, 2013. He is requesting a retroactive adjustment to October 2013 and an order imputing income to the respondent.
[2] The respondent opposes the motion on two grounds:
i) there has not been a material change of circumstances, and
ii) if the Court finds that there has been a material change of circumstances, the Court should impute income to the applicant pursuant to s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines (Guidelines).
[3] Therefore, the issues are as follows:
i) Has there been a material change of circumstances?
ii) If the answer is yes to (i), what is the applicant’s income for the purposes of determining support?
iii) What is the respondent’s income for the purposes of determining support?
Background
[4] The parties were married on August 27, 2003. They had two children of the marriage, Jordan, born November 18, 2005, and Preston, born September 5, 2008.
[5] The parties separated on August 22, 2011. They attended mediation and executed a separation agreement (“agreement”) dated March 2013 which provided for the following:
The parties agreed to a shared parenting arrangement whereby the children would reside equally with their parents;
The parties acknowledged that the respondent was currently self-employed and worked out of the matrimonial home part-time as a hairdresser and that the applicant was employed full-time as a pharmaceutical sales representative;
In paragraph 60, the parties acknowledged that the applicant was interviewing for new employment and that he would provide a copy of any new employment contract when he signed the contract;
The parties agreed that they would ensure that support payable by the applicant would result in each party receiving 50% of the Net Disposable Income (NDI);
The applicant was to pay child support of $1148 per month (the set-off amount) and spousal support of $845 per month;
Support was based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs). Calculations attached to the agreement show the respondent with $8000 worth of self-employment income and the applicant with a total income of $78,113;
Paragraph 28 indicates that neither parent would register the children in any activity without the other parent’s prior consent which would not be unreasonably withheld;
There would be a review of child support or spousal support if there was a material change of circumstances which affects the payments. A material change of circumstances may be foreseen or unforeseen, foreseeable or unforeseeable;
Both parties acknowledged that they had an opportunity to request additional financial disclosure and that there were no outstanding requests for financial disclosure;
Paragraph 63 provides for quarterly reconciliation of child related expenses. The parties were to exchange receipts and review the expenses that each of them had incurred. Once reconciliation had been completed, the parties would ensure that payment would be made within 30 days to ensure that they both equally paid their share of child related expenses.
Paragraph 55 stated: Nicole estimates that she will earn approximately $8000 worth of net professional income through her home-based hair salon which will be moved to her new home. When Preston began attending school full time, Nicole increased her work hours. She also increased her marketing of her business with a view to increasing her work hours to full time hours, bearing in mind her child care responsibilities after school. Nicole will continue to work evenings and weekends when the children are in Rob’s care. In an effort to maximize her income, Nicole has also applied for several part time jobs. In the event that she secures employment of any kind, she will notify Rob and provide him with details of her compensation package.
[6] The parties are content with the current parenting arrangement. Neither party is seeking to change the percentage of NDI to be attributed to each party.
The Applicant
[7] The applicant was a pharmaceutical sales representative from 1999 to 2014. In that period he worked for 10 different companies. He had been laid off 8 times in 12 years. At times, he earned over $100,000. He has a kinesiology degree and a teaching degree.
[8] After the separation in 2012, the applicant borrowed $10,000 from the joint line of credit (LOC) to fund a business plan for a new business called Kids Kingdom. He agreed to be fully responsible for this amount. Kids Kingdom is a daycare and play centre.
[9] In May 1, 2012 he obtained shares in Kids Kingdom and the share register attached to his financial statement shows that he received 10 shares in Kids Kingdom. The business opened in August 2014.
[10] He had no work as a pharmaceutical representative from September 2013 to February 2014.
[11] He obtained employment with a pharmaceutical company in February 2014 with a salary of $58,000 per year but was laid off after 3 weeks.
[12] He indicated that he could no longer deal with the stress of the short-term contracts and decided to work at Kids Kingdom.
[13] Kids Kingdom’s financial statements show that for 2014 (five months) gross sales were $212,177 and there was a net loss of $171,000. In 2015 the gross sales were $526,098 and the net loss was $121,000.
[14] The applicant draws a salary of $540 per week, i.e. $28,080 per year. He drives his boss’s vehicle.
[15] His income was as follows:
2009: $103,910 2010: $107,223 2011: $80,834 2012: $48,603 2013: $73,763 (The parties agree that the collapse of $51,842 of RRSP’s by the applicant to pay for the equalization payment is not to be considered income for the purposes of determining support.) 2014: $32,790 2015: $33,535 (which includes employment income of $29,700 plus net rental income of $2500 plus $1335 RRSP income)
[16] Arrears accumulated pursuant to the agreement as he could no longer make the support payments. He tried to negotiate a variation but the respondent indicated that she was not prepared to attend mediation without full financial disclosure.
[17] He made no payments until the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) began enforcement. He is currently paying $950 per month combined spousal and child support as per an agreement with FRO.
[18] The applicant was credited for payments of $4600 with FRO due to the car loan payments of $196.61 bi-weekly he made on behalf of the respondent.
The Respondent
[19] The respondent is 36 years old. At the time of the execution of the agreement, the respondent worked part-time as a hair dresser and sold jewelry. She ceased selling jewelry after the separation as she could no long afford to buy the jewelry. She obtained part-time work with OshKosh at minimum wage. In November 2014 the company insisted that all part-time employees work evenings and weekends. As this policy would interfere with her caregiving responsibilities, she resigned.
[20] At this time she works 10 hours per week with an insurance company and continues to work as a hairdresser on a part-time basis.
[21] Her Line 150 income as shown in her notices of assessment are as follows:
2012: ($119) 2013: $11,868 2014: $5515 2015: employment income of $9916 plus net business income of $4038.65 and negative commissions of $2950 plus Universal Child Care Benefit of $1440 for a total of $12,444.47
[22] The current arrears on the FRO print-out as of June 15, 2016 are $36,639.67 but FRO miscalculated the arrears as they failed to show the proper accrual of support pursuant to the agreement. As of June 15, 2016, the actual amount of arrears owing are $42,809.
Has there been a material change of circumstances?
Applicant’s Position
[23] The applicant indicates that there has been a material change in his circumstances as he was laid off from his employment as a pharmaceutical sales person in September 2013 and again in February 2014.
[24] In February 2014 the applicant received full-time employment as a pharmaceutical sales representative for Vanguard Pharma on a one-year contract with a possible renewal. He was let go after three weeks of being hired.
[25] The pharmaceutical industry prefers to hire people for short-term contracts. He submits that starting a business was reasonable and realistic.
[26] The agreement contemplated him earning $78,113 and support was calculated on that income. In 2013, the applicant actually earned $73,763 that year, not taking into account the deregistering of an RRSP of approximately $51,000 to allow him to make the equalization payment.
[27] On September 6, 2014, the applicant received 100% of the shares of 2422020 Ontario, a holding company owning a one third interest in Kids Kingdom Play Centre Inc., a one-half interest in Kids Kingdom Play Centre Plus Daycare Inc., a one third interest in Kids Kingdom Daycare Inc. and a one-fifth interest in Kids Kingdom Orleans Amusement Inc. He borrowed $200,000 from his parents to purchase his interests in the aforementioned.
[28] The applicant renovated and rented out the basement apartment. In 2015, he was renting the apartment for $950 per month with a net of $2500 for the year.
Respondent’s position
[29] She submits that there has not been a material change of circumstances. The applicant had already started to set up the Kids Kingdom business before the agreement was signed with the intention of quitting his sales job. He paid support for only 4 months and then stopped paying support.
[30] At the time of the separation agreement execution on March 29, 2013, he was well advanced in the planning of his new business venture of Kids Kingdom as follows:
He had borrowed from the joint LOC for the business in the amount of $10,000;
He had incorporated Kids Kingdom Play Centre on May 1, 2012 (a year before the separation agreement), which was not disclosed at the time of the execution of the agreement;
He borrowed $50,000 from a friend on March 25, 2013 to support an application for a loan at the bank; and
In February 2012, he had already developed a business plan and had looked into a location for the business.
[31] The respondent states that although she was aware of the applicant’s desire to start his own business, he did not disclose that he already incorporated the business, obtained a bank loan and found a location.
[32] She claims that he breached his obligation to provide complete financial disclosure. Rick v. Brandsema, 2009 SCC 10, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 295, states at para. 47 that there is: “… a duty to make full and honest disclosure of all relevant financial information to protect the integrity of the result of the negotiation in these uniquely vulnerable circumstances. The deliberate failure to make such disclosure may render the agreement vulnerable to judicial intervention where the result is a negotiated settlement that is substantially at variance from the objectives of the governing legislation.”
[33] She also relies on Hickey v. Princ, 2015 ONSC 5596, 127 O.R. (3d) 356 (Div. Ct.), which states that a payor who voluntarily retires is not entitled to automatically vary support.
Legal Principles
[34] Section 35 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, stipulates that upon the filing of a domestic contract with the clerk of the Family Court of the Superior Court of Justice, it may be varied as if it were an order of the Court.
[35] Section 37 of the Family Law Act provides that the Court may vary an order for support if it is satisfied that has been a material change of circumstances.
Analysis
[36] In determining whether there has been a material change of circumstances, the Court must determine if the parties’ respective financial positions have changed since the date of the agreement. The parties agreed that material change of circumstance could be foreseen, unforeseen, foreseeable or unforeseeable.
[37] The Court finds that the applicant’s business was certainly underway at the time of the execution of the agreement. He had paid for a business plan, incorporated the business, purchased shares and he was canvassing locations.
[38] However, despite these plans, he was still working as a pharmaceutical representative. The agreement acknowledges that the applicant was interviewing for new employment and that he would provide a copy of any new employment contract as and when he signed the contract. There was a clear expectation that the applicant would continue in the pharmaceutical sales field.
[39] He worked until the fall of 2013 and located another sales job in early 2014, but was laid off shortly thereafter. The respondent speculates that he resigned from that job because she told him the amount of support he would have to pay. There is no evidence that he voluntarily resigned.
[40] A change of employment from being a sales representative to becoming self-employed with a significant reduction of income is a material change of circumstances which entitles the Court to review the quantum of support payable.
[41] The agreement confirmed that the parties had disclosure and there were no other outstanding disclosure requests. The applicant had been open with the respondent with respect to his business interest as he had borrowed the $10,000. She was not aware of all of the details, but certainly she could have probed for more details if she wished. In the Rick v. Brandsema (Rick) case, the husband exploited the wife’s mental instability and she accepted a settlement based on misleading information. He concealed $233,000 in cheques and provided a farm valuation based on speculative taxes and understated other properties’ value.
[42] In this case, the applicant’s interest in embarking on this business venture was known by the respondent at the time of the execution of the agreement. He had incurred a sizeable amount of debt for a business plan: $10,000. This is not a paltry sum. The parties agreed that they were satisfied with disclosure. Unlike the Rick case, the respondent did not lose sizeable monies in either equalization payment or support. The lack of disclosure dealt with the incorporation and seeking a location for the business. In the end, the agreement was not “substantially at variance from the objectives of the governing legislation” as in the Rick case.
What is the applicant’s income for the purposes of determining support?
Applicant’s position
[43] The applicant submits that his decision to leave the volatile pharmaceutical sales representative field was reasonable.
[44] There is a great deal of stress in being laid off and attempting to locate another position. Lack of job security can be financially challenging.
[45] His educational background provides him some insight into working with children.
[46] It is reasonable for him to work in a business that will provide him a steady income and hence meet his financial expenses and the family’s needs.
Respondent’s position
[47] She submits that he is wilfully under-employed.
[48] She claims that his income should be imputed at $101,000 which is the average income of the three years before the final separation agreement was executed.
[49] He made decisions regarding his employment when he had financial obligations pursuant to the agreement and he knew that the respondent had little income and little education.
[50] She notes that the termination letter dated September 2013 was authored by an individual he had never met. He states that he was dismissed due to restructuring.
[51] She submits that his plan to start a business was not reasonable as he has no experience and hence it was a bad decision for the family.
Legal Principles
[52] The purpose of the Guidelines is to establish a fair standard of support that ensures that children continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation, using a methodology that strives to achieve objectivity, efficiency and consistency: Obodoechina v. Ayetor, 2013 ONCJ 738.
[53] The Court may impute income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances where the spouse is intentionally underemployed or unemployed pursuant to section 19 (1)(a) of the Guidelines. There is no need to find intent to avoid child support obligations to impute income under section 19 of the Guidelines.
[54] There is a duty on the part of the payor to actively seek out reasonable employment opportunities that will maximize their income potential so as to meet the needs of their dependants: Thompson v. Thompson, 2013 ONSC 5500.
[55] In Drygala v. Pauli (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 711, the Court of Appeal indicated the Court must consider the following three questions:
(i) Is a spouse intentionally underemployed or unemployed?
(ii) If so, is the intentional underemployment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs?
(iii) If the answer to question number two is negative what income is appropriately imputed in the circumstances?
[56] At paragraph 28 the Court states:
Read in context and given its ordinary meaning, "intentionally" means a voluntary act. The parent required to pay is intentionally under-employed if that parent chooses to earn less than he or she is capable of earning. That parent is intentionally unemployed when he or she chooses not to work when capable of earning an income. The word "intentionally" makes it clear that the section does not apply to situations in which, through no fault or act of their own, spouses are laid off, terminated or given reduced hours of work.
[57] Parents can take jobs which generate less money as long as the decision is reasonable. But a support payor cannot select a job merely because it suits his or her purposes. When an employment decision results in a significant reduction of child support, it needs to be justified in a compelling way: Riel v. Holland (2003), 61 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.); Tillmans v. Tillmans, 2014 ONSC 6773, 53 R.F.L. (7th) 210, at para 60.
[58] The person making the decision to start a business in which he has no experience may result in a finding that he is intentionally underemployed: Dang v. Hornby (2006), 33 R.F.L. (6th) 113 (Ont. S.C.); Ruszczak v. Scherbluck, 2012 ONCJ 14.
[59] All of these principles have a common theme: reasonableness. Parents are required to act responsibly when making financial decisions that may affect the level of child support available. They must not arrange their financial affairs so as to prefer their own interests over those of their children: Stewart v. Turner, 2014 ONCJ 464.
[60] A common situation arises where one of the parents involuntarily loses his or her job though a layoff followed by a lengthy period of unemployment. Where the recipient alleges the payor should have been able to find substitute employment if they had looked hard enough, a contextual analysis is required. The payor’s situation, options, and opportunities must be considered in the context of other individuals – or in the case of mass plant closures, groups of individuals – facing similar circumstances. The Court must be mindful of employment rates and trends, and economic conditions as a whole. The analysis cannot be done in the abstract: Gee v. McGraw, 2014 ONCJ 87; Miller v. Volk (2009), 74 R.F.L. (6th) 61 (Ont. S.C.).
[61] Where a party chooses to pursue self-employment, the Court will examine whether this choice is a reasonable one in all the circumstances: Smith v. Smith, 2012 ONSC 1116.
[62] The Court will not excuse the payer from the support obligations where the party has persisted in un-remunerative employment or pursued unrealistic and unproductive career aspirations: Tillmans, at paras. 61-62; Le Page v. Porter (2000), 7 R.F.L. (5th) 335 (S.C.).
[63] The Court must consider not only the amount of income earned by the parent, but the amount that they could earn if they were working to capacity: Le Page v. Porter, at para. 26.
[64] The Court must have a rational and solid evidentiary basis to justify an imputation. The onus is on the person requesting an imputation of income to establish this evidentiary basis: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, 65 R.F.L. (6th) 17.
[65] The parent against whom the imputation of income is sought must make full and complete financial disclosure to ensure that the information required to make a decision on the issue is before the Court: Mansoor v. Mansoor, 2012 BCSC 602; Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548.
[66] Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position he is taking: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663, 15 R.F.L. (7th) 344.
[67] In order to impute income to a parent pursuant to section 19 of the Guidelines, the Court must exercise a test of reasonableness. The Court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn in light of his employment history, age, education, skills, health, available employment opportunities, and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage: Algner v. Algner, 2008 SKQB 132; Molnar v. Bruton, 2013 SKQB 301, 428 Sask. R. 136.
Analysis
[68] Firstly, the Court finds that the applicant is under-employed.
[69] At the time of the agreement, the applicant was earning over $73,000 per annum. He now earns half that amount. During the marriage, his income fluctuated and he was able to earn annual income of $100,000. Even though the applicant did not have job security, his employment provided a substantial income to support his family. This was the income the family was benefitting from while he worked as a sales representative. He has the potential to earn close to a six-figure income. Therefore, the respondent has met the onus of proving that the applicant is under-employed.
[70] The onus now shifts to the applicant to show that his decision regarding his career choice is reasonable.
Is the applicant’s decision to not continue in the pharmaceutical sales field reasonable?
[71] He decided he could no longer tolerate the substantial stress and aggravation of repeated short-term contracts. Throughout the marriage he was on short term contracts and had numerous contracts.
[72] The Court finds that it was reasonable for the applicant to look for another field of work. He is 45 years old and there is no job security in his industry. His decision to leave an industry which results in the constant change of employment which occurred in the past decade is not unreasonable.
Was it reasonable for him to start a business rather than look for other sales position?
[73] However, the Court finds that the applicant should have looked for other employment that secured more income, including but not limited to sales work.
[74] The Court does not find it reasonable to start running a business when he has had no experience in running a business. In addition, he lacks experience with daycares and children’s play centres.
[75] However, the business’s financial statements to date continue to show losses. The business has been operated for two years; the figures are dismal. They are operating at a loss. The combined losses for both daycare and play centre were $240,000 in 2014 and $221,000 in 2015.
[76] There has been an increase in gross revenue, but also an increase in expenses and no significant prospect of future success.
[77] He currently collects a salary of $540 per week which amounts to $28,000 per year, which is approximately $14 per hour – just above minimum wage. This is not a salary sufficient to support a family.
[78] The Court notes the financially precarious situation of the business as, at this time, a silent partner contributes $30,000 a month towards basic expenses for the business.
[79] He has a responsibility to seek employment in areas of his expertise, namely sales or a position utilizing his educational background.
[80] How can he support his children, pay a mortgage of $1669.77 a month, and $449 per month in taxes while working at his current position? He only draws an income of $2423.47 per month. He has the additional rental income of $950 per month (annualized $2500 net). His total yearly expenses are $63,000. He is running into debt and borrowing from others. This level of earned income is not sustainable for a growing family.
[81] The applicant has been in sales for most of his working life and has now embarked in a business venture dealing with kids’ daycare and play. There is no evidence with respect to his partners’ experiences and what his duties are and what he does.
[82] It is not unreasonable for him to find other employment when the pharmaceutical industry does not provide job security. However, it is not reasonable for him to go into a business he has little familiarity with and no business acumen.
[83] The children cannot and should not wait until the business becomes profitable. The Court notes that the silent partner is keeping the business afloat with his/her continuous monthly contribution. This is a bad decision for the family.
[84] The applicant indicates that reasonableness should also be measured with other factors, not just money. However, when dealing with child support and ensuring that the children’s needs are met, the financial component is the most important factor.
[85] The real question is: Is the applicant’s employment decision reasonable in light of his age, work, experience, education, job opportunities and health?
[86] The answer is no. It is not reasonable for him to enter into a business arrangement where he is only earning an annual salary of $28,000 when he has a family to support.
[87] In February 2014, the applicant obtained full-time employment as a pharmaceutical sales representative for Vanguard Pharma with a one year contract for $58,000.
[88] The respondent claims that he quit when she told him the new support amounts. He states that he was laid off.
[89] He states that he is well suited as he has experience in sales and his teaching degree assists in his work with the children. However, he admitted in questioning that he had only worked in the pharmaceutical industry and has no prior experience in business. There is no evidence of how his work in the business relates to his education and previous work experience.
[90] He knew that the respondent’s income was low, that she had no education and was relying on his support. He had a job with Vanguard and for no reason he appeared to be laid off. The letter found at tab two of the husband’s brief was signed by someone whom the husband admitted in questioning that he had never had a discussion with.
[91] Therefore, the Court imputes income as per his last job as a sales representative at $58,000 per year. He cannot unilaterally reduce his income by over 50% and expect to substantially reduce his support obligations. It is reasonable for him to find work that pays that level of income.
[92] He must meet his obligations that he agreed to in the agreement and the Court will give him time for him to reach the income he had in 2013 when he signed the agreement, i.e. $73,000. This income will be imputed to him in 2017.
What is the respondent’s income for the purposes for determining support?
Applicant’s position
[93] The applicant submits that the respondent is under-employed.
[94] The father indicates that she could work and earn $23,000 a year. She has 16 years of hairdressing and would not need to enter into an entry-level position.
[95] As in Curry v. Curry, 2016 ONSC 1893, income should be imputed in this situation. $20,000 to the wife after 3 ½ years from the separation is appropriate. The agreement contemplates the mother “maximizing her income”.
[96] The parties have a joint obligation to support both children.
Respondent’s position
[97] She indicates that she is in a different position than the wife in the Curry matter where the wife had a teaching degree and a principal’s certificate and had taken work supply teaching.
[98] The mother has a grade 12 education, is trained as a hairdresser and has young school-aged children and hence she requires a flexible schedule.
[99] She would have daycare expenses if she worked outside the home that would have to be paid. She currently works evenings and weekends when the applicant has the children. She has limited job opportunities.
[100] She will be in a better position to work full-time when the children are teenagers and then can be home after school. It is her position that she wishes to be available for the children after school.
Analysis
[101] The Court finds that the applicant is under-employed.
[102] Before the separation, she worked at OshKosh from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. and quit that job to work at the school for one hour over lunch.
[103] At the time of the separation she was hairstyling and selling jewellery for Stella and Dot, on line. After separation, she stopped selling jewellery because she could not afford to buy the jewellery to sell. She worked part-time at OshKosh for minimum wage. She quit OshKosh in November 2014 when the new manager wanted all part-time employees to work evening and weekends, which would interfere with her parental responsibilities.
[104] She currently works for Jarrett Thompson Insurance and Financial 5 hours per day 2 days per week and continues hairdressing on other days, evenings and weekends.
[105] The applicant indicates that he offered full-time employment to the respondent at his business when she was laid off from OshKosh. She refused work full-time from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
[106] He indicates that his sister, a recruiter, offered the respondent employment opportunities, including a taste demonstrator at LCBO with a generous salary.
[107] She is now 36 years old and needs to market her business. She cannot just deliver flyers in her neighbourhood. She only grossed $13,000 this year. In her questioning, she remarked that she needed to be home for the children after school until they are teenagers.
[108] In 2015, she earned only $12,444.
[109] The Court finds that it is not reasonable for her to earn less than minimum wage. She can make arrangements for after-work care for the children and seek more hours with her current employment or find other employment, or work more hours in her business of hairdressing.
[110] It is reasonable for the applicant to be earning $20,000, which would entail almost full-time hours at minimum wage. She has a joint financial obligation to the children and it is not reasonable for her to only work part-time hours. This income will be imputed to her commencing 2017.
Miscellaneous issues
[111] The applicant has maintained the required life insurance; the mother has not done so. She must comply with the agreement.
[112] The parties never conducted the quarterly review contemplated by the agreement. The respondent is claiming $434 or $304.48. There is no evidence regarding these expenses.
[113] The Court directs that the parties follow the procedure set out in the agreement.
Conclusion
[114] Therefore the Court concludes that there has been a material change of circumstances requiring a variation of support.
[115] For the purposes of determining retroactive child and spousal support, the parties will need to complete SSAG calculations, using the set-off amount of child support and ensuring that both parties receive 50% of the NDI. The parties are to use the following incomes:
2013: To determine child and spousal support, the parties are to use the applicant’s actual Line 150 income of $73,763 and the respondent’s line 150 income of -$142. The parties will be required to complete calculations and adjustments as spousal support is not tax deductible or included in income for that year.
2014: Commencing January 1, 2014, the applicant will pay child and spousal support based on the imputed income to the applicant in the amount of $58,000 (as per his last contract), and the respondent’s line 150 income of $5015. The parties will be required to complete calculations and adjustments as spousal support is not tax deductible or included in income for that year.
2015: Commencing January 1, 2015, the applicant will pay child and spousal support based on the imputed income to the applicant in the amount of $58,000 plus $2500 net rental income and the respondent’s line 150 income of $12,444.
2016: Commencing January 1, 2016, the applicant will pay child and spousal support based on the imputed income to the applicant in the amount of $58,000 plus $2500 net rental income and the respondent’s 2015 Line 150 income of $12,444 per year.
[116] Commencing January 1, 2017, the applicant will pay child and spousal support based on the imputed income to the applicant in the amount of $73,000 plus $2500 net rental income and the respondent’s imputed income of $20,000 per year.
[117] Commencing May 1, 2017, the parties will exchange their previous income tax returns and attachments and their Notices of Assessment. Support will be adjusted on annual basis retroactive to January 1 of that year. In the event that the parties earn more than the imputed income, the parties will adjust support based on the actual Line 150 income.
[118] If there are any disputes with respect to retroactive support, the amount of arrears, payment plan for arrears or ongoing support, the parties can re-attend before me to deal with these issues. A date can be set through the trial co-ordinator’s office.
[119] Once the issues set out in paragraph 118 are resolved, the parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs. Otherwise, their costs submissions are due within 15 days of the parties having resolved the aforesaid issues. If there is a dispute on the timelines, counsel can provide written submissions to the Court.
Madam Justice Doyle
Date: July 21, 2016
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-897-2 DATE: 2016/07/21 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE RE: Robert Charron, Applicant AND Nicole Denyse Carrière, Respondent BEFORE: Justice A. Doyle COUNSEL: Lorna F. Baldwin, Counsel for the Applicant Hunter Phillips, Counsel for the Respondent HEARD: June 30, 2015 at Ottawa ENDORSEMENT Madam Justice Doyle
Released: July 21, 2016
