CITATION: Mustapic v. Capin, 2016 ONSC 6371
COURT FILE NO.: FS-04-052373
DATE: 2016 10 13
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Kresimir Mustapic v. Jadranka Kathie Capin
BEFORE: LEMAY J
COUNSEL: L. Belkin, for the Applicant
S. Moss, for the Respondent
HEARD: Written Submissions, Post-Decision
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The purpose of this endorsement is to provide the parties with further directions in this matter. In my decision on September 15th, 2016, I provided the parties, and particularly the Applicant (“Kresimir”), to provide me with additional submissions on the following issues:
a. Whether there was any dispute in the arithmetical calculations that I made in arriving at the arrears.
b. Whether Kresimir had any dispute with the amounts listed in my decision as having been actually paid to the Respondent (“Kathie”) and, if so, what the basis for that dispute was.
c. Whether Kresimir disputed Kathie’s claim that she had incurred the expenses for hockey for the child, Luka.
[2] I have received a detailed Affidavit from Kresimir, within the time limits allocated for it. This Affidavit goes considerably beyond what I requested or permitted.
[3] First, the Affidavit in paragraphs 17 to 26, reviews the calculation for arrears for Jelena. When I read these paragraphs, it is clear that Kresimir is attempting to challenge my interpretations of the Orders of Quigley J. and Mossip J. I did not request any submissions on that issue, and I am not prepared to receive them.
[4] I will only note, for the convenience of the parties, the fact that I was clear in my interpretation of Mossip J’s order, and of the circumstances, in that both the amount for section 7 expenses and the table support were to be paid for periods when Jelena lived at home with Kathie. For periods when she lived away from home, the section 7 expenses were payable.
[5] Kathie is neither required nor permitted to respond to paragraphs 17 to 26 of Kresimir’s Affidavit of September 28th, 2016.
[6] In paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Affidavit, Kresimir sets out his version of the actual payments that he alleges were made to Kathie, either directly or through the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”). These submissions are responsive to paragraph 78(J) of my reasons. Kathie is directed to outline her position in an Affidavit, with supporting documentation, within fourteen (14) days of the release of this endorsement. If no information is received from Kathie in response to these paragraphs, then I will accept the evidence outlined by Kresimir and make an adjustment to the arrears calculation in my September 15th, 2016 decision.
[7] Paragraphs 6 to 16 and 27 to 36 of Kresimir’s September 28th, 2016 Affidavit address hockey expenses and section 7 expenses. To be clear, my reasons determined that there was a $100.00 per month contribution for section 7 expenses (other than hockey expenses) for Luka, as well as the equal division of all hockey related expenses. I am not revisiting that conclusion; merely inviting the parties to provide me with submissions on the actual amount for hockey expenses.
[8] To the extent that Kresimir’s Affidavit addresses the amount of hockey expenses, and the documentation to support them, these submissions are responsive to my Order in paragraph 78(l) of my September 15th, 2016 reasons. Kathie is directed to outline her position in an Affidavit, with supporting documentation, within fourteen (14) days of the release of this endorsement. If no information is received from Kathie in response to these paragraphs, then I will accept the evidence outlined by Kresimir and make an adjustment to the arrears calculation in my September 15th, 2016 decision.
[9] Paragraphs 37 to 44 of the September 28th, 2016 Affidavit address an alleged overpayment for non-hockey related section 7 expenses for Luka. In my reasons, I found that the Order of Mossip J. should be interpreted as treating the hockey expenses separately from the other section 7 expenses, and splitting them equally (see paragraphs 60, 61 and 68 of my reasons). To be clear, I found that Mossip J.’s Order contemplated the payment of $100.00 per month for Luka for section 7 expenses exclusive of hockey expenses, and the hockey expenses to be split equally.
[10] For the same reasons that I was not prepared to reopen the Order of Mossip J. (see paragraph 69 of my reasons in particular), I am not prepared to revisit the calculation of s. 7 expenses.
[11] The non-hockey section 7 expenses remain a fixed amount in the sum of $100.00 per month for Luka, exclusive of his hockey expenses. Kathie is neither required nor permitted to respond to paragraphs 37 to 44 of Kresimir’s September 28th, 2016 Affidavit.
[12] Finally, there is the issue of Luka’s attendance (or non-attendance) at a post-secondary program this year. Kresimir raises issues about whether support should be ongoing, given that he claims that Luka is not in post-secondary education and has turned 18 years old. Although this is not directly related to the issues that I had invited submissions on, I retained jurisdiction to address this type of issue as set out in paragraph 74 of my September 15th, 2016 decision.
[13] Kathie is directed to provide an Affidavit outlining Luka’s plans for the next calendar year, including where he will live, what he will do and whether he will be employed.
[14] Once that information is received, I will consider whether further submissions, either orally or in writing, are required.
[15] Finally, I retain jurisdiction to address the costs of these submissions, as set out in paragraph 79 of my reasons. Once the process of addressing these issues is complete, I will set out the process for providing costs submissions.
LEMAY J
DATE: October 13, 2016
CITATION: Mustapic v. Capin, 2016 ONSC 6371
COURT FILE NO.: FS-04-052373
DATE: 2016 10 13
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Kresimir Mustapic v. Jadranka Kathie Capin
COUNSEL: L. Belkin, for the Applicant
S. Moss, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
LEMAY J
DATE: October 13, 2016