Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Steven Szonyi, Applicant
AND
Susanna Szonyi, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn
COUNSEL: John Summers, for the applicant
Susanna Szonyi, self-represented
HEARD: June 10, 2016
Endorsement
corthorn j.
Procedural History
1The respondent initiated this motion in September 2015 for interim spousal support and child support. The motion was adjourned from its original return date of September 21, 2015 because the respondent, who is self-represented, had not consulted with the applicant’s counsel (at that time) regarding the return date. The applicant was required to bring a procedural motion to obtain an adjournment of the respondent’s motion. The motion was adjourned to March 2016, with costs of the procedural motion to be determined by the judge who ultimately heard the substantive motion.
2Between September 2015 and the March 2016 return date, the applicant changed counsel. First, the applicant changed his status to self-represented. Second, and only six days prior to the return of the respondent’s motion, the applicant filed a notice changing to his current counsel. For that reason, the motion was adjourned to May 10, 2016. On that date, the motion was once again adjourned, this time on consent.
3The respondent’s motion was argued before me on June 10, 2016.
The Issues
4The issues to be determined on the motion are:
Spousal support;
Child support for the parties’ son, David Szonyi, born on January 28, 2000; and
Section 7 expenses with respect to David Szonyi.
5In her notice of motion, the respondent also requests an order (a) for interim sole custody of David Szonyi; and (b) requiring the applicant to pay all costs associated with the operation of and improvements to the matrimonial home during the period from March 1 to September 30, 2015. I address each of those matters following my analysis and determination of the issues listed above.
Issue No. 1: Spousal Support
6Both parties claim to be in dire financial circumstances. Each party accuses the other of causing the carpet/flooring sales business which they jointly own (“the Business”) to fail in 2015. They blame one another for the deterioration of their respective mental and physical well-being.
7The respondent’s evidence is that she was shut out of the Business by the applicant. Thereafter, the respondent obtained part-time work in the retail sector. Her evidence is that in January 2016 she ceased working at all due to poor health.
8The applicant responds to the request for him to pay spousal support by saying that he has not worked since September 2015 and, as a result, he is the party entitled to spousal support. However, the applicant is not pursuing relief in that regard at this time.
9Numerous affidavits by or on behalf of the parties were filed on this motion and the related procedural motion. The evidence is conflicting on crucial issues, including as to the reasons for the failure in 2015 of both the Business and the applicant’s sole proprietorship.
10The respondent alleges that the applicant deliberately ran the Business into the ground, while personally pocketing cash from the Business, so as to avoid support obligations. The respondent also alleges that the applicant allowed his sole proprietorship to fail so as to avoid support obligations. The applicant alleges that it was deliberate conduct on the part of the respondent, interfering in the operations of the Business that led to its demise. The parties are embroiled in civil litigation related to the Business.
11There is also conflicting evidence as to the amount of income earned by the applicant in 2015. Both parties filed financial statements in 2016. However, neither financial statement includes the parties’ respective income tax returns for 2015.
12The respondent’s belief is that in 2015 the applicant earned an income in the range of $30,000 to $60,000. Her belief in that regard is based on what she considers to be the historical earnings of the Business. The respondent holds that belief regardless of the amount of income the applicant reported, or reports, on his 2015 income tax return. The applicant denies that the Business was ever as profitable as described by the respondent.
13The applicant’s evidence is that the Business had been in decline for several years. The conduct of the respondent in 2015 only served to accelerate that decline and, ultimately, the failure of the Business. The applicant’s evidence is that his income in 2015 was $15,900.
14The respondent’s evidence is that in 2015 her income was slightly more than $10,000.
15Not all of the evidence before me was before the Court in September 2015 on the return of the applicant’s procedural motion for an adjournment of the respondent’s motion. Based on the evidence before her at that time, Master Champagne addressed the issue of support as follows, “There is no doubt that the Respondent needs support. The issue for a Judge to determine will be how much and based on what income”. Master Champagne also concluded that it was incumbent on the respondent to manage on the basis of her savings of $30,000 until this matter is fully and properly heard.1
16The respondent acknowledges that $25,000 of her savings comes from a $50,000 mortgage advanced to the parties. The mortgage was obtained by the parties with the intention, as admitted by the respondent, that they would pay down their debts and contribute $25,000 towards the operation of the Business. The respondent admits that after she deposited $25,000 to her personal savings account, she used the remaining $25,000 as follows. She paid $20,000 of debt personal to her and put $5,000 into the Business.
17I reference the respondent’s unilateral use of the $50,000, intended