CITATION: Cameron v. Cameron, 2017 ONSC 2021
OTTAWA COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-2557-4
DATE: 2017/03/30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Rodney Cameron
Applicant
– and –
Laurie Cameron
Respondent
Wayne D. Young, for the Applicant
Paul Jakubiak, for the Respondent
HEARD: March 16, 2017 at Ottawa
amendment
The table at paragraph 15 for 8561222 Canada Inc. (Superior Mobile Wash) has been amended as follows: the amount in the 2014 column has been amended for the “Office” line from $2,154 to $2,164 and for the “Maintenance and repairs” line from $651 to $851.
The table at paragraph 54 for RLM Logistic Inc. has been amended as follows:
• The amount in the 2014 column has been amended for the newly labeled “Total Expenses” line from $56,932 to $57,932; for the “Income before income taxes” line from $84,646 to $83,646; for the “Provision for income taxes” from “???” to $12,965; and for the “Net income” line from “???” to $70,681.
• The amount in the 2015 column has been amended for the “Income before income taxes” line from $83,726 to $83,715; for the “Provision for income taxes” from “???” to $12,975; and for the Net income line from “???” to $70,740.
The table at paragraph 54 for 856122 Canada Inc. (Superior Mobile Wash) has been amended as follows:
• The amount in the 2014 column has been amended for the newly labeled “Total Expenses” line from $40,270 to $36,405 and for the “Net Income (loss)” from “($11,813)” to “($7,948)”.
• The amount in the 2015 column has been amended for the newly labeled “Total Expenses” line from $47,651 to $46,958 and for the “Net income (loss)” line from $481 to $1,181.
The lines in both the 2014 and 2015 columns for “Deficit, beginning of the year” and “Deficit, end of year” have been removed.
In accordance with these amendments, paragraphs 55 to 56 and 58 have been amended to read as follows:
[55] Therefore, based on the Court’s findings in the revised statements of income for RLM and Power Wash, the Court finds that the RLM corporate income is $70,681 for 2014 and $70,740 for 2015.
[56] As to Power Wash, the Court finds that the income for 2014 was ($7,948) and the income for 2015 was $1,181.
[58] In accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the child support payable for the year 2014 based on an income of $62,733 ($70,681 - $7,948) is $571 per month. The child support payable for 2015 based on the income of $71,921 ($70,740 + $1,181) is $656 per month.
Paragraph 59 has been amended to add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: “The Court notes that this is not a new $2,500 amount and the Court understands that the Family Responsibility Office is already collecting this amount.”
Paragraphs 80 and 81 have been amended to read as follows:
[80] For the purpose of calculating income for support in s. 7 and extraordinary expenses, the Father’s income for 2015 is $71,921 and the Mother’s income is $78,606.
[81] In 2015, the Father shall pay his proportionate share of s. 7 expenses, being 48%. The Mother’s proportionate share is 52%.
Paragraph 87 has been amended to read as follows:
[87] The remaining balance of $2,092.49 for the 2016-2017 school year shall be paid proportionately between the parties, with the Mother paying 52% and the Father paying 48%.
AMENDED REASONS FOR DECISION
KERSHMAN J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] The Respondent (“Mother”) brings a motion to impute income to the Applicant (“Father”).
[2] The Father brings a cross-motion to request particulars of the daughter’s income and to reduce the amount of his income so that he can pay a correspondingly lower amount of child support and s. 7 expenses.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[3] The parties were married on June 24, 1995. There was one child of the marriage. The parties have joint custody of the child, Montana Taylor Cameron, who is approximately 19 years old. Montana resides primarily with the Mother when she is not in school. She is currently in full-time attendance in a nursing program at the University of Ottawa, Pembroke campus, and lives in Pembroke, Ontario, during the school year.
[4] The parties separated on June 1, 2010 and signed a comprehensive Separation Agreement (“Separation Agreement”) on September 16, 2011, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Schedule “A”.
[5] At the time of the signing of the Separation Agreement, the parties agreed that the Father’s income was $55,000 per year and the Mother’s income was $66,000 per year. The Father paid child support of $550 per month in accordance with the table amount of child support.
[6] The Separation Agreement included a provision whereby the parties agreed to share special and extra expenses in proportion to their income. The parties also agreed to exchange financial information on an annual basis.
Issues on the Mother’s Motion:
[7] The following are the issues on the Mother’s motion:
a) Should income be imputed to the Father in the amount of $136,072.50 per annum pursuant to s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175, and the table amount of child support ordered to be paid to the Mother; or, in the alternative, should the Father’s income be imputed as $100,000 or some other amount?
b) Should the Father pay outstanding arrears of child support, including previously ordered extra expenses and hockey fees, in an amount to be fixed?
c) Should the Father contribute proportionately to the s. 7 expenses in a fixed monthly payment or in a total amount to be fixed?
d) Should there be an order that the Father provide all the bank books, invoices, and supporting receipts for Superior Power Wash Inc. (“Power Wash”) for the years 2010 to 2014, when he ran the company, as well as the Dell laptop computer which was used to keep the company records at the time?
Issues on the Father’s Cross-Motion:
[8] The following are the issues on the Father’s motion:
a) Should there be an order suspending support payments retroactive to the date of the Minutes of Settlement, being April 19, 2016, until the Respondent produces the required documentation — that is, copies of the RESP statements, proof of OSAP received, and proof of payment made by Respondent towards University expenses?
b) Should there be an order suspending support payments until evidence of need for support is provided, including but not limited to production of the income tax return, a notice of assessment for 2015 and 2016, particulars of employment income throughout 2016, copies of OSAP applications and receipt of OSAP, and copies of credit card statements and bank statements for the year 2016 for the adult child Montana Cameron?
c) Should the support payments be adjusted to reflect the reduced ability of the Father to pay child support?
Issue: Should income be imputed to the Father in the amount of $136,072.50 per annum pursuant to s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175, and the table amount of child support ordered to be paid to the Mother; or, in the alternative, should the Father’s income be imputed as $100,000 or some other amount? Mother’s Position:
[9] The Mother requests that the Court impute income to the Father of at least $100,000 a year, or a greater amount of up to $136,172.50 a year, claiming that between the rent that he earns on his property and the additional amounts that were taken as deductions for the two companies, that his income should be higher than $55,000 per year, which is currently being used as his income.
[10] The Mother argues that the Father’s income should be imputed for 2014, 2015, and 2016. She claims that the expenses for each of the corporations, the first of which is RLM Logistics Inc. (“RLM”) and the second being 8561222 Canada Inc., operating as Superior Mobile Wash, (“Mobile Wash”) should have their expenses reduced by 50% and that reduction in expenses should be added to the Father’s income.
Father’s Position:
[11] The Father argues that his line 150 income for 2014 and 2015 is $53,100 per year as set out in his income tax returns as filed. He argues that, for those years, no additional amount of income should be imputed and his child support should be lowered based on the $53,100 per year instead of $55,000 per year for those years.
[12] He argues the s. 7 expenses for those years should be in proportion to the income of the parties. The Father argues that the Mother’s income for 2014 was $78,275 and that her income for 2015 was $99,647.
[13] The Father argues that no further income should be attributed to him because the expenses of RLM and Mobile Wash as claimed are correct.
Analysis:
[14] The financial statements for RLM were prepared by Krowe BGK Professional Chartered Accountant (“Krowe BGK”). The RLM statements of income for 2014 and 2015 are as produced below:
RLM Logistic Inc. Statement of Income For the Year Ended December 31, 2015 (Unaudited – See Notice to Reader)
2015 2014 $ $__ Sales 143,626 141,578
Expenses
Travel 29,999 27,028
Advertising and promotion 16,703 16,562
Telephone 6,394 5,469
Office 3,343 4,444
Professional Fees 2,000 4,982
Insurance 919 710
Bank charges and interest 796 1,963
Subcontractors 4,100 5,200
64,254 66,358
Income before income taxes 79,372 75,220
Provision for income taxes 12,830 11,769
Net income 66,542 63,451
[15] The financial statements for 856122 Canada Inc. were also prepared by Krowe BGK for the year ends May 31, 2014 and May 31, 2015. The statement of income for those years is as produced below:
8561222 Canada Inc. (Superior Mobile Wash) Statement of Income and Deficit For the Year Ended May 31, 2015 (Unaudited – See Notice to Reader)
2015 2014 $ $__ Sales 48,139 28,457
Expenses
Insurance 7,797 6,925
Travel 7,189 9,794
Bank charges and interest 5,256 1,976
Professional fees 2,000 4,200
Subcontractors 1,653 1,350
Office 1,193 2,164
Advertising and promotion 456 104
Maintenance and repairs 395 851
Telephone 123 -
Amortization of capital assets 21,089 12,405
47,151 39,770
Net Income (loss) 988 (11,313)
Deficit, beginning of year (11,313) -
Deficit, end of year (10,325) (11,313)
RLM Expenses:
[16] In the case of RLM, the Mother objects to the expenses claimed in 2014 and 2015 for advertising and promotion, telephone, office, and subcontractors’ fees. In addition, she objects to the amount of professional fees claimed in 2014.
Advertising and Promotion Expenses:
[17] RLM claimed advertising and promotion expenses of $16,562 in 2014 and $16,703 in 2015.
[18] Counsel for the Father indicates that these amounts were not for advertising and promotion, but were for meals by the Father when he was on the road based on the amount of $17 per meal, for three meals per day, for six days a week, for 50 weeks a year. Based on the Court’s calculations, these meals amounted to $15,300.
[19] The Father’s position is that he should be entitled to claim the meal allowances as part of RLM’s expenses, as they are the acceptable within the guidelines of the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”).
[20] The Court notes that the Father on his financial statement claimed meals at home of $250 per month, or $3,000 per year. In his evidence, he acknowledged that he was only at home one to two days per month, and the rest of the time he was on the road.
[21] Notwithstanding that the meal allowance claims may be in compliance with the CRA limits, the Court does not find that they are appropriate expenses for the purposes of calculation of child support. The Court finds that the appropriate amount for advertising and promotion expenses for 2014, which was really meal allowances, should be $13,562 ($16,562 − $3,000). The Court finds that the appropriate amount for the meal allowance for 2015 should be $13,703 ($16,703 − $3,000).
Telephone Expenses:
[22] RLM claimed telephone expenses of $5,469 in 2014 and $6,394 in 2015. The Court notes that RLM was in the business of long-distance driving, including the hauling of milk from Wisconsin to Montreal on a full-time basis. While the amounts claimed for telephone for 2014 and 2015 appear to be high, the Court finds that those were necessary expenses for the purposes of carrying on the trucking business, especially since the Father was on the road.
Office Expenses:
[23] RLM claimed office expenses of $4,444 for 2014 and $3,343 for 2015. The Court notes that there was no commercial office space used for this office, rather, it was a home office within the Father’s home that was used, for which he is now claiming a deduction while he was on the road six days a week. The Court finds that the amounts claimed are not appropriate for child support purposes. Accordingly, the Court reduces the amount in 2014 from $4,444 to $2,000 and reduces the amount in 2015 from $3,343 to $2,000.
Professional Fees:
[24] RLM claimed professional fees of $4,982 in 2014 and $2,000 in 2015.
[25] The Father argues that the amounts were for accounting fees and that they were so high in 2014 because of the additional disclosure requirements in the matrimonial litigation. He points the Court to Krowe BGK invoices, within his Book of Documents, which shows that the accounting fees were $5,650, saying that those invoices reflected the increased costs of professional fees.
[26] The Court notes that the invoice number for those fees is 114974 and the invoice date is May 26, 2016. The professional fees of $4,982 were incurred in the year ending December 31, 2014 and not December 31, 2016. The Court finds that the $4,982 claim does not have any relation to the aforesaid invoice.
[27] The Court finds that an appropriate amount for professional fees for 2014 would be $2,000, which is the same amount as claimed in 2015. Therefore, the professional fees for 2014 will be reduced from $4,982 to $2,000.
Subcontractors Fees:
[28] The Mother argues that there should no subcontractors’ fees paid.
[29] The Father argues that subcontractors were used in 2014 and 2015. The subcontractor in 2014 was a gentleman by the name of Dave who was used in the beginning of 2014. The subcontractor in 2015 is his partner and new employer, Laura Floyd.
[30] In 2014, the evidence was that a subcontractor by the name of Dave was hired for the months of January and February 2014.
[31] In 2015, the subcontractor fees were paid to Laura Floyd, the Father’s partner.
[32] Using Laura Floyd as a subcontractor increased sales by $48,000 for which she received $4,100 as subcontractors’ fees. She did not take issue with the amount. The Court finds that she received reasonable compensation for her work. There was little evidence of Ms. Floyd’s financial situation, except where she stated in her Affidavit that when she obtained her driver’s license in November 2013 she was, “financially independent from successfully running my own business, including buying and renting out condo homes”. The Court interprets this to mean that Ms. Floyd is independently wealthy and the receipt of $4,100 for subcontractors’ fees was acceptable to her.
[33] The Court does not take any issue with the subcontractors’ fees and finds they are appropriate and reasonable.
[34] Both RLM and Mobile Wash are incorporated companies, which are both solely owned by the Father. The Court finds that the net income of the corporation is really the net income of the Father.
[35] Based on the aforesaid calculations, the Court finds that the Father’s income for RLM for 2014 is the equivalent of the net income for RLM after corporate taxes.
[36] The Mother argues that the Father’s income should be based on RLM’s income before taxes because the evidence from the Father is that he has not paid RLM’s taxes.
[37] The Court rejects that argument because if the RLM’s taxes had been paid, the Father’s income would be based on the company’s income net of taxes. While the taxes are not paid, RLM’s taxes are still owed. The Court does not see why non-payment of taxes should impute a higher income to the Father.
Mobile Wash Expenses:
[38] In the case of Mobile Wash, the Mother objects to the expenses claim for travel, subcontractors, and office expenses for 2014 and 2015. In addition, she also objects to the amount claimed for professional fees for 2014 only.
[39] The Father argues that these were allowable expenses by the CRA and, as such, the financial statements should not be revised.
Analysis:
[40] Mobile Wash had significantly lower sales than did RLM.
Travel Expense:
[41] The company claimed travel expense in 2014 of $9,794 and in 2015 of $7,189.
[42] The Court did not receive any information to show that this expense was inappropriate. Therefore, the Court finds the expense to be appropriate.
Professional Fees:
[43] The company claimed professional expenses in 2014 of $4,200 and in 2015 of $2,000. No explanation was given why there was a larger expense in 2014 than in 2015.
[44] The Court finds that the professional fees paid in 2014 to be too high and therefore reduces them to the sum of $2,000 for the year 2014. The professional expense for 2015 of $2,000 is acceptable.
Subcontractors Fees:
[45] The company claimed subcontractor fees in 2014 of $1,350 and in 2015 of $1,653. The evidence was that Montana’s boyfriend was hired to do the Mobile Wash work. These fees appear reasonable. The Court does not take any issue with the amount claimed for subcontractors’ fees.
Office Expenses:
[46] The company claimed office expenses in 2014 of $2,164 and in 2015 of $1,193. This company used the same office premises in the Father’s house, as did RLM.
[47] The Court finds that, for child support purposes, the amount for office expenses in 2014 is too high and shall be reduced from $2,164 to $1,000.
[48] Similarly, the Court finds that, for child support purposes, the amount for office expenses in 2015 is too high and shall be reduced from $1,193 to $1,000.
Reduction of Expenses for RLM and Mobile Wash:
[49] The Mother argues that all expenses of RLM and Mobile Wash should be reduced by 50% and the reduction should be added to the Father’s income. She relies on the case of Ludmer v. Ludmer, 2014 ONCA 827, at paras 15–19. In that case, the Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of expenses of a lawyer in a law firm. The Court of Appeal accepted that the trial judge’s conclusion, that business expenses could not reasonably exceed 50% of gross revenue, was an acceptable standard.
[50] The Court understands the position taken by the Court of Appeal in the Ludmer decision. The Court notes that the facts of this situation are quite different. In the present situation, there are two automotive service businesses. This is very different from a law practice.
[51] The Court is prepared to depart from the position taken by the Court of Appeal in the Ludmer case because of the type of business involved.
[52] In addition, in Ludmer, it appears that Mr. Ludmer carried on his business as a sole practitioner and not as an incorporated business.
[53] In the present case, the businesses involved are incorporated businesses that attract tax, which at the time was 15.5%.
[54] Therefore, for RLM and for Mobile Wash, based on the findings made above for child support purposes only, the statement of income and expenses for the years ending 2014 and 2015 shall be revised as follows:
RLM Logistic Inc. Revised by Court
Statement of Income For the Year Ended December 31, 2015 (Unaudited – See Notice to Reader) 2015 2014 $ $__ Sales 143,626 141,578
Expenses
Travel 29,999 27,028
Advertising and promotion 13,703 13,562
Telephone 6,394 5,469
Office 2,000 2,000
Professional Fees 2,000 2,000
Insurance 919 710
Bank charges and interest 796 1,963
Subcontractors 4,100 5,200
Total Expenses 59,911 57,932
Income before income taxes 83,715 83,646
Provision for income taxes 12,975 12,965
Net income 70,740 70,681
8561222 Canada Inc. Revised by Court Statement of Income and Deficit For the Year Ended May 31, 2015 (Unaudited – See Notice to Reader) 2015 2014 $ $__ Sales 48,139 28,457
Expenses
Insurance 7,797 6,925
Travel 7,189 9,794
Bank charges and interest 5,256 1,976
Professional fees 2,000 2,000
Subcontractors 1,653 1,350
Office 1,000 1,000
Advertising and promotion 456 104
Maintenance and repairs 395 851
Telephone 123 -
Amortization of capital assets 21,089 12,405
Total Expenses 46,958 36,405
Net Income (loss) 1,181 (7,948)
[55] Therefore, based on the Court’s findings in the revised statements of income for RLM and Power Wash, the Court finds that the RLM corporate income is $70,681 for 2014 and $70,740 for 2015.
[56] As to Power Wash, the Court finds that the income for 2014 was ($7,948) and the income for 2015 was $1,181.
[57] Since both corporations are solely owned by the Father, the Court finds that the income of the corporation is actually that of the Father for child support purposes and basic child support should be calculated based on these amounts.
[58] In accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the child support payable for the year 2014 based on an income of $62,733 ($70,681 - $7,948) is $571 per month. The child support payable for 2015 based on the income of $71,921 ($70,740 + $1,181) is $656 per month.
Section 7 Expenses for 2013 to 2014:
[59] Pursuant to an order of R. Smith J. dated August 20, 2015, the Father was ordered to pay $2,500 for the costs of Montana’s hockey expenses for the years 2013 and 2014. The Court is not clear as to whether these expenses have, in fact, been paid. In the event that they have not been paid, they are to be paid and are collectable by the Family Responsibility Office as child support. The Court notes that this is not a new $2,500 amount and the Court understands that the Family Responsibility Office is already collecting this amount.
What is the Father’s income for 2016?
Mother’s Position:
[60] The Mother argues that the Father’s income for 2016 should be imputed in the range of $100,000 to $136,072.50, based on the deduction of his corporate expenses by 50% as set out previously.
[61] In addition, the Mother argues that the Father should have income imputed to him for the rent for his home which was rented from October 2016 to December 2016 at $2,100 per month.
[62] For the period of January 1 to September 1, 2016, the Mother argues that rent should be imputed at $2,100 per month even though the property was vacant from January to June 2016 and a room was rented from June to September 2016 at $500 per month.
Father’s Position:
[63] The Father argues that his income for 2016 is $32,500 for the year. He argues that he has been working for his partner, Laura Floyd, who has started a trucking company. The Father argues that he lost a milk hauling contract because of his poor driving record and that he cannot be hired by any company because of his record. He argues that new trucking company billed $84,843.86 for the period from March 2016 to January 2017 of 11 months.
Analysis:
[64] The Court notes that there was no T4 provided by Ms. Floyd or the Father for 2016, notwithstanding the requirement by the CRA that all T4s are to have been issued by March 1, 2016. This motion was argued on March 16, 2016. Ms. Floyd and Mr. Cameron live together so there should have been no issue about her providing him with the T4 on time.
[65] The Court notes that Mr. Cameron has not yet filed his 2016 income tax return which is not due until April 30, 2017.
[66] The Court understands that Ms. Floyd has business expenses with respect to this business. According to the evidence provided by the Father, he has drawn $18,700 for the 11 months ending January 2017 and Ms. Floyd has drawn $14,700 as income from the trucking business.
[67] The Court notes that, according to the affidavits of Mr. Cameron and Ms. Floyd, no draws were taken for January 2017 because there was no money to be taken.
[68] As part of the Mother’s argument, she says that in 2016, Mr. Floyd received approximately $84,000 from the companies, based on the deposits from the companies to his personal bank account.
[69] The only explanation provided for by the Father, was that it was hold-over monies from the milk hauling contract. The Court is not sure that this is correct and orders the Father to provide particulars of the cheques to verify these funds as well as a written explanation of where these amounts came from.
[70] In his financial statements sworn October 4, 2016, Mr. Cameron did not mention anything about the rental income of $2,100, notwithstanding the fact that in his Affidavit, sworn October 6, 2016, he indicated that he had rented out the house for $2,100 and that he received the first and last month rent on September 1, 2016 and a second payment on October 1, 2016. The Court notes that neither of these facts were mentioned in either the information. However, this is a non-issue because he did mention it in his Affidavit of March 7, 2017.
[71] Based on the information before the Court, the Court finds that the monthly income and expenses for the rental property are:
• Rent: $2,100
• Expenses: $2,100 (Mortgage)
$500 (Taxes) $78 (Property Insurance)
• Total: $2,678
[72] This means that there is a loss from the rental of the house. Even if it is rented, the expenses are greater than the income. Therefore, the Court finds that there will be no income imputed for rent for child support purposes in 2016.
[73] The Mother argues that the Father received monies from his parents totaling $6,400. Mr. Cameron said it was $8,000. There’s no evidence as to whether it was a loan or a gift. The Court finds that it was a loan. As to the difference between the $6,400 and $8,000, the Court finds that it is no consequence to this decision.
[74] The Court finds that the complete determination of the Father’s income for 2016 is premature because full income information is not available, notwithstanding what has been set out in the affidavit material.
[75] The Court orders that, in addition to the other information ordered with this decision, the Father shall disclose his full 2016 income tax return including schedules by May 15, 2017. He shall also disclose his Notice of Assessment within 10 days after receipt thereof.
[76] Child support shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the Separation Agreement.
[77] Inclusive of 2016 and thereafter, the disclosure of income for child support and s. 7 expenses shall be provided in accordance with the terms of the Separation Agreement for each year that child support and/or s. 7 expenses are payable.
[78] In the Separation Agreement, the parties agreed upon a comprehensive formula for the calculation of how to share s. 7 expenses, including prospective expenses, such as university costs for Montana. As set out by R. Smith J. in his endorsement of August 18, 2015, there is no need to revisit this formula. The Court agrees that the formula shall stand.
[79] As set out in the endorsement of R. Smith J., the table amount of child support shall be paid while Montana is in school in addition to the proportionate share of Montana’s post-secondary related expenses. The evidence establishes that Montana will live at home when she is not attending college in Pembroke. No evidence to the contrary has been provided.
[80] For the purpose of calculating income for support in s. 7 and extraordinary expenses, the Father’s income for 2015 is $71,921 and the Mother’s income is $78,606.
[81] In 2015, the Father shall pay his proportionate share of s. 7 expenses, being 48%. The Mother’s proportionate share is 52%.
Disclosure of Documentation for Power Wash:
[82] It appears that the Mother is an Officer, Director, or Shareholder of Power Wash. She may have director’s liability for this corporation.
[83] The Court orders that the Father is to provide any and all business records and documents under his control or within his authority for this company for the years 2010 to 2014, inclusive, within 30 days.
[84] In addition, the Father shall also use the services of a qualified third-party technician at his own expense to obtain the data relating to Power Wash for that period, which is on his computer that he says is infected with viruses. This information shall be provided to the Mother within 30 days.
Post-Secondary Education Expenses:
[85] Montana’s post-secondary education expenses for the year 2016-2017 are $17,778.49. The following monies are being applied towards this amount:
OSAP $7,486;
Grant of $1,900;
RESP approximately $2,700, which is the remaining balance;
Montana’s contribution in the amount of $5,550.
Total: $15,686.00
[86] The Mother has sought to have the Father pay 50% of the s. 7 expenses instead of the proportionate amount. The Court rejects that argument. The Separation Agreement specifically sets out how the parties agreed to share s. 7 expenses, which is in proportion to their incomes. The Court does not see any reason why that proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses should be changed. Therefore, all s. 7 expenses will continue to be paid in proportion to the parties’ income, as set out in the Separation Agreement.
[87] The remaining balance of $2,092.49 for the 2016-2017 school year shall be paid proportionately between the parties, with the Mother paying 52% and the Father paying 48%.
[88] The Father shall continue to pay child support for Montana in the aforesaid amount whether she is living away at school, or at home during the summer months when she is living with the Respondent.
Prospective Child Support:
[89] The Mother argues that the Father should pay prospective child support based on the income to be imputed by the Court in the range of $100,000 to $136,072.50. The Father argues that prospective child support should be paid in accordance with his income.
[90] The Court rejects the Mother’s argument that child support should be paid prospectively based on the imputed income of between $100,000 and $136,072.50. A comprehensive formula for the calculation of ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses is set out in the Separation Agreement. The Court orders that the terms of the Separation Agreement be followed. This includes the terms concerning dispute resolution as set out in paragraphs 79 to 84, inclusive, of the Separation Agreement. The Court orders that the parties are not to return to court to deal with disputes in relation to the Separation Agreement until they have complied with the terms set out in the dispute resolution mechanism terms set out in the Separation Agreement. Any party who returns to court to determine the issue of child support and/or s. 7 expenses without complying with the terms of the dispute resolution clauses contained in the agreement may have costs awarded against that party.
Additional Orders:
[91] This Court orders that the Mother shall produce an affidavit within the next 10 days dealing with a $34,000 RRSP that was apparently mistakenly described as a $34,000 RESP. That affidavit shall indicate that this account is an RRSP and attach a copy of the RRSP statement showing that. The affidavit shall also include a paragraph that says that the description that it was an RESP was an error.
[92] This Court also orders that the balance of the joint RESP of approximately $2,700, bearing Scotiabank Statement Number 28450300, shall be released to the daughter, Montana Cameron, within the next 30 days.
[93] The Court also orders that, from 2017 onwards, Montana Cameron is to provide the Father with copies of her school records including information concerning OSAP, grants, loans, and school transcripts within 30 days of receipt of such information. In addition, she shall provide copies of her T4 when received.
Costs:
[94] The parties have submitted costs outlines. The parties shall have 14 days within which to settle the issue of costs. If they are unable to do so, they shall contact the trial coordinator who will set up a convenient time at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall appear and each party shall have 10 minutes to argue the issue of costs.
Miscellaneous:
[95] In the event that either party has any concerns with respect to the mathematical calculations or the mechanics of this decision, they shall write to the Court within 15 days after the release of this decision setting out their concerns.
[96] Order accordingly.
Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman
Released: March 30, 2017
CITATION: Cameron v. Cameron, 2017 ONSC 2021
OTTAWA COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-2557-4
DATE: 2017/03/30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Rodney Cameron
Applicant
– and –
Laurie Cameron
Respondent
AMENDED REASONS FOR DECISION
KERSHMAN, J.
Released: March 30, 2017