CITATION: Skirten v. Lengyel 2017 ONSC 5032
COURT FILE NO.: FS-06-27
DATE: 2017-08-24
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
MIRANDA LIN SKIRTEN
Applicant
- and -
WAYNE JOSEPH LENGYEL
Respondent
B. J. Morgan, for the Applicant
Self-Represented
HEARD: August 23, 2017, at Thunder Bay, Ontario (video conference)
Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Decision On Motion
[1] Ms. Skirten and Mr. Lengyel were in a common-law relationship which ended in 2006. They have one son, Ethan Joseph Lengyel, born February 26, 2004.
[2] By order of Platana J. dated January 2, 2007, Ms. Skirten has custody of Ethan with specified access to Mr. Lengyel. Child support payable by Mr. Lengyel was fixed in the amount $224 per month based on imputed annual income of $24,960. Mr. Lengyel did not file any material or appear at that hearing.
[3] Ms. Skirten brings this motion to change child support based on Mr. Lengyel actual income for 2015, 2016 and 2017 and for extraordinary expenses relating primarily to Ethan’s hockey. Mr. Lengyel, in his Answer, now seeks joint custody.
[4] The amounts claimed for child support are the Child Support Guideline amounts based on Mr. Lengyel’s tax returns which are not disputed. Mr. Lengyel argued that he is seasonally employed and has just returned to work and that, therefore, it is a hardship for him to pay. He has paid child support in accordance with the original order and the amount of arrears has been calculated with full credit for payments made.
[5] On the evidence I am satisfied that the amount payable for child support during 2015 should be $662 per month based on income of $72,665.47 effective January 1, 2015. I am also satisfied that the amount payable for child support for 2016 should be $430 per month based on annual income of $47,608.35. I am also satisfied the amount payable for child support for 2017 to date and going forward should be $430 per month based on annual income of $47,608.35. Based on these calculations the arrears, after giving credit for payments received would be $8,416. In recognition that Mr. Lengyel was not employed for some months of 2017 I reduce the arrears by $1,000 to $7,416. A support deduction order shall issue for ongoing child support and the arrears.
[6] With respect to extraordinary expenses the major claim is for hockey equipment, hockey camps, and expenses relating to attendances for tournaments. In 2015 this expense was over $7,000. In 2016 the expense was over $5,000. Ms. Skirten admits that she cannot pay this expense and that this expense has been paid by her father. She claims a contribution of $250 per month from Mr. Lengyel retroactive to January 2015. Ms. Skirten’s income in 2016 was approximately $37,000. Given the net disposable income of the parties I am not satisfied that all of these expenses are necessary and within the budgets of the parties. Indeed, some of the expenses will not be incurred annually. I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to order that Mr. Lengyel contribute to these expenses in the circumstances and therefore make no order with respect to special expenses. With respect to future expenses the parties are to agree on expenses that constitute special expenses and pay in proportion to their respective incomes. Failing agreement they may apply to the court.
[7] With respect to Mr. Lengyel’s claim to have the custody order varied I am not satisfied that there has been any material change justifying a variation. Mr. Lengyel argues that he has been denied access and I am satisfied on the evidence that he has little interaction with Ethan especially since 2015 when Ethan expressed that he did not wish to be with his father because of his father’s drug use. Mr. Lengyel acknowledged that, at 13, Ethan will proceed as he wishes. Ms. Skirten does not oppose an attempt by Mr. Lengyel to re-forge the relationship with his son.
[8] On consent, Mr. Lengyel is to maintain Ethan on any medical and or dental insurance coverage available through his employment.
[9] Ms. Skirten is entitled to her costs of this application. Within 14 days, Ms, Skirten shall deliver her cost submissions limited to two pages plus costs outline. Thereafter, Mr. Lengyel shall have 14 days to respond if he wishes to do so.
“Original signed by”____
The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Released: August 24, 2017
CITATION: Skirten v. Lengyel 2017 ONSC 5032
COURT FILE NO.: FS-06-27
DATE: 2017-08-24
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Miranda Lin Skirten
Applicant
- and -
Wayne Joseph Lengyel
Respondent
DECISION ON MOTION
Newton J.
Released: August 24, 2017
/lvp