CITATION: Nji v Nji, 2017 ONSC 5230
COURT FILE NO.: 17-134
DATE: September 1, 2017
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Nji v Nji
BETWEEN: Brandi Sharon Nji v Klaus Nji
BEFORE: Honourable Mr Justice Martin James
COUNSEL: Rod Vanier for the Applicant
Self-Represented Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is a motion by the applicant for interim spousal support and related relief.
[2] The parties were married for about 16 years. They have three children ages 15, 9 and 7 who reside with the applicant.
[3] The parties met in Saskatchewan while attending the University of Regina. The respondent obtained a degree in Electrical Engineering and they moved to Ontario in 2005 to advance his career.
[4] The applicant was the primary caregiver to their young family. The applicant operated a home-based daycare in or about 2008.
[5] The respondent’s child support is based on an annual income of $120,000. His 2015 tax information shows income in excess of $130,000 but the respondent says that his income was unusually high due to some extra work he did that year. I accept that for temporary spousal support purposes his income is $120,792 as shown in his financial statement at Tab 8.
[6] As the parties have been separated for over a year and a half and considering that the children are now all in school, it is reasonable to expect that the applicant would be progressing towards economic self-sufficiency by now. However, she has not been able to follow through on plans to further her education and is not employed. She recently had a child with her new partner with whom she resides.
[7] The respondent contends that the applicant should be doing more to support herself and he says he has new responsibilities towards his fiancée and her child(ren) that should lessen his obligation to pay spousal support.
[8] On the last point, the law is clear that the voluntary acquisition of new financial commitments should not operate to reduce what would otherwise be an appropriate level of support for his previous partner and the children they had together.
[9] I recognize that the applicant has a viable argument that her career prospects were subordinated to the needs of her family and that the respondent’s career flourished at least in part because of the parenting role of the applicant, in which case spousal support ought to be awarded on a compensatory basis.
[10] Balanced against this is the assertion by the respondent that he expended a substantial amount towards the applicant’s educational upgrading at Algonquin College.
[11] While the applicant has a prima facie entitlement to spousal support, I think it would be appropriate to impute an income to the applicant that is consistent with full or nearly full time employment at the minimum wage level as part of determining appropriate spousal support. An imputed income of $26,000 would be reasonable in these circumstances, at least on a temporary basis.
[12] I have no evidence respecting special expenses being paid for the children which would operate to lower the respondent’s obligation for spousal support.
[13] In my view a temporary spousal support order of $400 per month would be appropriate.
[14] The applicant requests that spousal support should commence in June, 2016. While that may eventually be proven to be a reasonable date based on first notice of claim, for temporary support purposes and without prejudice to proving an earlier date is more equitable, the commencement date should match the date of the application. Since the application was issued on February 28, 2017, temporary spousal support shall be payable commencing March 1, 2017 until a different date is agreed to by the parties or a subsequent order of the court is made changing the date of commencement. The retroactive component, from March to the end of August, 2017, is payable forthwith and the ongoing support shall be at the indicated rate of $400 per month.
[15] Regarding the applicant’s claim for life insurance, I note that the respondent’s financial statement contains a reference to an insurance policy with RBC for $600,000 with “Brandi and children” listed as the beneficiaries. There is also a reference to another policy available through the respondent’s workplace for $125,000 with the same beneficiaries indicated. Based on this information, it should not be difficult for the respondent to provide life insurance coverage naming the applicant as the beneficiary for $350,000 on a temporary basis and it is so ordered.
[16] Regarding the applicant’s claim for health insurance, I take this to be a reference to whatever extended health benefits are available to the respondent through his employment. At the hearing of the motion the respondent indicated that his children continued to have coverage but he substituted the name of his fiancée in place of the applicant. It is common to require a party to maintain coverage for his family pending a final settlement. Accordingly, it is ordered that the applicant and the parties’ three children shall be included in the respondent’s extended health plan pending a further order.
[17] I note that a settlement conference has been scheduled for September 29th by Justice Ray at the case conference earlier this year. I anticipate that all disclosure issues have been or will be addressed reasonably in advance of the settlement conference, including evidence of the respondent’s current income.
[18] On the issue of costs regarding this motion, a costs outline may be submitted by either party, not exceeding five pages in length, within 10 days.
James, J.
DATE: September 1, 2017
CITATION: Nji v Nji, 2017 ONSC 5230
COURT FILE NO.: 17-134
DATE: September 1, 2017
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Nji v Nji
BETWEEN: Brandi Sharon Nji, Applicant and Klaus Nji, Respondent
BEFORE: Honourable Mr Justice Martin James
COUNSEL: Rod Vanier for the Applicant
Self-Represented Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
James, J.
DATE: September 1, 2017