CITATION: Multani v. Rana, 2017 ONSC 5874
COURT FILE NO.: 138/14
DATE: 2017/10/03
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Sukhpreet Multani
Philip Viater, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
Ravdeep Rana
Adrienne Lee, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: February 8, 9, 10, September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2017
The Honourable Justice J. R. Henderson
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] On October 7, 2012, the applicant, Sukhpreet Multani (“Multani”) separated from the respondent, Ravdeep Rana (“Rana”), left the parties’ home in New Jersey, and moved to her parents’ home in St. Catharines, Ontario. Shortly thereafter, on October 16, 2012, Multani gave birth to the parties’ son, Ruhan Raath-Rana (“Ruhan”).
[2] On July 11, 2014, at an uncontested hearing, Justice Walters made a final order (“the July 2014 order”) with respect to Multani’s application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
[3] The July 2014 order provided, among other things, that Multani would have sole custody of Ruhan with reasonable access to Rana; that based on Rana’s income of $87,230 per year he would pay child support of $779 per month commencing November 1, 2012; and that Rana would pay spousal support in the amount of $1,500 per month commencing November 1, 2012.
[4] The present proceeding was commenced in April 2015 when Rana brought a motion to change the July 2014 order. In his motion to change, Rana requests joint custody of Ruhan, changes to the access regime, restrictions on Multani’s mobility with Ruhan, an order changing Ruhan’s last name from “Raath-Rana” to “Rana”, permission to register Ruhan’s birth in the United States of America (the “U.S.”), and termination of spousal support. In her response, Multani requests changes to the access regime, a prohibition on Rana exercising access in the U.S., a retroactive increase in child support, and a retroactive increase in spousal support.
[5] Therefore, the issues before the court at this trial include:
Should Multani have sole custody of Ruhan, or should the parties have joint custody of Ruhan;
What should be the nature and extent of Rana’s access to Ruhan;
Whether there should be restrictions on Multani’s mobility with Ruhan;
Whether Rana may exercise access in the U.S.;
Whether Ruhan’s last name should be changed from “Raath-Rana” to “Rana”;
Whether Rana should be permitted to register Ruhan’s birth in the U.S. so as to preserve Ruhan’s right to U.S. citizenship;
Whether the amount of child support payable by Rana should be changed, retroactively and prospectively;
How should s.7 expenses for Ruhan be paid; and
Whether the amount and duration of spousal support should be changed.
[6] I acknowledge that as a prerequisite to any change in custody, access, or support, the party seeking the change must prove a material change in circumstances as set out in s.17 of the Divorce Act.
THE FACTS
[7] Multani is a naturalized Canadian citizen and Rana is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Both of the parties emigrated from India.
[8] The parties were married on July 16, 2010, and thereafter lived together in New Jersey where Rana was working. During the marriage, Multani obtained some part-time employment as a substitute teacher in New Jersey.
[9] Rana has a degree in engineering and has been employed in New Jersey as a sales engineer. Since the separation he has continued to live and work in New Jersey. His job involves designing and selling complex software products. His income has steadily increased since 2012. In 2016, he earned approximately $141,000 (USD) or the equivalent of approximately $186,000 (CAD).
[10] Multani has a teaching certificate from a Canadian university and is qualified to teach school in Canada and in the U.S. She has lived with Ruhan at her parents’ home in St. Catharines, Ontario, since she separated from Rana.
[11] Multani testified, and I accept, that she has been unable to find work as a teacher in Ontario. In March 2015 she started working part-time, 15 hours per week, for the Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”). She has steadily increased her hours and improved her position at RBC. She obtained her certification in investment funds in July 2016, and in January 2017 she began a full-time position as a client advisor with RBC. Her current income is approximately $42,000 (Can.) per year.
[12] From the date of the separation to the present time, the parties communicated primarily through email and text message. As well, members of both families have assisted in communications.
[13] In the period immediately following Ruhan’s birth in Canada, I find that Multani encouraged Rana to visit and exercise access with Ruhan. I also find that Rana was initially hesitant about seeing Multani or Ruhan. As a result, Rana saw Ruhan on only three occasions over the first six months of his life. Specifically, Rana travelled from New Jersey to St. Catharines to see Ruhan twice in November 2012, and then again in April 2013. By the end of 2013 access had become more regular.
[14] On the first access visit in November 2012, I find that Rana and Multani together registered Ruhan’s birth in Ontario, using the name “Ruhan Raath-Rana”. Rana paid for the birth registration. I find that the parties agreed at the time that Ruhan’s last name would be “Raath-Rana.” I accept that “Raath” is the clan name of Multani’s family.
[15] Rana’s access visits for approximately the first three years of Ruhan’s life were supervised, at Multani’s request. During that period, generally, Multani and Ruhan met Rana at a mall or a public place where Rana and some of his family members were able to visit with Ruhan. Since approximately September 2015, access has been unsupervised, although I accept that Rana’s mother is usually present on all access visits. In this proceeding, Multani does not request that access be supervised.
[16] During the past two years, Rana has exercised his access by renting a hotel room or an Air BNB residence in the Regional Municipality of Niagara (“Niagara”) in Ontario for the weekend. He then spends his time with Ruhan at this rented accommodation or elsewhere in Niagara. He has not taken Ruhan out of Niagara.
[17] The parties can, and do, communicate about access schedules. Since September 2015, with some exceptions, Rana has had regular access on a weekend from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 4:00 p.m. The frequency of the access weekends has varied, but on average I find that weekend access has been approximately once per month for the past two years. Rana also has had some vacation time and holiday time with Ruhan.
[18] Court proceedings started in February 2014, when Multani commenced an application in this court. Rana did not defend the application, and the case proceeded to an uncontested trial, resulting in the July 2014 order. That order provided for reasonable access to Rana. Thereafter, Multani proposed, and Rana accepted, a loose arrangement whereby Rana would exercise access once per month on the second weekend of the month from Friday to Sunday, with an option for Rana to see Ruhan on the fourth weekend of the month on notice to Multani.
[19] However, just prior to the July 2014 order, Rana commenced a Hague application in New Jersey in which Rana alleged that Multani had abducted his child from the U.S. and was denying him access. Those allegations were false. The Hague application was summarily dismissed on a motion brought by Multani in New Jersey in approximately March 2015.
[20] Then, in April 2015, Rana commenced the present motion to change in Ontario. On an interlocutory motion by Rana, a temporary order dated August 18, 2016, was made granting Rana access to Ruhan every third weekend from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 4:00 p.m., as well as Skype access twice per week at times to be arranged.
[21] Since the August 2016 temporary order, Rana has usually had access every third weekend. Skype access has been arranged for every Monday and Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. for 15 minutes. In addition, I accept that the parties agreed that Rana would have two weeks with Ruhan in the summer of 2017, although Rana only exercised one week of that access because of his work commitments.
MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES
[22] I find that there are clearly material changes in circumstances that relate to the support issues as the incomes of both parties have changed dramatically since 2014. Therefore, I must consider possible changes to the child support, s.7 expenses, and spousal support orders.
[23] Regarding custody and access issues, Multani takes the position that there has not been any material change in circumstances. I disagree. Ruhan was less than two years old at the time of the July 2014 order and is now close to five years old. Ruhan’s needs and activities have changed. Further, access schedules have fluctuated and access is now unsupervised. Mobility and travel issues have arisen. In combination, I find that these issues constitute a material change in circumstances. Therefore, possible changes to the custody and access orders should also be considered by this court at this time.
[24] In deciding the appropriate custody and access orders, I confirm that I should be guided solely by the best interests of the child.
CREDIBILITY ISSUES
[25] In my view, Rana has very little credibility. Rana has shown that he is prepared to make untrue statements to the court and that he is prepared to misrepresent the facts. Anything Rana has said that is not corroborated must be treated with caution.
[26] The most obvious example of Rana’s lack of credibility is the Hague application in which Rana stated in court documents that Multani had wrongfully removed the child from the U.S.; that Multani was denying Rana access to the child; that Multani intentionally delayed Rana’s trips to Canada; that Multani had physically abused Rana; and that Multani refused to give Rana any information such as pictures of the child. None of those allegations are true.
[27] In fact, the email exchanges between the parties show that Multani had encouraged Rana to visit Ruhan in Canada, but that Rana was reluctant to do so. Further, Multani was regularly sending pictures and videos of Ruhan to Rana in the hope of encouraging him to exercise access. Also, there was no suggestion in any of the correspondence as to physical abuse of Rana.
[28] Moreover, Multani had tried to set up an access schedule for Rana to visit at least once per month. Rana had started to do so, but shortly before his Hague application, in an email of April 3, 2014, Rana informed Multani that he was suspending his access to Ruhan until they settled their issues. One has to wonder if Rana suspended his own access in order to support his claim that he was being denied access.
[29] Another example of Rana’s lack of credibility occurred when Rana was questioned as to the reason he did not file any response to the 2014 application, and did not attend court in July 2014. He initially said that he was given no notice of the court proceedings. Then, Rana acknowledged that he had been served with the court papers, and that the parties had an email exchange about the July 2014 court date.
[30] Also, Rana wrote a letter to the Superior Court of Justice in April 2014 in which Rana stated that he was contesting the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts to deal with this matter. It is clear from that letter that Rana was well aware of the Ontario court proceedings as of April 2014. Significantly, Rana has now testified that he did not write this letter and that he has no knowledge of it. He has suggested that his (then) lawyer illegally wrote it using Rana’s name. This is simply not believable evidence.
[31] Furthermore, Rana wrote a letter to the New Jersey Superior Court in December 2014. In that letter Rana stated that the July 2014 order had been obtained by fraud and that he had had no notice of the court date. Both of these assertions are false.
[32] Another credibility question arose with respect to Rana’s position on access. It is clear from the emails that Multani was attempting to set a fixed access schedule and that Rana would often propose a schedule and Multani would agree to it. However, on several occasions Rana cancelled his access because of work commitments, and then subsequently complained that Multani was denying him access time with Ruhan. Counsel for Multani called this approach “gamesmanship” by Rana, and I agree.
[33] Another example occurred in court in September 2017 when Rana testified that the parties had agreed that he would have two weeks summer access with Ruhan in 2017, but that he did not get the second week that he had wanted. It was not until cross-examination that it was disclosed that Rana had cancelled the second week of summer access because he could not get time off work. Again, this could be called gamesmanship.
[34] One final example of Rana’s lack of credibility is the question of Rana’s actual birthdate. Evidence has shown that Rana lied to U.S. government authorities when he immigrated to the U.S about the year of his birth. He was born in 1983, but he told U.S. authorities that he had been born in 1984, not 1983, so as to gain easier entrance to the U.S.
[35] However, on the witness stand, when he was cross-examined about his actual birthdate, Rana feigned surprise at the question. Later, in cross-examination he acknowledged that he was aware of the issue about his birthdate and he said that there was controversy in his family as to when he was actually born. In my view, Rana knows exactly when he was born, and he knows that the U.S. Immigration papers that he filed were falsified.
[36] In summary, I have great difficulty with Rana’s credibility.
[37] I found Multani’s credibility to be much better.
[38] I found Multani to be an intelligent, articulate woman, who is exceptionally concerned about the welfare of Ruhan. This exceptional concern for Ruhan may cause her to be overprotective of Ruhan, but I find that it does not cause her to lie or misrepresent the truth.
[39] I do not accept Rana’s lawyer’s suggestion that Multani has misled the court to any significant degree. I accept that there were some statements in Multani’s written material that could be incorrectly construed to mean that Rana took Ruhan on recent access visits without disclosing the location of the access visits. However, I find that this was a significant issue that had arisen on several occasions in the past. I find that any recent statements made by Multani in this regard were simply recitations of the historical issues.
[40] The most serious concern about Multani’s credibility arises out of an incident that involved Family and Children’s Services of Niagara (“FACS”) in May 2016.
[41] Multani testified that in May 2016, Ruhan returned from an access visit and complained that his chest hurt and that Daddy had hit him. Multani could not see any visible signs of injury, but she took Ruhan to the local hospital for an examination. The hospital records confirm that Ruhan told the intake staff at the hospital that he had been play fighting and that Daddy had hit him with a play action figure’s hammer. Ruhan was fully examined by a pediatrician at the hospital, and no injury was observed.
[42] As a result of that hospital visit, hospital staff informed FACS about this allegation. FACS then opened an investigative file. Ruhan repeated his allegation to the FACS worker. FACS ultimately found that there was no verification that Rana had caused any injury. The FACS file was closed on July 11, 2016.
[43] There was a problem with access during the course of the FACS investigation as Multani had suspended access to Rana during this period. Multani testified that the FACS worker Pamela Harvey (“Harvey”) had told her to suspend access until FACS had spoken with Rana. However, Harvey testified that FACS did not require Multani to suspend access.
[44] In my opinion, Harvey gave Multani an ambiguous message, as Harvey testified that she did not require Multani to suspend access, but that she had emphasized to Multani that Multani was responsible for ensuring Ruhan’s safety. I find that this was an indirect way of Harvey pressuring Multani to suspend access without FACS taking responsibility for that decision. I do not fault Multani for this ambiguity. In any event, access was resumed after the FACS file was closed.
[45] Overall, I generally accept Multani’s evidence and prefer her evidence to that of Rana.
CUSTODY, ACCESS, AND PARENTING ISSUES
[46] Regarding custody, Rana’s position is that Multani has been interfering with, and limiting, his relationship with Ruhan. Rana therefore submits that there should be a joint custody order to prevent Multani from doing so in the future. I find that Rana’s position is not supported by the evidence. My impression is that Multani has encouraged access visits between Rana and Ruhan, but that Multani has had difficulties arranging consistent access because of Rana’s tendency to reschedule or postpone.
[47] Further, I find that Rana’s submission that Multani tries to control him on access visits is unfounded. For example, Rana has complained that Multani gave him detailed instructions as to the food that Ruhan should eat on early access visits. In fact, I find that Multani did give Rana detailed instructions about what Ruhan should eat, but in doing so Multani was responding to questions from Rana, as Rana did not know what Ruhan could eat.
[48] Rana also submits that Multani has attempted to interfere with his relationship with Ruhan by improperly questioning the source of injuries that Ruhan had apparently received during some access visits. However, I find that Multani’s questions were motivated by her concern for Ruhan’s wellbeing and were not attempts to limit Rana’s access.
[49] Regarding the May 2016 incident, I find that Multani did not intend to involve FACS in the lives of the child or the parties. I find that FACS only became involved at the request of Ruhan’s doctor. This was not an attempt by Multani to limit Rana’s access.
[50] I accept that in the early years there were some parenting disputes with respect to issues such as Ruhan’s activities, and Ruhan’s naptime. In my view, those problems were primarily a result of Ruhan’s young age and the fact that Multani knew the child’s routine better than Rana. This is not the fault of either parent.
[51] Overall, I find that Multani has done an admirable job as the primary custodial parent for Ruhan. Ruhan is progressing well to date; he regularly has access visits with Rana despite the distance between them; he regularly sees members of both sides of his extended family; and he has developed a good bond with both his parents. I also find that Multani has taken positive steps to ensure that Rana has access to all relevant school and medical records about his son.
[52] Further, I find that there is a great amount of distrust between the parties to the extent that they are unable at this time to make decisions together about Ruhan. Still further, the fact that Rana and Multani live in different countries would suggest that a joint custody regime would be difficult.
[53] In summary, I do not accept Rana’s counsel’s suggestion that joint custody is necessary to prevent Multani from interfering with, or limiting, Rana’s relationship with Ruhan. I find that Multani has attempted to encourage Rana’s relationship with Ruhan. In my view, Multani understands that it is in Ruhan’s best interests for Rana to have regular access, and that Multani has and will encourage access.
[54] For all of these reasons, I find that Multani should continue to have sole custody of Ruhan. Therefore, I will not change the term of the July 2014 order that provides that Multani have sole custody of Ruhan.
[55] Regarding periodic access, in his court documents and in his testimony, Rana stated that he was content with the continuation of the current temporary order whereby he has access every third weekend. However, in closing submissions, counsel for Rana advised that Rana now wishes to have an order for access every second weekend. In my view, this change in position during the course of the trial is symptomatic of the problems that have arisen between the parties with respect to scheduling access.
[56] I note that in the past, on consent, the parties had tried a system of access every second weekend, but it failed primarily because it was difficult for Rana to travel to St. Catharines twice every month. Even at present, with access visits every third weekend, Rana has occasional difficulties finding the time to spend the entire weekend with Ruhan.
[57] Accordingly, I order that periodic access will continue every third weekend from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 4:00 p.m. Rana will pick up and drop off Ruhan at Multani’s residence, and Ruhan will remain within the Province of Ontario during the access visits.
[58] Skype access will remain twice every week and will be fixed every Tuesday and Thursday at 6:30 p.m. for approximately 15 minutes. In my view, if Skype access is increased to more than two times per week, the probability of scheduling difficulties will escalate. Therefore, Skype access will remain at twice per week. The parties may also use FaceTime instead of Skype if there is agreement in advance.
[59] Regarding holiday access, the parties generally agree to share holiday time. In that regard I make the following orders:
Rana shall have holiday access with Ruhan for one week over the winter break, alternate March Break weeks, and two weeks (non-consecutive) in the summers. A holiday access "week" (7 days) may be combined with Rana’s regular weekend access to allow for a holiday period of 9 days.
Ruhan shall be with Multani on Christmas Eve/Day in odd-numbered years, and with Rana in even-numbered years. Ruhan shall be with Multani on New Year's Eve/Day in even-numbered years, and with Rana in odd-numbered years.
Ruhan shall spend U.S. Thanksgiving weekend with Rana (Friday of U.S. Thanksgiving week plus the following weekend) in all years. Ruhan shall spend Canadian Thanksgiving with Multani in all years.
Ruhan shall spend U.S. Memorial Day with Rana in all years. Ruhan shall spend Victoria Day with Multani in all years.
If Ruhan’s birthday falls on a weekday, Ruhan shall spend the weekend following his birthday with Rana in order to celebrate his birthday. If Ruhan's birthday falls on a weekend, he shall spend his birthday with the parent whose regular weekend it is. The other parent shall have a special birthday Skype/FaceTime call with Ruhan on his birthday for up to 30 minutes.
Rana will have other reasonable access with Ruhan as agreed to and arranged by the parties.
Ruhan is not to miss a regularly scheduled school day for the purpose of access without prior written agreement of the parties.
[60] Regarding mobility, Rana is justifiably concerned that if Multani moves to other parts of Canada, Rana will have more difficulty exercising periodic access. Currently, he drives from New Jersey to St. Catharines, which is approximately an eight hour drive to exercise access, or he flies into the airport at Buffalo. Rana is content if Multani moves to the Toronto area, where Multani has family, because this would allow Rana to fly to Pearson Airport in Toronto to exercise access.
[61] However, Multani indicated that she may wish to move to Mississauga where she also has family and possible job opportunities. Rana does not agree that Multani should be permitted to do so because it will increase his travel time for access visits.
[62] I find the travel to and from access visits is certainly a concern in this case. I commend Rana for making the effort to travel extensively to exercise access. It is an effort that will in the long run benefit both Rana and Ruhan. However, I will not restrict Multani’s mobility with Ruhan by limiting her to living in either Niagara or the Greater Toronto Area (“GTA”).
[63] I accept that Multani may have future career opportunities in Mississauga and/or Toronto, and that she has family in both locations. Therefore, I find that Multani may move with Ruhan anywhere within Niagara, or to the GTA, or to any geographic region in between Niagara and the GTA, provided that she provide Rana with 90 days’ notice of her intention to move. If Multani wishes to move with Ruhan beyond this geographic area, she may only do so with Rana’s written consent or pursuant to a further court order.
[64] With respect to Rana’s request to exercise access in the U.S., I find that Ruhan does not yet have a Canadian or U.S. passport. Further, Rana has indicated that he does not wish to take the child to the U.S. until June 2019. Therefore, in my view, there is no need at this point to permit Rana to exercise access in the U.S.
[65] Further, it is not appropriate for me to make an order as to when or if Rana would be permitted to travel in the future to the U.S. with the child. At some point, when Rana expresses a specific intention to exercise access to Ruhan in the U.S., the circumstances at that time will need to be assessed.
[66] Accordingly, I order that Rana will not be permitted to take the child out of the Province of Ontario on an access visit without the prior written consent of Multani or a further court order.
[67] Regarding the name change requested by Rana, in my view, the request is neither logical nor sensible. Rana and Multani together registered the child’s current name, Ruhan Raath-Rana, and that name, in fact, is a combination that includes reference to the heritage of both the child’s father and mother.
[68] Rana’s request to change Ruhan’s name so as to eliminate any reference to Ruhan’s mother’s heritage is not in the best interests of Ruhan. Therefore, Rana’s request to change Ruhan’s last name is dismissed.
[69] Regarding the registration of Ruhan’s birth, I accept that the child’s birth has been registered in Ontario, but that Rana now wishes to register the child’s birth in the U.S. by applying to the U.S. Consular Office for a Certificate of Registration of Birth Abroad (“CRBA”).
[70] I accept the evidence of Charles Pley (“Pley”), a lawyer specializing in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration law, who testified that Ruhan is entitled to U.S. citizenship because his father, Rana, is a U.S. citizen who was living in the U.S. at the time of Ruhan’s birth in Canada. Pley testified that, in order to preserve Ruhan’s right to U.S. citizenship, his foreign birth should be registered in the U.S. before Ruhan is 18 years of age, although it is possible, but difficult, to do so after that time.
[71] I heard evidence that in order to register the foreign birth in the U.S., the U.S. government requires the party registering the birth to provide a great deal of evidence as to the citizenship and residency of the child’s parents. Therefore, I accept Pley’s opinion that it is better to register the child’s birth in the U.S. earlier rather than later, as the evidence will be fresher and more easily available when the child is young.
[72] On this issue, I also find that Multani is justifiably concerned about Rana’s motivation. Rana made some blatantly untrue and prejudicial statements in his Hague application, such as stating that Multani had abducted the child, and that Rana was being denied access. This application was eventually dismissed, but one has to wonder how a U.S. court would deal with this matter if Rana makes false statements again at a time when he lawfully has Ruhan in his care in the U.S.
[73] At this point, I find that the preservation of Ruhan’s right to U.S. citizenship so as to provide options for Ruhan in the future would be in the best interests of Ruhan. Considering that I will not be permitting Rana to take Ruhan to the U.S. on access visits, there should be no negative consequences of that registration.
[74] Accordingly, I order that Rana is permitted to register the child’s birth with the U.S. Consular Office and apply for a CRBA, and that Multani is to sign and provide all necessary documentation in that regard.
[75] I note that in closing submissions, Rana’s counsel also asked that Rana be permitted to apply for Ruhan’s U.S. passport and Social Security number. In my view, there is no need to make those applications at this time. Furthermore, in his testimony, Rana said that he was not asking for a U.S. passport at this time. Accordingly, the requests to apply for Ruhan’s U.S. passport and Social Security number are dismissed.
SUPPORT ISSUES
[76] Regarding child support, Rana’s income was not disclosed fully prior to the July 2014 order. A term of the July 2014 order required Rana to produce his financial statement within 30 days so as to provide full disclosure of his income. He did not do so. Therefore, child support has been paid since the July 2014 order based upon Rana’s assumed annual income of $87,230.
[77] In fact, Rana’s income in U.S. dollars for 2013 was $95,945, for 2014 was $132,222, for 2015 was $129,858 and for 2016 was $141,279. These U.S. dollar amounts convert to Canadian equivalents of $98,823, $145,444, $166,218, and $186,488, respectively. Thus, it is very clear that Rana has underpaid child support since the July 2014 order.
[78] The parties have agreed that child support owed to date is $27,095, and that amount will be paid by Rana in nine equal monthly instalments starting October 1, 2017. The parties have also agreed that ongoing child support will be $1,533 per month commencing October 1, 2017, based on Rana’s income of $186,488 (CAD) per year. An order will go accordingly.
[79] I also order that on or before July 1st of each year the parties will exchange income information from the prior calendar year, and they will use this income information to adjust child support as of August 1st each year.
[80] Regarding the daycare expense that has been paid by Multani, I find that such an expense is a reasonable s.7 expense. Rana’s submission that the daycare expense was not necessary is disingenuous. In my view, registering a young child in daycare is often an important step for the ongoing socialization of the young child. Therefore, I order that Multani is to forthwith provide Rana with a copy of any invoice or receipt with respect to any expense she has had for daycare, and Rana shall reimburse Multani for his proportionate share within 30 days thereafter.
[81] Regarding future s.7 expenses, there will be an order that s.7 expenses are to be paid in proportion to the parties’ respective incomes. For clarity, future s.7 expenses shall include all medical, dental, and orthodontic expenses not covered by insurance, all daycare expenses, all extracurricular and educational expenses that exceed $100, and all other expenses agreed upon in advance. Rana shall reimburse Multani for his proportionate share of these expenses within 30 days of receiving written confirmation of the expense. If the combined total of s.7 expenses exceeds $2,000 in any year, then Rana’s consent must be obtained in advance for any expense over $2,000 in that year, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
[82] Regarding spousal support, Multani claims retroactive spousal support back to November 2012. In my view, spousal support has been underpaid, but I will not make any retroactive adjustment prior to the date on which Multani made her formal request for a change in spousal support. I find that the first request for a change in spousal support was set out in Multani’s Response in this proceeding dated May 28, 2015. Therefore, I will adjust spousal support effective June 1, 2015.
[83] Multani’s income for 2015 was $13,408, for 2016 it was $14,832, and for 2017 it will be approximately $42,000. I do not accept Rana’s submission that I should impute income to Multani over and above her actual earned income. In my view, Multani has made reasonable, and successful, efforts to obtain full-time employment. Her efforts have now placed her on a path to financial independence. This is commendable.
[84] Given the travel expense incurred by Rana with respect to exercising access, I will award spousal support at slightly below the low end of the range suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. Therefore, I order spousal support from June 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, at the rate of $2,800 per month, and for all 12 months in 2016 at the rate of $3,200 per month. Commencing January 1, 2017, and thereafter I order spousal support at the rate of $2,400 per month.
[85] Rana also requests that I order the termination of spousal support as of December 31, 2017. In my view, Rana’s request has some merit given the short duration of the marriage. However, I also take into account the fact that Multani’s career path has been limited because Multani has relocated back to Canada, has embarked upon a different career path in Canada than the one she was on in New Jersey, and has spent much of her first few years in Canada caring for Ruhan as opposed to pursuing her career. Considering all of these factors I hereby order that spousal support will terminate as of August 31, 2018.
CONCLUSION
[86] There will be an order changing the July 2014 order by replacing the terms of that order with the orders made in these reasons.
[87] If there are any issues arising out of this decision, including costs, I direct that the party seeking relief shall deliver written submissions to the trial coordinator at St. Catharines within 20 days of the release of this decision with responding submissions to be delivered within 10 days thereafter. If no submissions are received within this timeframe, the parties will be deemed to have settled all of the remaining issues as between themselves.
J. R. Henderson, J.
Released: October 3, 2017
CITATION: Multani v. Rana, 2017 ONSC 5874
COURT FILE NO.: 138/14
DATE: 2017/10/03
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Sukhpreet Multani
Applicant
- and -
Ravdeep Rana
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
J. R. Henderson, J.
Released: October 3, 2017