Patry v. Patry, 2017 ONSC 6111
CITATION: Patry v. Patry, 2017 ONSC 6111
COURT FILE NO.: 3806/17
DATE: 2017-10-12
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KAREN PATRY Applicant
– and –
JASON PATRY Respondent
S. McCooeye, for the Applicant
HEARD: October 5, 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION ON UNCONTESTED TRIAL
RASAIAH J.
BACKGROUND
[1] The applicant is currently age 48. She is employed at Walmart in Sault Ste. Marie. She resides in Sault Ste. Marie.
[2] The respondent is currently age 45. He resides in Sault Ste. Marie.
[3] The parties became involved in a relationship and started to live together on or about May of 2000. They married November 27, 2004. They separated on March 27, 2016. The parties have one child together, namely Hope Marie Patry, born December 29, 2001 (“the child”). She is currently 15 years old.
[4] The applicant prepared and served an application dated March 27, 2017, claiming relief pertaining to custody, access, child support, health and dental coverage, imputation of income; equalization; costs; employment disclosure; and financial disclosure, which application was filed March 27, 2017 at Tab 1 of the Continuing Record, volume one (“C.R. Vol. 1”). The applicant’s claims were made under the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C12, as am. (“Children’s Law Reform Act”) and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F3, as am. (“Family Law Act”).
[5] The affidavit of service of Rodney Mills, process server, sworn March 3, 2017 [sic], filed April 3, 2017 indicates that the respondent was served by special service, namely, a copy was left with him personally, on April 2, 2017 at 11:25 a.m. of:
(a) applicant’s application;
(b) applicant’s affidavit 35.1;
(c) applicant’s financial statement;
(d) table of contents;
(e) net family property statement;
(f) conference notice;
(g) confirmation;
(h) MIPs notice; and
(i) blank answer, affidavit 35.1 and financial statement.
[6] The court file reflects that the applicant attended the mandatory information program on April 18, 2017.
[7] The respondent did not attend the mandatory information program; and did not file any responding materials.
[8] The respondent did attend the scheduled case conference that was heard May 15, 2017. That case conference was adjourned as a result of the respondent not having filed a brief nor having counsel, and based on his request for an adjournment. However before the conference was adjourned, an order was made by Varpio J. which permitted the applicant’s request to amend her application, and which required the respondent: to file his answer and other documents required within 60 days of the conference date; and to produce a sworn financial statement and all necessary attachments including his last three pay stubs, to show year-to-date income for 2017 within 45 days of the order.
[9] The applicant prepared an amended application to include a claim for a restraining order, for medical records, and that paragraph three of her original application and paragraph four of her original application be deleted as she was no longer was seeking the relief as set out therein. This amended application was served by mail May 19, 2017.
[10] Neither the applicant nor her counsel received any of the documents that were to be produced and/or filed by the respondent either pursuant to the application and/or Varpio J.’s order.
[11] Another case conference was scheduled for July 18, 2017. The respondent did not attend. The notice was served by mail May 19, 2017.
UNCONTESTED HEARING
[12] The time for filing an answer and compliance with the order made have expired.
[13] The consequences as set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of subrule 1(8.4) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (“Rules”) apply, with necessary changes, if a respondent does not serve and file and answer. The consequences are that, the respondent is not entitled to any further notice of steps in the case (subject to subrule 25(13) (service of order)); the respondent is not entitled to participate in the case in any way; the court may deal with the case in the respondent’s absence; and a date may be set for an uncontested trial of the case, on request, pursuant to rule 17.
[14] The applicant requested an uncontested trial. The uncontested trial was set and heard by me October 5, 2017.
[15] Prior to commencing the hearing, the respondent’s name was paged. He did not respond to the page.
THE EVIDENCE
[16] At the hearing, the applicant testified, and further, except as corrected by her by her testimony, sought to rely on her Form 35.1 filed, her financial statement filed; her net family property statements filed; her pleadings filed and her affidavits including exhibits, filed. In addition, on the issue of costs, Mr. McCooeye filed a letter he had sent to the respondent.
[17] I accept the evidence of the applicant. I assessed her to be very forthcoming with her evidence and there were no issues of credibility that arose.
ANALYSIS
Paternity
[18] I considered paternity in accordance with section 8 of Children’s Law Reform Act.
[19] The applicant testified that she and the respondent were residing together at the time of the child’s birth. While she did not bring the birth certificate, she testified that the respondent is shown as the father on the birth certificate. In addition, the applicant states that the respondent has not ever denied that the child is his child. He has acted as a father to the child since the child’s birth.
[20] I am satisfied that the parties are the parents of the child pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Family Law Act.
Custody and Access
[21] The applicant seeks sole custody of the child and that the child’s primary residence shall be with her. She is seeking that any order made remain silent as to access.
[22] I considered section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. I am satisfied that it is not contrary to the best interests of the child to make an order providing that the applicant have sole custody of the child; that the primary residence of the child shall be with the applicant; and that the order remain silent as to access, at this time. I am satisfied that the applicant is able and willing to provide the child with all the guidance, education, and the necessaries of life she needs.
[23] I considered the following.
[24] The applicant described a close and loving relationship between herself and the child.
[25] The applicant has been the primary caregiver of the child since her birth; she is the one that takes the child to all of her appointments and ensures that her every day needs are met; the child has not been out of her primary care since her birth. The child has resided with the applicant since the party separation.
[26] The applicant states that the respondent has never been interested in the important decisions that needed to be made for the child, and as a result, those decisions have been made solely by her during their relationship, and since the parties’ separation.
[27] The applicant’s residence is a five bedroom home that she owns jointly with her parents. She states that the child has her own room and is very comfortable in the home. She states that she plans to continue to live at this home, namely, 359 Bloor Street West, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The other people who live at the residence, are her son Parker James Broda, her father Frank Ryan and her mother Laureanne Ryan. There was no evidence of any concern regarding any of these individuals.
[28] The child has multiple special needs. She has been diagnosed with endometriosis, and Hirschsprung’s, related to her birth. The child has had a cecostomy. The child requires regular IV treatments and must travel regularly to London Ontario for those treatments. In addition, the child has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and receives treatment for that condition, namely counselling at Algoma Family Services, in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The child uses a walker and a wheelchair as a result of her medical issues. The child is assessed as disabled and is in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Plan benefits.
[29] The applicant has always cared for the child special needs. The applicant states that the respondent has never taken an initiative to care for the child’s needs. The applicant has support for caring for the child when needed from a variety of sources. The applicant’s mother assists her with the child. The other sources include other family members, counsellors, and physicians, as outlined in her affidavit filed.
[30] The applicant is stable. She is employed and works full-time. She works at Walmart located at 446 great Northern Road, Sault Ste. Marie Ontario. She works approximately 37.5 hours a week at the rate of pay of $14.15 per hour. She estimates her gross income in the amount of $20,250 for 2017 in her materials filed but in submissions, her counsel suggested to set her income at $25,000, which I accept. While she is at work, the child, at age 15, is able to care for herself. The child is in in grade 11 at St. Mary’s College. That being said, others as stated above, live in the home.
[31] The applicant is not facing any criminal charges and there is no open child protection file concerning the child.
[32] The applicant stated that at no time has she ever engaged in violence or abuse against a spouse, the respondent, any member of her household or any child.
[33] The applicant expressed concerns regarding the respondent. Her concerns are related to the respondent’s mental health (and the status of same); and abuse, both physical and emotional, which had been directed both towards herself and the child in the past.
[34] The applicant had believed that the respondent attempted suicide by drug overdose April 16, 2017. She was called to the hospital to provide medical information. The respondent was described as having been violent with hospital staff and as a result the respondent was induced into a medical coma. She details this event in her affidavit material filed. In her testimony, the applicant advised that she was told some time later that the respondent may not have been truthful about this attempt and was trying to get attention from his then girlfriend. Whether this is true or not, it still however demonstrated to her an instability. Either way, the behaviour is concerning.
[35] The applicant filed April 2016 emails that she deposed as having been written by the respondent in which emails the respondent acknowledges the abusive and concerning mental health behaviours the applicant has told the court about, and is concerned about.
[36] The applicant expresses that the child does not want to have access and she has been told this by the child because of fear and past abuse. The applicant identified a letter filed, as being a letter written by the child, in which the child describes the respondent as violent physically and emotionally and that she, the child, is fearful of the respondent. This letter was written by the child without prompting from the applicant. The applicant testified that she had a meeting with the child’s counsellor who revealed to her that the child had revealed being physically and emotionally abused by the respondent.
[37] The respondent has chosen not to answer the application and/or express any interest in this proceeding. The respondent has not exercised access to the child since September of 2016 and has made no efforts to seek a relationship with the child. He has not made any access requests. He sends no notes, cards or gifts.
[38] As for the applicant’s statement that on or about the last week of July 2017, she was advised by a Ms. Sharon Zappa, the girlfriend of the respondent’s best friend Eric Neveu, that the respondent’s current girlfriend, Christine Aileck advised that the respondent threatened to take his own life again, whether this is true or not, the other facts, and evidence including his lack of interest in access, referred to above, there is sufficient evidence to grant the relief requested, namely that the order be silent as to access.
Child Support:
[39] The applicant is asking that income be imputed to the respondent for purposes of determining child support in the amount of $50,000, for the years 2016 and 2017. The applicant is seeking table child support based on such imputed income in the amount of $450 per month commencing November 1, 2016.
[40] In addition the applicant is seeking an order providing that commencing November 1, 2016, the respondent shall pay section 7 expenses. She asks that the order provides that any such expense be paid in proportion to the parties incomes and that it be paid on or before the 14^th^ day from the date the applicant sends a written request for payment of the expense, including a calculation of the expense. She further asks that the order provide that for purposes of calculating the parties’ proportional contributions to the expenses, that the respondent’s income be imputed at $50,000; to set the applicant’s income at $25,000, and accordingly require the respondent to pay 75% of any such expenses.
Financial Circumstances of the Parties
[41] The applicant estimates her income for 2017 at $25,000. The details of her employment were set out above.
[42] The respondent has chosen not to answer the application.
[43] The respondent has not provided any disclosure of his income.
[44] The application clearly identifies to the respondent the requirement to file a financial statement in this proceeding even if choosing not to answer the case.
[45] At the aforementioned case conference for this proceeding, the respondent, who was in attendance, was aware financial disclosure was needed and ordered to be provided by Varpio J.
[46] The respondent has provided no explanation for his failure to provide financial disclosure.
[47] The applicant based on her relationship with the respondent and what she knew during it, stated that the respondent previously worked at Installation Group at Bell, as a driver for Flash Delivery, and as a driver for Driver’s Seat.
[48] The applicant is aware that the respondent quit the employment he had at Installation Group at Bell. The applicant has no information as to why the respondent quit his job at installation group at Bell. At this employment alone, she states he earned approximately $45,000 per year.
[49] The applicant also states the respondent quit his job at Flash Delivery which information was confirmed to her by the owners of Flash Delivery.
[50] As for Driver’s Seat, the applicant was advised by other employees that the respondent worked there for approximately three months.
[51] There were periods he was collecting employment insurance.
[52] The applicant believes that the respondent currently has work at Aurora’s West Side restaurant as a delivery person and that he has had same since March 2, 2017. She indicates that she confirmed this information through Rose who she states is the manager. Further, she has while out walking seen the respondent driving delivery for Aurora’s t. The applicant also states that the respondent reported to her that he was also in receipt of employment insurance benefits while working for Aurora’s. However, the applicant has not communicated with the respondent since March 7, 2017 after contacting the police for their assistance to obtain relief from harassing behaviour.
[53] The applicant states that she had recently been advised by her aunt that her aunt spoke with a delivery person who works at Aurora’s and her aunt was told by this person that the respondent recently completed a heavy diesel equipment program at Sault College and had been hired somewhere after having completed that program. Unfortunately, she does not know when or where. He may also still have the deliver job at Aurora’s.
[54] The applicant’s primary position is that the respondent has intentionally failed to supply his financial information and secondary, that his work history and training would permit him to find employment that would yield income in the amount of $50,000 annually.
[55] The respondent is the biological father of another child, namely, Andrew James Case. The mother is Sharon Case. The applicant states that the child was made a Crown Ward sometime in 2005 and that the respondent, as far she is aware, has no contact with and does not pay any support for this child.
[56] I considered sections 3, 15, 16 and 19 of the Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97 (“Guidelines”).
[57] Based on the history of the respondent’s employment and his lack of evidence suggesting inability to work or achieve the historically earned income level that he earned, as set out above, I am satisfied income should be imputed to the respondent and in the amount of $50,000. This amount is reasonable based on the evidence set out above. Further, the respondent has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so and aware of his obligation to do so.
Table Support
[58] Based on imputed income of $50,000 the monthly table support payable for one child based on the Guidelines is $450.
[59] The applicant states that the respondent had been paying $400 per month in child support from April 2016 until October 2016 and that he was also paying a payday loan debt that had been taken out in the applicant’s name in the amount of $108 per month. The respondent stopped paying support as of October 31, 2016. As of November 2016, the respondent unilaterally began paying the applicant the amount of $200 per month inclusive of the $108 payday loan leaving $92 for child support. Accordingly since November 2016 the applicant states that she has received a total of $828 towards child support based on the foregoing. I have no evidence to the contrary.
[60] Based on the foregoing, I find support is payable from November 1, 2016 and that the respondent should receive credit for the $828.
Section 7 Expenses
[61] The applicant would like the respondent to pay 75% of the child’s Guidelines section 7 expenses.
[62] The child has special medical needs and as a result expenses are incurred such as travel expenses; medical equipment expenses; and prescription drug expenses a portion of which is not always covered by insurance or the Ontario Disability Support Plan.
[63] The prescription drug costs that are not covered are $25 for each prescription approximately 12 times per year for a total uncovered cost of $300. All other expenses at this time are covered by the Ontario Disability Support Plan.
[64] I am satisfied that these expenses are reasonable and necessary to incur in the best interests of the child and that there may be in fact future expenses incurred due to the child’s health that may not always be covered by insurance or the Ontario Disability Support Plan and that an order should be made to address such an event and require the respondent to pay his proportionate share.
[65] Based on the imputed income I have found attributable to the respondent and the income of the applicant which I set at $25,000 as submitted, the respondent’s pro rata share is 75%.
Health and Dental Coverage
[66] The applicant would like the respondent to ensure that the child is maintained on any extended health, medical and dental benefits that the respondent may have now or in the future. She also seeks to be maintained on such available coverage until such time as divorce proceedings are completed.
[67] At present, she does not know if he has a plan on which the child can be placed. The applicant states that the father has, through employment, previously received health and dental benefits coverage/benefits.
[68] I agree that if he has such a plan or acquires such a plan through his employment, at no cost or at a reasonable rate, that the child should be maintained on that coverage as support for the child in accordance with the Guidelines.
[69] In respect of the applicant, while she has not officially checked off the box in her application for “support for me” and she is not seeking a monetary amount for spousal support, it is clear from the application that she was and is asking to be made a beneficiary under a benefit plan for her support pursuant to the Family Law Act. I see no evidence that would lead me to the conclusion that the applicant should not have the benefit of such coverage if the respondent has such coverage, in light of all of her financial circumstances, means, and need as set out by the materials filed, and the length of the relationship.
Equalization
[70] The valuation date is March 27, 2016.
[71] Some supporting documentation was filed for the debts and bank accounts which I accept. However there were no formal valuations presented in the evidence for the home, home contents and the vehicles. As such, I am limited to the applicant’s testimony to decide the issues, which I accept as reasonable, given her explanations and descriptions of the items compared to the values assigned by her.
[72] The financial statement and net family property statement outlines the assets and the debts; who the assets are or were owned by, and the purported values.
[73] At the date of marriage, the applicant owned household contents that she valued at $4000 and a Dodge Caravan valued at $2000. She described that the household contents included bedroom sets, living room furniture, tables, and major appliances. The Dodge Caravan was used and not in good condition. She claimed a loan for this vehicle to her parents in the same amount.
[74] The respondent had no major assets prior to marriage or debts that the applicant was made aware of. The respondent chose not to disclose his information.
[75] As of the date of separation, the applicant owned a one third interest in the home located at 359 Bloor Street West jointly with her parents which she values at $79,500. When asked by me, she indicated that if she had to list it for sale that $79,500 would be the price she would list it for although she would accept $75,000. The home is in need of a number of repairs to the ceiling, walls and railings as a result of damage, including water damage. There are holes in the drywall on walls the respondent intended on repairing but never did.
[76] The applicant also claims household goods and furniture of $2,500 which she thinks is generous given the age of the items now. She came up with this figure after talking to a mediator who advised her that the value would be what she could sell it for. She also had a bank account at the Royal Bank and a bank account at the Scotia Bank in the amounts set out in the net family property statement.
[77] The respondent owned a 2012 Hyundai Elantra; and Xbox, Smart TV; games; a trailer and its contents and deck; and an ATV.
[78] The Xbox was purchased in December of 2015 for $575. The respondent had about 10 to 12 games which were purchased at a cost of approximately $40 to $60 each game. Although she forgot to list it, she states he also left with a PlayStation 4 game and PlayStation games that had been purchased 4 years earlier as a gift for the children. The applicant estimated $750 for household contents in the possession of the respondent based on the foregoing.
[79] There is a 30 foot 2011 trailer that is assessed at $12,500 which is currently in the possession of the respondent. The applicant states that the respondent was supposed to remove the insurance for the trailer from the home insurance but instead he took a title loan out against the trailer. The respondent had the trailer assessed on or about a few months following separation for $12,500. This is how she came up with this value.
[80] The respondent’s vehicle was purchased in 2014 for $14,000. The applicant believes the current value is $8000. She accepted that the vehicle’s value would depreciate and came up with this figure on this basis. The vehicle was a 2012 and was 4 years old. The applicant states that she discovered that the respondent disposed of the vehicle on or about November 2016. In particular he traded the vehicle in for a 2014 Ford escape which information was confirmed to her by an individual named Tom, a friend of the respondent. The respondent is using the vehicle for deliveries. The applicant states that she did not consent to this property being disposed of.
[81] As of the date of separation the applicant had a visa debt in the amount of $1,825.10; a payday loan in the amount of $501.34 that she took out for the benefit of the respondent and was left to pay; and a joint debt with her parents for the mortgage associated with the home in the amount of $53,883.64, her one third share being $17,961.21. She filed supporting documentation for these debts.
[82] The applicant also had a debt to Citi financial in the amount of $10,388.10 related to the purchase of a new roof, floors and debt consolidation in her name.
[83] I have considered the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act.
[84] Based on the evidence that I accept and the Act, the applicant would have zero net family property and the respondent $23,250 and there is an equalization payment owed to the applicant in the amount of $11,625.
Restraining Order
[85] The applicant seeks a restraining order pursuant to section 35 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.
[86] She asks that the respondent be restrained in whole, from directly or indirectly contacting or communicating with her and the child. She asks that he be restrained from coming within 100 m of her residence, from her place of employment, and from the child’s school.
[87] The applicant states that she fears for her safety and the child safety as a result of the respondent’s previous conduct. She advises that the child has expressed to her fear for both the applicant and herself.
[88] This conduct includes the conduct referred to under the custody section above. I have considered that evidence for this issue. In addition, in my view, the emails filed without explanation set a picture of an individual with emotional issues and violent tendencies.
[89] The uncertainty of the respondent’s mental health status is also concerning. He failed to disclose the records concerning his suicide attempt in April of 2017 as ordered.
[90] It is acknowledged by the applicant that since the police spoke to the respondent and warned him, with the exception of one attendance at her place of employment, the respondent has not made any attempt to contact her. He has not had any or made any attempts to contact the child for some time. He has not attended the child’s school that she is aware of. He has not attended her home that she is aware of. However, she is very concerned that following the release of my judgment, especially if it is in her favour, that based on her past history with and knowledge of the respondent and what she knows him capable of, she is fearful for her safety and her daughter’s safety. This fear appeared to be very real in my assessment.
[91] I am satisfied that the applicant has established sufficient evidence demonstrating reasonable grounds to fear for her safety and the safety of the child.
[92] That being said, a restraining order should not be made lightly.
[93] I am in a difficult position not being able to assess the respondent’s perspective and health because has not afforded the court that opportunity and he has chosen not to answer the case.
[94] In respect of her and the child’s home, the applicant has not made the effort to obtain a “no trespass order”, because after her complaint to the police the respondent had not come to the home. However, she states she seeks the higher protection of a restraining order and feels this is necessary.
[95] As far as the applicant’s employment is concerned, there are two Walmarts in Sault Ste. Marie and as such, the applicant submits the respondent would be able to shop at the other location. The applicant testified that the respondent has already attended the location at which she works, causing her fear, after he had been warned by police not to attend her work place. She was on a break at the time and a fellow employee saw the respondent and reported this to the applicant. The applicant feels very intimidated and scared.
[96] As for the child’s school, while the school has been made aware of the applicant’s concerns, and have some procedures in place, the fact of the matter is that the pick-up and drop-off of the child at school is done by either the applicant or her mother and the disability of the child is such that she would not be able to assist or protect herself or move quickly. She is weak and uses a walker and/or wheel chair depending on how she is feeling. This is concerning; the applicant and the child feel no protection entering and leaving the school.
[97] The above being said, I am satisfied that the restraining order should be made on the balance of the evidence.
Ongoing Disclosure
[98] The applicant seeks ongoing disclosure from the respondent in respect of his income. Based on the Guidelines and the failures of the respondent to date to provide information voluntarily, I have no difficulty with this request.
Costs
[99] The applicant seeks costs. Applicant’s counsel outlined that: the application was commended in March of 2017; that the respondent did attend the initial conference and the conference was adjourned to another conference and a cost order was made at that step. Thereafter, there were steps that were required to be taken to and including the uncontested hearing, and as such, those costs are being sought.
[100] I considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (“Rules”) and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as am. (“Courts of Justice Act”).
[101] On November 29, 2016, prior to commencing court application, the applicant via her counsel sent a letter to the respondent containing a proposed resolution. The applicant commenced her application because she was unable to reach resolution with the respondent and/or the respondent chose not to respond/participate in this case.
[102] The applicant states that the respondent has also made this proceeding much more difficult by failing to provide the necessary financial information and failing to comply with the court order made regarding disclosure.
[103] The applicant is in receipt of legal aid Ontario assistance and as such requests that any order made as to costs be paid directly to legal aid Ontario. Applicant’s counsel submitted a copy of the account sent to Legal Aid Ontario for my consideration.
[104] The applicant was successful with her claim.
[105] I considered the account and those steps related to commencing the application and the uncontested hearing. I did not consider the steps related to the conferences - a cost order was made at the second conference. In addition, I did not consider the motion that was brought had not been granted at first instance and ultimately from my review of the file was not pursued and this was not part of applicant’s counsel’s submissions in relation to costs. Finally, I find that 30 letters sent and received and 38 telephone attendances, unexplained and in light of the issues to be excessive and a reduction ought to be applied. That being said, with the remaining issues and steps in the proceeding, the account submitted reflects time that in my view is reasonably and properly associated. The disbursements claimed are reasonable.
[106] Based on all of the above, I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion to order costs, and balancing all of the above that a reasonable fair amount in all of the circumstances inclusive of fees, disbursements and H.S.T. is $2,000.00.
ORDER
[107] Based on all of the above, I hereby order:
This court finds that the applicant and the respondent are the parents of Hope Marie Patry, born December 29, 2001 (“the child”) within the meaning of the Family Law Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act.
The applicant and respondent shall have custody of the child.
The primary residence of the child shall be with the applicant.
Commencing November 1, 2016 and on the first day of each month thereafter, based on imputed income of $50,000, the respondent, shall pay to the applicant for the child, Hope Marie Patry, born December 29, 2001, child support in the amount of $450 per month. In respect of this support order, the respondent shall receive a credit in the total amount of $828.
Based on the respondent’s imputed income of $50,000 and the applicant’s income set at $25,000, the respondent shall pay 75% of the special and extraordinary expenses for the child, Hope Marie Patry, born December 29, 2001 in accordance with Child Support Guidelines for Ontario. The respondent shall pay his said respective share on or before the 14^th^ day from the date the applicant sends a written request for payment of the expense, which request shall include a calculation of the respondent’s share of the expense and a copy of the invoice or receipt as proof of the expense.
For so long as child support is payable for the child, the respondent shall advise the applicant of any material change to his employment and/or income within seven days of any such change occurring.
Commencing in 2018, by June 1^st^ each year, for so long as child support is payable for the child, the respondent shall provide to the applicant, a copy of his Tax Return including all attachments for the previous taxation year; and a copy of his Notice of Assessment for the said previous taxation year within 10 days of receipt of same. For so long as section 7 expenses are payable for the child, commencing in 2018, by June 1^st^ each year, the applicant shall provide to the respondent, a copy of her Tax Return including all attachments for the previous taxation year; and a copy of her Notice of Assessment for the previous taxation year within 10 days of receipt of same.
The respondent shall maintain the child, for so long as the child is eligible, on any extended health, medical and dental benefits coverage that he may now have or in the future acquire through his employment. If he currently has such coverage he shall advise the applicant and provide her with particulars and proof that the child is named on the plan within 14 days of this order. If he does not currently have such coverage, he shall advise the applicant within 10 days of receipt of such coverage and provide her with the particulars and proof that the child is named on the plan.
The respondent shall maintain the applicant, for so long as she is eligible until such time as divorce proceedings are completed, on any extended health, medical and dental benefits coverage that he may now have or in the future acquire through his employment. If he currently has such coverage he shall advise the applicant and provide her with particulars and proof that she is named on the plan within 14 days of this order. If he does not currently have such coverage, he shall advise the applicant within 10 days of receipt of such coverage and provide her with the particulars and proof that she is named on the plan if eligible.
On account of equalization, the respondent shall pay to the applicant, the sum of $11,625.00 (eleven thousand six hundred twenty-five dollars) within 30 days of service of this order.
A restraining order shall issue in the prescribed form pursuant to the rules of the court and shall contain the following provisions:
(a) The respondent, Jason Patry, shall be restrained in whole, from directly or indirectly contacting or communicating with the applicant, Karen Patry, and the child, Hope Marie Patry, born December 29, 2001.
(b) The respondent shall be restrained from coming within 100 m of the applicant’s and child’s residence, currently being 359 Bloor Street West, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; from the applicant’s place of employment, namely Walmart, located at 446 Great Northern Road, Sault Ste. Marie Ontario; and from the child’s school, namely St. Mary’s high school, currently located at [], Sault Ste. Marie Ontario.
The respondent shall pay to the applicant costs in the amount of $2,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to Legal Aid Ontario within 30 days of the date of this order.
A copy of this order shall be served on the respondent by applicant’s counsel within 7 days of the date of this order, and an affidavit of service thereafter shall be prepared and filed in the continuing record.
The balance of any and all other claims is dismissed.
Rasaiah J.
Released: October 12, 2017
CITATION: Patry v. Patry, 2017 ONSC 6111
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KAREN PATRY
- and –
JASON PATRY
REASONS FOR DECISION ON UNCONTESTED TRIAL
Rasaiah J.
Released: October 12, 2017