CITATION: Papp v. Papp, 2017 ONSC 942

COURT FILE NO.: 3682/12

DATE: 20170208

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

KATHRYN GRACE PAPP Applicant

– and –

LESLIE ANTHONY PAPP Respondent

COUNSEL: S. Behpour, for the Applicant Self-Represented

HEARD: January 23 and 24, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MILLER J.

[1] Mrs. Papp brings an Application for spousal support and equalization. Mr. Papp in his Answer seeks child support and equalization.

Background

[2] An Agreed Statement of Fact was made Exhibit # 1 on the trial. It indicates that:

1. The parties were married in June 18, 1994.
2. The parties separated on March 29, 2012.
3. The Applicant was born on November 11, 1957 (59 years of age) and the Respondent was born on January 9, 1960 (57 years of age).
4. There are two children of the marriage, namely, Shayelyn Alexis Papp, born October 3, 1997; and Brycen Tyler Papp, born October 12, 1994.
5. At the date of separation, Brycen Papp was 17 years of age and Shayelyn Papp was 14 years of age.
6. Following separation, the Applicant moved in with her parents and has been living there ever since.
7. During the marriage, the Respondent worked full time at Ford Motor Company until he retired in 2008.
8. Upon his retirement, the Respondent received a $35,000.00 voucher for a vehicle, which he used to purchase a 2008 Ford F-150.
9. Upon his retirement, the Respondent also received $75,000.00 worth of RRSPs invested in Manulife Securities.
10. Commencing in 2008, the Respondent’s Ford pension was paid out in monthly installments.
11. The Applicant’s income for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 was $6,189, $6,189 [this was in fact $6,198]; $16,569; and $23,859, respectively, as stated on line 150 of her income tax returns.
12. The Respondent’s income for 2012, 2013 and 2014 was $41,807; $41,896 and $41,819 as stated on line 150 of his income tax returns.
13. Following retirement, the Respondent supplemented his pension income with employment income.

Equalization

[3] Both parties in their pleadings sought equalization. Mr. Papp did not provide a Net Family Property Statement. Mrs. Papp provided three: two dated January 5, 2016 – one with and one without the value of Mr. Papp’s pension; and one dated December 22, 2016 which includes the value of Mr. Papp’s pension.

(a) Land

[4] The matrimonial home was sold as at the date of separation, March 29, 2012. The matrimonial home was in Mr. Papp’s name but the proceeds of sale totalling $51,820.86 were divided equally between the parties, each receiving $25,910.42 as per the Statement of Adjustments contained at Tab 13 of the Documents Brief.

[5] I have heard and considered Mrs. Papp’s testimony that she was effectively “duped” into signing for a second mortgage in and around the time of Mr. Papp’s retirement in 2008. I have heard and considered Mr. Papp’s testimony that the home was refinanced in order to meet the household needs and that he did not irresponsibly dispose of the monies received. I also considered his testimony that the RRSPs were used to finance the household. I am not persuaded that there was any misuse of the funds and I find that the parties were properly equally responsible for the debts against the matrimonial home at the time it was sold.

[6] The value of the matrimonial home is properly indicated as $25,910.42 for each party as at the date of separation.

(b) General Household Items and Vehicles

[7] Mrs. Papp takes the position that the value of the household goods she took on separation was $600 whereas those kept by Mr. Papp were worth $5,000. Mrs. Papp agreed that she left most of the furniture with Mr. Papp for the use of the children. Mr. Papp testified that Mrs. Papp took whatever she wanted from the house. He agrees that he was left with the bulk of the furniture as he was moving to a new residence with the children whereas Mrs. Papp was moving into a room at her parents’ residence and most of the items she took from the matrimonial home were placed and remain in a storage unit. Mr. Papp does not agree that the value of the items kept by him was as much as $5,000 as the furniture had been damaged by the cats and was well-worn. Neither party presented any evidence as to the value of the household items independent of their testimony.

[8] It is clear that the onus is on the party asserting the value of an asset that he or she controls to provide credible evidence as to its value: Homsi v. Zaya 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552 (C.A.)

[9] As Mr. Papp does not dispute that the value of the household items taken by Mrs. Papp from the matrimonial home is $600, that amount will be the total for Mrs. Papp for General Household Items.

[10] Mrs. Papp testified that she kept a Mustang vehicle on separation but it was worth nothing and in fact cost her $1,500 to repair so that she could use it. She testified that she woke up one morning to find the contents of the Mustang on the lawn and the car was gone. She assumes Mr. Papp repossessed the vehicle. A $0 value will be ascribed to this vehicle for Mrs. Papp. Her total for General Household Items and Vehicles will be $600 on the valuation date.

[11] While Mr. Papp disputes that the value of the household items kept by him for himself and the children were as much as $5,000, he has not provided any evidence in support of lesser value, except that the furniture had been scratched by the cat. Based on a description of the items kept – bedroom furniture for the children, living and dining furniture including a television and other household items - I find that $5,000 is a reasonable amount as a total for General Household Items for Mr. Papp on the valuation date.

[12] For Mr. Papp’s vehicle, the 2008 Ford F-150, which was apparently worth $35,000 at the time it was acquired, Mrs. Papp has variously ascribed values of $35,000 and $30,000. She testified that the vehicle was modified by the addition of a plow so that it could be used for snowplowing. Mr. Papp disputes that the vehicle was, at the date of separation, worth anything near $30,000. He testified that in 2012 it was worth at best $10,000 even with the snowplow attachment. Mr. Papp acknowledged that he could have obtained a “black book” value for the vehicle in 2012 but did not and his estimate of $10,000 is based on depreciation, the mileage and condition of the truck at the time.

[13] In this regard I am of the view that Mrs. Papp’s estimate of the value of the truck at separation is unrealistic. I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the value of the truck at separation was likely closer to Mr. Papp’s estimate. A value of $10,000 for the vehicle will be the total for vehicles for Mr. Papp, giving him an overall total of $15,000 for General Household Items and Vehicles on the valuation date.

(c) Bank Accounts and Savings, Securities and Pensions

[14] Mrs. Papp has indicated she had a bank balance of $512.73 on the date of separation. Mr. Papp does not dispute this.

[15] Mr. Papp provided disclosure of the parties’ joint bank account FirstOntario Chequing Account # 15408; and his TD Account # 6378794.

[16] As at March 26, 2012, the closest entry to the valuation date, the parties had $29.37 in their joint account.

[17] As at March 29, 2012 Mr. Papp had $19,917.68 in his MBA account. Mr. Papp testified that this was what remained of his share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home. This is borne out by the history of deposits and withdrawals, which also shows a March 27, 2012 draft of $23,526.50 going out. The reasonable inference to be drawn is that the proceeds of sale from the matrimonial home were deposited into Mr. Papp’s account and Mrs. Papp’s share was then paid out to her by way of the bank draft on March 27, 2012. Mrs. Papp has not produced records showing what she did with that money although in her testimony she acknowledged receiving it. Mrs. Papp will not be held accountable for those funds as at the valuation date nor will Mr. Papp as their division of the matrimonial home has already been dealt with.

[18] Mrs. Papp has included for Mr. Papp in this category $297,548.47 being the value of Mr. Papp’s pension. While this is the Family Law Value as per the Statement of Family Law Value pursuant to the Pension Benefits Act, that Act provides at section 67.3 that there may be a lump sum payment to a spouse only if no payment of an instalment of the member’s or former member’s pension was due on or before the family law valuation date.

[19] Mr. Papp retired during the marriage in 2008 and has been receiving pension instalments since then – well before the family law valuation date. In these circumstances Mrs. Papp may apply pursuant to section 67.4 of the Pension Benefits Act for division of the pension instalments. Mr. Papp agrees that Mrs. Papp is so entitled. The pension value is therefore not properly part of the equalization calculation.

[20] I find that Mrs. Papp had $512.73 plus (1/2 of $29.37) $14.68 for a total of $527.41 in Bank Accounts and Savings, Securities and Pensions on the valuation date.

[21] I find that Mr. Papp had $14.78 (independent of his share of the proceeds of sale from the matrimonial home) in Bank Accounts and Savings, Securities and Pensions on the valuation date.

(d) Debts and Other Liabilities

[22] Mrs. Papp has claimed debts of $269 for a water bill; $560 on a Zellers credit card and $156 on a 407ETR bill as at the valuation date. Mr. Papp does not dispute these. I find that Mrs. Papp had $985 in Debts and Other Liabilities on the valuation date.

[23] Mr. Papp did not claim any debts or other liabilities as at the valuation date. I find that Mr. Papp had $0 in Debts and Other Liabilities on the valuation date.

(e) Property, Debts and Other Liabilities on Date of Marriage

[24] For Property, Debts and Other Liabilities on Date of Marriage Mrs. Papp claims they each had $4,000 in bank accounts and savings, and that she additionally had $8,500 in general household items and vehicles. Mr. Papp does not dispute this.

[25] I find that Mrs. Papp had $12,500 in Property, Debts and Other Liabilities on the Date of Marriage.

[26] I find that Mr. Papp had $4,000 in Property, Debts and Other Liabilities on the Date of Marriage.

(f) Net Family Property

[27] I find Mrs. Papp’s net family property to be $13,552.83. ($27,037.83-$985-$12,500)

[28] I find Mr. Papp’s net family property to be $36,925.10 ($40,925.10 - $4,000)

[29] I find that Mr. Papp owes an equalization payment of $11,686.14 to Mrs. Papp.

Pension Payment

[30] Per the Statement of Family Law Value pursuant to the Pension Benefits Act, the maximum monthly pension payment that can be made to the former spouse of the pension member is $479.21 from the family law valuation date to age 65 and the same amount from age 65 to the date of death.

[31] Per the Statement of Family Law Value pursuant to the Pension Benefits Act, the maximum monthly bridging/supplemental payment that can be made to the former spouse of the pension member is $276.06 from the family law valuation date to age 65.

[32] As indicated above, Mr. Papp consents to Mrs. Papp receiving these monthly amounts pursuant to section 67.4 of the Pension Benefits Act. I order that the monthly maximum payments be made to Mrs. Papp from the family law valuation date which is March 29, 2012.

Imputation of Income

[33] Kathryn Papp takes the position that Leslie Papp’s decision to retire was unreasonable, given his age and ability to continue to earn income at a level he did before retirement. She relies on evidence that during the marriage post-retirement Leslie Papp took on other work to supplement his pension income. It is Kathryn Papp’s position that income should be imputed to Mr. Papp.

[34] Kathryn Papp testified that during the marriage before retirement Mr. Papp earned annual income in the $75,000 range. She testified that Mr. Papp was only 48 when he retired in 2008 and he did so against her wishes.

[35] Mrs. Papp testified that after his retirement Mr. Papp did work snowplowing, signage and custom flagstone as well as lawncare. Mrs. Papp testified that Mr. Papp was paid “under the table” but that the money went into their joint account during the marriage.

[36] A chart prepared by counsel for Mrs. Papp summarizes information contained in Mr. Papp’s bank records. This shows that Mr. Papp made bank deposits independent of his retirement pension income in 2012. She submits his total income for 2012 should be imputed to $114,915.77 which is the total of all deposits.

[37] Mr. Papp acknowledged that he earned income doing other activities over and above his pension income in 2012 which he did not declare on his income tax return. He points out, however, that $43,000 of the deposits made to his account in March 2012 was from the proceeds of sale from the matrimonial home and should not be considered as income.

[38] I find, for 2012, that Mr. Papp’s line 150 income of $41,807 is not a true reflection of his income for that year. I find that his income in 2012 was $80,000.

[39] The chart prepared by counsel for Mrs. Papp summarizing information contained in Mr. Papp’s bank records shows that Mr. Papp made bank deposits, independent of his retirement pension income in 2013. She submits his total income for 2013 should be imputed at $16,544.95 in addition to his Line 150 income which is the total of all deposits over and above Mr. Papp’s pension deposits.

[40] Mr. Papp acknowledged that he earned income doing other activities over and above his pension income in 2013 which he did not declare on his income tax return.

[41] I find, for 2013, that Mr. Papp’s line 150 income of $41,896 is not a true reflection of his income for that year. I find that his income in 2013 was $57,000.

[42] The chart prepared by counsel for Mrs. Papp summarizing information contained in Mr. Papp’s bank records shows that Mr. Papp made bank deposits, independent of his retirement pension income in 2014. She submits his total income for 2014 should be imputed at $6,822. 95 in addition to his Line 150 income which is the total of all deposits over and above Mr. Papp’s pension deposits.

[43] Mr. Papp acknowledged that he earned income doing other activities over and above his pension income in 2014 which he did not declare on his income tax return.

[44] I find, for 2014, that Mr. Papp’s line 150 income of $41,819 is not a true reflection of his income for that year. I find that his income in 2014 was $48,000.

[45] The chart prepared by counsel for Mrs. Papp summarizing information contained in Mr. Papp’s bank records. This shows that Mr. Papp made bank deposits, independent of his retirement pension income in 2014. She submits his total income for 2015 should be imputed at $8,865.80 in addition to his Line 150 income which is the total of all deposits over and above Mr. Papp’s pension deposits.

[46] Mr. Papp acknowledged that he earned income doing other activities over and above his pension income in 2015 which he did not declare on his income tax return.

[47] Mr. Papp last filed a sworn financial statement October 28, 2015. He testified that he started part-time work at Pricents in October 2015 as he found he was physically unable to continue the other part-time work he had been doing, snowplowing and landscaping. He earns $10 per hour on an on call basis plus some gas money. The evidence is that he earns about $100-$150 per week in addition to his pension income.

[48] I find for 2015 Mr. Papp’s income was $48,000.

[49] Mr. Papp acknowledges that he receives $200 in “rent” from his son’s girlfriend who resides with them. He submits this is not income and barely covers her board. I agree. On the evidence I have I find that Mr. Papp’s income in 2016 was $45,000.

[50] Counsel for Mrs. Papp submits that Mr. Papp is capable of earning as much as he did in 2013 and that he is voluntarily underemployed. She submits that his income should be imputed at $80,000 annually since separation. In this she relies on the decisions of Pollen v. Pollen 2004 5073 (ON SC), [2004] O.J. No. 513 (S.C.J.) and Meissner v. Meissner [2013] O.J. No. 4065 (S.C.J.)

[51] I have considered the findings in these cases which are distinguishable from the case at bar. In Meissner the husband’s decision to retire came long after separation. In Pollen, where the husband had retired one year prior to separation the principle of avoiding double recovery was discussed at length. At paragraph 52 the court indicated that the basic principle is that double recovery is to be avoided where possible.

[52] Further, I accept Mr. Papp’s testimony that he is no longer physically capable of taking on the type of employment that he did immediately post-retirement. I find that there should be no imputation of Mr. Papp’s income beyond what I have already indicated. Going forward, I find that he is capable of earning some income in addition to what he receives from his pension and so income for Mr. Papp shall be imputed at $45,000 annually until he reaches age 65.

Child Support Arrears

[53] It is Kathryn Papp’s position that based on her level of income no child support was payable by her in 2012 and 2013 and that the children are not entitled to child support beyond their 18th birthdays. It is her position that there are no arrears of child support to be paid.

[54] Pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines there is a presumptive rule that children under the age of majority are entitled to table child support.

[55] The children here are Shayelyn Alexis Papp, born October 3, 1997 and Brycen Tyler Papp, born October 12, 1994.

[56] Both parties brought claims pursuant to the Divorce Act and so the children are considered children of the marriage pursuant to that Act. This clearly includes children under age 18 and, courts have defined children of the marriage to include children over 18 who are not independent because of continuation of a course of education.

[57] Mrs. Papp acknowledges that both children are pursuing post-secondary education although no documentary proof was in evidence. She has never paid child support and Mr. Papp has supported the children on his own, without contribution from Mrs. Papp both before and after their 18th birthdays. This has included supporting them in their living arrangements while attending post-secondary school.

[58] I must take into account that Mrs. Papp, as a result of my decision on pension, will be receiving, back to March 12, 2012, a monthly pension amount of $755.27. I add this monthly amount to her Line 150 income for the purposes of applying the child support guidelines.

[59] For 2012 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income was $6,189 I add in pension income for 10 months ($7,555) for a total of $13,744. Applying the child support guidelines I find that Mrs. Papp should have paid $156 per month for two children for a total of $1,560 for 2012. While Brycen turned 18 October 12, 2012 I am satisfied that he continued his schooling and as a result remains a dependent child for this period.

[60] For 2013 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income was $6,198. I add in pension income of $9,063.24 for a total of $15,261.24. Applying the child support guidelines I find that Mrs. Papp should have paid $203 per month for two children for a total of $2,436 for 2013. I am satisfied Brycen remained a dependent child for this period and although he resided away from home in this school year Mr. Papp continued to provide financial support.

[61] For 2014 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income was $16,569. I add in pension income of $9,063.24 for a total of $25,632.24 Applying the child support guidelines I find that Mrs. Papp should have paid $381 per month for two children for a total of $4,572 in 2014. I am satisfied Brycen remained a dependent child for this period and although he resided away from home in this school year Mr. Papp continued to provide financial support.

[62] For 2015 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income was $23,859. I add in pension income of $9,063.24 for a total of $32,922.24. Applying the child support guidelines I find that Mrs. Papp should have paid $480 per month for two children for a total of $5,760 in 2015. I am satisfied Brycen remained a dependent child for this period and although he resided away from home in this school year Mr. Papp continued to provide financial support. I am also satisfied that although Shayelyn turned 18 October 3, 2015 she also remained a dependent child.

[63] For 2016 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income is $23,859. I add in pension income of $9,063.24 for a total of $32,922.24. Applying the child support guidelines I find that Mrs. Papp should have paid $480 per month for two children for a total of $5,760 in 2016. I am satisfied that for this period both Brycen and Shayelyn remained dependent children.

[64] Mrs. Papp’s total arrears of child support is $20,088.

[65] Going forward, until there is some determination of Mrs. Papp’s income I take into account her pension income only for a total of $9,063.24. Although, for now, I am satisfied that both Shayelyn and Brycen remain dependent children and they will remain so while attending fulltime education and being supported financially by their father, applying the child support guidelines I find that Mrs. Papp’s child support obligation for two children is $0 per month.

Spousal Support

[66] Kathryn Papp’s claim for spousal support is both compensatory, based on her role during the marriage, and non-compensatory, based on her ill health and current ability to earn income.

[67] Kathryn Papp testified that throughout the marriage until his retirement in 2008 Leslie Papp worked fulltime at Ford, did shift work and often worked overtime hours. She testified that she was the primary caregiver for the children returning to work only part-time when Brycen was 8-10 years of age and working fulltime at Walmart for two years from 2010. When the children were young daycare was prohibitively expensive and so she provided childcare, did cleaning, cooking and laundry at the house. She testified that she made and attended medical appointments with the children and went to parent–teacher meetings. She acknowledged that Mr. Papp took on that role as the children got older.

[68] Mrs. Papp testified that before separation she began re-training as a dental assistant, continuing her studies after separation. She was hopeful that she would become self-sufficient working in this field.

[69] Mrs. Papp testified that post-separation she had no income and so moved in with her parents where she continues to reside. She testified that for a few months post-separation she did not work although was handing out resumes. She testified that she did get some contract work as a dental assistant but soon learned that her training, which did not include training on a particular computer program, was not sufficient for her to maintain employment in that field. She did attempt training on the computer program but did not do very well.

[70] A second job ended when the dentist she was working for sold the practice. She continued to apply for jobs attending interviews in Milton, Ancaster and Brantford. This went on for about six months during which she had no income or support. She was living off her share of the proceeds of the matrimonial home. Mrs. Papp testified that she worked three months of seasonal work at the Bay in 2014 for $12.00 per hour and also received some employment insurance benefits.

[71] Mrs. Papp then applied for and got a job at Maple Leaf Foods. She started in a temporary position in July 2014 and acquired a fulltime position at $13.25 per hour by November 2014. Mrs. Papp testified that she very much enjoyed the work she was doing and worked as much as 50-60 hours per week.

[72] Mrs. Papp testified that this all changed in January 2016 when she was transferred to a different department where the work was physically demanding and she ended up with numbness in her hands and an episode of dizziness. She ended up with a lot of pain and numbness in her shoulders, elbows and hands as well as in her front spine. She was placed on modified duties in February 2016 and continued until she was no longer sleeping due to pain and took sick leave beginning August 4, 2016. She had been on a WSIB return to work program then had an episode that landed her in hospital without speech for almost 24 hours. She was then diagnosed with stress and depression. She has applied for disability benefits from Maple Leaf but in the meantime has no income.

[73] Currently Mrs. Papp is being treated with medication for pain and for depression as well as for a thyroid condition. She has been on medication for anxiety since shortly before separation. This she attributes to Mr. Papp’s treatment of her, in particular accusing her of having an affair. She testified as to having been hospitalized on several occasions; sometimes at the instance of Mr. Papp.

[74] Medical documentation introduced on consent of Mr. Papp confirms a diagnosis of anxiety and depression from 2006 and an involuntary admission to hospital in 2010.

[75] I am satisfied that Kathryn Papp’s ability to earn income was affected by her role within the family providing primary care to the children while not working for the early years and working primarily on a part-time basis – until 2010 – for the later years. This affected her job qualifications and ability to take on fulltime work immediately after separation. At that time she was engaged in re-training with a view to becoming self-sufficient. Her efforts at re-training are worthy of support, as are her efforts to obtain full-time employment following re-training.

[76] Mrs. Papp’s work aspirations did not come to fruition but not as a result of any lack of effort on her part. When she was unable to find work in her field she went back to part-time work in diverse areas in order to earn income of any sort. When an opportunity came up at Maple Leaf she embraced the new challenge with enthusiasm, working long hours and earning a good income for a period of time. Circumstances resulted in change in her job duties which unfortunately left her injured and unable to continue. This combined with her mental health challenges, which were present throughout the marriage, have placed her in a position where she is again unable to earn income. I am satisfied that from the date of separation Kathryn Papp is entitled to spousal support on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis.

[77] Since March 1, 2015 Mr. Papp has been paying $400 per month in interim spousal support, pursuant to the order made by Trimble J. February 13, 2015. Mr. Papp will therefore be credited for 24 payments of $400 each from March 1, 2015 to and including February 1, 2017 for a total of $9,600.

[78] I must take into account that Mrs. Papp as a result of my decision on pension will be receiving, back to March 12, 2012, a monthly pension amount of $755.27. I add this monthly amount to her Line 150 income for the purposes of applying the spousal support advisory guidelines.

[79] For 2012 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income was $6,189 I add in pension income for 10 months ($7,555) fora total of $13,744. Applying the spousal support advisory guidelines, and taking into account her obligation to pay $156 per month in child support, I find that Mrs. Papp should have received $892 per month in spousal support for 2012. For 10 months this totals $8,920.

[80] For 2013 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income was $6,198. I add in pension income of $9,063.24 for a total of $15,261.24. Applying the spousal support advisory guidelines and taking into account her obligation to pay $203 per month in child support, I find that Mrs. Papp should receive $605 per month in spousal support for 2013 for a total of $7,260.

[81] For 2014 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income was $16,569. I add in pension income of $9,063.24 for a total of $25,632.24. Applying the spousal support advisory guidelines and taking into account her obligation to pay $381 per month in child support, I find that Mrs. Papp should have received $308 per month in spousal support for 2014 for a total of $3,696.

[82] For 2015 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income was $23,859. I add in pension income of $9,063.24 for a total of $32,922.24. Applying the spousal support advisory guidelines and taking into account her obligation to pay $480 per month in child support, I find that Mrs. Papp should have received $215 per month in spousal support for 2015 for a total of $2,580.

[83] For 2016 Mrs. Papp’s Line 150 income is $23,859. I add in pension income of $9,063.24 for a total of $32,922.24. Applying the spousal support advisory guidelines and taking into account her obligation to pay $480 per month in child support, I find that Mrs. Papp should have received $159 per month in spousal support for 2016 for a total of $1,908.

[84] Going forward, until there is some determination of Mrs. Papp’s income I take account of her pension income of $9,063. Applying the spousal support advisory guidelines and taking into account her obligation to pay $0 per month in child support, I find that Mrs. Papp should receive $489 in spousal support for 2017. For the months of January and February 2017 the total payable is $978.

[85] Mr. Papp’s total arrears of spousal support to and including February 2017 is $15,742.

[86] There will be an order that, subject to a change in Mrs. Papp’s income, Mr. Papp shall pay $489 per month in spousal support commencing March 1, 2017 and on the first day of each month thereafter.

Conclusion

[87] I found that Mr. Papp owes Mrs. Papp an equalization payment of $11,686.14. I found that Mrs. Papp’s total arrears of child support is $20,088. I found that Mr. Papp’s total arrears of spousal support, to and including February 2017, is $15,742. The total owing to Mrs. Papp from Mr. Papp is $7,340.14.

Orders

[88] I order pursuant to the Pension Benefits Act section 67.4 that the monthly maximum payments from Mr. Papp’s pension be made to Mrs. Papp from the family law valuation date which is March 29, 2012.

[89] Mr. Papp is ordered to pay $7,340.14 to Mrs. Papp in satisfaction of equalization.

[90] Mr. Papp is ordered to pay $489 per month to Mrs. Papp in spousal support commencing March 1, 2017 and on the first day of each month thereafter.

[91] Spousal support shall continue at this rate until Mr. Papp turns 65, unless Mrs. Papp begins to again have income over and above her pension.

Costs

[92] The parties may exchange and file written submissions as to costs, not to exceed five pages exclusive of a Bill of Costs, no later than March 17, 2017.

MILLER J.

Released: February 8, 2017

Papp v. Papp, 2017 ONSC 942

COURT FILE NO.: 3682/12

DATE: 20170208

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

KATHRYN GRACE PAPP Applicant

– and –

LESLIE ANTHONY PAPP Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MILLER J.

Released: February 8, 2017