Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 475/14 Date: 2018-12-17 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Nancy Hummel, Applicant And: Rainer Hummel, Respondent

Before: Mr Justice Ramsay

Counsel: Donna Wowk and Vincent Demarco for the Applicant James Singer and Jennifer Long for the Respondent

Heard: December 14, 2018 at St Catharines

Endorsement

[1] The parties married in 2004 and separated in 2014. I heard a number of motions and cross-motions on December 14. I made the following rulings from the bench:

a. I dismissed the Applicant’s request for an adjournment. b. I dismissed the Applicant’s request for a voice of the child report. c. I dismissed the Respondent’s request for a further parenting assessment. d. I granted the Respondent’s motion for vacant possession of the matrimonial home on terms, with written reasons which followed (2018 ONSC 7526).

[2] This is my decision on the remaining motions.

Applicant’s motions for an order requiring Respondent not to dissipate assets and an order for further disclosure

[3] The Applicant seeks this order based on the Respondent’s failure to disclose two life insurance policies, his unilateral disposition of some chattels and his pattern of delaying disclosure. She also seeks further disclosure from the Respondent of information related to his real estate holdings.

[4] The Respondent buys and sells commercial properties. A preservation order would have to be carefully crafted in order not to cripple the Respondent’s business.

[5] The Respondent has disclosed the life insurance policies, which he thought were the beneficial property of his grown daughter from an earlier marriage. Whether he was right is a question for trial. The chattels that the Respondent tried to sell are trifles. When he learned of the Applicant’s objection he took them off the market. The alleged pattern of delaying disclosure is not made out on the evidence. The Respondent has provided extensive disclosure at significant expense. The Applicant’s property and business evaluators have made last-minute, unfocused and extravagant requests for disclosure. The Respondent has answered the disclosure requests as well as could reasonably be expected.

[6] The Respondent has already paid $800,000 in advances on equalization. A term of the order giving him vacant possession of the matrimonial home requires him to make a further advance of $600,000 and increase spousal support by $1,500 a month. Both terms were suggested by him. He does not seem to be the sort to dissipate or conceal assets.

[7] The motions for a preservation order and a disclosure order are dismissed.

The Applicant’s motion for increased temporary child support and spousal support

[8] The Applicant seeks an increase in child support and spousal support from my temporary order of 2014. That order was made “without prejudice”, that is, reserving either party’s right to ask for a further temporary order at any time before trial. In 2014 I ordered $4,500 a month child support for two children and $2,800 spousal support.

[9] The Respondent income has increased since 2014. His own figures show the following income for support purposes in the last three years:

2017 $ 1,172,000 2016 $ 658,000 2015 $ 725,000.

[10] Given the significant fluctuation I think it only fair to average the last three years for the purpose of ongoing support.

[11] I therefore take the Respondent’s income to be $750,000 for the purposes of ongoing support. Section 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines needs to be considered. Given what I know about the parties’ lifestyle during the period of coverture, the table amount does not seem like a wealth transfer. It seems more like an amount that would tend to provide living conditions in both homes comparable to what the children have known and comparable to each other.

[12] The Respondent has the children 43% of the time. Section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines applies. The principles are set out in Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, Bond v. Bond, 2008 ONCA 560, and Sirdevan v. Sirdevan, [2009] O.J. No. 3796 (SCJ).

[13] The Respondent, who successfully opposed the adjournment of these motions, submits that I should not proceed further on child support until he has had a chance to question the Applicant because without better information as to the budget for the children I will not be in a position to determine the appropriate set off.

[14] I do not agree. The table amount for the Respondent’s income is $9,277. The Applicant, if she chose to go back to work, could earn at most thirty thousand dollars or so a year. I do not understand why we are talking about a set off of less than $500 a month.

[15] Child support for the two children mentioned in my order of November 26, 2014 is varied to $9,277 per month commencing January 1, 2019 based on an imputed income of $750,000 per annum. Retroactive child support should be left for trial.

[16] Temporary spousal support is not so simple. The SSAG’s would indicate a low to mid-range amount in the neighbourhood of $15,000 a month. I do not think, however, that the SSAG’s should be applied at this stage. The marriage was short, the Applicant has received and will receive substantial equalization and she has received $134,000 in temporary spousal support as well as free accommodations for four years. It is not apparent at this stage what amount she will be awarded on an ongoing basis or for how long. For the same reasons, I decline to order retroactive spousal support at this time. I think $8,500 a month is sufficient for the purposes of temporary spousal support.

[17] Temporary spousal support is varied to $8,500 a month commencing January 1, 2019. In accordance with my endorsement of December 14 temporary spousal support will be payable at a rate of $10,000 a month commencing on the first day of the month following the day on which the Applicant vacates the matrimonial home.

Further orders

[18] A support deduction order will issue.

[19] The Applicant’s request for payment toward litigation expenses is dismissed as abandoned.

[20] All other relief sought in motions and cross-motions before me on December 14 is dismissed.

[21] The parties may make submissions to costs for all these motions in writing not exceeding three pages, to which may be appended a bill of costs and any offer to settle, the Respondent by December 21 next, the Applicant by January 11. No reply will be permitted.

J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2018-12-17