COURT FILE NO.: FS-07-59036-15

DATE: 2019 04 24

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

GEORGE SKEARD

Self-Represented

Applicant

• and -

JOANNE SKEARD GOODYEAR

Self-represented

Respondent

HEARD: February 25, 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Fowler Byrne J.

1This is a hearing conducted pursuant to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.13.

2In or around May 2017, the applicant George Raymond Skeard applied with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (General/Family) for an order that his child support arrears be waived and that his ongoing child support obligations be reduced to reflect his actual income. He has indicated that although his income has been significantly lower since 2012, he is not seeking that the respondent Joanne Skeard Goodyear reimburse him for any resulting overpayment. He simply wants any remaining child support arrears wiped out and his ongoing payment reduced.

3Mr. Skeard and Ms. Goodyear were married on August 2, 1991 and separated in August 2005. They were divorced as of June 15, 2007.

4There are two children of the marriage, Andrew Wilson Skeard, born on March 23, 1994, and David John Skeard, born February 24, 1999. The parties acknowledge that both adult children have special needs.

5Following separation, the parties entered into an agreement whereby Mr. Skeard was to pay the sum of $389 per month in child support. This agreement has been enforced through the Family Responsibility Office.

6Following separation, Mr. Skeard initially remained in Ontario. In 2012 he suffered a workplace injury, and started to receive W.S.I.B. benefits. He relocated to Newfoundland in 2014, and applied for C.P.P. disability benefits as of 2015. His sole source of income since 2015 has been W.S.I.B. benefits and C.P.P. disability benefits. As a result of his reduced income, he fell behind in his child support obligations and significant arrears accumulated. The Family Responsibility Office has been collecting up to half of his income to satisfy his arrears. As a result, he is forced to live with his parents.

7Pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Act, Mr. Skeard commenced his application in Newfoundland and provided his evidence in support of his application in a hearing before Madame Justice Chaytor of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (Family), on August 10, 2017.

8Following the hearing, a provisional order was made that reflected Mr. Skeard’s true income from 2012, retroactively set the new child support payment from 2012 to 2016, retroactively adjusted the arrears, and set a new child support payment going forward in the sum of $285 per month, for two children, based on Mr. Skeard’s 2017 income. The provisional order dated August 10, 2017, is attached as Schedule “A” to these reasons (“Provisional Order”).

9Upon receiving notice of this proceeding, Ms. Goodyear requested an oral hearing and appeared before me on February 25, 2019. At that time, Ms. Goodyear indicated that all arrears have been paid, and she is receiving only $389 per month as originally agreed.

10At the oral hearing, Ms. Goodyear gave evidence regarding her adult children. Andrew is 25 years old, has Down syndrome, and is autistic. He requires 24-hour care. As a result of having leukemia as a child, he has a weakened immune system. Andrew is enrolled in a day programme, 5 days a week, but otherwise Ms. Goodyear is his primary care giver. Andrew receives $847 per month from Ontario Disability Support Program, of which she is entitled to keep $500 per month towards his room and board.

11David is 20 years old and has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome and A.D.H.D. His needs are not as severe as Andrew’s, but he cannot be left alone longer than an hour or so. He will remain in high school until June 2020. She receives the same financial benefits for David through the Ontario Disability Support Program. She is on a waiting list for additional services for David.

12Ms. Goodyear also gave evidence that the benefits Andrew and David receive through the Ontario Disability Support Program do not cover the young men’s additional expenses, such as the cost of attending medical appointments in Toronto, food and clothing.

13Ms. Goodyear does not dispute Mr. Skeard’s injury nor does she dispute his lower income. Her concern is that if Mr. Skeard’s arrears are adjusted and there is an overpayment, she will be unable to reimburse him any overpayment. Mr. Skeard already advised the court that he is not seeking reimbursement of any overpayment and this appears to be addressed in the Provisional Order. She also does not want the child support payments to stop, despite the children’s ages, due to their ongoing disability. The Provisional Order does not order any termination, so that is not an issue at this time.

14Pursuant to s.1 of the Act, a “provisional order” is an order made in a reciprocating jurisdiction, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, and received for confirmation in Ontario. Sections 9 to 16 of the Act govern the proceedings in Ontario. When considering the application of Mr. Skeard, I am to consider the evidence I heard from Ms. Goodyear and the information received from the reciprocating jurisdiction from Mr. Skeard. If I require any further information, I am at liberty to contact the designated authority in Newfoundland and Labrador and request the necessary information. In the case before me, no such information is required.

15Finally, s. 13 directs me to apply the law of Ontario in determining whether there is entitlement to support and the quantum to be paid.

16After hearing the evidence of Mrs. Skeard, it is clear that due to the adult children’s ongoing disabilities and David’s ongoing attendance at school, that child support is payable and should be based on Mr. Skeard’s actual income. Accordingly, I am content to confirm the Provisional Order, except for the following:

a) No arrears will be adjusted before 2014, in accordance the principles set out in D.B.S. v. S.R.G, [2006] 2 SCR 231, 2006 SCC 37;

b) As of December 2017, the federal child support amounts were adjusted, so that as of January 1, 2018, the monthly amount payable by Mr. Skeard should be $312 per month. This is based on his annual C.P.P. disability income of $10,412 (grossed up) and his annual Workers Compensation Benefits of $7,359.

17Accordingly, I make the following order:

a) Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Provisional Order of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (Family), dated August 10, 2017 are confirmed;

b) Paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 of the provisional order of the Supreme Court of Newfoundlland and Labrador Trial Division (Family), dated August 10, 2017 are not confirmed;

c) George R. Skeard shall pay child support to Joanne Skeard Goodyear for the children David Skeard, born February 24, 1999, and Andrew Skeard, born March 23, 1994, in the amount of $285 per month, in accordance with the Tables under the child support guidelines based on George R. Skeard’s annual income, grossed up, of $19,844, commencing January 1, 2017 and continuing on the first day of each month until and including December 1, 2017;

d) George R. Skeard shall pay child support to Joanne Skeard Goodyear for the children David Skeard, born February 24, 1999, and Andrew Skeard, born March 23, 1994, in the amount of $312 per month, in accordance with the Tables under the child support guidelines based on George R. Skeard’s annual income, grossed up, of $19,844, commencing January 1, 2018 and continuing on the first day of each month that follows;

e) Any child support arrears owed by George R. Skeard as of December 31, 2018, are reduced to nil;

f) Should it be determined by the Support Enforcement Agency in either Ontario or Newfoundland and Labrador that as of December 31, 2018, there was an overpayment by George Skeard and a credit owed to him, that credit is reduced to nil and no monies shall be recoverable by him;

g) There shall be no costs.

Fowler Byrne J.