COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-1451-4
DATE: 2019/05/03
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Roxanne Hamilton, Applicant
AND
Patric Saint Denis, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice Linhares de Sousa
COUNSEL: Mimi Marrello, counsel for the Applicant
Deborah E. Bennett, counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: March 26, 2019 (at Ottawa)
ENDORSEMENT
[1] A motion to change a final order is brought by the Applicant, Roxanne Hamilton against her former husband, Patric Saint Denis. Ms. Hamilton seeks the following relief,
(1) Increased on-going spousal support based on Mr. Saint Denis’ current income in the amount of $6,235.00 per month in accordance with the mid-range Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, commencing on August 1, 2018;
(2) Retroactive spousal support due under the current order in the amount of $1,17.58 (this question has now been rendered moot because the court was informed this amount has now been received by Ms. Hamilton);
(3) The payment, in one lump sum, of the total sum of $33,047.41, including arrears and penalties, which payment, if defaulted on, is to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office;
(4) The provision of proof, to Ms. Hamilton, of life insurance naming Roxanne Hamilton as beneficiary in the amount of $250,000.00. Such proof to be given within 10 days of the order of this court and thereafter, on a yearly basis, no later than November 1 of each year;
(5) Costs of this motion and the other enforcement proceedings incurred by her to enforce the payment of the judgment provided for in paras. 3 and 4 of the existing divorce order of Justice Kershman dated May 21, 2013.
[2] Mr. Saint Denis contests the motion to change and the relief sought by Ms. Hamilton. He contests that Ms. Hamilton is entitled to increased spousal support to the full extent of his increased income since the granting of the divorce order in 2013, in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. He contests the amount of payment, including interest and penalties, claimed by Ms. Hamilton with respect to paras. 3 and 4 of the existing divorce order and that the amount owed ought to be paid in a lump sum and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office. Finally, he contests Ms. Hamilton’s claim for costs in these proceedings and in other enforcement proceedings.
[3] The relevant factual background from which this motion arises is the following:
[4] On May 21, 2013 Justice Kershman granted the parties a divorce order, terminating a marriage of approximately 23 years. Both agree it was an acrimonious separation, although never a justification for disrespectful conduct.
[5] Ms. Hamilton’s entitlement, to spousal support was recognized in the order of Justice Kershman as she was awarded spousal support in the amount of $3,461.00 per month, beginning May 1, 2013, and on the first of every month thereafter and increased to $3,561.00 per month beginning on September 1, 2013. Her support was based on Mr. Saint Denis’ 2011 income of $131,000 and Ms. Hamilton was imputed an income of $18,000 per year. There was no termination put on the spousal support payments.
[6] The evidence showed that spousal support has not been increased since the divorce order of May, 2013 was granted.
[7] The order of Mr. Justice Kershman further included (para. 2), a “judgment” payable by Mr. Saint Denis to Ms. Hamilton in the amount of $26,400.00 which sum was ordered to be “paid at the rate of $400.00 per month on the first of every month beginning on May 1, 2013, for a period of sixty-six months.” 66 months in terms of years is 5.5 years to repay the judgment. The interest on the total amount of the “judgment” owed provided for, as interest on the order, was “at the rate of 3 percent per annum”. It was the evidence of Ms. Hamilton that the judgment interest of 3% was much less than the interest she had to bear on the income received from the owed spousal support established by CRA which was 5% compounded daily and recently increased to 6% daily. Nonetheless, the only interest provided for in the order for interest on the judgment was the 3%.
[8] Paragraph 3 of Justice Kershman’s order provided that in payment of the “judgment”, Mr. Saint Denis was to annually give Ms. Hamilton a series of twelve post-dated cheques from year to year on the first of May of each year until paid.
[9] It was the evidence of Ms. Hamilton that the so called “judgment” related to the reimbursement to Ms. Hamilton by Mr. Saint Denis of income tax liability she bore as a result of support payments owed to her by Mr. Saint Denis. Mr. Saint Denis does not address this issue in his evidence. It cannot be disputed that the order itself does not identify the “judgment” as being for any particular purpose. I accept Ms. Hamilton’s evidence as to how the “judgment” came to be incorporated into the divorce order of Justice Kershman.
[10] The evidence showed that Mr. Saint Denis in June of 2013, provided Ms. Hamilton with a first set of post-dated cheques, in the amount of $400.00 each, for June 2013, to May, 2014 in satisfaction of para. 3 of the divorce order. After the first series of 12 post-dated cheques were cashed by Ms. Hamilton, $21,600.00 was remaining on the judgment.
[11] When the time came in June of 2014 to provide Ms. Hamilton with a second set of post-dated cheques, Mr. Saint Denis did not. No explanation of why he did not do so was given by him. And, I cannot disagree with Mr. Saint Denis, that his failure to follow the divorce order did create a “snowball effect”. However, such default is never “a very simple issue” in an acrimonious marriage break up.
[12] When Mr. Saint Denis defaulted on the payment of the judgment, Ms. Hamilton commenced garnishment proceedings, in January of 2015, against Mr. Saint Denis, filing a Request of Writ of Seizure and Sale, to secure the amount owing by Mr. Saint Denis on the judgment plus the interest due on the judgment and legal fees for enforcing the writ ($8,000.00). As a result of this a small amount of the monies owed were seized ($600.00).
[13] Even though Mr. Saint Denis defaulted on his payment on the judgment in June of 2014, he did not do much to deal with the situation on his own initiative. He was contacted by Ms. Hamilton’s lawyers requesting payment on September 5, 2014. Mr. Saint Denis responded to that request on January 29, 2015, some 5 months later and after garnishment proceedings had been commenced against him. In his response of January 29, 2015, Mr. Saint Denis offered the following”
“24 postdated cheques will be given in the amount of $400.00 a month as per the court agreement. Along with a cheque dated for February 16, 2015 for $3,030.77 - $600.00 that was taken from my bank account last week this will clear the arrears owing for 2014. This garnishment cleared my bank account with a balance of 0”.
[14] A further condition proposed by Mr. Saint Denis in the same letter was a letter to all creditors revoking all garnishments immediately. There was also a promise to provide a complete financial statement with the mandatory enclosures.
[15] Ms. Hamilton’s evidence is that she had no knowledge of this offer, so the parties were not able to come to an agreement at that time. There is no evidence that any postdated cheques or any payment was ever given to Ms. Hamilton to remedy Mr. Saint Denis’ default at that time.
[16] As can be seen from the continuing record, in view of the continuing default of Mr. Saint Denis on the payment of the judgment, Ms. Hamilton brought contempt proceedings against Mr. Saint Denis to enforce the order in early September of 2017. Her contempt motion was dismissed by Audet J. pursuant to Rule 31, that contempt proceedings are not available when the alleged breach relates to the payment of money. Audet J. further ordered Mr. Saint Denis to serve and file a completed Financial Statement, with all supporting documents as required under Rule 26(3) of the Family Law Rules.
[17] According to the evidence of Mr. Saint Denis, at about the time of the contempt proceedings, he sent six post-dated cheques and advised that he was in the process of ordering new cheques, thus, Mr. Saint Denis’s default on the judgment continued and subsequent cheques were never sent by him. For the reasons given by Ms. Hamilton she did not cash any of the 6 cheques she received.
[18] Ms. Hamilton has provided evidence relating to the tax arrears, penalties and interest that she is obligated to pay to CRA, because of the default of Mr. Saint Denis on the judgment. As a result, in addition to the full and immediate payment of the amount owing on the judgment, Ms. Hamilton asks that her real CRA tax expense be added to the judgment and ordered paid by Mr. Saint Denis, totaling $33,047.41.
[19] Ms. Hamilton has also revived her contempt proceedings in this matter. This aspect of the motion continues to be a claim for the payment of money as the breach. As such, contempt proceedings are not available to her.
[20] For his part, Mr. Saint Denis acknowledges that he owes $21,600.00 on the judgment. He, however, takes the position that any interest due on the payment should be calculated from June 2014 to February , 2015, at 3%, when in his letter of January 29, 2015 to Ms. Hamilton’s counsel, he advised that he would bring the payments up-to-date pursuant to the court order. Mr. Saint-Denis’ calculation of total interest owed by him is $370.94, found at Exhibit C of his affidavit dated March 14, 2019.
[21] With respect to the issue of the payment of the “judgment” and what interest ought to apply in the circumstances of this case, I reject both parties’ positions on the claim to interest. Neither of those positions would render justice to the other party.
[22] In my view, there is no question that the agreement of the parties for the payment of the judgment, subsequently incorporated into the divorce order, was disadvantageous to Ms. Hamilton, given its purpose and given her subsequent income tax liability. Nonetheless, she cannot use these proceedings to renegotiate a new agreement between the parties. In my view, she is bound by the terms and interest rate of that original agreement, subsequently incorporated into the divorce order of Justice Kershman, except to the extent that Mr. Saint Denis’ original and ongoing default in his contractual and court ordered obligations may necessitate a change in the payment of the judgment.
[23] Mr. Saint Denis’ position on interest is equally unfair to Ms. Hamilton. Mr. Saint Denis has not satisfactorily explained why he defaulted on the judgment, a judgment that was clearly in his favor. He was clearly in a financial position to respect the court order for the payment of the judgment. It was his original default on the payment of the judgment that precipitated these proceedings. It took him a notable time to deal with his default. For whatever reason, perhaps matrimonial history, the parties were not able to resolve the matter of the default. Mr. Saint Denis continued all the while from June 2014 to the present in default. Ms. Hamilton all the same while did not have the money owed to her and which Mr. Saint Denis has never denied he owed her. Ms. Hamilton’s income tax liability all the while has continued and grown.
[24] It is therefore the order of this court, that as of the moment of default by Mr. Saint Denis, that is June 1, 2014, payment on the judgment to Ms. Hamilton was due in full, in the amount of the balance on the judgment, as of that time, namely $21,600.00. Mr. Saint Denis is further obligated to pay 3% interest per annum on that amount until it is fully paid.
[25] I acknowledge that counsel for Mr. Saint Denis informed the court that her client, on the day of the hearing, would be giving Ms. Hamilton a cheque in the amount of $10,000.00. That being the case and assuming that has been done, Mr. Saint Denis shall pay 3% interest on $21,600.00 from June 1, 2014 up to April 1, 2019. Thereafter, he shall pay 3% interest on the balance, $11,600.00 until it is fully paid. The balance on the judgment with the applicable interest is ordered to be paid forthwith.
[26] This judgment is clearly spousal support related. Its enforcement shall be carried out by the Family Responsibility Office.
[27] With respect to the issue of quantum of spousal support, there is no question that there has been a material change in the circumstances of the parties since the divorce order was granted by Justice Kershman on May 21, 2013.
[28] Ms. Hamilton’s entitlement to spousal support at the time of the divorce was both compensatory and non-compensatory. Both parties agree that theirs was a traditional marriage, at the end of which, Ms. Hamilton had been out of the workforce for a number of years caring for the couple’s children and home. There is a dispute between the parties as to how much Ms. Hamilton contributed to Mr. Saint Denis’ career during the marriage. Both parties have presented evidence on this point.
[29] From a comparison of the respective incomes of the parties recognized in the divorce order (an imputed income to Ms. Hamilton of $18,000.00 per annum and for Mr. Saint Denis, a declared income for 2 years before, 2011, of $131,000.00 per annum) in light of the jurisprudence dealing with spousal support, it is evident that Ms. Hamilton had a notable needs based or non-compensatory entitlement to support. Given the history of the marriage and the roles each party took on during the marriage, one can presume, as well, that a compensatory entitlement also existed.
[30] Ms. Hamilton has raised some issues about her health and her ability to work, with which Mr. Saint Denis takes issue. Ms. Hamilton claims, contrary to the evidence of Mr. Saint Denis, that her medical issues are not new, which can therefore not be a basis for a material change in circumstances. Her lack of education and career has not changed since the divorce.
[31] After the divorce Ms. Hamilton worked at Tim Horton’s for a very short time, but found the work too physically demanding. She has worked for her daughter providing child care and housecleaning services for which she is paid. Ms. Hamilton agrees that an income of $20,000.00 per annum would be reasonable to be imputed to her on an ongoing basis. Based on the evidence presented in this case I agree.
[32] Mr. Saint Denis takes the position that Ms. Hamilton should be making efforts to become self-sufficient. I cannot disagree with him. In law Ms. Hamilton has an obligation to contribute as much as she can to her own support. On the facts of this case, I find that she has made reasonable efforts to do that. I impute to her an annual income of $20, 000.00 per annum.
[33] The substantial issue in this matter is whether Ms. Hamilton should fully share in the substantial income increases enjoyed by Mr. Saint Denis since the divorce order was granted. Based on the evidence before the court his income has increased in the following way by year:
• 2013- the divorce order of Justice Kersman used Mr. Saint Denis 2011 annual income of $131,000 as the basis for the divorce order spousal support award. Mr. Saint Denis’ real income for 2013 was $156, 954.00;
• 2014- $154,387.00
• 2015- $163,755.47
• 2016- $229,218.00
• 2017- $221,760.00
• 2018- $229, 768.78
[34] Mr. Saint Denis’ substantial increase in income from about 2016 on is an evidentiary basis for finding a material change of circumstances of the parties.
[35] Ms. Hamilton seeks to have the spousal support advisory guidelines applied to Mr. Saint Denis’ current income. In the alternative she seeks to have the spousal support award be based on the average for the last three years of income received by Mr. Saint Denis, namely $223, 588.00 per annum. This would increase the current monthly spousal support payable of $3,561.00 to $6,235.00, if the mid-range were to be applied, as it was in the original divorce order.
[36] Ms. Hamilton further asks that the order be made retroactive to the date of the 2013 order of Justice Kershman in view of the fact that the divorce order was based on Mr. Saint Denis’ 2011 income which has been shown to be approximately $25,000.00 less per annum than his 2013 income. In the factum filed by Ms. Hamilton’s lawyer, Ms. Hamilton seeks retroactivity to August, 2018, at which time Ms. Hamilton had received Mr. Saint Denis’ up to date financial disclosure for the first time (the mutual obligation to exchange annual financial disclosure was not made part of the divorce order of Justice Kershman), and had commenced these proceedings.
[37] It is the position of Ms. Hamilton that she contributed substantially to Mr. Saint Denis’ career during the course of the marriage and is therefore entitled to compensatory spousal support. According to Ms. Hamilton, as a salesman and manager, Mr. Saint Denis worked long hours and often travelled while she remained at home to care for the children and home. She followed him when he relocated with his job. Furthermore, she argues that she continues to be in need of spousal support. Finally, Ms. Hamilton argues that Mr. Saint Denis’ ability to pay spousal support is greater and he ought to pay commensurate with his increased ability to pay.
[38] Mr. Saint Denis has remarried to a woman who is solely responsible financially for two teenage children who live with them. Mr. Saint Denis’s spouse does not receive support for her children because her ex-spouse does not earn adequate income. Mr. Saint Denis’ spouse is also currently unemployed due to a car accident. As a result, Mr. Saint Denis is solely responsible for his household.
[39] Mr. Saint Denis has provided evidence about his post separation career development and post separation income increase. He continues to be employed by the same employer as at the time of the separation, Ideal Roofing. It was the evidence of Mr. Saint Denis that during the marriage he held sales related positions with Ideal Roofing. He was an “outside sale representative” in Montreal for approximately 15 years. In January, of 2006 the family moved to Ottawa when Mr. Saint Denis was promoted to field sales manager, the position he held when the couple separated. In 2010, two years after the separation, Mr. Saint Denis was transferred to an executive position “General Sales Manager”. According to Mr. Saint Denis, while this position was in his original field of work of “roofing sales” it was more oriented to management. He is now second in command for all of Ideal Roofing sales across Canada and the United States and his responsibilities include overlooking all sales, shipping, technical operations, pricing for all as well as hiring and employee dismissal.
[40] Mr. Saint Denis acknowledges that in his current position and in order to keep his employment, he works long hours and often travels domestically and internationally involving personal sacrifices that are not connected to his marriage to Ms. Hamilton but to his current marriage.
[41] Mr. Saint Denis attributes the main reason for his notable income increase to changes (new locations and new sales) within his company that led to substantially increased sales. His income has grown because the company has grown between 2010 and 2018 and has no link to his marriage to Ms. Hamilton. Mr. Saint Denis acknowledged that his earnings were $229, 218 for the year 2018 (including salary and bonuses).
[42] Both counsel referred me to a number of cases in support of their positions. Counsel for Mr. Saint Denis argued that Ms. Hamilton may be entitled to share in some of her former husband’s post separation income increase but not all of it based on the passage of time and the reasons, unrelated to the marriage for the post separation increase in income.
[43] Counsel for Mr. Saint Denis during her submissions suggested two possible methods of determining quantum of spousal support that is fact based, and which, in her submissions, would render greater fairness between the two households, the first being introducing to the Supportmate calculations a notional child support paid, in view of the support obligations Mr. Saint Denis has for his step-children, the second being introducing a comparison of household standards of living test. Both of these approaches would put the quantum spousal support in the approximate range of $ 4,000.00 per month instead of the $6,000.00 range if the spousal support advisory guidelines were to be directly applied to Mr. Saint Denis’ current income.
[44] A case both counsel referred me to as being particularly helpful to deciding the issue of to what extent should a former spouse share in the post separation increase of a payor’s income, was the decision of Chappel J. in Thompson v. Thompson, 2013 ONCA 5500. It is clear from that case and others that the question is one that is “ultimately in the discretion of the court, to be undertaken having regard for the unique circumstances of each case and the general factors and objectives underlying spousal support.”
[45] In her decision, Justice Chappel enumerates a number of general principles that should guide and inform the exercise of the court’s discretion on the issue as follows:
(1) A spouse is not automatically entitled to increased spousal support when there is a post-separation income increase;
(2) A right to share in post-separation income increases does not typically arise in cases involving non-compensatory claims, since the primary focus of such claims is the standard of living enjoyed during the relationship;
(3) Compensatory support may provide a foundation for entitlement to share in post separation income increases in certain circumstances. The major factors to consider are the strength of the compensatory claim and the nature of the recipient’s contribution which may tip the balance either for or against an entitlement to share in increased income;
(4) A consideration of whether there is a direct link to the payor’s post-separation success - the nature of the contributions need not be explicit but whether the recipient specifically influenced the payor’s post-separation success will depend on the unique facts of every case
(5) Nature and character of the relationship that might more likely take into account post-separation income increases, such as a long term relationship, completely integrated personal and financial affairs, recipient sacrifices and contributions for the sake of the family and resulting benefits to the payor – these factors will more likely lead to a finding of a connection between the recipient spouse’s role in the relationship and the payor’s ability to achieve higher earnings following the separation;
(6) Division of family responsibilities in a manner indicating that they were making a joint investment in one career - the temporal link between marriage and income increase and consideration of any intervening change in the payor’s career;
(7) Were the skills and credentials that led to the post-separation income increase obtained and developed during the relationship while the recipient spouse took a subservient role to the working spouse’s career for the sake of the family, or were they obtained and developed during the post-separation income increases or related to an event that occurred during the post separation period;
(8) Assuming primary responsibility for child care and household duties, without any evidence of having sacrificed personal educational or career plans, will likely not be sufficient to ground an entitlement to benefit from post-separation income increases;
(9) Evidence that the post-separation income increase has evolved as a result of a different type of job acquired post-separation, a reorganization of the payor’s employment arrangement with new responsibilities, or that the increase is a result of significant lifestyle changes which the payor has made since the separation may mititate against a finding that the recipient should share in the increase;
(10) Whether a payor’s post-separation advancement is related primarily to luck or connections made on their own rather than on contributions from the recipient;
(11) The amount of time that has elapsed since the separation as an indicator of whether the recipient’s contributions during the marriage are causally related to the post separation income increases;
(12) Evidence that the payor also made contributions to the recipient’s career advancement or that the recipient has not made reasonable steps towards achieving self-sufficiency are also factors that may preclude an award that takes into account post-separation income increases.
[46] In applying the enumerated principles above to the specific facts of this case I conclude the following: Ms. Hamilton has both a compensatory and non-compensatory claim to spousal support. While a notable portion of her entitlement to spousal support is needs and lifestyle based, her compensatory claim is not negligible. This was a long term relationship. Ms. Hamilton sacrificed a career of her own or even further education to care for the children and home and to move when Mr. Saint Denis’ job required it. Mr. Saint Denis’ work demanded that he travel, how much is in dispute, but travel he did nonetheless, which necessarily meant that Ms. Hamilton was the sole person at home. This gave Mr. Saint Denis substantial freedom to focus on his job and to develop the skills he needed to carry out his job in roofing sales and eventually in management of roofing sales.
[47] Because there was only one earner in the family during the marriage, and the family relied on Mr. Saint Denis’ employment to support the family, clearly the parties’ personal and financial affairs were completely integrated. The couple was clearly making a joint investment in one career which was the one belonging to Mr. Saint Denis. From the point of view of marketability advantage in the work force, I can only conclude that there was a resulting advantage to Mr. Saint Denis and a concurrent marketability sacrifice in the work force on the part of Ms. Hamilton as a result of the family arrangement and division of family responsibilities chosen by the couple.
[48] For a large portion of the marriage Mr. Saint Denis worked as a salesman. He attributes his current financial success to the changes within his company and the choice of new locations by his company and his transferring into the executive stream of his company’s work. He also attributes it to luck but at the same time also to his hard work post-separation.
[49] On the evidence, I cannot find the clear delineation Mr. Saint Denis alleges between his pre and post-separation career path. The evidence showed that for most of his marriage to Ms. Hamilton he worked as a salesman for Ideal Roofing. Surely the experience and knowledge base of this work permitted him to qualify for the sales and managerial responsibilities he then began to exercise when the family moved from Montreal to Ottawa and which he was exercising at the time of separation. I also find it difficult and rather artificial to completely separate that the knowledge base and skill set that he developed while a salesman and sales managerial employee for his current company did not in any way contribute to his credentials to his current executive position of general sales manager of his same company, Ideal Roofing, even if the company began to operate in new locations and to manufacture new products.
[50] Without in anyway meaning to minimize the personal hard work and sacrifices Mr. Saint Denis has done post-separation, I fail to see how his work and experience in the sales operation of his company during the marriage has not contributed, or to put it another way was not foundational to his current executive success in the company when he himself has pointed to the sales success of his company as the main reason for his income increase post-separation. I cannot conclude that Mr. Saint Denis’ evidence relating to his post-separation income increase in any way precludes Ms. Hamilton from sharing in a substantial way in his post-separation income increases.
[51] I acknowledge that the length of time the parties have been separated, some 11 years, may weigh in favor of Mr. Saint Denis and a reconsideration of the level of support may be warranted. While Mr. Saint Denis, himself, states that in order to keep his current position he has made sacrifices, working long hours and often travelling, which he causally relates to his current marriage and not his past one. Nonetheless, the work and sacrifices he carried out during his first marriage, were foundational to his current work and would not completely preclude Ms. Hamilton from having a compensatory claim just because his current wife may also have one if they were ever to separate. Mr. Saint Denis appears to recognize the contribution and sacrifice a spouse may make to his career, just not that of his former spouse.
[52] Another consideration is whether Mr. Saint Denis made any contributions to Ms. Hamilton’s career advancement during the marriage. There is no evidence of that.
[53] One must also consider whether Ms. Hamilton has made reasonable steps towards achieving self-sufficiency. Ms. Hamilton has some medical issues that existed at the time of the divorce order. With her increased age there is no evidence that these medical issues have changed for the better. Nonetheless, an income was imputed to her at the time of the divorce, so she was expected to contribute to her support at least, at a basic level ($18,000.00 in 2013). Given her history or lack of history in the work force there is no evidence to support the conclusion that she is capable of earning substantially more than the basic level imputed to her at the time of the divorce. Her work history since the divorce, in my view, confirms this fact. It is reasonable and fair that an income continue to be imputed to her and, as stated earlier, I find an imputation of $20,000.00 on the facts of this case to be reasonable and I so order.
[54] For all of the above reasons, I find that a material change of circumstances has been proven. Spousal support ought to be increased in view of Mr. Saint Denis’ substantially increased ability to pay spousal support. I see no reason why the spousal support advisory guidelines ought not to apply to the facts of this case. In view of the time the parties have been separated, and acknowledging Mr. Saint Denis’ current family responsibilities but without giving them the priority over his past responsibilities he suggests, I fix spousal support at the low level. Based on the divorce mate calculations provided by counsel, attributing annual employment income of $223,588.00 to Mr. Saint Denis and imputing an annual income of $20,000.00 to Ms. Hamilton, I fix spousal support at $5,344.00 per month commencing August 1, 2018. This amount may have to be adjusted in view of the fact that Mr. Saint Denis has acknowledged that his income for 2018 is $229,218. If this becomes an issue I can be spoken to.
[55] The parties are obligated to exchange annually, their income tax returns and notices of assessment, to be done by July 1 of each year, commencing July 1, 2020.
[56] The last issue raised by Ms. Hamilton is her request for proof of good standing of the insurance policy provided for in the divorce order of Justice Kershman (para. 5) as security for spousal support. The order is clear that Ms. Hamilton is entitled to be given proof of the good standing of the insurance policy in the amount of $250,000.00 designating her as beneficiary upon reasonable request. If Mr. Saint Denis has not yet done so, he is ordered to provide such proof to Ms. Hamilton within 14 days of this order. Thereafter, Mr. Saint Denis shall provide an annual update to Ms. Hamilton that the insurance policy is in good standing, by May 1 of each year for so long as spousal support is payable.
[57] The very last issue is costs. Ms. Hamilton shall have two weeks from the date of this endorsement to serve and file her written submissions on costs of this motion, including any offers to settle that were made. Mr. Saint Denis shall have two weeks from that date to serve and file his written submission on costs, including any offers to settle that were made. Ms. Hamilton will then have one week from that date to serve and file a reply if she deems it advisable.
Date : May 3, 2019 Linhares de Sousa J.
COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-1451-4
DATE: 2019/05/XX
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Roxanne Hamilton, Applicant
AND
Patric Saint Denis, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice Linhares de Sousa
COUNSEL: Mimi Marrello, counsel for the Applicant
Respondent is self-represented
ENDORSEMENT
M. Linhares de Sousa J.
Released: May XX, 2019