Hummel v. Hummel, 2019 ONSC 668

COURT FILE NO.: 475/14

DATE: 2019-01-25

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Nancy Hummel, Applicant

AND: Rainer Hummel, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL: Donna Wowk for the Applicant; James Singer for the Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

[1] On December 14, 2018 I refused the Applicant’s request to adjourn several motions. After hearing the motions, among other things I ordered temporary child support and spousal support on December 18, 2018: 2018 ONSC 7561.

Applicant’s motion

[2] The Applicant moves in writing for an order correcting my endorsement. The Respondent has replied in writing. The order has not been signed or taken out, so I have jurisdiction to change it.

[3] I fixed child support at $9,277 a month based on an imputed income of $750,000 a year. It was meant to be the table amount for an income that represented the average of the Respondent’s annual incomes for the last three years. Contrary to the Respondent’s submission, I think that my words did reveal “exactly what was in [my] mind.” By “average” I meant “average”, i.e. the sum of three years’ income divided by three. The amount in my endorsement was the result of a miscalculation on my part. It should have been just over $850,000 per annum, with resulting table support (slightly rounded) of $10,500. I amend the award of child support accordingly.

[4] Temporary spousal support, however, was not fixed with relation to the advisory guidelines. In the circumstances mentioned I chose an approximate amount that I thought would suffice to reflect the Applicant’s short-term entitlement and needs and the long-term prospect that spousal support may not be awarded considering the substantial equalization that has been partly paid and will ultimately be fully paid, as well as substantial temporary spousal support. The corrected child support changes the situation in my view. I amend the award of temporary spousal support to $7,500 per month commencing January 1, 2019. Under the terms of my order of December 14, 2018 it will increase to $9,000 per month upon the Applicant vacating the matrimonial home.

[5] There will be no order as to costs of this motion to correct my endorsement. The correction does not cause me to reconsider my ruling as to costs dated January 19, 2019 [2019 ONSC 450].

Respondent’s motion

[6] The Respondent wants to set a date to continue the settlement conference that was commenced in 2016 and last adjourned in 2017 with the direction that a new date be obtained for a day-long conference. I have not received submissions from the Applicant on this point.

[7] The Respondent’s counsel got two dates in April of 2019 from the trial coordinator and proposed them to the Applicant’s counsel in a letter of January 16, 2019. The same day Applicant’s counsel replied:

There is little point to having a settlement conference prior to my client’s experts completing their responding reports.

In any event Mr Niman will be attending the settlement conference and he is not available on either of the dates in your letter.

[8] She did not suggest any alternate dates.

[9] The Applicant has had ample time to procure expert reports. I have already ruled that she has had all the disclosure to which she is entitled. There is no justification for delaying the settlement conference beyond the end of April 2019. It is not reasonable for the Applicant to expect that the settlement conference can be put off indefinitely. The parties are requesting trial time on the long trial sittings. The regional senior judge cannot process their request until after the settlement conference. The proceedings need to move along in the hope that the trial can take place in late 2019.

[10] At this point the availability of counsel can no longer be allowed to control the proceedings. There will be enough time for counsel to re-arrange their commitments to give priority to this file.

[11] The file is added to the assignment court list on February 14, 2019 at 2:30 pm. If the parties have not agreed on a settlement conference date with the trial coordinator by that time, they are required to appear at the assignment court, where the judge will set a date. The costs of arranging a settlement conference are reserved to the judge who presides at the conference.

J.A. Ramsay J.

Date: 2019-01-25