ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Christopher Francis DeBot Applicant (Responding Party)
– and –
Jennifer Anne DeBot Respondent (Moving Party)
COUNSEL:
Cheryl A. Hodgkin, for the Applicant (Responding Party)
David A. Maslak, for the Respondent (Moving Party)
HEARD: September 24, 2019
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1The mother, Jennifer DeBot, seeks from the father, Christopher DeBot, support for two children, Chelsea now 21 years of age and Connor now 16 years of age. She also seeks ongoing support for herself.
Spousal Support
2The parties’ minutes of settlement provided a review clause for the spousal support payments without the necessity of showing a change in circumstances. A previous order of Justice Rady was based on imputed income to Mrs. DeBot of $15,000 per annum as a result of her having not obtained a driver’s licence. She now has a driver’s licence. She continues to work part-time hours at a local funeral home, although it appears more hours would be available to her given her seniority and importance to the business. She received a payout from the sale of the family home as well as receiving a portion of Mr. DeBot’s pension benefits which have been paid into a LIRA.
3Looking at the factors set out in s. 15.2(4) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175, and the objectives of spousal support orders pursuant to 15.2(6), I note the following. The parties were married for approximately 18 years and Mrs. DeBot has been receiving support at the high end of the guidelines. Mr. DeBot has paid child support and I accept has overpaid child support. He will continue to have obligations for his son, Connor, for some time into the future given Connor’s age and likelihood of post-secondary education. There has been voluntary payment for half of Connor’s hockey expenses, as well as a purchase of a vehicle for daughter Chelsea and payment of car insurance costs and driver’s education, both of which he intends to put in place for his son in the near future.
4Pursuant to the request to admit not being responded to, I accept that Mrs. DeBot has not been seeking increased hours at her funeral home employment. I accept that increases in Mr. DeBot’s income since separation have been largely as a result of his initiative in taking courses and pursuing the position of captain in the fire department, as well as having two other sources of employment. These increases have not been as a result of sacrifices made by Mrs. DeBot during the marriage. Mrs. DeBot now has a licence and should be able to pursue other job opportunities outside of Wallaceburg or more hours with her current employment. The objectives set out in s. 15.2(6)(d) would be best served in my view by reducing the spousal support and ending it in a period of time that reflects the payments in the higher range and the length of those payments, as well as the duration of the marriage.
Child Support
5It was not in dispute that Connor should continue to receive support for as long as he is a child of the marriage and that he currently is in school and planning to remain pursuing his education for the immediate future.
6The claim for repayment of a student loan pursuant to s. 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines is a different matter. I accept that Chelsea has accumulated some student debt through the student loan process. I also accept that having completed a dental assistant’s course, Chelsea found work in that area at which she continues to work. I understand that she wished to upgrade to pursue a dental hygienist career. She enrolled in such a dental hygienist course at St. Clair College without any consultation with her father. She accumulated some more debt through that decision. Unfortunately, she did not obtain the necessary grades to continue in that course.
7In my view, it was unfortunate that Chelsea was brought to court to testify in support of her mother’s claim for this debt. She seems to have no understanding of how much of her indebtedness has been forgiven, was in the form of bursaries and scholarships or is still owing. Despite financial and emotional support that I accept she has received from her father, she has obvious animosity towards him and appeared to be a willing participant in her mother’s claim for her debt.
8I find that she was not forthcoming or reliable about the nature of her debt nor did she ever discuss her plans with her father or seek his contribution before applying for loans. I have presumed she received those loans and bursaries on the basis of an application that indicated she was not receiving support from either parent, and on the basis of her indication of willingness to repay those loans. It would appear that the debt that she does have was largely accumulated in pursuit of education in the line of work in which she is now full-time employed. Given her current income and even accepting that she owes upwards of $19,000, I am not satisfied that she requires her father to assume the debt or contribute to reducing it. She has presented no budget and is either uninformed about the details of her repayment responsibilities or has been intentionally misleading.
9Further, in my view, there is a public policy consideration in not encouraging students to seek government assistance based only on their own financial circumstances while intending to seek repayment by their parents of this indebtedness. That approach is contrary to the idea that OSAP should be encouraging young adults to pursue higher education they could not otherwise afford to take responsibility for their future. It also encourages false applications and potentially reduces the amount of funds available to students truly in need and without any parental support.
10I further have concluded that given the full-time employment of Chelsea, it was inappropriate that the claim was brought by her mother. If circumstances were such that she was unable to handle this indebtedness, in my view the claim should have been brought by her in her own capacity seeking support from both parents and outlining why their support was required. The bringing of this claim by the mother in the circumstances I have related has led me to conclude, sadly, that Chelsea was recruited to assist her mother in a claim motivated by resentment of Mr. DeBot’s current circumstances and new partner and a desire to reduce his standing with his children. There has been no evidence called of an inability to repay the loan on Chelsea’s part and no indication of where she has been spending her income from the career as a dental assistant that she studied for. Her mother was overpaid for five months of child support as Chelsea was full-time employed. Mrs. DeBot’s response was that Mr. DeBot knew the circumstances. I do not accept that evidence.
11I do accept that there is a history of this case back to 2016 and that counsel for Mr. DeBot was unsuccessful in her attempt to get disclosure relating to income issues and details of Chelsea’s indebtedness.
12For all of these reasons, I decline to make the order requested under s. 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
Conclusion
13For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:
- The order of Justice Rady of December 1, 2014, is varied by deleting paragraph 15 of the said order and substituting the following:
“The Applicant shall pay the Respondent Table Amount of child support for Connor DeBot born November 18, 2003 in the amount of $1,033.00 per month commencing October 1, 2019, which is in accordance with the Applicant’s 2018 income as adjusted for union dues but inclusive of overtime, trucking and farming for so long as he remains a child of the marriage as defined by the Divorce Act.”
Child support for Chelsea shall terminate until such time as she is in school full-time.
There is no retroactive child support or s. 7 expenses as of September 2019.
Delete paragraph 23 of Justice Rady’s order of December 1, 2014, and substitute the following:
“The Applicant shall pay the Respondent for her own ongoing support and maintenance the sum of $655 per month commencing October 7, 2019 until December 7, 2020, at which time spousal support shall forever terminate.”
- In the event the parties are unable to agree on costs, they may make brief written submissions (three double-spaced pages), along with a costs outline and any relevant offers to settle, according to the following timeline:
a) The applicant (responding party) may provide submissions within 15 days;
b) The respondent (moving party) may provide submissions within 15 days thereafter; and
c) The applicant (responding party) may provide reply submissions within five (5) days thereafter.
Original signed by Justice Thomas J. Carey
Thomas J. Carey Justice
Released: February 4, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: 11934/12 (Chatham)
DATE: 20200204
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Christopher Francis DeBot Applicant
– and –
Jennifer Anne DeBot Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Carey J.
Released: February 4, 2020