COURT FILE NO.: FC-98-951-1
DATE: 2021/04/14
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Joanne Keedi, Applicant
AND:
Marston Rice, Respondent
BEFORE: Somji J.
COUNSEL: Applicant Self-represented
Respondent Self-represented
REASONS FOR DECISION ON UNCONTESTED TRIAL
[1] This matter was scheduled for an uncontested trial on March 30, 2021. The Respondent was the only party present for the trial.
[2] The Respondent Marston Rice (“father”) brought a motion to terminate the child support to be paid to the Applicant Joanne Keedi (“mother”) for their child M.T.K. born February 28, 1997 (“child”), effective March 3, 2012.
[3] The mother filed an Answer in response to the application on October 7, 2019.
[4] The matter proceeded to an initial case conference on November 19, 2019. Both parties were present along with a representative of Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (“MCCSS”). The matter was adjourned for another case conference.
[5] The matter proceeded to a case conference on August 6, 2020 before Justice Summers. The father was present along with a representative of the MCCSS. MCCSS reported to the court that the matter of child support arrears as between MCCSS and the father had been resolved and a final order, on consent, had been filed with the court. The mother was not in attendance. However, the representative of MCCSS advised that the mother was contesting the father’s motion to change. Justice Summers adjourned the matter for a settlement conference.
[6] On January 13, 2021, the matter proceeded to a settlement conference. The matter of child support arrears between the father and MCCSS was resolved. Justice Beaudoin signed an Order dated January 13, 2021, confirming that child support arrears owing to MCCSS were considered satisfied. Justice Beaudoin’s Order of January 13, 2021, however, did not pertain to any child support the mother claimed were owing to her.
[7] The mother did not attend the settlement conference on January 13, 2021, despite having been served the father’s settlement conference briefs. Justice Beaudoin granted the father leave to
schedule the matter for an uncontested trial to address his motion to terminate child support obligations effective March 2012.
[8] The uncontested trial was scheduled on March 30, 2021. The mother was not in attendance.
[9] The father seeks the following Order:
The child support Order dated October 29, 1998 shall be terminated for the child, M.T.K. born February 28, 1997, effective March 3, 2012.
The child support owed to Joanne Keedi/support recipient be fixed at $0.00, as of March 3, 2012, inclusive of all interest that may be owing.
The support arrears owed by the Respondent/support payor, Marston Rice, to the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services [MCCSS] (by virtue of an assignment of the support order between the Applicant/support recipient, Joanne Keedi, and MCCSS from August 1, 2003 to February 29, 2012) are considered satisfied in full on payment of
$2,500.00 to the Minister of Finance, receipt of which is acknowledged by the Assignee, MCCSS.
[10] The third condition requested has been addressed by Justice Beaudoin’s Order of January 13, 2021 and need not be addressed again.
[11] The primary issue on the motion before me is whether the child support should be terminated effective March 3, 2012.
Analysis
[12] The parties met in 1995. They never lived together. They had one child M.T.K who lived with the mother from 1997 to February 2012. The father was originally ordered to pay child support to the mother in the amount of $271.50 in 1998 as per the Order of Justice. J.A. Cousineau. The father claims he did not participate in those court proceedings. The Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) began enforcement almost immediately. The father made periodic payments for child support.
[13] The father resides in Gatineau, Quebec. In late February 2012, the child moved in with the father. He was 15 at the time. The child attended school in Gatineau, Quebec, for some time. The child lived with the father on and off until May 1, 2019. The child is now 24 years of age and lives independently. The child has not pursued post-secondary studies. The father claims the mother was no longer entitled to receive support effective March 2012.
[14] FRO transferred support enforcement to the Quebec Jurisdiction. The father claims that his income was reduced over the years and he obtained an Order from Justice Nicole Duval-Hesler dated November 2, 1999 reducing his child support obligation in accordance with his income. A copy of the Justice Duval-Hesler’s Order was provided in the materials filed and indicates that the father was obligated to pay child support in the amount of $1,166.66 per year effective September 3, 1999.
[15] The father explains that over the years, his income has been garnished, his taxable benefits seized, his passport revoked, and his bank accounts frozen to ensure his child support payments were made. During these years his income varied. The father feels he may have overpaid child support. However, he does not dispute the amounts payable and the arrears which have now been paid in full. The father takes the position that he has now satisfied his child support obligations in full and that his child support obligations should be terminated.
[16] The father filed school records to establish that the child was residing with him from March 2012 and that he was attending school in Gatineau, Quebec. In addition, the Affidavit Johanne Horsfall of the Ministry of Children, Community, and Social Services dated September 26, 2019, confirms that that the child was removed from the mother’s benefit unit effective March 1, 2012. Ms. Horsfall’s affidavit also confirms that she obtained a statement of arrears from the Ministry and FRO Records. Those child support arrears have now been resolved.
[17] In the mother’s Answer, she does not dispute that the child left her home and went to reside with the father in March 2012. However, she claims that the father’s child support ordered in 1998 by Justice Cousineau was lowered from $271.50 per month to $22.36 per month in 1999 by the Court of Quebec without her knowledge or consent. The mother alleges that the child support amount should not have been lowered. However, the mother’s Answer contains no evidence about the father’s income over the subsequent years and moreover, provides no explanation for why she never brought a motion to seek an increase to the child support amount upon obtaining the Order of the Court of Quebec
[18] The mother did not attend the last case conference or settlement conference. She has not provided any evidence for why she believes the father had been underreporting his income or why the child support amount ordered by Justice Duval-Hesler in 1999 was inappropriate. In the absence of additional evidence or submissions by the mother, I find the father is entitled to have his child support obligations to the mother terminated effective March 3, 2012.
Order
[19] There will be an Order as follows:
The child support Order dated October 29, 1998 shall be terminated for the child, M.T.K., born February 28, 1997, effective March 3, 2012.
The child support owed to Joanne Keedi, the support recipient, is fixed at $0.00, as of March 3, 2012, inclusive of all interest that may be owing.
Somji J.
Date: April 14, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: FC-98-951-1
DATE: 2021/04/14
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE Joanne Keedi, Applicant
AND:
Marston Rice, Respondent
BEFORE: Somji J.
COUNSEL: Applicant Self-represented
Respondent Self-represented
REASONS FOR DECISION ON UNCONTESTED TRIAL
Somji J.
Released: April 14, 2021