Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS-21-22994 Date: 2021-06-29 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Desiree Joseph, Applicant And: Zamir Shamji, Respondent
Before: Papageorgiou J.
Counsel: Zahra Taseer, for the Applicant Richard Noll, for the Respondent
Heard: June 10, 2021
Endorsement
[1] The Applicant, Desiree Joseph ("Desiree"), brings a motion for:
a. Spousal support in the amount of $3,500 per month to be reviewed on the earlier of Desiree finding employment or 9 months;
b. An interim advance of half of the net proceeds of sale from the matrimonial home in the amount of $43,674.95 or such other amount as the Court determines; and
c. An order that the Respondent reinstate her health benefits.
[2] The Respondent Zamir Shamji ("Zamir") opposes this relief entirely. He asserts that there is no equity left in the matrimonial home when the parties' net family property statements are considered. He denies that Desiree is in need of support and in any event, he says he has been laid off effective May 25, 2021.
[3] For the reasons that follow I am awarding interim spousal support to the Desiree in the amount of $3,445 per month until Desiree obtains employment or nine months, whichever comes first. The parties shall return before me on February 8, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. for a one-hour hearing for an update and to consider whether she continues to be entitled to this spousal support. I am dismissing the balance of the motion and directing that remaining issues be determined in an expedited trial.
Overview
[4] Desiree and Zamir met in 2009, began dating in 2010, and got married on July 2, 2017. There is a dispute as to when the parties say they began living together with Desiree saying it was in 2011 and Zamir saying it was in 2013.
[5] Desiree says that Zamir lived a lavish lifestyle with vacations, dinners, luxury goods, illegal substances and strip clubs. Zamir denies this.
[6] In February 2017, the parties purchased their first home on l0 Willowrun Drive, Kitchener (the "Willowrun Property"). Desiree says she found the house and made the offer while Zamir was on vacation alone in Thailand for six weeks. They moved in to the Willowrun Property in May 2017. They both paid the mortgage.
[7] In August 2019, they sold the Willowrun Property to Zamir's parents and purchased a home on Fenside Street, Kitchener, for $690,000 (the "Matrimonial Home"). Desiree says the funds from the Willowrun Property were used as a down payment for the purchase with the remainder being put into a joint account for the furnishings, renovations and other endeavors and that Zamir used some of this money to support his addictions and his lifestyle. Zamir says all the proceeds went into the Matrimonial Home.
[8] The Matrimonial Home required renovation and Desiree was actively involved.
[9] Both the Willowrun Property and the Matrimonial Home were in Zamir's name. Desiree says that it was their intention to jointly own the properties but only Zamir was on title because she did not show sufficient income on her income tax returns to qualify for a mortgage.
[10] The parties separated on December 9, 2019. Therefore, this is either a six or eight year cohabiting relationship. Desiree remained in the Matrimonial Home for two weeks to collect her things. She then left and Zamir moved in and resided there, paying the mortgage and utilities associated with Matrimonial Home until it was sold on or around December 2020. They have no children.
[11] Desiree says that she felt forced to leave the relationship because Zamir was using drugs heavily and because he was, in her opinion, a pathological liar. The relationship was an enormous strain on her and she did not feel safe. She became suicidal trying to engage Zamir in an effort to salvage the relationship. Zamir denies this.
[12] I will reference this further below, but after a severe accident in October 2019, Zamir attended a bachelor party and Desiree says she found a large amount of cocaine hidden in the house despite Zamir's promises to stop. She confronted him on December 9, 2019. She says, "he lied and brushed me off." She then told him the marriage was over, and asked him to leave for two weeks while she packed her belongings and left.
[13] Zamir denies these allegations but in a final affidavit dated June 7, 2021, Desiree produced photographs she took of this cocaine that she found. She says she did not expect she would have to disclose these pictures to the Court.
[14] Zamir provided a responding affidavit dated June 8, 2021 where he baldly denied everything in her June 7, 2021 affidavit and set out his version with respect to issues she raised. He did not address the pictures of the cocaine that she took at their home which, in part, prompted her departure. In my view, Zamir's bald denial of all things in Desiree's affidavit is insufficient on a motion for summary judgment and I am finding that her departure from the Matrimonial Home was caused, in part, by her discovery of cocaine at the Matrimonial Home at that time.
Spousal Support
[15] In making a spousal support order, the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including:
a. The length of time the spouses cohabited;
b. The functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and
c. Any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.
Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 15.2(4).
[16] An order for spousal support should:
a. Recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;
b. Apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;
c. Relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and
d. In so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.
[17] On a motion for interim spousal support, the following governing principles are applicable:
a. The Applicant's needs and the Respondent's ability to pay assume greater importance;
b. An interim order should be sufficient to allow the Applicant to continue living at the same standard of living enjoyed prior to the separation, if the payor's ability to pay warrants it;
c. The court achieves rough justice at best—and does not embark on an in-depth analysis of the parties' circumstances;
d. The court should not unduly emphasize one of the Divorce Act statutory considerations above the others;
e. The need to achieve self-sufficiency is often of less importance;
f. Interim support should be ordered within the range suggested by the SSAGs unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise;
g. Interim support should only be ordered where it can be said a prima facie case for entitlement has been made out; and
h. Where there is a threshold issue, it becomes less advisable to order interim support.
McConnell v. McConnell, 2015 ONSC 2243, at para. 47; Faccio v. Faccio, 2018 ONSC 1225 ("Faccio"), at paras. 31-32, 37.
Entitlement
[18] The following chart sets out Desiree's line 150 income over the last 3 years is as follows:
| Year | Income |
|---|---|
| 2018 | $22,795 |
| 2019 | Approx. $57,000 USD |
| 2020 | $14,000 from CERB from her F/S |
[19] During the marriage, Desiree and Zamir both worked. They shared expenses and resources such as the mortgage on the Matrimonial Home. As a result, together they were able to afford a higher standard of living than either could alone.
[20] However, as a result of a significant injury as well as the impact of COVID-19 on the industry in which she works, Desiree has been unable to work since October 2019. Despite this significant injury, for reasons explained above, she felt compelled to leave the Matrimonial Home in December 2019.
[21] During 2019, Desiree worked in sales and event management and aesthetics for Dr. Dennis Gross, a skincare company based out of New York. She indicates that she has been unable to file her tax returns because her employer has not provided her with the necessary documentation of her earnings. However, she has said in her affidavit that she was earning $4,800 USD a month from her previous employment which amounts to approximately $57,000 USD annually. Although Zamir's counsel argues that Desiree has understated her income in 2018, given that she says she was making $4,800 USD a month from her US employer, he has misread her affidavit. She states in her affidavit that she had been making that amount only for the last year and a half. Therefore, there is no basis in this record to conclude that Desiree has been untruthful in her Income Tax filings for 2018.
[22] Desiree deposes that she did not have any income in 2020 apart from the Canada Emergency Response Benefits ("CERB") payments from the Government of Canada, which she received from March 2020 to October 2020. She has been unable to obtain EI benefits because she has been unable to file her tax return because of her employer's default in supplying necessary documents. She is actively trying to address this issue.
[23] Zamir works as a salesman at Airport Hyundai in London, Ontario, a company owned by his parents. His income over the last three years is as follows, although as will be seen, he claims to have had a drastic reduction to his income less than one month after Desiree made her support claim:
| Year | Income |
|---|---|
| 2018 | $90,608 |
| 2019 | $89,486 |
| 2020 | $93,888 |
[24] In my view, the following factors support Desiree's entitlement to interim spousal support on the basis of need:
a. In October 2019, prior to the separation, Desiree suffered an injury which has prevented her from working. She fractured and tore the outer ligaments in her ankle, tore her MCL and hamstring and ultimately got blood clots in her calf. This all required multiple attendances at doctors and hospitals. She was limited from taking blood thinners for her blood clots because of her pre-existing conditions, eosinophilic esophagitis and a hiatal hernia.
b. The first few weeks after her injury were very painful and she was put on bed rest. She was unable to work because she must stand for her job.
c. Currently, her knee has healed but the ligaments in her ankle have not. Her leg is emaciated, and she cannot sit or stand for extended periods as her leg starts to swell. She walks with a limp. She is under the care of a neurologist, two pain management specialists, two sport medicine doctors and several therapists. She has provided evidence which supports this including invoices for physiotherapy. She has also provided a letter from Dr. Vincenzo Sana Basile, MD, CSCN, FRCPC, dated May 26, 2021, which supports her injuries and ongoing health issues related to it. Dr. Basile ordered further investigations but concluded that:
She has had difficulties with work as an aesthetician since developing the symptoms as she has had difficulty sitting for prolonged periods of time may shift her position. She may require some accommodations at work in this regard. She will contact our office once she has had the ankle imaging performed and we will keep you informed.
She also suffers from severe anaemia, has been referred to a haematologist, and has been advised that she will have to have blood transfusion. Accordingly, at this time, the Applicant still suffers from a physical condition caused by her accident in October 2019, investigations are still ongoing and there may be accommodations she requires, but this has not yet been determined.
d. She requires physiotherapy but cannot afford it. She was previously covered by Zamir's health insurance, but he had her removed in or around February 2021.
e. Because of her pre-existing conditions, she is at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 and cannot use public transit to assist her with a job search or other day-to-day matters. She also is unable to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine because of her pre-existing conditions.
f. As well, as noted above, because of COVID-19, the aesthetics industry is not thriving.
g. Accordingly, she has a trifecta of factors working against her: i) her injury which causes her ongoing pain, requires ongoing physiotherapy and which makes it difficult for her to stand or sit for long periods as required by her job; ii) the industry in which she is working is not doing well because of COVID-19; and iii) she has pre-existing conditions which make her a COVID-19 risk and make it more difficult for her to perform her job search and which limits the kinds of jobs which she can accept. She feels she must work at home for protection.
h. Her history shows that she is very hard-working and industrious. She has worked since she was 15. Despite her current disability, she has been diligently applying for work since September 2020. She has had two interviews already.
i. Desiree has been unable to pay her rent since January 2021 and received an Application to Evict a Tenant from her landlord. The eviction notice indicates that her monthly rent is $1,600. As of February 23, 2021, she owed $3,516 and this amount has continued to increase. Although evictions are not currently possible, eventually orders preventing evictions may be vacated and once that happens, she will have to pay back outstanding rent.
j. Desiree previously had a car which she thought Zamir had gifted to her. He had taken her used 2008 Honda Civic car (which she had purchased in full) and traded it in at his parents' dealership for a 2009 BMW 328. Thereafter, on her 35th birthday he presented her with a 2016 BMW X4 with a bow on it and sold her other car through the dealership. He now says that this was not a gift, but a loaner from his parents' dealership, but he never gave her any funds for the trade-in value of her car. On February 21, 2021, Zamir took the vehicle from her residence on the basis that it belonged to the dealership. Desiree needs funds to arrange a means of transportation to attend medical and physiotherapy appointments and to pay her living expenses.
k. She has qualified for legal aid because of her circumstances.
l. With respect to her standard of living, Desiree went from living in a house worth $600,000 to living in a one-bedroom apartment which she cannot afford. In Newcombe v. Newcombe, 2014 ONSC 1094, the Court considered a similar situation and ordered spousal support even where the payee was earning a substantial income. In that case, a wife of six years was involved in a workplace accident and experienced a dramatic decline in lifestyle after separation. The husband continued to live in the matrimonial home and the wife lived in a shared apartment. The Court concluded that she was entitled to non-compensatory support which arose from the relationship. The Court held that the "need" of a dependant spouse is assessed based on the standard of living that the parties were accustomed to during the marriage and interim support is not merely intended to "stop the bleeding" pending trial. The drastic drop in lifestyle experienced by the wife was a form of economic hardship arising from breakdown of the marriage within the meaning of s. 15.2(6)(c).
m. After their separation, even when she was injured and unable to work, Desiree did not request support. Instead, she relied on CERB which she no longer receives. She has waited until she can no longer support herself to make this application for support. She initially did not claim any retroactive support and she concedes that this support will only be short-term. She asks that any support awarded be reviewed on the earlier of her finding employment or nine months.
n. In my view, Desiree's overall conduct with respect to her request for support has been more than reasonable. She has taken responsibility for herself and only now, when she is in dire straits, has she sought support.
[25] Zamir opposes any spousal and makes some arguments that in my view go beyond the Court's role in assessing whether interim support ought to be granted. He urges me to do an in-depth analysis of the parties' circumstances as follows:
a. Although he does not deny that Desiree's injury was significant and that she required and continues to require physiotherapy, he says that Desiree has not provided sufficient medical evidence to suggest she is unable to work. I disagree. I have her evidence which is compelling and Zamir's admission regarding the severity of her injury. Zamir did not seek to question her, nor did he request any productions related to her claims. Further, although there is no sworn evidence from him, the letter from Dr. Basile demonstrates that Desiree is receiving ongoing care and investigations for her injuries. In my view, given the seriousness of her condition, it is premature to state that she should be working without knowing the accommodations she requires.
b. Zamir baldly states that Desiree has earned $75,000 CAD per year which has never been accounted for in her income—without any evidence or explanation as to what this relates to or even why he thinks it.
c. He says Desiree has no need as she was given an $8,000 advance from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home in December 2020. With respect, she has not been working since October 2019. A one-time receipt of $8,000 would not be sufficient for her to live on.
d. He says that he was laid off from Airport Hyundai in London as of May 28, 2021. The company is owned by his parents. He has attached a letter from the General Manager which states:
Due to the economic impact of COVID-19, London's Airport Hyundai is implementing measures to ensure the financial stability of the company. The current pandemic situation has impacted our business significantly, and as a result, we find that we must make some difficult personnel decisions.
Effective Friday May 28, 2021, London's Airport Hyundai is implementing a temporary layoff of your position.
e. Zamir says he has applied for EI but at this time does not have a steady income and is uncertain as to what his income will be.
[26] Section 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines empowers the court to impute income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances:
19 (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following:
(a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;
(b) the spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax;
(c) the spouse lives in a country that has effective rates of income tax that are significantly lower than those in Canada;
(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these Guidelines;
(e) the spouse's property is not reasonably utilized to generate income;
(f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;
(g) the spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income;
(h) the spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax; and
(i) the spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or other benefits from the trust.
[27] The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines rely upon the above Federal Guidelines with respect to the definition of income.
[28] A party is intentionally unemployed when he or she chooses not to work when capable of earning an income: Drygala v. Pauli (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (Ont. C.A.) ("Drygala"). In deciding the amount of income to be imputed, the court must consider what is reasonable in all of the circumstances, taking into account recipient's age, education, experience, skills, health, past earning history and potential remuneration if she worked to capacity: Drygala, at paras. 45-46.
[29] In my view, there are many suspicious circumstances surrounding Zamir's professed layoff. First, this layoff occurred shortly after Desiree commenced a motion seeking leave to bring an application for support on April 19, 2021. As noted above, Zamir works with and lives with his parents—the owners of the Airport Hyundai which just laid him off. He has provided no evidence as to how many people work at Airport Hyundai, how many employees were laid off, what the financial circumstances of the company were that required layoffs or any evidence as to why he was chosen. His income from 2019 to 2020 went up from $89,486 to $93,888. Therefore, during the year when COVID-19 began, his employer/parents were able to increase his income, and this is not consistent with extreme financial difficulty that requires layoffs in 2021. He has also not provided any information as to any severance which he has received. He has not provided evidence as to any efforts he has made to find alternate employment. In all the circumstances set out above, I find that Zamir is intentionally unemployed. I am imputing to him the same income he lists on his financial statement sworn April 27, 2021 where he sets out his total monthly income to be $7,500.
[30] In Zamir's financial statement, sworn before he began living with his parents, he has listed expenses totaling $5,626.41, but $1,420 relates to mortgage and utilities which he no longer incurs. As well, the expenses which relate to groceries ($400) may be modified given he is living with his parents. He has provided no evidence that his parents are charging him anything for living with them. Therefore, accepting his financial statement expenses at face value, his monthly expenses are $3,806.41. There are excess funds left from his monthly income of $7,500 and Zamir has the ability to pay spousal support.
[31] Zamir says that if income is imputed to him, it should also be imputed to Desiree as she has not proven that she cannot work. In my view, she has presented sufficient evidence for the purposes of this motion to demonstrate that she has been unable to work. I am not prepared to impute any income to her at the present time.
[32] In Devincenzo v. Devincenzo, 2012 ONSC 2326, at para. 14, the Court stated:
At the interim stage, the statements made by the applicant should be taken at face value. The matter of the applicant's physical and emotional health will ultimately have to be addressed by medical information on the ultimate disposition of this matter, but given the history and the situation existing at the time of separation, it is not appropriate, in my view, to impute income to the applicant at the interim stage.
[33] In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that Desiree has established a prima facie entitlement to non-compensatory spousal support based upon need. Further, I am satisfied that Zamir has the ability to pay.
Quantum
[34] Desiree has provided a divorcemate calculation which shows that the range of support, based upon the imputation of income to Zamir of $93,888 is as follows:
| Low | Mid | High |
|---|---|---|
| 1,056 | 1,232 | 1,408 |
[35] If spousal support is awarded based upon the highest amount, then Zamir will receive 76.9 % of the total net disposable income ("NDI") and Desiree will receive 23.1 % of the NDI. The highest amount of $1,408 will not even cover her rent.
[36] Desiree asserts that this would be an unjust result in the circumstances because it would not permit her to have the standard of living, she previously enjoyed. She seeks monthly support of $3,500 for a short duration only on the basis that this level of support would result in each of Zamir and Desiree receiving 50 % of the NDI.
[37] She argues that support is only required for a short time and as such it should be "front end loaded" based upon a 50/50 NDI rather than the mid-range, particularly because she anticipates that her need will soon end.
[38] She references the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: A New and Improved User Guide to the Final Version (201), where specific exceptions to the SSAG are identified which are relevant to short marriages and relationships without children. Specifically, in Chapter 12, there is a basic needs/hardship exception:
This exception recognizes the specific problem with shorter marriages (1-10 years) under the without child support formula (and the custodial payor formula which is built around the without child support formula) where the recipient has little or no income and the formula is seen as generating too little support for the recipient to meet his or her basic needs for any transitional period that extends beyond the interim exception. The exceptions allow for awards higher in amount that the SSAG ranges, enough to meet basic needs, but does not allow for an extension of duration.
This exception is intended to apply only where other exceptions—such as the interim exception, illness and disability exception and the compensatory exception in short marriages—are not applicable and where restructuring does not provide an adequate solution. When this exception was recognized in the SSAG we contemplated a very narrow scope for its operation, and we thought it would arise mostly in bigger cities, where basic needs are most expensive.
[39] The link to these Guidelines in Desiree's factum sets out a number of cases which have applied this exception where the courts determined that the high range in the SSAG would not provide adequate support: Carty-Pusey v. Pusey, 2015 ONCJ 382; Ponkin v. Werden, 2015 ONSC 791; and Tasman v. Henderson, 2013 ONSC 4377.
[40] In dealing with spousal support, the Court is required to consider all of the factors in s. 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act as well as the objectives of spousal support in s. 15.2(6). As set out above, these factors include the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse including the length of cohabitation.
[41] In my view, taking into account all of the factors and objectives of interim support, the SSAG in this case generates amounts that are not sufficient to provide adequate support and there are exceptional circumstances which require these guidelines to be adjusted. This is primarily because of the somewhat shorter duration of co-habitation and the fact that they had no children.
[42] Given that Zamir is living with his parents and therefore has reduced his living expenses and given Desiree's need and the drastic impact which the marital breakdown has had on her standard of living, it is appropriate to go outside the Guidelines.
[43] There is evidence before me that Desiree's current rent is approximately $1,700 per month and that she spends $120 per month on medication. She also provided a sworn financial statement which shows that her total monthly expenses are $3,325. I note that the financial statement omits the $120 which she deposes in her affidavit she spends on medication and adding the $120 results in her monthly expenses being $3,445.
[44] If support of $3,445 were awarded to Desiree, this would result in total expenses for both parties of $7,251.31, compared to a total NDI of $7,500:
a) Desiree: $3,445;
b) Zamir: $3,806.41; and
c) Total: $7,251.41.
[45] Accordingly, sharing the NDI will not only pay Zamir's expenses but will leave him with $250 for groceries which he can contribute to his shared accommodation with his parents.
[46] In argument (although not in her factum), Desiree's counsel referred to the landmark case Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420 where the Court emphasized that marriage is an economic partnership. The following direction by the Court is particularly relevant:
[48]... It is also important to recognize that sometimes the goals of actual independence are impeded by patterns of marital dependence, that too often self-sufficiency at the time of marriage termination is an impossible aspiration, and that marriage is an economic partnership that is built upon a premise (albeit rebuttable) of mutual support. [Emphasis added]
[47] It is appropriate, given Desiree's need and Zamir's ability to pay, that the parties each share half of the net disposable income for this short duration. This will allow Desiree to get back on her feet. As such I award spousal support in the amount of $3,445 per month for six months or until Desiree is employed, whichever comes first with a review before me on February 8, 2022 at 10:00 am, or such other date which the parties may adjourn this to.
[48] As will be seen below, Zamir requested has argued that Desiree should pay mortgage and other costs while Zamir resided in the Matrimonial Home. Desiree argues that if she is required to pay these amounts then she is requesting retroactive spousal support. She did not specifically request this in her Notice of Motion.
[49] Given that Zamir has not had an opportunity to file evidence with respect to this issue as it arose during the hearing, I am adjourning it to the expedited trial I have ordered and am granting her leave to amend her pleading to claim retroactive support.
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
[50] Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (the "FLR"), provides that if there is no genuine issue which requires a trial, the court shall make a final order accordingly.
Advance Payment of Equalization
[51] The court may order an advance payment of equalization or an interim equalization payment before trial: Family Law Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. F.3; Kleinman v. Kleinman (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 740 (Ont. Gen. Div.) ("Kleinman").
[52] Zamir argues that there are significant genuine issues which require a trial as to whether he owes Desiree any equalization payment for the following reasons:
a. Zamir asserts that his parents made a loan of $50,000 to him and Desiree for the purposes of financing the Matrimonial Home. There is a signed promissory note supporting that. Desiree says this was a gift.
b. Desiree says that $25,000 from was already repaid to Zamir's parents and this is disputed.
c. Desiree has estimated the value of household goods and furniture to be approximately $10,000 which she lists as assets of Zamir. These were new furnishings and Zamir takes the position that he offered them to her and/or that she can have them. He says these goods are currently sitting in storage. Therefore, they should not be part of his NFP.
d. Desiree's NFP includes an estimated tax arrears liability of $8,500 which is not supported by documentation.
e. Zamir has paid ongoing mortgage and other costs associated with the Matrimonial Home up until sale and claims $16,193.99 as Desiree's share of these expenses which entitles him to an unequal division if there is anything owed;
f. Zamir has paid storage costs in respect of the parties' furniture and he claims $2,645.30 as Desiree's share of these expenses which entitles him to an unequal division if there is anything owed.
[53] Having thoroughly reviewed all materials and case law provided on many of the above issues, I am satisfied that there are genuine issues which require a trial as to whether Desiree is entitled to an equalization payment.
[54] I am directing that all remaining issues in this matter proceed to an expedited trial before me subject to my availability on the Family list and I am also directing that a joint settlement conference and trial management conference be scheduled immediately,
Health Insurance
[55] Although Zamir has acknowledged Desiree's injury and need for physiotherapy, he removed her from his health insurance plan on February 28, 2021. Zamir says that he gave Desiree advanced notice and that taking her off of his policy reduced his payment from $166.16 per month for a family plan to $69.95 for a single person per month.
[56] Pursuant to s. 34(1)(j) of the Family Law Act, I am directing that Zamir shall, if permitted by the terms of his employment health insurance, immediately reinstate Desiree as a beneficiary on his medical, dental and extended health benefits provided through his insurer.
[57] If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make submissions no longer than three pages each with the Applicant to provide them within seven days and the Respondent within seven days thereafter.
Order
[58] Accordingly, I order as follows:
a) Pursuant to section 15.2(3) of the Divorce Act, Zamir shall pay Desiree spousal support in the amount of $3,445 per month commencing July 1, 2021 until she finds a job or at the latest April 1, 2022.
b) The motion shall return me on February 8, 2022 for an update. At that time, the parties shall file an update as to their circumstances and any other matters which impact on the support order made.
c) Pursuant to section 34(1)(j) of the Family Law Act, Zamir shall, if permitted by the terms of his employment health insurance, immediately reinstate Desiree as a beneficiary on his medical, dental and extended health benefits provided through his insurer.
d) The remainder of the issues in this case shall proceed to trial on an expedited basis before me, subject to my availability on the family list.
e) The Registrar shall arrange a joint settlement and trial management conference on an urgent basis.
f) If the parties are unable to settle costs, they may make submissions no longer than 3 pages as follows: Desiree within 7 days and Zamir within 7 days thereafter.
g) Desiree shall provide me with a draft order as well as a draft support deduction order, copied to Zamir.
Papageorgiou J.
Date: June 29, 2021