COURT FILE NO.: 16-0751
DATE: 2021/01/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DAVID BALFOUR
Applicant
– and –
JENNIFER JUDITH BALFOUR
Respondent
Elizabeth M. Osborne, for the Applicant
The Respondent is self-represented
HEARD: March 3, 4 and 5, 2020 at Brockville
REASONS FOR DECISION
D. Summers J.
Introduction
[1] This case was a straightforward matter that unfortunately ended in protracted litigation and near financial ruin for the family. The parties’ three children are adults, the respondent’s (“Ms. Balfour”) entitlement to spousal support was never in dispute, and there were only two assets of any significance – the matrimonial home and the applicant’s (“Mr. Balfour”) defined benefit pension plan. Not only did the parties lose what little equity they had in the home to power of sale proceedings, the sale left them with significant debt.
[2] To the parties’ credit, they resolved a number of disputes at a last-minute trial management/settlement conference. The court expressed its endorsement in terms of the issues left for trial and that inadvertently appeared to give rise to some disagreement around the scope of the issues settled. Specifically, Ms. Balfour thought the quantum of spousal support remained in dispute. In addition, and for the first time, she raised a concern about the gross-up rate applied to Mr. Balfour’s pension transfer to determine the equalization payment but did not have evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, Ms. Balfour agreed that spousal support had been settled at $3,500 per month and accepted the gross-up rate set out in the report prepared by Mr. Balfour’s expert. These results were consistent with the conference endorsement.
[3] The issues left to be adjudicated are:
a. the equalization payment;
b. post-separation adjustments;
c. whether the equalization payment should be fully satisfied by way of a pension transfer or by a partial transfer plus a cash payment;
d. whether their son’s student debt should be apportioned between the parties and if so, how;
e. whether there are arrears owing under Justice Abrams’ temporary order;
f. retroactive spousal support; and
g. whether Mr. Balfour may seek to vary spousal support based on a material change in circumstance if he retires before age 65.
[4] Although Mr. Balfour brought this proceeding under the Divorce Act[^1] and the respondent did not oppose his claim for a divorce, neither party sought that relief at trial. I, therefore, decide all issues under the Family Law Act,[^2] as pled in the alternative.
The Factual Matrix
[5] The parties had a 30-year relationship that began with cohabitation in 1985 when both were university students. They married in July 1987, separated on August 5, 2015 and continued to live under the same roof in the matrimonial home until mid-December 2015, when Mr. Balfour moved out.
[6] Robert, Graeme, and James are the parties’ three sons. At the time of trial, Robert was 29, Graeme was 26, and James was 22 years old. Graeme attended college but did not graduate before he returned home suffering from poor mental health. He receives ODSP and lives with Ms. Balfour. Robert and James are independent.
[7] Mr. Balfour is an elementary school principal earning $121,560 annually. He is now 57 years old.
[8] Ms. Balfour is also 57 years old. She returned to school fifteen years ago and became a Registered Massage Therapist. For health reasons, Ms. Balfour can no longer work in her chosen profession. She also has an undergraduate arts degree.
[9] Initially, the parties did not alter their day-to-day financial arrangements, and both continued to deposit their pay into the joint account and pay bills accordingly. This changed in June 2016 when Mr. Balfour rented an apartment, re-directed his pay, and began bi-weekly transfers of $1,500 into their joint account as spousal support.
[10] In January 2017, Mr. Balfour reduced his bi-weekly payments to $1,200.
[11] On April 18, 2017, Justice Abrams heard the parties’ motion and ordered Mr. Balfour to pay to Ms. Balfour temporary spousal support of $3,500 plus $900 per month commencing April 1, 2017. The latter payment was to cover Mr. Balfour’s one-half share of the mortgage ($750) and the balance on account of other operating costs. Abrams J. further ordered Mr. Balfour to pay the mortgage arrears. The matrimonial home had already been listed and the court directed the parties to co-operate with the sale.
[12] In the fall of 2017, the bank brought power of sale proceedings. The home did not sell until May 2019.
[13] Mr. Balfour was represented throughout this proceeding. Ms. Balfour had counsel but not consistently. A month or so before trial, a Notice of Change was filed, and she represented herself from that point forward.
Equalization of Net Family Property
[14] It is Mr. Balfour’s position that he owes an equalization payment of $393,445.43 before post-separation adjustments. Ms. Balfour’s net family property statement indicates an equalization payment owing of $403,097.97. The difference in their calculations relates to household contents, the value of Mr. Balfour’s vehicle and related debt, his credit card and line of credit debt, the rate used to calculate Mr. Balfour’s future income tax liability on his employment pension, and the amount owing on the mortgage at the date of separation. Ms. Balfour did not present any evidence to challenge Mr. Balfour’s evidence and only the value of household contents remained in dispute after cross-examination. Moreover, it became apparent that many of the discrepancies in their competing calculations were akin to misunderstandings rather than genuine disputes. For instance, Mr. Balfour correctly used the date of separation amounts owing on the joint mortgage, his line of credit and his credit cards, whereas Ms. Balfour’s calculation adopted the post-separation amounts to reflect the increase in the mortgage and the decrease in Mr. Balfour’s debts. It is an error to imbed these changes in the net family property calculation. They are properly addressed as post-separation adjustments.
[15] On the issue of household contents, Mr. Balfour asserts he only received his personal items and that Ms. Balfour took everything of any value, without discussion. He estimates $5,000 as the value she retained. Ms. Balfour disagrees and says when she moved from the house, she tried to divide everything fairly: if she took a bookshelf, she left a bookshelf; if she took the dining room set, she left the living room set. She did not assign any value to either of them for contents. She also said she had previously asked Mr. Balfour what he wanted from the house and did not get a reply. That was the extent of the evidence on this issue. Considering the circumstances of the parties’ separation including the fact that Mr. Balfour had set up his own residence a year and a half earlier I accept his testimony on this issue and assign a value of $5,000 to Ms. Balfour for household contents and find the equalization payment to be $391,891.94. The details of the calculation are set out below.
[16] I turn now to the post-separation adjustments sought by the parties.
Post-Separation Adjustments
(i) CMHC Debt
[17] Initially, Mr. Balfour sought post-separation adjustments totalling $75,494, however, mid-trial the parties agreed to take $8,234 off the table in relation to a joint line of credit. That reduced his claim to $67,260.
[18] Two adjustments sought relate to the sale of the matrimonial home. The first flows from the shortfall between the sale price and the judgment obtained by the bank in power of sale proceedings that resulted in a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (“CMHC”) debt of $50,798. Mr. Balfour subsequently paid the debt from life insurance received after his mother’s death and now seeks a credit against the equalization payment equal to Ms. Balfour’s one-half share of $25,399.
[19] Ms. Balfour submits that she should not be held responsible for any part of that debt. In general terms, she contends it was not her fault that they lost the house. More specifically, she says she should not be required to compensate Mr. Balfour for paying a debt that she expects would have been forgiven. She believes CMHC would have released her from the obligation based on her financial circumstances and inability to pay.
[20] Here, some context is needed to understand the parties’ positions in relation to these claims.
[21] The matrimonial home was listed for sale in the winter of 2017 at $329,000. Their realtor, Joanne Bennell, testified at trial. She said she told the parties that substantial repairs and improvements were needed to justify their list price. Neither party had the financial ability to make them. In April 2017, Justice Abrams ordered both parties to co-operate with the sale. Their first offer came in early June 2017, at $265,000. After a series of counteroffers, the prospective purchasers proposed $300,000. Mr. Balfour accepted but Ms. Balfour did not. She said she could not agree until she knew whether Mr. Balfour’s line of credit was secured against the house. If so, the offer was too low. According to Mr. Balfour, he assured her that the line of credit was not secured, but she wanted documentary proof. That was not provided in a timely way and the purchasers withdrew their offer. I believed Ms. Bennell when she said she did everything she could to conclude the deal at $300,000 including an offer to reduce her commission and make a further gift back of $1,500. She said considering the condition of the house, it was not worth more than the amount offered and that it was a mistake for Ms. Balfour not to “take the money and run.” It was not until July 17, 2017 that Mr. Balfour produced written proof that his line of credit was unsecured. By then, it was a month too late.
[22] The purchasers submitted the same offer a second time, a week or so after they withdrew. Ms. Bennell said she sent it to Ms. Balfour electronically but did not get a response. Ms. Balfour denied receiving it. I believe that Ms. Bennell sent the revived offer. I found her testimony was credible and forthright.
[23] There was one further offer on the house in January 2018 for $280,000. The parties had permission from the bank to consider it and submitted a counteroffer of $295,000. They heard nothing further. The property eventually sold in May 2019 with net proceeds of $231,395. The bank had a judgment for $261,114.82. With legal fees and post-judgment interest, the amount owing had risen to $282,193.56, thus the debt to CMHC.
[24] I do not accept Ms. Balfour’s submission that she should not share responsibility for the loss of the house. I find both parties were responsible. Considering the length of time, it had been on the market, Ms. Balfour had more than adequate time to prepare herself with the information needed to seriously consider any reasonable offer received. She did not do so and cannot now expect relief from responsibility for the loss of the house. As for Mr. Balfour, the line of credit was in his sole name. He could and should have answered Ms. Balfour’s concern by contacting the bank at once for written confirmation that it was unsecured. Instead, he waited a month.
[25] I also find Mr. Balfour was responsible for the circumstances that led to Ms. Balfour’s inability to keep the mortgage in good standing. His bi-weekly support payments were insufficient. The mortgage alone was $1,500 per month. There was also evidence that Ms. Balfour was left to pay his car loan of over $400 each month between June and October 2016, and the significant monthly carrying costs for his line of credit that he never did take over. Both payments were automatic withdrawals from the joint account. Then, in January 2017, Mr. Balfour unilaterally and without notice, reduced his bi-weekly payments from $1,500 to $1,200 and mortgage arrears began to accumulate. Moreover, this was happening at a time after Mr. Balfour had cashed in his retirement gratuity and availed himself of $18,830 from their joint investment account. Ms. Balfour, on the other hand, was earning minimal income and had two of their adult sons living with her. At no time in his evidence did Mr. Balfour account for his use of these additional funds.
[26] With respect to Ms. Balfour’s argument that CMHC may have forgiven her share of the debt, the evidence does not persuade me. While I am satisfied that CMHC can settle debts based on ability to pay, the evidence also indicates that any offer to pay less than 100% of the amount owed must be supported by the necessary documents. Although Ms. Balfour said she had applied for relief but did not know the outcome, she did not provide the court with a copy of the application nor advise of the date she submitted it. Nor did she tell Mr. Balfour of her request for leniency.
(ii) Lost Equity in the Matrimonial Home
[27] I accept Mr. Balfour’s submission that a sale at $300,000 would have generated a small payout to each of them, however, I do not accept that the total equity was in the range of $30,000 such that he should be credited with $14,969. Ms. Balfour argues that the total equity was closer to $10,000.
[28] In my view, had the property sold at $300,000, the evidence supports approximate equity of $20,000. I arrive at that amount based on the bank’s Statement of Claim that the mortgage stood at $259,298 in September 2017, and the amount due on the secured joint line of credit was $7,853. I also rely on the listing agreement that shows real estate fees at 4%, and add HST for a total expense of $13,560. The realtor, Ms. Bennell, did not indicate the specific rate reduction she offered the parties. In addition, I allow $1,500 for legal fees and other miscellaneous adjustments on closing before adding back Ms. Bennell’s offer to make a cash gift to them of $1,500. The result is potential equity of $19,288, therefore, I include a $9,644 post-separation adjustment in Mr. Balfour’s favour for lost equity.
(iii) Lost Tax Benefits
[29] Mr. Balfour seeks a further post-separation adjustment of $12,149. This amount represents the net income tax refund available in 2016 had Ms. Balfour been willing to sign an agreement acknowledging the support paid. He submits they needed the money, he was willing to use it to their mutual benefit, and refusing the agreement was unreasonable. I do not regard a lost tax refund to be a post-separation adjustment and decline to make the order. It does not relate to property or payments made toward asset or debt related expenses. It is, however, a factor for consideration in the context of Ms. Balfour’s retroactive support claim.
(iv) Mr. Balfour’s Line of Credit
[30] The next credit sought by Mr. Balfour is for one-half of the date of separation amount owing on his line of credit. He says the line was used for family purposes and should be seen as a joint liability. I do not agree. Mr. Balfour was entitled to and did deduct the full value of the amount owing in the calculation of his net family property. It would be double counting to allow a credit now and, therefore, I deny this adjustment.
(v) Wood Gundy Joint Account
[31] The parties agree that a post-separation adjustment in Ms. Balfour’s favour is necessary to account for Mr. Balfour’s sole use of joint funds. The credit proposed is $6,308.10, however, I find the amount should be $9,415. The lower amount is net of tax, however, there is no evidence that Mr. Balfour paid any tax when he cashed this investment. Moreover, if the funds were, indeed, taxable, the tax deducted from Ms. Balfour’s one-half share should reflect her rate, not Mr. Balfour’s higher rate. Accordingly, I credit Ms. Balfour with a post-separation adjustment of $9,415 which is one-half of the amount paid out by Wood Gundy after their fees.
(vi) Increase to the Joint Mortgage and Payment of Mr. Balfour’s Debts
[32] This issue arises from a $28,000 post-separation increase in the joint mortgage that was used, in turn, to pay debts in Mr. Balfour’s sole name. This concern was raised in the presentation of Ms. Balfour’s net family property statement as prepared by her then lawyer. I agree that an adjustment is appropriate but do not agree with the method used. The Family Law Act[^3] is clear. Each spouse’s net family property must be calculated based on the value of his or her assets and liabilities as they existed on the date of separation. Changes made after that date should not be embedded in the calculation as was done in Ms. Balfour’s statement. They are properly dealt with as post-separation adjustments.
[33] In this case, the evidence supporting this adjustment includes a handwritten “kitchen table” agreement signed by the parties on November 17, 2015. The agreement sets out the increase to the joint mortgage, that Mr. Balfour used $22,000 to pay his debts to Visa ($17,700) and Mastercard ($4,300) and that the remaining $6,000 would be used for other purposes including Mr. Balfour’s line of credit. Of note is a $4,000 payment on the line of credit early in December 2015. Moreover, the agreement states that the increase to the joint mortgage and payment of Mr. Balfour’s debts “in no way means that Jen is responsible for half.” Accordingly, I credit Ms. Balfour with a $14,000 post-separation adjustment to reflect that it was Mr. Balfour who received the benefit of the mortgage funds.
How the Equalization Payment Shall Be Paid
[34] Mr. Balfour seeks to pay the full amount by a transfer from his pension plan. Ms. Balfour argues that she needs liquidity and asks to receive $30,000 in cash and the balance from his pension. She contends he can pay that amount in cash and points to his Financial Statement that includes $50,000 in savings from the inheritance he received after separation.
[35] I decline the request for a cash payment and order that $450,549.69 be transferred from Mr. Balfour’s pension to an eligible retirement account chosen by Ms. Balfour in satisfaction of the equalization payment and post-separation adjustments, as set out below. I rely on s. 10.1(4) of the Family Law Act[^4] that allows the court to take into account a number of factors when considering whether to order the transfer and, if so, in what amount. The factors include: (1) the nature of the assets each spouse has at the time of trial; (2) the proportion of the spouse’s net family property that is made up of their interest in a pension plan; (3) the liquidity of the lump sum to the transferee spouse; (4) any contingent liabilities in the lump sum to be transferred; and (5) resources available to each spouse to meet their needs in retirement and the desirability of maintaining those. Here, the evidence shows that the equalization payment flows entirely from the value of Mr. Balfour’s pension. I also consider that the cash currently available to him is what is left of his inheritance, that he already used a significant portion of it to pay family debts, and I expect that he will need to draw on it again to satisfy the payments set out below. Finally, I consider that Ms. Balfour may soon be in a position to access some of the pension funds she receives from Mr. Balfour whereas he will not have that option.
Net Family Property & Equalization Calculation
Mr. Balfour Ms. Balfour
Assets
Matrimonial Home – jt ownership
(20 Herriott Street) $150,000.00 $150,000.00
Household contents $5,000.00
Vehicles $25,000.00 $2,000.00
Antiques, bed frame, $650.00
bikes, art, etc.
Joint CIBC Account $128.47 $128.47
Ontario Teacher’s Pension $1,085,930.59
RRSP $350.64
Joint Wood Gundy Account $9,415.08 $9,415.08
Retirement Gratuity $16,000.00
TOTAL ASSETS: $1,286,474.14 $167,544.19
Debts and Liabilities
Joint Mortgage $118,388.87 $118,388.87
CIBC – Visa Credit Card $16,346.33
Mastercard $2,900.00
Car Loan $28,124.00
CIBC – Line of Credit $30,032.21
Tax Liability – Pension $243,248.45
Tax Liability – Retirement Gratuity $5,280.00
SUB-TOTAL: $444,319.86 $118,388.87
Add Excluded Property: $9,415.08 $200.00
(Wood Gundy Funds
were a gift from Mr. Balfour’s
mother and placed in jt. names)
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS/EXCLUSIONS: $453,734.94 $118,588.87
Each Party’s Net Family Property $832,739.20 $48,955.32
Difference = $783,783.88
Equalization Payment: $783,783.88 / 2 = $391,891.94
Post-Separation Adjustments
Credit Mr. Balfour Credit Ms. Balfour
Equalization Payment $391,891.94
Loss of equity on Matrimonial Home $9,644.00
Paid to settle CMHC debt $25,399.00
Increase in Joint Mortgage $14,000.00
Share of Wood Gundy account $9,415.00
TOTAL: $35,043.00 $415,306.94
$415,306.94 - $35,043.00 = $380,263.94
Payment owing to Ms. Balfour $380,263.94
Plus 15.6% adjusted tax $70,285.75
TOTAL TO BE PAID TO MS. BALFOUR $450,549.69
BY A PENSION TRANSFER
Graeme’s Student Debt
[36] This issue arises from the parties’ status as co-signers on Graeme’s student line of credit. Mr. Balfour asks the court to divide responsibility for the amount owing equally between the three of them. Ms. Balfour is opposed and says neither she nor Graeme have the ability to pay. She argues that Mr. Balfour should be solely responsible for the full amount.
[37] There was roughly $39,000 owing on the line of credit when the parties separated and again when the case reached trial, notwithstanding Mr. Balfour’s payment of $15,000 in 2019 from the life insurance proceeds. There is no dispute, that Graeme received $36,000 in gifts and bequests from his paternal grandmother but did not pay down his debt. Nor is there any dispute that Ms. Balfour withdrew $10,000 and when asked about it, provided Mr. Balfour with conflicting explanations.
[38] These arguments and realities aside, this court has no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to apportion or re-assign debts between spouses. This claim is dismissed.
Arrears
[39] Ms. Balfour says Mr. Balfour owes her $900 per month from April 1, 2017 until December 2017 when the bank took over the house. He disagrees and asserts that he made the payments, although not directly to her, and submits that he actually overpaid by $1,196.51.
[40] Justice Abrams’ order of April 18, 2017 is clear. Mr. Balfour was to pay to Ms. Balfour spousal support of $3,500 plus $900 per month as his share of the mortgage and related house costs. Mr. Balfour was also ordered to pay the mortgage arrears that stood at $3,769.45. The evidence indicates that he made a number of payments in varying amounts – some were deposited directly to the mortgage account and others to the joint account. By doing this, Mr. Balfour muddied already murky waters. By then, the joint account had been compromised by the delinquent status of his line of credit and the bank was seizing whatever amount was needed to satisfy his overdue charges as soon as a deposit was made. The amounts seized varied from month to month. Ms. Balfour referred to Mr. Balfour’s payments and the activity in the account as a game of “hide and find.”
[41] According to Mr. Balfour, he was not aware of what was happening in the joint account. He said he did not do internet banking and believed that putting money in the joint account was his only option after Ms. Balfour said in April, she did not want to hear from him. Mr. Balfour has not persuaded me that he satisfied his court ordered obligation. First, he knew that Justice Abrams ordered him to pay $900 to Ms. Balfour and he chose to do something else. Her wish not to hear from him did not stop him from communicating through counsel, mailing a cheque to her, or setting up an automatic transfer into an account of her choosing. Second, there is no evidence that Mr. Balfour was otherwise making payments on his line of credit, therefore, he either knew or ought to have known that payments were being taken from the joint account. Early in his testimony, he told the court that the two accounts were connected. Third, considering their tenuous financial circumstances, if Mr. Balfour did not know what was happening with the joint account, he should have. Although he said he did not do internet banking, he did say that he could view the joint account online.
[42] I find that Mr. Balfour owes arrears to Ms. Balfour of $6,300 for April until December 2017, when the parties agreed to terminate that payment. This amount shall be paid to Ms. Balfour by certified cheque within 15 days.
Retroactive Spousal Support
[43] Ms. Balfour seeks retroactive spousal support for the period from June 2016 until April 2017 when Justice Abrams made his order. She alleges that Mr. Balfour promised to pay her $4,000 a month after they split their finances and that is the amount she seeks now. Mr. Balfour denies any such promise.
[44] The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Kerr v. Baranow[^5] is the leading case on retroactive spousal support. There, the court said the factors for consideration in a claim for retroactive spousal support are the same as those that apply to retroactive child support as established in the case commonly known as D.B.S.[^6] However, the weight given to each factor will be different because, unlike child support, there is no presumptive entitlement to spousal support. The factors to be considered are: (1) is there a reasonable excuse for any delay by the support recipient in seeking retroactive support; (2) the presence or absence of blameworthy conduct by the payor; (3) the support recipient’s circumstances; and (4) whether a retroactive award will cause any hardship to the payor. The court also said that when considering these factors in relation to a retroactive spousal support claim, generally more weight should be given to concerns around the notice received, the reason for delay, if any, and the conduct of the payor spouse. I turn to consider the factors.
[45] Ms. Balfour did not raise the issue of retroactive support until August 16, 2017, in a letter from her lawyer. The claim was not made in her answer filed in February 2017 and she did not formally amend her pleadings until January 2019. When Ms. Balfour testified, she did not explain the delay.
[46] With respect to Mr. Balfour’s conduct and Ms. Balfour’s circumstances, I am satisfied that he behaved in a blameworthy fashion in preferring his own interests. In this regard, it took him over four months to arrange to pay his car loan and insurance and based on the evidence, it does not appear that he ever arranged to take over responsibility for the minimum monthly charges associated with his $30,000 line of credit. These two expenses alone were several hundred dollars every month – extra money she did not have. Aside from support, her income was minimal in 2016 and 2017 at $4,243 and $10,924 respectively. Mr. Balfour was also aware that she was experiencing health issues, that Graeme was unwell, Robert was working part-time, and both were living with her although Robert did pay a small amount of rent each month of $350. Then, in January 2017, without notice to Ms. Balfour, he reduced his bi-weekly payments to $1200 and mortgage arrears began to accumulate.
[47] A retroactive award will not cause Mr. Balfour any hardship. He has secure employment, earns over $120,000 annually, has savings, and his ongoing support obligation is just over one-third of his income. I have also reviewed his Financial Statement and based on the expenses shown, I conclude that he has a small surplus in the range of $6,000 annually.
[48] Mr. Balfour should pay some amount in retroactive spousal support. The question now is when it should commence. According to the Ontario Court of Appeal in MacKinnon v. MacKinnon[^7], the default date for payment of spousal support is generally the date of the application. In the present case, that is February 2017. True retroactive support is that which predates the claim. Here, that period is from June 2016 to the end of January 2017. I am mindful that Mr. Balfour did not receive notice of the claim for retroactive support until August 2017 but consider his blameworthy behaviour and exercise my discretion to order spousal support for January, February and March 2017, to be satisfied by a lump sum payment of $500. This lump sum amount reflects consideration of the mid-point net of tax calculation for support at $3,500 per month based on the 2017 tax year, the parties’ incomes then, and Mr. Balfour’s bi-weekly payments of $1,200. Ms. Balfour did not persuade me that Mr. Balfour had agreed to pay $4,000 per month then nor that it should be fixed at that amount now.
My Order
[49] For reasons given, my order is:
On Consent,
Mr. Balfour shall continue to pay spousal support to Ms. Balfour of $3,500 each month.
Mr. Balfour shall maintain Ms. Balfour as a beneficiary under his extended health care benefits for as long as the coverage remains available to him and she qualifies for coverage.
Not on Consent,
Mr. Balfour shall maintain insurance on his life sufficient to secure his spousal support obligation and name Ms. Balfour as the sole irrevocable beneficiary of that coverage.
Spousal support, extended health care benefits and life insurances may be varied in the event of a material change in circumstances that may include Mr. Balfour’s retirement.
Mr. Balfour shall pay $450,549.69 to Ms. Balfour in satisfaction of the equalization payment and post-separation adjustments. Payment shall be made by a transfer from his pension with the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan to an eligible account chosen by Ms. Balfour.
Mr. Balfour shall pay $6,300 to Ms. Balfour in satisfaction of the arrears owing under Justice Abrams’ order dated April 18, 2017. Payment shall be made within 15 days by certified cheque or bank draft.
Mr. Balfour shall pay $500 to Ms. Balfour as retroactive spousal support. Payment shall be made within 15 days by certified cheque or bank draft.
If the parties are unable to settle costs between them, Mr. Balfour shall deliver his costs submissions by February 16, 2021 and Ms. Balfour shall have until March 9, 2021 to deliver her submissions, not to exceed 5 pages double spaced using 12-point font exclusive of offers to settle and detailed Bills of Costs. Mr. Balfour shall have a 5 day right of reply, not to exceed 2 pages. Submissions shall be sent by email, to my attention, at SCJ.Assistants@ontario.ca.
Justice D. Summers
Released: January 26, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: 16-0751
DATE: 2021/01/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DAVID BALFOUR
Applicant
– and –
JENNIFER JUDITH BALFOUR
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
D. SUMMERS J.
Released: January 26, 2021
[^1]: R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). [^2]: R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. [^3]: Supra, note 2. [^4]: Supra, note 2. [^5]: 2011 SCC 10. [^6]: D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37. [^7]: (2005), 2005 CanLII 13191 (ON CA), 75 O.R. (3d) 175.