COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-21643
DATE: 20220720
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Rosemonde Marie Elizabeth Jean-Gilles
Applicant
– and –
Mark Wayne Paculanang
Respondent
In Person
No one appearing for the Respondent
HEARD: In Writing
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
M. Kraft, J.
Overview
[1] This case proceeded as an undefended trial supported by an affidavit for uncontested trial in court form 23C.
[2] Rosemonde Marie Elizabeth Jean-Gilles (“Rosemonde”) is 34 years old. Mark Wayne Paculanang (“Mark”) is 40 years old. They began cohabiting in March of 2007. They were married on July 7, 2007 and separated on or about April 1, 2013. They have two children, a 15-year-old son and a 12-year-old daughter.
Litigation History
[3] Rosemonde issued this Application on February 10, 2021, in which she sought a divorce, sole decision-making of the parties’ two children; an order permitting Mark to have reasonable parenting time; and child support for the two children in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 (“CSG”) based on an imputed income to Mark of $70,000 a year. Mark was served with Rosemonde’s Application and Form 35.1 Affidavit on March 9, 2021 at his residence in Toronto.
[4] Mark did not comply with the Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114(97) (“FLRs”) and did not respond or file any claims within 30 days of being served with the Application according to Rule 10(1) of the FLRs.
[5] As a result, Rosemonde proceeded to have the court determine her claims by way of an uncontested trial by affidavit evidence, without the need of a court order, pursuant to rule 23(23).
[6] On December 13, 2021, Mark was served with Rosemonde’s Form 23C, sworn on November 4, 2021 and Form 26, Affidavit for Divorce, sworn on May 25, 2021, along with a draft Divorce Order, a Support Deduction Order and the Support Deduction Information Form by e- mail at wesrobles@gmail.com. Mark did not respond.
[7] Mark has no standing in this proceeding. In accordance with rule 10(5) of the FLRs, the consequences of not serving and filing an Answer are such that Mark is not entitled to any further notice of steps in this case, except as provided by subrule 25(13) (service of order); he is not entitled to participate in the case in any way; the court may deal with the case in his absence; and a date may be set for the uncontested trial of the case.
[8] On April 4, 2022, I released an Endorsement asking for further evidence from the Rosemonde. That evidence was to be provided to the court by April 25, 2022. Rosemonde served and filed a Supplementary Form 23C answering my questions on Mark on April 29, 2022. For some reason, this was not brought to my attention until June 7, 2022.
[9] On April 4, 2022, after being sent a copy of my Endorsement, Mark attempted to email court staff in an attempt to provide information about his income.
[10] On June 14, 2022, I released a second Endorsement granting Mark leave to file a sworn financial statement with specific information about his 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 income. Mark was ordered to provide complete income tax returns for each of these calendar years within one week along with his most recent-up-to-date income information for 2022, failing which, the court indicated it would rely on the evidence put forward by Rosemonde as to Mark’s income and draw the necessary inferences. The one-week period expired on June 21, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. Mark did not file any material with the court as ordered. Instead, Mark continued to send emails to court staff directly
[11] On June 28, 2022, Mark reached out to the court staff by email. Accordingly, I released a third Endorsement in which I explained clearly that Mark had no standing in the Application. I made the following order:
a. If Mark wishes to participate in this proceeding, he was granted leave to serve and file a motion for leave of the court seeking to participate in the proceeding, with an explanation as to why he had failed to serve and file an Answer and/or financial statement by 2:00 p.m. on June 30, 2022;
b. If Mark complied with (a) above, Rosemonde was to have until 2:00 p.m. on July 8, 2022 to serve and file responding materials to Mark’s motion for leave to participate in the proceedings;
c. Mark’s motion was to be returnable before me on July 19, 2022;
d. If Mark did not serve and file a motion for leave of the court to participate in these proceedings by June 30, 2022, the court was to deal with the case in his absence.
[12] Mark did not comply with my order. He did not file motion material seeking leave to participate in this proceeding.
[13] As a result, this matter is proceeding as an Uncontested Trial in which Mark has no standing. These Reasons set out my findings and disposition of the matters at issue. Any emails Mark sent to the court staff were not considered.
Relief Sought
[14] Rosemonde seeks,
a. A divorce;
b. Sole custody of the two children (now referred to as decision-making responsibility);
c. An order permitting Mark to have continued reasonable access to the children (now referred to as parenting time), to be arranged directly between Mark and the children; and
d. Child support for the two children based on the CSG, with credit being given to Mark for the amounts he has paid to date beginning on August 5, 2015.
[15] In support of the relief being sought by Rosemonde, she relies on the following material:
a. Her Application, issued on February 10, 2021;
b. Her 35.1 Affidavit in Support of Claim for decision-making responsibility and parenting time, dated February 10, 2021;
c. Her Form 23C, Affidavit, for Uncontested Trial, sworn on November 4, 2021;
d. Her Supporting Document which is undated;
e. Her Form 36A, Affidavit for Divorce, sworn on May 25, 2021;
f. Her Form 25A, Divorce Order;
g. Her Support Deduction order;
h. Her Support Deduction Order Information Form;
i. Her Supplmentary Form 23C, Affidavit for Uncontested Trial, sworn on April 24, 2022.
Background
[16] The parties began their relationship in 2013 when Rosemonde was 17 years old and Mark was 23 years of age. They had children early on in their relationship.
[17] Rosemonde has experienced family violence at the hands of Mark. She describes being attacked physically while the children were sleeping beside her and being verbally attacked and threatened in public by Mark. She deposes that their relationship was plagued by bullying and aggression; she was treated disrespectfully regularly; and had to face explosive reactions from Mark.
[18] Rosemonde deposes that she, the children and Mark’s parents walked on eggshells around him for fear of violence, destruction of property or verbal abuse.
[19] The parties separated on April 1, 2013, and Mark moved out of the matrimonial home. They continued to interact with one another until August 2015 when Mark advised Rosemonde that he had begun a new relationship and was having children with another woman.
[20] Since separation the children have lived with Rosemonde. Rosemonde and the children have a relationship with Mark’s parents and the children see their paternal grandparents regularly. The children have spent time with Mark and his new family. However, the children prefer to sleep at Rosemonde’s home.
[21] Mark is self-employed as a professional car detailer. He owns Orion Detailing Co. which is a car detailing business which focuses on paint restoration, paint correction and interior detailing. According to Rosemonde, Mark’s company is reputable, he employs a few people and has high profile client.
[22] Mark makes arrangements directly with the children to spend time with them. Rosemonde encourages both children to have a relationship and spend time with Mark.
[23] Mark does not have provisions for the children at his home. As a result, the children prefer to spend time with Mark, outside of his home. Mark has recently made arrangements to have the children come to his business and help him with chores where they earn spending money.
[24] Mark has never paid child support to Rosemonde since the separation. Rosemonde has been financially responsible for the children without support from Mark.
[25] In 2018, Rosemonde approached Mark about his obligation to pay child support and to increase his parenting time with the children to allow her to work. At that time, Mark volunteered to pay Rosemonde child support in the sum of $600 a month. After a short period of time, the child support was reduced by Mark unilaterally and she received payments in increments of $60 to $150 a month sporadically, with months in between with no child support. When Rosemonde would try to discuss child support with Mark, he would be verbally abusive toward her, at which point she cut off contact with him in 2019.
[26] Rosemonde now wishes to obtain a divorce, formalize the arrangements which have been in place since separation, with her having sole decision-making responsibility for the children, and for child support arrangements to be put into place.
[27] She deposes that at one point in time, Mark disclosed to her that his table child support obligation for the two children is $1,000 a month. A monthly table child support obligation of $1,000 a month, corresponds to a payor earning $70,000 a year for two children. There are no documents to support that this is Mark’s income.
Issue One: Parenting
[28] Both children have resided with Rosemonde since separation.
[29] The children are 15 and 13.
[30] Rosemond has been solely responsible for all of the children’s day-to-day needs, including their emotional, educational, medical and financial welfare since separation.
[31] Mark has not participated in many day-to-day parenting decisions or in any major decisions that impact the children, other than decisions regarding the children’s school and religious affiliation. The children attend a private Christian school, 35 kilometres from Rosemonde’s home. The tuition fees for the children’s school has been generously paid for by Mark’s parents.
[32] Given the poor relationship between Rosemond and Mark, his parents have often acted as mediators between the parents for decision-making purposes.
[33] The children arrange their parenting time with Mark directly. There is no reason that cannot continue. Mark has not advanced a claim for parenting time.
[34] Rosemond seeks a final order for sole decision-making responsibility for the children. She is also content for an order to be made for the children to continue to have reasonable parenting time with Mark, as arranged between them.
Analysis: Parenting
[35] The legislation under which the Court can make parenting orders for married spouses is the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp.) (“DA”). The terminology “custody” and “access” have been replaced with “decision-making responsibility” and “parenting time”.
[36] Specifically, s.2 (1) of the DA defines “decision-making responsibility” as responsibility for making significant decisions about a child’s well-being, including with respect to, (a) health; (b) education, (c) culture, language, religion and spirituality, and (d) significant extra-curricular activities. Since separation, Rosemonde deposes that Mark has abandoned his parenting responsibilities and left all decision-making responsibilities for the children to her.
[37] Section 2(1) of the DA defines “parenting time” as the time a child of the marriage spends in the care of a parent, whether or not the child is physically with that person during that time.
[38] In making a parenting order with respect to a child, the court is obligated to only take into account the best interests of the child; s.16(1).
[39] In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being; s.16(2).
[40] The best interests factors the court is to consider are set out in s.16(3) of the DA, which is reproduced below:
Factors to be considered
(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including
(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
[41] I find that it is in both children’s best interests for Rosemonde to have sole decision-making responsibility with respect to all major decisions that impact them, including but not limited to, decisions relating to their health, education, religion and extra-curricular activities, provided only that she continues to consult with Mark and his parents with respect to education and religious affiliation. I also find that it is in the children’s best interests to have their primary residence with Rosemonde. Applying the best interests factors set out in s.24(3) of the DA to the facts in this case, I find as follows:
a. Given the children’s ages (15 and 13 years old) and their stages of development, it is important that the children have stability in their teenage years. Rosemonde has been the sole parent to have made decisions about both children since the separation in 2013. Mark has essentially absolved himself of having input into the many of the major and the day-to-day decisions that affect the children since separation and, as a result, it makes sense for Rosemonde to continue to make decisions for the children, without the need to have her consult with and reach agreement with Mark, particularly given the history of family violence. The exception to this, is with regard to the children’s school placement and religious affiliation. Rosemonde deposes that Mark’s parents have generously paid for the children’s tuition at a private Christian school and that she has maintained their religious affiliation as requested by Mark. Any decision regarding the children’s school placement or religion, if they arise, shall be made in consultation with Mark and his parents. If, however, the parties cannot agree on these issues, Rosemond should have final decision-making authority;
b. While I have no doubt that Mark and the children have a loving parent-child relationship, the strength of the children’s relationship with their mother warrants Rosemonde having sole decision-making authority in relation to both children given that she has been the sole parent for them and the parent on whom the children have relied, both during the relationship and after the separation, subject to the above;
c. Rosemonde has demonstrated a willingness to support both children’s relationships with their father and the paternal grandparents. In fact, in spite of Mark not responding to her Application, Rosemonde agrees there should be a parenting time order for such reasonable time for the children with Mark and for that time to continue to be arranged by Mark with the children directly;
d. The history of the children’s care is that Rosemonde has been the parent to be integrally involved in all aspects of both children’s care, including their physical, social and emotional development. It makes sense that Rosemonde continue her role as the children’s primary parent;
e. The evidence is that both children are happy to spend time with Mark but they prefer not to have overnight parenting time with him;
f. Rosemonde has a clear plan to continue to care for the children as she has been doing since separation, which includes being sure the children’s academic and emotional needs are met, and continuing to take an active interest in their extra-curricular activities and endeavors. Further, Rosemonde has the support of both the maternal and paternal grandparents;
g. Rosemonde is clearly able and willing to care for and meet the children’s needs;
h. Rosemonde is able and willing to co-operate with Mark in terms of the children coordinating their parenting time with Mark directly;
i. Given the history of family violence as between Rosemonde and Mark, it would be inappropriate for the court to make an order that requires them to cooperate on issues affecting either child in the future, especially, since Mark has completely ignored these proceedings; and
j. There are no other civil or criminal proceedings, order, or condition that is relevant to the safety, security and/or wellbeing of the children that would warrant Rosemonde not having sole-decision making responsibility for all decisions that impact the children as she has done throughout the children’s lives.
[42] Further, in determining what is in the children’s best interests, I consider it relevant that Mark has abdicated his decision-making responsibility to Rosemonde (other than with respect to religious affiliation) as per s.16(5) of the DA.
[43] However, I also find that it is in the children’s best interests to have parenting time with their father, in accordance with their wishes. It is important that both children have as much time with each parent as is consistent with their best interests and that they have a meaningful relationship with both Rosemonde and Mark. Mark shall continue to arrange his parenting time directly with both children as he has been doing for some time.
Issue Two: Child Support
[44] Since the separation, Mark has only paid sporadic child support to Rosemonde. He has not contributed towards the children’s special and extraordinary expenses.
[45] During the relationship, Rosemonde deposes that Mark owns a car detailing business Orion Detailing Co. that specializes in paint restoration and car detailing. She describes the business as reputable; it has a few employees. Although Rosemonde does not have any current information regarding Mark’s current income, she submits that at one point he offered to pay child support to her in the sum of $600 a month. At another point in time, Mark told her that his Guideline obligation is $1,000 a month. She asks the court to impute Mark with an income of $70,000 a year and that he be ordered to pay child support on that basis, pursuant to s.19 of the CSG.
[46] From the period June 10, 2018 to and including April 15, 2022, Rosemonde has received a total of $9,542 in child support from Mark, particularized below:
Date
Amounts paid by Mark
Details
2018
June 10, 2018
$150
June 19, 2018
$150
August 2, 2018
$200
September 1, 2018
$250
September 9, 2018
$150
September 17, 2018
$160
September 26, 2018
$150
November 9, 2018
$160
November 19, 2018
$200
November 25, 2018
$160
December 10, 2018
$160
December 19, 2018
$160
2018 Total
$2,050
2019
January 19, 2019
$160
February 5, 2019
$250
February 13, 2019
$250
March 4, 2019
$160
March 19, 2019
$150
March 27, 2019
$200
April 19, 2019
$160
April 26, 2019
$160
M<ay 4, 2019
$160
June 18, 2019
$180
August 23, 2019
$20
August 28, 2019
$130
September 3, 2019
$60
September 13, 2019
$65
For I.’s Trombone
September 13, 2019
$60
September 30, 2019
$80
October 28 2019
$130
November 11, 2019
$80
December 9, 2019
$100
December 16, 2019
$60
2019 Total
$2,615
2020
January 1, 2020
$150
February 17, 2020
$70
March 12, 2020
$150
April 1, 2020
$80
April 14, 2020
$50
April 27, 2020
$60
June 5, 2020
$150
August 6, 2020
$160
November 15, 2020
$500
December 6, 2020
$170
2020 Total
$1,540
2021
February 24, 2021
$245
$45 = I.’s money
April 19, 2021
$200
June 11, 2021
$200
July 20, 2021
$227
$27 = I.’s money
August 7, 2021
$225
I.’s money
August 19, 2021
$170
D.’s money
August 31, 2021
$400
October 2, 2021
$20
October 6, 2021
$400
$200 = I.’s money
November 28, 2021
$300
December 19, 2021
$250
Towards D.’s glasses
2021 Total
$2,637
2022
January 1, 2022
$100
February 3, 2022
$300
April 15, 2022
$300
2022 Total
$700
Total child support paid
$9,542
[47] Rosemonde deposes that she did not pursue child support from Mark when the parties’ first separated because she was extremely fearful of him and his reaction if she did. As detailed above, Rosemonde describes their relationship as being characterized by incidents of family violence. Rosemonde approached Mark about his child support obligation in 2018 but he verbally abused her as a result and she then cut off her contact with him.
[48] In any event, Rosemonde is not seeking retroactive child support.
(a) Rosemonde’s Income and Mark’s Income
[49] Rosemonde did not file a sworn financial statement since she seeks table child support for the children only and pursuant to rule 13(1.3) of the FLRs, she is not required to file a financial statement
[50] Specifically, Rule 13(3.1) provides as follows:
Exception, certain support claims
(1.3) If the only claim for support contained in the application, answer or motion is a claim for child support in the amount specified in the table of the applicable child support guidelines, the party making the claim is not required to file a financial statement, unless the application, answer or motion also contains a property claim or a claim for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and its contents. O. Reg. 92/03, s. 1 (1); O. Reg. 151/08, s. 2 (3, 4).
Imputation of Income for Mark
[51] Since the court has no information before it as to Mark’s current income, Rosemonde asks the court to impute Mark with an annual income of $70,000 based on him telling her once that his CSG child support obligation amounted to $1,000 a month.
[52] Section 19 of the CSGs provides as follows:
- (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,
(a) the parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse;
(b) the parent or spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax;
(c) the parent or 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 parent’s or spouse’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate income;
(f) the parent or spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;
(g) the parent or spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income;
(h) the parent or 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 parent or spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or other benefits from the trust. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 19 (1); O. Reg. 446/01, s. 6.
[53] Given Mark’s complete failure to respond to Rosemond’s Application and/or my Endorsements and provide the court with his income information, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to him: ss.19(1)(f) CSG; Woofednden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4385, at para. 38.
[54] In considering the amount of income to impute, the court must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances and determine the selected amount by applying a rational basis that is grounded in the evidence: Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ONCA) at para 44. The onus is on the spouse seeking to impute income to establish the evidentiary foundation: Berta v. Berta, 2015 ONCA 918 at para. 63. The amount of imputed income may be based on the payor’s previous earning history: Drygala at para.46; McNeil v. Dunne, 2019 ONSC 2528 at para. 53.
[55] The best and only evidence the court has regarding Mark’s income is that Rosemonde deposed in her Form 23C, sworn on April 4, 2022 that Mark disclosed to her at one point that the CSG Table amount for his income for the two children amounted to $1,000 a month. A review of the CSG Tables, provides that if a payor earned an annual income of $66,000, the Table amount of child support for two children would be $1,006 a month. Rosemonde’s calculation was that an annual income of $70,000 would result in a Table child support obligation of $1,000 a month, but this was incurred. It was, however, on that basis that she seeks an order imputing an annual income of $70,000 to Mark, on which to base the child support order.
[56] In 2018, Mark voluntarily agreed to pay Rosemonde child support in the sum of $600 a month. This lasted for a very short time period and then Mark unilaterally stopped paying the child support or reduced the payments to something in between $60 and $150 and paid it sporadically to Rosemary. A review of the CSG Tables, provides that if a payor earned an annual income of $40,500, the Table amount of child support for two children would be $604 a month. Again, this was a voluntarily agreement by Mark without him having provided any disclosure to Rosemonde about his income.
[57] The starting point for determining a party’s income for support purposes is Line 150 of the party’s Income Tax Return. Where income reported on a party’s Income Tax Return does not fairly, completely or credibly reflect the money that is available to the party, it is open to the court to impute income. When determining income for support purposes, the court may consider a range of factors as set out in s. 17 to 20 of the CSG, including the spouse’s pattern of income over the last three years, any non-recurring losses, pre-tax corporate income, and the unreasonable deduction of expenses from income.
[58] Section 19(1)(f) of the CSG provides that where a spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so, the court may income such amount of income as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
[59] In instances where a party has intentionally withheld disclosure or has provided less than candid and/or complete disclosure, the court may, in imputing income, draw an adverse inference against that party, see Meade v. Meade, 2002 CanLII 2806 at para. 81 and see also s. 23 of the CSG. The policy rationale behind this rule is that a party should not be allowed to benefit from the deficient record they have created or caused by their failure to comply with disclosure obligations. This rationale is all the more pressing where a spouse is self-employed, and a determination of the spouse’s true income is directly contingent upon the completeness and accuracy of the financial disclosure.
[60] The court does not have a copy of Mark’s current or past income tax returns. Given that Mark is self-employed, to determine his income properly the court would need to know his gross income, review his business financial statements and analyze whether the expenses he writes off as business expenses are all legitimate and/or whether any of these expenses ought to be added back into the calculation of Mark’s income for support purposes. With a self-employed payor, the court has jurisdiction to impute income to a payor as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include Mark unreasonable deducting expenses from income; s.19(1)(g). Regrettably, the court has no information from which it can properly determine Mark’s income.
[61] I find that Mark has been properly served with Rosemonde’s Uncontested Trial materials. Mark has also been properly served with the three Endorsements I have released in this matter. Mark has emailed court staff which confirms that he has received notice that the court is in the midst of making a determination about Rosemonde’s claims in the Uncontested Trial. However, Mark has failed to comply with any of the FLRs or court orders.
[62] In my view, this is an appropriate case where the court should draw an adverse inference against Mark for his failure to comply with the FLRs, my court orders and his disclosure obligation as provided for in s.21 of the CSG.
[63] I have no alternative but to use the evidence on record to make the best determination I can about Mark’s available income for support purposes. Having regard to the entire evidentiary record, I am satisfied that it is fair and just to impute an annual income to Mark of $54,000.00 for 2022. Given his lack of financial disclosure, I find that imputing his income in this fashion is fair and reasonable in determining his child support obligation to the Rosemonde in this case. This is the mid-point between the annual income that would result in a Table child support obligation of $1,000 a month ($66,000) and the annual income that would result in a Table child support obligation of $600 a month ($40,500) which he had agreed to pay in 2018. The CSG table child support obligation for two children on an imputed annual income of $54,000 amounts to $823 a month. Mark is to commence paying child support in the sum of $823 a month to Rosemonde effective January 1, 2022.
[64] Rosemonde deposes that the children are enrolled in music lessons, paid for by Mark’s parents as a gift. The only s.7 expense for which Rosemonde seeks reimbursement from Mark is the portion of the son’s eyeglasses not covered by a health plan. Rosemonde’s evidence that is that she has usually been able to share the cost of the son’s glasses with Mark. The most recent pair of eyeglasses for their son totalled $490. Since I do not have any income information from Rosemonde, I cannot determine what the parties’ proportionate share of s.7 expenses would be.
Divorce
[65] Now that child support arrangements have been put in place, the court’s duty set out in s.11(1)(b) of the DA, to satisfy itself that reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of the children, having regard to the applicable guidelines, the divorce can be granted.
Disposition
[66] Order to go as follows:
a. Pursuant to s.16(1) of the Divorce Act, the applicant shall have sole decision-making responsibility for any and all decisions impacting both children, including but not limited to decisions relating to their health, education, religion and extra-curricular activities. The applicant shall consult with the respondent and/or the respondent’s parents about the children’s schooling and religious affiliation. If, however, the parties are not able to reach agreement on these issues, the applicant shall have final decision-making authority with respect to these two matters.
b. Pursuant to s.16(1) of the Divorce Act,
i. The children shall have their primary residence with the applicant.
ii. The children shall have reasonable parenting time with the respondent, in accordance with their wishes, to be arranged directly with the respondent and the children.
c. Pursuant to s.19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, Mark shall be imputed with an annual income of $54,000.
d. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act, Mark shall pay child support for the two children, David Maningo Paculanang, born March 25, 2007 and Isabella Ayumi Paculanang, born August 5, 2009, in the monthly sum of $823 based on his imputed income of $54,000 a year, commencing January 1, 2022. The payments shall be made on the 1st day of each month until further order or agreement of the parties.
e. The arrears of child support for the months of January 1, 2022 to and including July 31, 2022 of $11,522 ($823 x 7 months) shall be paid by Mark to Rosemonde within 15 days of the release of this Endorsement. For clarity, in addition to the child support arrears in 2022, Mark shall pay Rosemonde the monthly child support, referred to in (d.) above on August 1, 2022.
f. Pursuant to s.21 of the Child Support Guidelines, Mark shall produce a copy of his personal income tax return on May 1st in each year, beginning on May 1st, 2023, along with a copy of his every notice of assessment and reassessment; the financial statements for his business, and a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments of benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the spouse does not deal at arm’s length; the financial statements of the corporation, and a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the corporation.
g. The divorce shall issue.
h. SDO to issue
M. Kraft, J.
Released: July 20, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-21643
DATE: 20220720
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Rosemonde Marie Elizabeth Jean-Gilles
Applicant
– and –
Mark Wayne Paculanang
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
M. Kraft, J.
Released: July 20, 2022