CITATION: Punit v. Punit, 2022 ONSC 4864
COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-374568
DATE: 20220824
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Hemwattie Sandy Punit
Applicant
– and –
Raj Komar Punit
Respondent
Steven Bookman, for the Applicant
Rono Baijnath, for the Respondent
HEARD: August 23, 2022
PINTO J.
Supplementary REASONS FOR DECISION
Overview
[1] On August 12, 2022, I released my Reasons for Decision wherein I dismissed the applicant’s motion and granted the respondent’s cross-motion: Punit v. Punit, 2022 ONSC 4641.
[2] In my Reasons for Decision, I ruled, inter alia, that:
a) The respondent was not in compliance with the parties’ Minutes of Settlement (para. 42).
b) The funds being held in trust by Bookman Law, the applicant’s counsel, should now be released to the respondent, albeit without interest (para. 42).
c) D, the parties’ son, was no longer a child of the marriage or dependent on the mother as of April 1, 2018. The respondent was not obliged to make any child support payments or contributions to section 7 expenses after that date (para. 64).
d) For the purposes of calculating an award under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, the respondent’s union dues of $1,180 should have been deducted from his annual income (para. 65).
e) The respondent’s income, for the purposes of support, is $73,116 (para. 73).
f) The applicant should be imputed an income of $54,000 effective January 1, 2017 (para. 90).
g) Spousal support should be terminated at the end of 2022 (para. 95).
h) The parties should recalculate section 7 expenses based on the parties’ incomes as determined in my Reasons (para. 96).
i) The respondent should not be expected to pay new section 7 expenses that were only forwarded to him in 2021 (para. 96).
j) I would consider the respondent’s request to obtain a credit for any overpayment of section 7 expenses based on my ruling (para. 96).
k) The parties shall revise their support and section 7 calculations in light of my Reasons and provide me with a draft order approved as to form and content by August 26, 2022. The parties’ draft order should also deal with the appropriate treatment of the applicant and D’s access to insurance benefits under the respondent’s TTC policy. If this deadline presents a problem, or if the parties seek further clarification, they may contact me through my judicial assistant (final paragraph of Reasons).
[3] On August 18, 2022, applicant’s counsel advised the court that Christina Hinds, the lawyer who had argued the motions on behalf of the applicant, was no longer with the firm and that Mr. Bookman would need time to review the file and respond.
[4] On August 19, 2022, Mr. Bookman indicated that he would require further time to review the entire file and, given his heavily booked schedule, he would need until after September 12 to make the submissions requested in my Reasons.
[5] On August 23, respondent’s counsel submitted that, as the respondent was still paying child and spousal support, and as the respondent’s funds were still being held in trust, the court should proceed ASAP with receiving the parties’ submissions and releasing its final order.
[6] In light of the apparent dispute between counsel as to the deadline to receive submissions, I convened a Telephone Case Conference on August 23 wherein the parties made submissions concerning various options for the court in respect of the trust funds, setting the deadline for receiving a draft order and the costs submissions, if necessary.
[7] Mr. Bookman, on behalf of the applicant, indicated that he was not in a position to advise on whether trust funds should or should not be released as he had no specific instructions from his client, but he submitted that there was no urgency given that the funds had been sitting in trust for several years and that he was only requesting a few weeks extension to the deadline indicated in my Reasons.
[8] Mr. Baijnath, on behalf of the respondent, responded that, at a minimum the court should confirm that the child support payments should be terminated immediately, and that all or some of the trust funds should be released to the respondent.
[9] I have considered the various options and have decided as follows:
a) In my Reasons, I found that child support should have terminated April 1, 2018, which is almost 4.5 years ago. There is no reason why child support payments should not be terminated immediately.
b) Also in my Reasons, I found that the trust funds were held back only because the respondent had not complied with the literal wording of the parties’ Minutes of Settlement that were incorporated into a judicial order, however, there is no reason to continue the withholding of trust funds.
c) Whereas the parties have yet to send me a draft final order (assuming it can be jointly agreed upon) or submissions therein, the combination of the overpayment of child support by the respondent, overpayment of spousal support and section 7 expenses and costs on the motions are very likely to eclipse the amount being held in trust by Bookman Law. In other words, it is very likely that the applicant will owe funds to the respondent. Even if I am somehow incorrect on that point, in the above circumstances there is no reason why Bookman Law should continue to hold the funds in trust. The reasons animating Kiteley J.’s Order that led to the withholding of funds have disappeared.
d) There is no reason to tie the release of the trust funds to a revised deadline for the parties’ draft order or submissions (including on costs, if necessary).
[10] Mr. Bookman has provided a reasonable explanation for requesting an extension to the deadline in my Reasons and I am prepared to extend the deadline to September 16, 2022.
[11] The parties should send me a draft form 25 concerning the within decision ASAP so that the trust funds can be released to the respondent and that child support payments are immediately terminated.
[12] I will deal with the remaining issues associated with a final order including spousal support payments, section 7 expenses, the draft order and/or costs on or after September 16, 2022.
Pinto J.
Released: August 24, 2022
CITATION: Punit v. Punit, 2022 ONSC 4864
COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-374568
DATE: 20220824
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Hemwattie Sandy Punit
Applicant
– and –
Raj Komar Punit
Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR DECISION
Pinto J.
Released: August 24, 2022