COBOURG COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-0275-0000

DATE: 20220923

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Mary McConnell, Applicant

AND:

Percy Finch, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Jain

COUNSEL: Applicant, Self-Represented

H. Agnew-Pople, for the Respondent

HEARD: September 1, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

Introduction and Background

[1] The Applicant is 87 years old and the Respondent is 88 years old. They cohabitated for almost fifty (50) years and separated in 2018. The parties have no children together. Both parties have adult children from previous relationships.

[2] When the parties separated, the Applicant brought an Application seeking an order for spousal support. She says that she has a lower income than the Respondent and needs his financial assistance. She says that the Respondent has a legal obligation to support her, and he has the means to do so.

[3] The Respondent opposes the Applicant’s claim for spousal support. He says that the Applicant is not entitled to spousal support because she “repudiated” their relationship. He further says that the Applicant does not need support and he does not have the means to pay it.

[4] On January 29, 2021, Ingram J. made an interim Order (“the interim Order”) for the Respondent to pay the Applicant spousal support in the amount of $1,137 per month. The Applicant is satisfied with the interim Order for spousal support and would end this matter if the court made a final order in that amount.

[5] The Respondent is not satisfied with the interim Order. The Respondent says that the Applicant is not entitled to spousal support at all. Even if the Applicant was entitled to spousal support, the Respondent says that the interim spousal support amount is too high as it results in the Applicant having more income than him. On March 26, 2021 Gunsolus J. granted the Respondent leave to bring a summary judgment motion (“SJM”) “in order to have spousal support finalized.”

[6] The Respondent has brought the SJM pursuant to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (all references to rules in this decision are to the Family Law Rules – “Rules”) seeking an order dismissing the Applicant’s Application with costs.

[7] This SJM is on the issue of spousal support, which is the main issue in the Application. There are other claims in the Application, however, the Respondent was not given leave to bring a summary judgment motion to dismiss the entire Application. Neither party made any submissions regarding the balance of the claims in the Application. The Applicant seeks a dismissal of the Respondent’s motion, or, in the alternative, a final determination of the amount of spousal support. I will not be addressing the balance of the Applicant’s claims in this decision. Therefore, after this decision is released, if neither party wishes to continue this court matter, either party may withdraw and/or apply to dismiss the balance of all the claims. If, however, they wish to continue, they may schedule a settlement conference through the Trial Coordinator.

[8] This matter was set to go ahead during the May 9, 2022 trial sittings, but it did not proceed. The Respondent had not served or filed his updated financial statement with proof of his income for 2020 and 2021. Costs in the cause were found against the Respondent for $360 plus HST.

[9] I have read and relied upon the following documents:

(a) Respondent’s Notice of Motion dated January 28, 2022;

(b) Respondent’s Affidavit dated January 28, 2022;

(c) Respondent’s Factum dated April 29, 2022;

(d) Respondent’s Financial Statement dated June 10, 2022;

(e) Applicant’s Affidavit dated April 12, 2022;

(f) Applicant’s Financial Statement dated April 4, 2022;

(g) Applicant’s Factum dated May 4, 2022; and

(h