NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-58981-00

DATE: 20230712

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Daneisy Leon Applicant

– AND –

Rafik Yeghnazari Respondent

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

HEARD: April 4, 2023

ISOA Ruling (FRO case # 191727)

JARVIS J.

[1] On February 7, 2022, this court made a child support Order[^1] ("the Ruling") pursuant to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.[^2] One child ("CDY") is involved; she resides with her mother in British Columbia and was expected to complete her post-secondary education in April 2022 when the Order was made. The following was ordered:

(a) The father was found to owe child support to the mother in the amount of $59,230 for the period September 1, 2016, to April 30, 2022. This amount represented arrears of support found owing, less some credits;

(b) The father was ordered to pay $900 a month toward the support ordered in (a) above starting March 1, 2022. This was a reduced amount to account for the father's second family obligations and his debt load;

(c) The child's entitlement to support was ordered to end on April 30, 2022, but the father's obligation to pay was ordered to continue after that date until the amount owed to the mother was fully paid.

[2] The court was subsequently informed that the actual date for the child's completion of her education was April 2023. Directions were given on March 2, 2022, for the parties to submit further evidence, and on June 29, 2022, the court made a further Order, the terms of which included the following:

(a) The support Order would not terminate on April 30, 2022. The father's support obligation was ordered to continue;

(b) The child support issue was directed to return to court on March 31, 2023, to consider the termination of the support Order effective April 30, 2023;

(c) The mother was ordered to file an updated financial statement by March 17, 2023, and an affidavit to which were to be attached proof of the child's continuing 2022-2023 education and proof of income (mother and child) earned in 2022 and 2023 to March 17, 2023;

(d) The father was ordered to file an updated financial statement by March 17, 2023;

(e) The parties were directed to ensure that their financial statements contained all income information as required by the Child Support Guidelines (the "CSG"), including year-to-date earnings statements and at least three consecutive statements of current remuneration.

[3] The June 2022 endorsement noted that the reason for updated information from the parties was to determine whether there should be any retroactive adjustment to the child support and to deal with child support for the period after April 30, 2022.

[4] The parties complied with the June 2022 Order.

[5] Due to scheduling complications, the matter was adjourned from March 31, 2023, to April 4, 2023. The parties appeared on that date, were sworn and testified (mostly in response to questions from the court).

[6] This is the relevant evidence accepted as fact by the court:[^3]

(a) The father filed an updated financial statement, his 2021 Notice of Assessment and three recent consecutive earnings statements. The Notice of Assessment disclosed a $139,539 Line 150 income which, after deducting $589 for union dues, reduced his 2021 CSG income to $138,950. The presumptive table amount is $1,217 monthly. The Ruling was based on the father's adjusted (for union dues) income of $128,285 which resulted in a presumptive table amount of $1,132 monthly. The monthly difference is $85;

(b) The father also filed two T4 remuneration statements for 2022 disclosing a total income of $146,688.45 which, after adjustment for union dues of $588.64, results in a CSG income of $146,099. The table amount is $1,271 monthly;

(c) There is no evidence that the child spent time with her father during the summer of 2022 (unlike prior years);

(d) The child continued her studies and was expected to complete them in mid-April 2023. The mother advised that the child had employment starting in June 2023;

(e) Tuition expenses for the period May 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023, total $8,248.62;

(f) The child incurred rental expenses of $8,000 ($1,000 monthly) for the September 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023, period;

(g) The child earned $7,870.03 in 2022 from part-time work between September 1 to December 31, 2022;

(h) The child obtained a student loan of $4,940 at the end of December 2022 (net of a $500 Government grant);

(i) The child has earned part-time income in 2023 (to February 24, 2023) of $2,468.65 ($2,311.71 net after statutory deductions);

(j) The mother's evidence is that she contributed $7,975.18 towards the child's 2022/2023 post-secondary expenses and $4,500 toward the $8,000 rental expense. She says that she earned no income in 2022 or 2023 due to medical reasons and caring for her elderly mother, but told the court that she performed remunerative services for her husband who was a real estate agent. A gross revenue statement accompanying the mother's affidavit disclosed that her husband earned $280 in 2022.

[7] No Director's Statement setting out the father's support payments and the balance outstanding was provided to the court, but no issue was raised by the parties that the father was other than compliant with the Ruling.

Calculation (and recalculation) of presumptive support

[8] Given that the income information contained in the Ruling for 2021 requires adjustment and that more accurate and current information has been provided, the court will recalculate what the father owes and the parties' and child's respective 2021 to 2023 support obligations, adopting the same approach as the Ruling.

2021 (adjusted)

[9] The presumptive amount that the father should have paid in 2021 was $12,170 (i.e., [3 x $1,217/3] plus [9 x $1,217)]. This represents a difference of $852 that should be added to the support owed by the father calculated to December 31, 2021, for a presumptive total of $53,439.

[10] No adjustment is made to the father's s. 7 contributory amount.

2022

[11] The father earned $146,099 in 2022. Applying the CSG, he was obliged to pay $1,271 monthly table support. In its Ruling the court took into account the support payable for the first four months of 2022 ($4,528), during which time the child lived with the mother. After April 30, 2022, the child undertook summer school (and continued living at home) until August 31, 2022, when the Fall term of her last year began. She then rented an apartment (in a house, as before) in Vancouver, although she often went back and forth between there and her residence with her mother. Adopting the same approach as the Ruling (see para. 24), a one-third table amount of monthly support will be attributed. Accordingly, the presumptive amount payable for child support by the father for 2022 is $11,863 (i.e., [8 x $1271] plus [($1271/3) x 4]). As the presumptive amount of table support calculated to December 31, 2021, was $53,439, the added 2022 amount brings the total to December 31, 2022, to $65,302.

[12] The child's total tuition costs were $7,975.18. Rental expenses totaled $4,000 for the September to December period.

[13] In my view the child should be required to contribute $3,500 to her combined $11,975.18 s. 7 expenses, leaving an outstanding balance of $8,475.18. As for the parents' contributions, the mother will be allocated 20% of that amount, or $1,700 (rounded), and the father the $6,775.18 remaining.

2023

[14] Using the father's 2022 income to base his table support obligations to April 30, 2023, results in an additional amount of $1,695 [i.e., ($1,271/3) x 4] which when added to the total payable as of December 31, 2022 (as above) results in a total presumptive child support obligation calculated to April 30, 2023, of $66,997, rounded to $67,000.

[15] The child's tuition expenses for 2023 were $3,613.17 and her rental expense was $4,000. She earned $2,468.25 working part-time, calculated to February 24, 2023, and she received $5,540 in a government grant and loan at the end of December 2022. It is inferentially likely that CDY earned more from her part-time work after February 24th. In these circumstances no s. 7 expense will be allocated to the father for 2023.

Summary

[16] The earlier Ruling calculated the father's obligations to April 30, 2022. The total then was $59,230 (see paragraph 39). With updated, and more reliable, income figures for 2022 (not for 2023 but using 2022 income) the recalculated table support owing to April 30, 2023, is $67,000.

[17] To this table amount, there should be added the father's share of s. 7 expenses from 2016 to April 30, 2022, of $3,616[^4] and $6,775.18 for 2022 (total, $10,391.18, reduced to $10,000 to avoid duplication of expense for the first four months of 2022). The total support package presumptively owing to the mother is, therefore, $77,000. In paragraph 39 of the earlier Ruling, a $1,500 credit was given to the father for the times that CDY spent with him between 2019 to 2021. This reduces the father's obligation to $75,500 to April 30, 2023, when child support for CDY terminated.[^5]

Disposition

[18] The following is ordered:

(a) The father owes the mother for CDY's support for the period from September 1, 2016, to April 30, 2023, support in the amount of $75,000;

(b) The father's on-going obligation to pay child support for CDY terminates as of April 30, 2023;

(c) The father shall be credited with all support payments made through the Director since February 7, 2022 (being the date of release of this court's earlier Ruling);

(d) The father shall continue to pay $900 a month toward the support ordered in (a) above until the amount is fully paid;

(e) No interest shall accrue on the amount in (a) above, except for a default in payment not cured within fifteen days of default. Interest shall be calculated in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act;[^6]

(f) The Director shall amend its records in accordance with this Ruling.

[19] A Support Deduction Order shall issue.

[20] At the conclusion of the hearing on April 4, 2023, the mother asked (for the first time) that the father be ordered to pay interest on the amount awarded. This court is not prepared to exercise its discretion in that regard given the last-minute nature of the request, the less than satisfactory nature of the mother's income evidence (which was opaque but marginally increased the father's s. 7 expense contribution) and the father's second family obligations and overall debt situation.

[21] Court Administration is directed to prepare and have issued the Order in this matter and to forward the issued copy to the Director, the mother and the father.

[22] One last point.

[23] The plethora of calculations, probably somewhat mind-numbing and confusing to follow, were required to ensure that the parties had a clear understanding of their respective support obligations and the related legal principles. Both parties were unrepresented and had limited ability to assist the court.

Justice David A. Jarvis

Date: July 12, 2023

[^1]: 2022 ONSC 812. [^2]: S.O. 2002, c. 13. [^3]: Invoices and proof of payment documents were provided to the court. [^4]: Although this amount is calculated to April 30, 2022, an average 2019 to 2021 expense was used. [^5]: As noted in the February 2022 Ruling, the father had earned $635,548 in the six year period from 2016 to 2021 and only provided $5,350 to CDY. The support arrears total should be viewed with that fact in mind. [^6]: R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.