Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Romeo Bazon Tan, Applicant
AND:
Jennifer De Leon Tan, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice G.D. Lemon
COUNSEL: Romeo Banzon Tan, in person
Elliott Braganza, Counsel for the Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Issue
1Pursuant to my written judgment in this proceeding, (Tan v Tan, 2023 ONSC 4885), I granted the parties the right to make submissions on any errors of arithmetic that I may have made. The parties have pointed out their concerns.
Proportional Sharing for 2021
2Ms. Tan has identified an error in my calculations for 2021 s.7 expense payments to her benefit. That is set out in the chart at paragraph 228. I shall accept her calculations and submission that Mr. Tan should pay 57% of the expense that year and not 62%.
3Sadly, I note another typographical error in my reasons. In the same chart at paragraph 228, Ms. Tan’s income is entered as $19,638 but should be $19,630.
4A corrigendum shall issue amending the chart at paragraph 228.
Paragraph 170
5There is a typographical error at paragraph 170 of my judgment. Although I refer to July 1, 2022, that is inconsistent with the rest of my analysis and references with respect to the termination of spousal support. A corrigendum shall issue amending paragraph 170 to read July 1, 2021.
Termination of Child Support
6Ms. Tan submits that child support should end in August of 2023. For reasons set out in my judgment, I confirm that child support ended in June of 2023. The combination of paragraph 197, my chart at paragraph 228 and paragraph 233 is rather unclear. The operative paragraph is 197 and paragraph 233 has a typographical error. Mr. Tan’s last s. 7 payment is to be June 1, 2023. A corrigendum shall issue amending paragraph 233 to read June 1, 2023.
Ms. Tan’s 2019 and 2021 Income
7Mr. Tan submits that I should increase Ms. Tan’s employment income for 2019 and 2021 in my calculations. However, on review of the exhibits and submissions, I am satisfied that I did not err in my findings. Mr. Tan’s submissions at trial presumed no employment income for Ms. Tan in 2019 and the same employment income as I used in my deliberations for 2021. It is not now open to me to add to Ms. Tan’s income.
FRO Balance
8Both parties continue to dispute the FRO balance. It may be that this endorsement will solve that dispute. If not, I can do nothing more than leave that to the usual process of the Family Responsibility Office and its related legislation.
9I am grateful to the parties for their comments and apologize for the confusion.
Justice G.D. Lemon
Date: November 16, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-00000162-0000
DATE: 2023 11 16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Romeo Bazon Tan
Applicant
- and –
Jennifer De Leon Tan
Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice G. D. Lemon
Released: November 16, 2023