Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS-22-32563-000 Date: 2024-02-26 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Neeraj Monga, Applicant And: Dimple Bhatia Monga, Respondent
Before: M. D. Faieta J.
Counsel: Dana Kalisky, for the Applicant Emma Compeau, for the Respondent
Heard: November 23, 2023
Endorsement
Faieta J.
[1] The parties are the parents of two children, SM, age 17, and AM, age 13. The parties were married in India in 2004, moved to Canada 2005 and separated on February 28, 2022.
[2] The Applicant father is a self-employed consultant.
[3] On July 21, 2023 the parties agreed to a temporary, without prejudice, Order that requires the Respondent father to pay $6,000 per month in uncharacterized support effective August 1, 2023. After that Case Conference, the children resided with the Applicant father and refused to see the Respondent mother.
[4] On October 17, 2023, a Case Conference was held to address parenting issues. The parties agreed to an Order which includes the following terms:
- The children shall reside equally with their parents on a week about schedule on a temporary and without prejudice basis.
- The parties shall actively encourage and support the other’s parenting time with the children.
- Neither parent shall expose the children to the litigation and financial or legal issues.
- Neither parent shall speak ill of the other to or in the presence of the children.
- The Applicant shall advance to the Respondent a sum of $40,000 payable to Carson Chousky Lein LLP in trust on or before October 23, 2023. These funds shall be credited to the Applicant and characterized at a later date.
- A long motion addressing the Respondent’s motion for child support and spousal support and the Applicant’s motion for sale and partition of the matrimonial home shall be held on November 23, 2023.
The Applicant Father’s Income
[5] The parties agree that the Respondent mother’s income should be imputed at $30,000.00 for purposes of this motion. At issue is whether the Applicant father should pay interim support based on his calendar three-year average income of $234,440 as he requests or whether he should pay support based on an income in 2022 of $524,303.00, as the Respondent mother requests.
[6] The rules for purposes of a person’s income for the purposes of determining the amount of child support to be paid is specified under sections 15 - 20 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 (“the Guidelines”).
[7] Sections 15 -20 of the Guidelines state:
Determination of annual income
15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a spouse’s annual income is determined by the court in accordance with sections 16 to 20.
Agreement
(2) Where both spouses agree in writing on the annual income of a spouse, the court may consider that amount to be the spouse’s income for the purposes of these Guidelines if the court thinks that the amount is reasonable having regard to the income information provided under section 21.
Calculation of annual income
16 Subject to sections 17 to 20, a spouse’s annual income is determined using the sources of income set out under the heading “Total income” in the T1 General form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency and is adjusted in accordance with Schedule III.
Pattern of income
17 (1) If the court is of the opinion that the determination of a spouse’s annual income under section 16 would not be the fairest determination of that income, the court may have regard to the spouse’s income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years.
Non-recurring losses
(2) Where a spouse has incurred a non-recurring capital or business investment loss, the court may, if it is of the opinion that the determination of the spouse’s annual income under section 16 would not provide the fairest determination of the annual income, choose not to apply sections 6 and 7 of Schedule III, and adjust the amount of the loss, including related expenses and carrying charges and interest expenses, to arrive at such amount as the court considers appropriate.
Shareholder, director or officer
18 (1) Where a spouse is a shareholder, director or officer of a corporation and the court is of the opinion that the amount of the spouse’s annual income as determined under section 16 does not fairly reflect all the money available to the spouse for the payment of child support, the court may consider the situations described in section 17 and determine the spouse’s annual income to include
(a) all or part of the pre-tax income of the corporation, and of any corporation that is related to that corporation, for the most recent taxation year; or
(b) an amount commensurate with the services that the spouse provides to the corporation, provided that the amount does not exceed the corporation’s pre-tax income.
Adjustment to corporation’s pre-tax income
(2) In determining the pre-tax income of a corporation for the purposes of subsection (1), all amounts paid by the corporation as salaries, wages or management fees, or other payments or benefits, to or on behalf of persons with whom the corporation does not deal at arm’s length must be added to the pre-tax income, unless the spouse establishes that the payments were reasonable in the circumstances.
Imputing income
19 (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following:
(a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;
(b) the spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax;
(c) the 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 spouse’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate income;
(f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;
(g) the spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income;
(h) the 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 spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or other benefits from the trust.
Reasonableness of expenses
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(g), the reasonableness of an expense deduction is not solely governed by whether the deduction is permitted under the Income Tax Act.
Non-resident
20 (1) Subject to subsection (2), where a spouse is a non-resident of Canada, the spouse’s annual income is determined as though the spouse were a resident of Canada.
Non-resident taxed at higher rates
(2) If a spouse is a non-resident of Canada and resides in a country that has effective rates of income tax that are significantly higher than those applicable in the province in which the other spouse habitually resides, the spouse’s annual income is the amount that the court determines to be appropriate taking those rates into consideration.
[8] In Mason v. Mason, 2016 ONCA 725, 132 O.R. (3d) 641, at paras 161-162, Simmons J.A. stated:
161 The purpose of ss. 15 to 20 is to arrive at a number that fairly and fully reflects the payor's income. The default is that this number will simply be determined using line 150 income. Where, however, the court determines that this default determination would be unfair, the Guidelines permit an expanded view of income.
162 For the purposes of this appeal, I see the highlights of the income determination provisions of the Guidelines as being:
- s. 15 provides that a spouse's annual income is determined in accordance with ss. 16 to 20;
- s. 16 provides that, subject to ss. 17 to 20, a spouse's annual income is the spouse's line 150 income;
- under s. 17, if a court determines that s. 16 produces an amount that would not be the fairest determination of annual income, the court may have regard to the spouse's income over the last three years to determine a fair and reasonable amount in light of, among other things, any pattern of, or fluctuations in, income;
- under s. 18, if the spouse is a shareholder, director or officer of a corporation and the court determines that s. 16 produces an amount of annual income that does not fairly reflect all the money available to the spouse to pay support, the court may determine the spouse's annual income to include all or part of the pre-tax income of the corporation for the most recent taxation year; and
- s. 19 sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a court may impute income to a spouse.
163 In my view, the scheme of these provisions is that s. 18 permits a court to take an annual snapshot of a spouse's income — and include in it pre-tax corporate income from the most recent taxation year. If the corporation suffered a loss in the most recent taxation year, no amount of pre-tax corporate income may be included. Under s. 17 however, the court may determine an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to the spouse's income over the last three years in light of, among other things, any pattern of, or fluctuations in, income over the three-year period. And "income" for that purpose may include amounts of pre-tax corporate income added to line 150 income under s. 18 for each of those years. [Footnotes omitted]
[9] An income report prepared by Patrick McCabe, CBV, for the Applicant father, dated July 21, 2023, states that the Applicant is the sole shareholder of Antya Investments Inc (“the Company”) and that the Company provides wealth management services to approximately 6-8 individuals. Mr. Monga advised that as of February 2022 the Company had about $5.54 million total assets under management and that as of March 2023 it had about $5.5 million total assets under management. The Company’s management fee is 1.25% of total assets under managements. The Company has no third party employees and uses the services of subcontractors. In particular, it has three other independent advisors that provide similar services to clients.
[10] The Applicant father’s income as shown on Line 15000 of his income tax returns for 2020-2022 and as determined by Mr. McCabe was as follows:
| Year | Line 15000 Income | Mr. McCabe’s Opinion |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | $56,695 | $121,656 |
| 2021 | $76,438 | $246,238 |
| 2022 | $120,807 | $335,428 |
[11] The Company’s fiscal year ends March 31. The Company’s revenue, expenses and net expenses for the year ending March 2021 to March 2023 was as follows:
| FY 2021 | FY 2022 | FY 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 77,761 | 469,885 | 502,759 |
| Expenses | 70,554 | 349,568 | 367,733 |
| Net Income | 7,207 | 120,317 | 135,026 |
[12] Mr. McCabe also calculated the Applicant’s income on a fiscal year basis:
| Fiscal Year | Applicant’s Income |
|---|---|
| FY 2021 | $36,840 |
| FY 2022 | $371,174 |
| FY 2023 | $396,634 |
[13] For each calendar and fiscal year, Mr. McCabe added to the Applicant’s income: (1) corporate pre-tax income; (2) adjustments for certain personal expenses deducted from the income of the Company – such as travel to Deerhurst Resort and several other resorts during 2020-2022, and 50% of the costs of the family’s shared vehicle and the Applicant’s vehicle.
[14] Using the FY 2023 corporate figures, Mr. McCabe calculated that the Applicant’s personal income during that period was $396,634.00.
[15] The Respondent states that there were other personal expenses, such as “questionable credit card purchases” of $56,333.59, should be added to the Applicant’s income. However, the Respondent was not able to obtain a responding CBV report prior to the hearing of this motion, due to the CBV’s unavailability, that would have better addressed these concerns. In my view, it does not promote the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to undertake a deep dive into the minutiae of the Applicant’s personal and corporate accounting that is being advanced by the Respondent when motions for temporary support orders are meant to be made on a “rough justice” basis and can be revisited at trial on a fuller evidentiary record.
[16] On the other hand, the Applicant states that he has recently lost some clients and that his income in 2023 will be reduced. I do not think it is appropriate to speculate on whether the Applicant’s income will in fact be reduced in calendar year 2023 particularly when there is nothing to support that conclusion in the Mr. McCabe’s report. It appears that the Company grew substantially post-COVID pandemic with the Applicant’s ability to travel to meet clients. There is no reliable basis on which to find that the Applicant’s income has fluctuated over the last three years that would justify basing his income for support purposes on his average incomes over the last three years.
[17] I find that it is fair and reasonable to rely on his most recent personal income figures and thus I impute to the Applicant an income of $396,634.00 for interim support purposes.
Interim Child Support
[18] Given that the parties have shared parenting time, they agree that interim child support should be awarded on a straight set-off of table amounts based on section 9 of the Guidelines.
[19] Accordingly, I find that the Applicant father should pay child support in the amount of $4,578 per month to the Respondent mother. This figure is shown in the DivorceMate calculation that is appended to this Decision.
[20] The Respondent does not seek retroactive interim child support or interim spousal support.
[21] In her amended Notice of Motion, the Respondent seeks a proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses. Each party’s proportionate share shall be based on the amount of their incomes described above. Further, she seeks an order that the sharing of section 7 expenses not include the children’s private school tuition. The Respondent has failed to explain the rationale for excluding private school tuition and I decline to do so.
Interim Spousal Support
[22] The Applicant father does not dispute that the Respondent mother is entitled to interim spousal support. He submits that interim spousal support in the amount of $4,207 per month should be paid to the Respondent mother based on his average income of $234,440.00 per year and the Respondent mother’s imputed income of $30,000 per year. The Respondent mother seeks mid-range interim spousal support in the amount of $10,629 per month based on her imputed income of $30,000 per year and the Applicant’s imputed income of $524,303 per year.
[23] Section 15.2 of the Divorce Act governs spousal support and interim spousal support. It states:
Spousal support order
15.2 (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses, make an order requiring a spouse to secure or pay, or to secure and pay, such lump sum or periodic sums, or such lump sum and periodic sums, as the court thinks reasonable for the support of the other spouse.
Interim order
(2) Where an application is made under subsection (1), the court may, on application by either or both spouses, make an interim order requiring a spouse to secure or pay, or to secure and pay, such lump sum or periodic sums, or such lump sum and periodic sums, as the court thinks reasonable for the support of the other spouse, pending the determination of the application under subsection (1).
Terms and conditions
(3) The court may make an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) for a definite or indefinite period or until a specified event occurs, and may impose terms, conditions or restrictions in connection with the order as it thinks fit and just.
Factors
(4) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including
(a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;
(b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and
(c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.
Spousal misconduct
(5) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage.
Objectives of spousal support order
(6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should
(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;
(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;
(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and
(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.
[24] In Liddell-MacInnis v. MacInnis, 2021 ONSC 1787, at paras. 65-68, Justice Kraft outlined the general principles that apply on a motion for interim spousal support:
a. The party claiming temporary spousal support has the onus of establishing that there is a triable (prima facie) case, both with respect to entitlement and quantum. The merits of the case in its entirety are to be dealt with at trial.
b. In the event that a spousal support claimant cannot establish an arguable case for entitlement to spousal support, the motion for temporary relief should be dismissed, even if the claimant has need and the other party has the ability to pay.
c. The court is not required to carry out a complete and detailed inquiry into all aspects and details of the case, or to determine the extent to which either party suffered economic advantage or disadvantage as a result of the relationship or its breakdown. That task is for the trial judge.
d. The primary goal of interim spousal support is to provide income for dependent spouse from the time the proceedings are commenced until the trial. Interim support is meant to be in the nature of a “holding order” to, insomuch as possible, maintain the accustomed lifestyle pending trial.
e. Assuming that a triable case exists, interim support is to be based primarily on the motion judge’s assessment of the parties’ means and needs. The objective of encouraging self-sufficiency is of less importance.
f. Spousal support may arise on a compensatory basis, in recognition that upon marriage breakdown, there should be an equitable distribution between the parties of the economic consequences of the marriage. As well, entitlement may arise from the needs of a spouse even if that need does not arise as a result of the roles adopted or sacrifices made during the marriage.
f. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAGs”) is a non-binding guideline that provides a “valuable litmus test” for assessing both the range within which spousal support, whether interim or final, should be ordered and the duration of such support.
[25] While the SSAG formula is intended to result in outcomes that are consistent with the statutory factors and objectives in most cases, the SSAGs recognize that there may be exceptions. An exception for compelling financial circumstances category is relevant in this case. The SSAGs, at pages 117-118, state:
There are some situations in the interim period where there may have to be an exception for compelling financial circumstances. When spouses separate, it is not always possible to adjust the household finances quickly. One of the spouses may have to bear large and often unmovable (at least in the short run) expenses, most likely for housing or debts. In most instances, the ranges generated by the formulas will cover these exceptional cases, but there may be some difficulties where marriages are shorter or incomes are lower or property has not yet been divided. Interim spousal support can be adjusted back to the formula amounts once a house has been sold or a spouse has moved or debts have been refinanced.
Below we offer some examples of how this exception might operate.
Example 12.1
In Example 8.1, Ted earns $80,000 gross per year and Alice makes $20,000. Alice and the two children remain in the family home after the separation. Assume that Alice has to make a large monthly mortgage payment, in the amount of $2,100 per month, as the couple had recently purchased a new home. Under the with child support formula, the range for spousal support would be $471 to $1,021 per month, on top of child support of $1,159 monthly.
At the interim stage, spousal support might have to be increased above the upper end of the range if Alice continues to make the mortgage payments. If Ted were to make the mortgage payments, then spousal support might have to be reduced below the lower end of the range at this interim stage.
The “compelling financial circumstances” in the interim period will usually involve such mortgage or debt expenses, especially under the with child support formula where the spouses are more often at the limit of their abilities to pay after separation. …
[26] The Applicant holds an MBA from the Richard Ivey School of Business at Western University. He was a partner at Veritas Investment Research Corporation and sold his interest in that business for $1 million in April 2014 in order to pursue another venture. These events appeared to have followed the institution of a criminal investigation by the Indian government which alleged that the Applicant had authored a fraudulent report about the business practices of a group of companies. The Applicant appears to suggest that he was unable to work from 2014 to 2019 because of a travel ban issued by Interpol until 2018. The Applicant states that during this period he relied on the Veritas payout and his investments to support his family. As noted, the Applicant is the sole shareholder and employee of the Company.
[27] The Respondent states that she has a Master’s Degree in Political Science from the University of Delhi in India. When the Respondent met the Applicant, she was working as a trainee at American Express. After she moved to Canada, the Respondent enrolled in a course with the goal of a career in fundraising. The Respondent states that she gave up her career aspirations to look after the children and their home. The Respondent states that she was responsible for their family’s domestic duties while the Applicant was the primary income earner. The Respondent has two small businesses. Kala Designs Inc. sells handmade women’s accessories. Trident Buying House sells women’s clothing. These businesses earn little income.
[28] After their separation, the Respondent states that the Applicant did not pay appropriate support but rather on an intermittent basis gave her about $2,000. She states that during this period the Applicant liquidated her RRSP (about $110,000) and TFSA accounts in between 2019 and 2023. The Respondent states that her income in 2021 was $9,334.00 and that her employment income in 2022 was $15,000 however her income in 2022 was $126,334 given the RRSP funds that the Applicant withdrew from her RRSP. Currently the Applicant’s income is $1,250 per month in the form of Child Tax Benefits. Her monthly expenses are $9,618.01 including $2650.00 deducted monthly for 2022 RRSP withdrawals.
[29] Since the July 2023 conference, the Respondent continues to reside in the matrimonial home. The Applicant pays for the mortgage, property taxes and insurance. This amounts to $2,972.66 per month. The Applicant lives in rented premises at a cost of $4,200 per month.
[30] The mid-range SSAG calculation would result in a payment of interim spousal support of $7,702 per month. It would allocate about 45% of the family’s net disposal income to the Applicant and 55% of their net disposal income to the Respondent. In the circumstances, I find that it just to award spousal support in amount that would result in a 50/50 sharing of the family’s net disposable income. This results in an interim spousal support payment of $5,711 per month. See the attached DivorceMate calculation. Further, while the Applicant has continued to pay for the mortgage, property tax and insurance for the matrimonial home, it is my view such costs should be shared by the parties until the matrimonial home is sold. I accept the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant should continue to pay for the line of credit on the matrimonial home.
Security for Support
[31] In her amended Notice of Motion, the Respondent mother seeks an order that the Applicant father “… maintain appropriate security for support naming the Respondent as an irrevocable beneficiary of a life insurance policy securing the principal sum of $1,000,000.00.” This issue was not addressed in the factums or in oral argument.
[32] Clause 34(1)(i) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, as amended (“FLA”) states that the court may make an interim order “… requiring that a spouse who has a life insurance policy as defined under the Insurance Act designate the other spouse or a child as the beneficiary irrevocably”. Further, s. 34(1)(k) of the FLA permits “… a court to order a spouse to obtain an insurance policy to secure payment of the order following the payor spouse's death.”: Katz v. Katz, 2014 ONCA 606, para. 69. Nevertheless, a court should proceed cautiously in requiring a payor spouse to obtain insurance. A court should have evidence of the payor’s insurability and of the amount and cost of the available insurance. It should not exceed the total amount of support likely to be paid over the duration of the support award: Katz, para. 74.
[33] In this case, there is no evidence of an existing policy nor is there any evidence of the Applicant’s insurability or of the amount and cost of the available insurance. A request for $1 million in insurance appears to be excessive in respect of securing the interim payment of child support and spousal support. The Respondent’s motion for security in the form of insurance is dismissed.
Sale of the Matrimonial Home
[34] The Applicant father seeks the immediate sale of the matrimonial home as he requires the equity from its sale to repair his financial position. He states that, in addition to the mortgage, the matrimonial home is encumbered by a line of credit in the amount of about $750,000.00 that was used to finance this family’s lifestyle while he was not working. In addition, he states that maintaining two households has depleted his assets.
[35] The determination of whether a matrimonial home should be ordered to be sold is governed by the Partitions Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4 and the principles articulated by the Ontario Divisional Court in Kaphalakos v. Dayal, 2016 ONSC 3559 (Ont. Div. Ct.), at paras. 16-17:
(a) a joint tenant has a prima facie right to an order for the partition or sale of lands held with another joint tenant;
(b) a court is required to compel partition and sale unless the opposing party has demonstrated that such an order should not be made;
(c) the party opposing the sale must show malicious, vexatious or oppressive conduct to avoid the order; and
(d) the malicious, vexatious or oppressive conduct must relate to the partition and sale issue itself and not to the general conduct of the person bringing the motion: See Marchese v. Marchese, 2017 ONSC 6815, para. 18, aff’d Marchese v. Marchese, 2019 ONCA 116, para. 4.
[36] An order for the sale of a matrimonial home prior to trial would be considered “malicious, vexatious or oppressive” when:
(a) the opposing spouse’s arguable claims under the FLA would be prejudiced by the sale: Binkley v. Binkley, [1988] O.J. No. 414 (C.A.), at para. 3; Martin v. Martin, (1992), 8 O.R. (3d) 41 (C.A.), at para. 26; or
(b) the best interests of the children would be impacted by the sale: Fernandes v. Darrigo, 2018 ONSC 1039 (Div. Ct.) paras. 19-21.
[37] Although she has had de facto exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the Respondent mother seeks an order for temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home pursuant to s. 24(2) of the FLA. The relevant criteria are specified in s. 24(3) of the FLA:
(a) Best interests of the children. Given that the children are ages 17 and 13 and that the parenting arrangements are shared, I find that their stability will not be impacted by the sale of the matrimonial home.
(b) Existing support orders. This decision orders that a total of $10,289 per month in support be paid to the Respondent mother. I dismiss the argument that the Respondent will be unable to secure appropriate accommodation with this amount of support.
(c) The financial position of both spouses. Based on the evidence before this court, and the payment of support that results in a 50/50 split of net disposable income, there is not a “significant imbalance in the financial position of the parties” as submitted by the Respondent.
(d) There are no written agreement between the parties.
(e) The Respondent alleges a lengthy history of family violence. However, the Respondent’s claims of family violence are disputed.
(f) The Respondent states that the relocation of the children would significantly disrupt their academic year. This concern can be addressed by ordering that the sale not be completed prior to July 1, 2024.
(g) The children’s views and preferences. In a Voice of the Child report, dated October 20, 2023, by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the children express a desire to live with the Applicant father from Monday to Friday. Their now 17-year-old daughter preferred this schedule as she believed it would help her focus on her studies as she does not get into arguments with her father. Their now 13-year-old son indicated that he wished to live at his father’s home because it is closer to his school and tutor. The Applicant mother dismisses the observations and views of the children as being the product of parental alienation. I am unable to draw that conclusion based on the conflicting evidence.
[38] There is no reasonable basis for an order for temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. I also find that the Respondent mother has failed to discharge her onus of demonstrating that the matrimonial home should not be sold. I order that the matrimonial home be sold however such sale shall not be completed prior to July 1, 2024.
Disposition
[39] The following temporary order is granted:
(1) Commencing November 1, 2023, the Applicant father shall pay interim child support, on a set off basis, in the amount of $4,578 per month to the Respondent mother.
(2) Commencing November 1, 2023, the Applicant father shall pay interim spousal support of $5,711 per month to the Respondent mother.
(3) Commencing November 1, 2023, the parties shall proportionately share the children’s section 7 expenses, which shall be agreed up on in advance and in writing, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, 93% payable by the Applicant and 7% payable by the Respondent.
(4) Commencing November 1, 2023, the parties shall be equally responsible for the following expenses with respect to the matrimonial home:
a. The RBC HomeLine Plan Mortgage *002 in the amount of $910 bi-weekly.
b. Property taxes.
c. Home insurance.
(5) The Applicant shall maintain interest payments towards the parties’ RBC HomeLine Line of Credit *001 pending the sale of the matrimonial home.
(6) The Respondent shall be responsible for the payment of utilities associated with the matrimonial home.
(7) By April 15, 2024, the parties shall list the matrimonial home for sale at a price recommended by the real estate agent chosen to list the matrimonial home for sale unless the parties otherwise agree to a different listing price.
(8) The parties shall choose a real estate agent to list the matrimonial home as follows: (a) the Respondent shall pick three real estate agents and provide their names to the Applicant by March 12, 2024; (b) within one week of receipt of the Respondent’s list of three real estate agents, the Applicant shall notify the Respondent of the name of the real estate agent that he has selected to list the matrimonial home from the Respondent’s list of three agents; (c) If the Respondent does not provide a list of three real estate agents to the Applicant by March 12, 2024, then the Applicant shall select a real estate agent to list the matrimonial home for sale without input from the Respondent; (d) If the Applicant does not notify the Respondent of his choice of listing agent within one week of receipt of the Respondent’s list of three real estate agents, then the Applicant shall select a real estate agent to list the matrimonial home without input from the Respondent.
(9) The parties shall not refuse any reasonable offer to purchase the matrimonial home. For purposes of this paragraph, “reasonable” means any offer that is within four percent of the listing price which shall be set based on the listing agent’s recommendation.
(10) The net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home shall be held in trust by their real estate solicitor pending further order of this court or agreement of the parties.
(11) The sale of the matrimonial home shall not be completed prior to July 1, 2024 unless the parties otherwise agree.
(12) Unless the order for child support and spousal support is withdrawn from the office of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under this Order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed.
(13) For as long as child support is to be paid, the payor and the recipient, must provide updated income disclosure to the other party each year, within 30 days of the anniversary of this order, in accordance with section 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.
(14) Any party claiming their costs shall deliver their costs submissions within two weeks. Any responding costs submissions shall be delivered within three weeks. Costs submissions shall be no more than three pages in length excluding any offers to settle and the Bill of Costs.
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta Released: February 26, 2024