COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-210

DATE: 2024-02-27

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

Steven Matthew Miles

Applicant

– and –

Tanya Lynn Miles

Respondent

Jolanta Bula, for the Applicant

Cheryl Hodgkin, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 22-26, 2024

the honourable justice m. j. donohue

SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT RE: child and spousal support

[1] Further to my Judgment regarding parenting and equalization issues of February 9, 2024, the following deals with the balance of the issues.

[2] Mr. Miles seeks an order for child support.

[3] Ms. Miles seeks an order for spousal support.

[4] The issue is determining what Ms. Miles’ income is for support purposes.

OVERVIEW

[5] The parties dated as students and moved in together in 2005. They married in December 2005 but separated in March 2020, after 14 years together. Both would turn 39 that year.

[6] They started their marriage in Windsor, and then moved to St. Catharines. They had a son and a daughter, "L" and "S".

[7] Ms. Miles was educated and trained as a teacher, but once the parties moved to St. Catharines she did not work outside of the home. Mr. Miles was educated and trained in video game development and worked first in St. Catharines and then in Toronto.

[8] Ms. Miles is the only child of Ms. King. “L” and “S” are Ms. King’s only grandchildren.

[9] Ms. King was remarried to Mr. S. She and her husband were very generous to their daughter, their son-in-law, and the grandchildren.

[10] Their generosity is relevant to the issues of support.

BACKGROUND HISTORY

[11] The history of the couple is largely undisputed.

Before Marriage

[12] Historically, Ms. Miles has been gifted cars and houses by her parents.

[13] In 1997, on her sixteenth birthday, she was given a Grand Prix.

[14] In university, her mother bought a townhouse for her to live in while she was a student.

[15] Before the parties were married, Ms. King gifted her a house on Jenkela Court valued at $475,000. This was put into Ms. Miles’ name as sole owner.

[16] Ms. King paid for the parties' Las Vegas destination wedding.

Married Life in Windsor

[17] After their marriage in 2005, the parties continued to be provided for by Ms. Miles’ parents.

[18] The parents paid for Mr. Miles’ university tuition.

[19] Ms. Miles graduated and was qualified as an "A4" teacher in 2007.

[20] As a graduation gift, she was given an Audi A4. This allowed Mr. Miles to then drive the Grand Prix.

[21] Ms. Miles volunteered at a school to get known by the Greater Essex County District School Board (“Essex board”). In this way, she was hired in September 2007 as an occasional supply teacher with the school board.

[22] In 2008, Ms. King, on her marriage to Mr. S., provided a nicer and larger home on Villa Paradiso Crescent to the young couple in exchange for the Jenkela Court property. Ms. King chose houses for the parties that allowed them to live close to her.

[23] Ms. Miles took a maternity leave in 2009 for the birth of the parties’ son "L". On her return to occasional teaching, she often did not take calls for work although the child was in daycare in 2010. Ms. Miles testified that their son was extremely difficult to settle to sleep in the night and required her care, sometimes having to keep her hand on the child's chest through the night.

[24] Ms. Miles' parents gifted her a minivan when her son was born.

Move to St. Catharines

[25] Upon graduating, Mr. Miles was looking for video game development work. The main opportunities for such work were in Toronto and Vancouver, but he was offered a job in St. Catharines. At the time, Ms. Miles was not getting along with her mother. The couple decided to move to St. Catharines for this job opportunity. They sold the Villa Paradiso home.

[26] A couple of weeks after moving, Ms. Miles resigned from her occasional supply teaching position with the Essex board. This was in the fall of 2010.

[27] The parties initially rented an apartment, but within a year Ms. Miles’ parents had purchased a house for them on Boese Court in St. Catharines.

[28] In September 2011, their daughter “S” was born. Within nine months, “S” was also in daycare.

[29] In February 2012, Mr. Miles began a new job which required a commute to Toronto such that he was roughly away from home from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Miles’ starting salary for the Toronto job was $55,000 per annum.

[30] Ms. Miles' parents gifted a BMW X3 to Mr. Miles and a BMW X4 to Ms. Miles.

[31] The Boese Court house was paid for in cash and was fully renovated, which was also paid for by Ms. Miles’ parents. Mr. Miles considered that the cost was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, far beyond what the parties could afford on his salary. This included:

▪ A new kitchen;

▪ All new flooring;

▪ Three new bathrooms;

▪ A Jacuzzi tub;

▪ A finished basement with a bar and pool table;

▪ A new roof;

▪ A new concrete deck; and

▪ Conversion of the chlorine pool to saltwater.

[32] Ms. Miles’ parents paid for the couple’s car insurance and life insurance bills. They also paid the parties’ credit card bills. Mr. Miles testified that this allowed the couple to have a fully furnished house, designer clothes, and luxury cars. Ms. Miles said her mother would give her between $200 and $300 each week.

[33] Ms. Miles’ parents wanted very much to see the parties and the grandchildren. They paid for family cruises, trips to Hawaii and Disney, as well as Florida vacations in a guest condo by their Florida home.

[34] In 2012, at age three, the parties' son “L” had a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder with anxiety traits. He required speech therapy. There was a waitlist for publicly funded therapy in St. Catharines. For the next two years, Ms. Miles drove him three times a week to a private therapist in Burlington. Her parents paid for the therapy.

[35] Their son started at the local public school but experienced a bullying incident. He was transferred to a private school in grade two. Their daughter attended the same school. Ms. Miles’ parents fully funded the private school costs for both children.

[36] The children attended summer camps almost every summer from the time they were in grade one.

[37] Ms. Miles took the children to a variety of extracurricular activities during the week after school. Mr. Miles took them on weekends. Ms. Miles’ parents paid the costs.

[38] The children had math tutoring. They did Taekwondo in some years. They did dance in some years. One year, their daughter did competitive dance but did not pursue it further. There were no activities that the children were passionate about. Music and piano lessons were provided by the private school.

[39] Ms. Miles testified it was a joint decision that she would remain a stay-at-home mother.

[40] Mr. Miles testified that he discussed her return to work “a lot” but that it was a sensitive subject.

[41] Ms. Miles admitted that she did look for work, although it was not in teaching. She did not make an application to the school board in Niagara or volunteer teach to get known by the school board. She did keep her teaching certificate with the college in good standing throughout the years.

[42] In 2019, Ms. Miles was actively involved in setting up a non-profit organization that would assist and support parents of children who had suffered from bullying. Her mother purchased a building in St. Catharines with a single rental unit which was to be occupied by this organization. COVID-19 prevented this from going ahead. The building was later sold.

[43] Also in 2019, Ms. Miles’ parents purchased a larger vehicle, a BMW X7, for her.

[44] Ms. Miles’ BMW X4 was passed on to Mr. Miles, but he found it uncomfortable. Her parents accordingly bought him a Mercedes for his commute.

[45] By the time of the parties’ separation in March 2020, Mr. Miles was earning $127,000.

[46] The generosity of Ms. Miles' parents was unconditional. There was no request or requirement to pay them back for any of these gifts.

After Separation

[47] The parties’ official date of separation was March 1, 2020. At first, there was an attempt to have a nesting arrangement where each parent was alone in the house with the children.

[48] With the arrival of COVID-19, Mr. Miles’ work shifted to online, and he no longer commuted to Toronto. Each parent shared equally the time with their children, who were also doing their studies online.

[49] Ms. Miles moved out after three months, in June 2020. Her parents purchased a house for her on Lakeshore Road. It needed renovations, however, and so her parents paid for a rental townhouse for her and the children, who lived with her half the time.

[50] In March 2021, Ms. Miles filed a teaching application with the Essex board in Windsor.

[51] Ms. Miles had been unwell that year and was found to have a condition called hyperparathyroidism. She had a parathyroid tumor removed at a facility in Florida in May 2021. Her parents paid the cost of the surgery.

[52] The surgery immediately relieved her pain, although she testified that she still needed time to recover. The court was not provided any clinical notes and records post-op. The Florida doctor's note suggested recovery would be within weeks.

[53] Ms. Miles moved to Windsor that spring. Her parents purchased a house on Maguire Avenue for her to live in which was close to their home.

[54] The Maguire home is a four-bedroom home with a main floor office. Her parents finished the basement, landscaped the property, and put in a pool.

[55] Ms. Miles testified that she hoped to purchase the house upon receiving her equalization payment, but her mother testified that the plan was to gift the house to her grandchildren “L” and “S”.

[56] Ms. Miles is not paying rent at this home, nor is her new partner who lives there. He earns $60,000 and has a daughter living with them as well.

[57] Ms. Miles’ anticipated expenses in 2021 were $136,287. All her expenses were paid by her parents.

[58] She had one psychiatric consult on September 13, 2021, where it was noted she had symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder related to abuse from her ex-partner and abuse from her childhood including physical and emotional abuse from her mother. Her depression and anxiety were under control. The doctor recommended Zoloft. The report did not suggest any disability to parent or to work.

[59] The children continued to spend shared time with each parent while doing online learning. By order of Walters J. on April 13, 2022, the children returned to in-person learning in St. Catharines at their private school. They had parenting time three weekends a month in Windsor with their mother.

[60] Ms. Miles’ stepfather passed away in January 2022. Her mother continued to pay all her expenses.

[61] Ms. Miles made a second teaching application to the Essex board in May 2022.

[62] In August 2022, the s. 30 assessor recommended the children continue their residence and school in St. Catharines, with their father as decision-maker. Ms. Miles was to have parenting time on weekends and school holidays.

[63] Ms. Miles accepted most of the s. 30 assessor’s recommendations. She consented to the children’s primary residence being with Mr. Miles.

[64] In September 2022, Ms. Miles began part-time work at Reitman’s clothing store as a sales associate.

[65] Throughout the following year, she applied to roughly a dozen other job positions.

[66] In early 2023, Ms. Miles had two interviews with the school board, but she was not successful. In late November 2023, she began volunteering in a classroom. This allowed her to learn the up-to-date programs and get to know the other teachers and principal. She is confident that this will lead to a teaching position.

[67] Evidence was admitted to the court that the “occasional teacher supply” had reached “problematic lows”; that “during the 2021-2022 school year, long-term contracts were widely available to novice teachers as the teacher supply was not keeping pace with demand.”

[68] Ms. Miles acknowledged that there was a serious need for teachers in Niagara but testified that it is not the same in Windsor; that there is no desperate need for teachers there. She opined that it was because the Windsor teachers’ college is so highly regarded.

[69] Ms. Miles’ expenses in 2023 were stated to be $83,678.52. Her income was $761.95 per month ($9,143 per annum). Interim spousal support was $18,480. The balance of her expenses, including child support and her share of section 7 expenses, were paid by her mother.

IMPUTATION OF INCOME

Positions of the Parties

[70] Mr. Miles asks the court to find that Ms. Miles was underemployed both during the marriage and since separation. He asks the court to impute $100,000 income to her which is what an A4 qualified teacher would garner after ten years as a long-term occasional teacher.

[71] Mr. Miles further submits that imputation of income at that level is appropriate based on the gifts that Ms. Miles continues to receive from her mother.

[72] Ms. Miles submits that a modest $32,500 of imputed income is more appropriate in light of her being out of the work force for ten years. This is based on a full-time minimum wage job. Ms. Miles submits that her mother was only meeting her needs through the crisis following separation and that the gifts will not continue.

Legal Framework

[73] Section 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3, requires a spouse to work towards economic self-sufficiency within a reasonable time period; or at least to make reasonable efforts to contribute to his or her own support.

[74] The court may impute a reasonable amount of income when a spouse fails to do so. The consequences of failing to financially contribute to one’s own support, and the children’s support, while having the capacity to do so, should fall on the party making that choice, not the former spouse.

[75] Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97, permits the court to impute income to a party if it finds that the party is earning or is capable of earning more income than they claim: see Ferlisi v. Boucher, 2021 ONCJ 48, at para. 60.

[76] Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally underemployed: see Drygala v. Pauli (2002), 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (C.A.), at para. 32.

[77] Imputation of income by the court is discretionary: see Jonas v. Pacitto, 2020 ONCA 727, 49 R.F.L. (8th) 56, at para. 47.

[78] The only limitation on the discretion of the court in this regard is that there must be some basis in the evidence for the amount that the court has chosen to impute: see, for example, Korwin v. Potworowski, 2007 ONCA 739, 43 R.F.L. (6th) 1, at paras. 5-6. Accordingly, the person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made: see Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, 65 R.F.L. (6th) 17, at para. 28.

[79] In determining whether to impute income, the court must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. The factors that the court should consider include the age, education, experience, skills, and health of the party, the party’s past earning history, and the amount of income that the party could reasonably earn if they worked to capacity: see Lawson v. Lawson (2006), 2006 CanLII 26573 (ON CA), 81 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), at para. 36.

[80] A person’s lifestyle can provide the basis for imputing income: see Aitken v. Aitken (2003), 2003 CanLII 2050 (ON SC), 42 R.F.L. (5th) 1 (Ont. S.C.), at paras. 34 and 46; Jonas v. Jonas, [2002] O.J. No. 2117 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 58; and Price v. Reid, 2013 ONCJ 373, at para. 36.

[81] Imputation of income may be found on the basis of gifts as income.

[82] The leading case is Bak v. Dobell, 2007 ONCA 304, 86 O.R. (3d) 196, which listed a number of factors to consider regarding whether it is appropriate to include the receipt of unusual gifts in income (at para. 75):

• The regularity of the gifts;

• The duration of their receipt;

• Whether the gifts were part of the family’s income during cohabitation that entrenched a particular lifestyle;

• The circumstances of the gifts that earmark them as exceptional;

• Whether the gifts do more than provide a basic standard of living;

• The income generated by the gifts in proportion to the payor’s entire income;

• Whether they are paid to support an adult child through a crisis or period of disability;

• Whether the gifts are likely to continue.

ANALYSIS

[83] There are a number of considerations of underemployment in this case:

• Ms. Miles did not make an application to the District School Board of Niagara where there was a demand for teachers;

• She chose to make an application to the Essex board a year later;

• She chose to move to Windsor where the demand for teachers was low;

• In 2007 she said the route to getting known by the school board was to volunteer at a school and she did not make this effort post-separation until nearly December 2023 which delayed her being known to the board;

• With such efforts to obtain even supply work with the board at $250 per day, if she only worked four days a week for nine months of the year, it would have provided her with $39,000 per annum;

• With such efforts, long term occasional teachers with A4 qualifications earn $60,165.

[84] For the evidence of gifts as income, I consider the guidance of the Court of Appeal in the circumstances of this case.

[85] This family has wanted for nothing.

[86] The generosity of Ms. Miles’ parents enabled this family to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle that far exceeded the family’s actual income from Mr. Miles’ salary.

[87] They had:

• No mortgage;

• No car payments (on luxury vehicles);

• No insurance payments;

• No student loans;

• No renovation costs;

• No landscape costs;

• No private school costs;

• No child therapy costs;

• No vacation costs;

• No credit card costs.

[88] The generous gifts predated the marriage, continued through the marriage, and continued after separation.

[89] The gifts for Ms. Miles have consistently exceeded a “basic standard of living.”

[90] Housing, for example, has been completely paid for by Ms. Miles’ family since she left home and to the present.

[91] Her family did this to keep her and the grandchildren living close by.

[92] Her mother plans to gift the Maguire house to Ms. Miles’ children, so Ms. Miles’ housing needs will be covered in the years ahead.

[93] Although her mother testified that she “anticipated” that her daughter would pay rent in the future, this is contradicted by the past history of this family. It is noteworthy that even Ms. Miles’ current partner has not been asked to pay rent.

[94] There was no evidence as to what this four bedroom, fully-renovated home would equate to as income or in place of rent.

[95] A conservative approach would be to consider the rent that her parents paid in 2021 of $3,150 per month. This comes to $37,800 per annum.

[96] Car and house insurance have always been paid by her parents and have continued as before. Ms. Miles claimed this cost was $287.88 per month or $3,454 per annum.

[97] Similarly, the life insurance has always been paid by her parents and continued as before at $150 per month or $1,800 per annum.

[98] Private school and extracurricular expenses have always been covered by Ms. Miles’ parents including Ms. Miles’ section 7 share for school, guitar lessons, and French tutoring, which she claimed is $608.33 per month or $7,299 per annum.

[99] Ms. King testified frankly that she wanted good things for her grandchildren and wanted them close to her. It is apparent that she wished her daughter and grandchildren to experience a very comfortable lifestyle, as she was able to provide.

[100] The pattern of gifts of money during the marriage by Ms. King to Ms. Miles was to provide funds whenever needed. Ms. Miles' estimate of $200 to $300 per week would amount to roughly $13,000 per annum.

[101] The evidence is that since separation her mother has covered her expenses such as cell phone bills, etc.

[102] Summary:

Housing $37,800

Car/house insurance $3,454

Life insurance $1,800

S. 7 provision for children $7,299

Spending money 13,000

Total $63,353

[103] This has been provided tax-free to Ms. Miles. If this was grossed up for tax by even 25 percent, this would come to a gift income of $79,191, or rounded to $80,000.

Duration of the Gifts

[104] In reference to whether Ms. King intended to gift the Maguire home to her daughter she stated, “There will be no more gifts to her.” However, she plans to pass the home on to her daughter’s two children.

[105] The history of Ms. King’s generosity before her daughter’s marriage, during her daughter’s marriage, and since her daughter’s separation has been consistent. I infer from all the evidence that she was willing to facilitate in every way to have her daughter and the two grandchildren move back to Windsor and live close to her. By getting Ms. Miles to do so, she increased her daughter’s dependence on her.

[106] In Ms. King's evidence there was a suggestion that since her husband’s death in January 2022, Ms. King has not had the resources that she “once did”. She also stated she “would like” to retire sometime soon. She is 62. I found this to be a soft answer and do not give it much weight.

[107] Ms. King did not disclose her income before and after her husband’s death. She did not state that she was “unable” to provide for her daughter as she had done in the past. She simply said she did not have access to the cars that her husband liked to purchase.

[108] She did disclose that she owns her home in Windsor, her home in Florida, and her daughter’s home in Windsor on Maguire.

[109] Since separation, Ms. King has sold the building in St. Catharines she purchased for her daughter’s non-profit venture.

[110] She is a 37 ½ percent owner of the family tool and die business. She is a 50 percent owner of a machining service business, and she owns a commercial building in Windsor. She is the chief financial officer of the family tool and die business.

[111] The evidence is that Ms. Miles’ parents purchased her a 2019 BMW X7 for $148,935. Ms. King explained that she did this because she selfishly wanted her daughter to bring the grandchildren to Windsor all the time and this vehicle allowed for more room for the children’s things.

[112] As the children continue to go to Windsor three out of four weekends and Ms. Miles does half the driving, I fully expect that Ms. King will provide a vehicle should this current vehicle become too dated.

[113] Ms. King paid for her daughter to have the thyroid surgery privately in Florida at a cost of $15,000. She wants to have her daughter and grandchildren with her on their vacations and I find that she will continue to fund these as well, as there has been a yearly pattern.

[114] As noted below, I find that the generosity of Ms. King and her late husband served to dampen Ms. Miles’ motivation to vigorously pursue her teaching career both during the marriage and since separation.

Assets on Separation

[115] Lifestyle and assets are also a consideration.

[116] At separation, Mr. Miles was earning $127,037 and he is now earning $170,971. He is the primary caregiver of the two children. They reside in a three-bedroom apartment for which he pays $2,000 per month. After adjustments on the equalization, he will have assets of $270,000.

[117] At separation, Ms. Miles was earning $0 and she is now earning $11,000. She is living in a four-bedroom house which is to be gifted to her children, so she has no housing needs. After adjustments, she will have assets of $1,400,000.

[118] The extent to which either party has accumulated these assets is due to the generosity of Ms. Miles’ parents.

[119] If even half of her assets were invested, Ms. Miles would also have significant interest income.

[120] In light of the circumstances above, particularly the longstanding gifts and income provided by Ms. Miles’ parents, I find that an annual income is to be imputed to her of $80,000 per annum.

CHILD SUPPORT

[121] Attached as Schedule “A” are the DivorceMate calculations for 2020 to 2024 which show child support owing by Ms. Miles of $1,211 per month on an imputed income of $80,000 per annum.

[122] It was submitted that child support was underpaid in certain years. If unresolved after my findings, the parties may appear before me at a 9:30 a.m. appointment arranged through the trial coordinator’s office to make submissions on any under or overpayments. Such a request is to be made within 14 days of this order.

[123] The parties may also make submissions on whether to suspend child support during the summer months, as had been considered previously.

SPOUSAL SUPPORT

[124] Ms. Miles seeks compensatory spousal support on the basis that she remained at home with the children while Mr. Miles worked out of town each day. She assumed the driving for “L”’s therapy until he was five. She took on the driving for the after school extracurricular activities.

[125] She also submitted that noncompensatory spousal support was owing as she was in need, being ill for a time, and not finding work post-separation.

[126] Ms. Miles claimed spousal support under both the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F. 3.

The Law on Spousal Support

[127] The objectives of spousal support in s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act and s. 33(8) of the Family Law Act are summarized as follows:

• Recognize the economic advantages and disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

• Apportion any financial consequences arising from the care of any child, above any obligation for the support of any child;

• Relieve any economic hardship arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

• As far as is practical, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period.

[128] The court, in determining the appropriate spousal support, must take into account the “condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse.”

[129] Consideration is to be given to the factors enumerated in s. 15.2(4)(a)-(c):

(a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;

(b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation;

[130] Consideration is to be given to the factors listed in s.33(9)(a)-(m) of the Family Law Act:

(a) the dependant’s and respondent’s current assets and means;

(b) the assets and means that the dependant and respondent are likely to have in the future;

(d) the respondent’s capacity to provide support;

(e) the dependant’s and respondent’s age and physical and mental health;

(f) the dependant’s needs, in determining which the court shall have regard to the accustomed standard of living while the parties resided together;

(g) the measures available for the dependant to become able to provide for his or her own support and the length of time and cost involved to enable the dependant to take those measures;

(h) any legal obligation of the respondent or dependant to provide support for another person;

(i) the desirability of the dependant or respondent remaining at home to care for a child;

(j) a contribution by the dependant to the realization of the respondent’s career potential;

(k) Repealed: 1997, c. 20, s. 3 (3).

(l) if the dependant is a spouse,

(i) the length of time the dependant and respondent cohabited,

(ii) the effect on the spouse’s earning capacity of the responsibilities assumed during cohabitation,

(iii) whether the spouse has undertaken the care of a child who is of the age of eighteen years or over and unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents,

(iv) whether the spouse has undertaken to assist in the continuation of a program of education for a child eighteen years of age or over who is unable for that reason to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents,

(v) any housekeeping, childcare or other domestic service performed by the spouse for the family, as if the spouse were devoting the time spent in performing that service in remunerative employment and were contributing the earnings to the family’s support,

(v.1) Repealed: 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (12).

(vi) the effect on the spouse’s earnings and career development of the responsibility of caring for a child; and

(m) any other legal right of the dependant to support, other than out of public money.

Spousal Support – Need

[131] As set out above, I have assessed that although Ms. Miles did not get work, her needs were met as they always were, by the generosity of her parents. Her lifestyle remained extremely comfortable as before.

[132] No evidence was proffered of disability from work, apart from a few weeks in May 2021.

Spousal Support – Compensatory

[133] Ms. Miles’ claim for compensatory support is weak for a number of reasons:

• The children were in daycare from age one and later in private school and summer camps;

• The extracurriculars described were not particularly demanding;

• Her credentials would have allowed her to supply teach on days that she was not driving her son out of town to therapy;

• Her wish to be able to drop her children off at school and pick them up after school could have been accomplished within a teaching schedule (notably a child-friendly profession);

• I find that Ms. Miles chose not to earn income after the children were born less because of the children’s or family needs but more because her parents amply provided a lifestyle that made it unnecessary for her to work;

• There was extremely little evidence regarding her assuming any other unequal division of labour in the household.

[134] In light of the collective weaknesses of her compensatory claim, I find the low range of support under the Guidelines is the most that can be justified.

[135] I consider the duration to be the shortest time recommended under the Guidelines. Ms. Miles disadvantages in the workplace, as noted above, were less related to family responsibilities than to the comforts her parents provided. Ms. Miles always maintained her teaching certificate and she now has good prospects for employment, the continued assistance of her mother, and her significant assets which will allow her to even exceed Mr. Miles' income. Her childcare responsibilities are limited to weekends and holidays. It is also significant that Ms. Miles was not yet 39 at the date of separation and so has a long working life ahead of her.

[136] I have specifically weighed all four enumerated objectives of spousal support in reaching this conclusion.

[137] The DivorceMate calculations attached as Schedule “A” indicate seven years of spousal support as follows:

2020 $524/month

2021 $984/month

2022 $986/month

2023 $1,000/month

2024 $1,000/month

[138] I order spousal support of $1,000 per month from March 1, 2024 until March 1, 2027.

[139] I find it appropriate to order spousal support retroactively from March 1, 2020.

[140] To the extent that there is an underpayment or overpayment, the parties may make a 9:30 a.m. appointment before me to make submissions. Counsel are to contact the trial coordinator within 14 days if this is necessary.

EXTENDED MEDICAL BENEFITS AND LIFE INSURANCE

[141] Ms. Miles asks the court to order that Mr. Miles maintain her on his extended medical benefits through employment for so long as she is entitled.

[142] Ms. Miles also asks the court to order that Mr. Miles designate Ms. Miles on his life insurance policy to secure spousal support.

[143] No submissions were made on these issues. If not on consent, counsel may contact the trial coordinator for a 9:30 a.m. appointment to make submissions on these issues.

COSTS

[144] If the parties advise within 14 days that a further attendance is necessary then costs submissions are deferred until after the further attendance.

[145] If no further attendance is required then costs submissions are to be made on the following schedule.

[146] If the parties are unable to resolve costs, the parties may serve and file submissions on costs by March 15, 2024.

[147] Each party may then serve and file responding submissions by March 29, 2024.

[148] If necessary, either party may serve and file reply submissions of one page by April 5, 2024.

[149] Such submissions are to be emailed to the judicial assistants at st.catharines.scjja@ontario.ca.

[150] Failing receipt of submissions by April 6, 2024, the matter of costs will be considered resolved.

M. J. Donohue J.

Released: February 27, 2024

Schedule “A”