Males Paying Greater Than 100 K Support Per Year
MacDougall v. MacDougall, 2005 CanLII 44676 (ON C.A.)
[7] The marriage contract provides that support would depend, among other considerations, on both the
husband’s income from employment and his income from all sources. In accordance with these two
categories of relevant income, the arbitrator fixed the initial amount of spousal support at $351,900
annually.
[8] Where the parties disagree is on the interpretation of the contract’s variation provision when the
husband experiences a decrease in income. The wife argues that, properly interpreted, the provision entitles
her to support calculated on the greater of the husband’s two income categories: his employment income
and his income from all sources. The husband argues that the provision operates to reduce the wife’s
support by the greater of the two percentage decreases in his income
I. Result
[58] For these reasons, I would allow the appeal and vary the judgment below by deleting subparagraph
1(6) and substituting the following:
1(6) The words "whichever is greater" in subsection 15.5 of the contract were intended to mean whichever
results provides the Wife with the greater amount of support.
Marinangeli v. Marinangeli, 2003 CanLII 27673 (ON C.A.)
The parties share joint custody of Rachel with her primary residence in the Respondent’s home (para. 1);
Commencing January 1, 1997 the Appellant will pay $2000/month for the support of Rachel (para. 6).
Pursuant to paragraph 7, the parties acknowledge that they have been made aware of the proposed
amendments to the Income Tax Act with respect to the treatment of child support and agree that the child
support is to be deductible/ taxable notwithstanding the passage of such legislation.
• The Appellant agrees to pay the cost of tuition, books, uniforms, school trips and all related activity fees
associated with Rachel’s attendance at Havergal College (para. 8).
• The Appellant is also responsible to pay the cost of Rachel’s post-secondary education to the completion
of one degree or until she becomes 22 years of age (para. 9).
Commencing January 1, 1997, the Appellant will pay $6000/month for the support of the Respondent
(para. 10).
[9] In accordance with the Minutes the respondent received property comprised of the matrimonial home
having an equity value at the time of $90,000, and a 1990 Acura valued at $20,000. The appellant paid off
the second mortgage on the matrimonial home worth approximately $38,300, a third mortgage and the
respondent’s legal fees of $25,000 (The appellant stated he had also paid off outstanding joint loans and
credit card debt of over $38,000 after the parties separated).
[17] The trial judge ordered that spousal support be increased from $6000 a month under the Minutes to
$12,000 a month for 1997; $8000 a month for 1998; $9500 a month for 1999 and $10,500 a month from
January 1, 2000. He ordered that child support be $104,613 for 1997; $22,288 for 1998; $42,769 for 1999;
and $54,142 for 2000. For 2001, monthly child support payments were increased from $2000 a month to
$5,841.90 per month or $70,102.80 a year.
[93] To summarize, in relation to the issue of misapprehension of the evidence, I would hold that the trial
judge’s misapprehensions of the evidence did not have a sufficiently decisive effect on his characterization
of the effect of the facts so as to justify appellate intervention.
[94] Having regard to the fact that the respondent has been largely successful on this appeal I would order
that costs be paid to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed in the amount of $35,000 all
inclusive.
Sharf v. Sharf, 2004 CanLII 5765 (ON S.C.)
[18] Table amounts for three children are $6,973.00 per month and an order will go for temporary child
support in that amount plus add on expense as set out in paragraph 55 of Wife’s affidavit, commencing
August 15, 2004
[20] Should the parties not be able to come to terms with respect to spousal support on or by August 15,
2004, an order will go in that regard in the amount of $8,000.00 per month commencing August 15, 2004.
Males Paying Between 50 K and 100 K Support Per
year
Sheppard v. Sheppard, 2005 CanLII 30878 (ON S.C.)
CONCLUSION
[41]
(a) The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant Spousal support in the sum of $8,000.00 per month
commencing June 1st, 2005. Upon the Respondent paying to the Applicant the equalization payment
described hereinafter, the spousal support shall be automatically reduced both respect to entitlement and
quantum, either through negotiation between the parties or further application before the court.
(b) The Respondent shall pay the Applicant an equalization payment in the sum of $1,231,959.67
Andrews v. Andrews, 1999 CanLII 3781 (ON C.A.)
At a trial to determine the parties’ financial obligations, Klowak J. found that Mr. Andrews had a gross
annual income of $200,000 per year and ordered him to pay child support of $2,953 per month, the
presumptive amount under the Ontario Child Support Guidelines ("Guidelines"), a further $1,200 per
month for extraordinary expenses for the children’s education and $3,000 per month for spousal support.
[42] I would dismiss the motion without costs and I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
McLean v. Vassel, 2004 CanLII 4031 (ON S.C.)
A separation agreement was reached on June 25, 1998, which provided for an equalization payment in
excess of $1.5 million and child support of $7,000 per month.
25] In the result, in the particular circumstances of this case, the application is dismissed and the order for
the payment of $7,000 a month in child support is confirmed.
Jackson v. Jackson, 2005 CanLII 6371 (ON S.C.)
[1] This is a motion by the applicant husband ("husband") for:
a) an order setting aside the striking out of his pleadings pursuant to the order of Wildman J. dated January
22, 2004 and an order reinstating his pleadings.
b) an order reducing the consent interim support order made by Wildman J. dated November 4, 2003 (child
support of $3,850 per month and spousal support of $2,000 per month from January 1 to July 15, 2003 and
$4,000 per month thereafter) on a retroactive and ongoing basis
[5] The wife brought a motion to enforce that order and on November 12, 2003, Magda J. ordered that the
husband remain current with his support obligations and that he pay arrears of $46,197.79 within 60 days of
the order. Magda J.’s order stated that "failure to comply with this order shall result in the applicant’s
pleadings being struck and the matter to proceed in default".
[11] Total arrears, pursuant to the existing support orders, are approximately $140,000. In addition the
husband is in breach of cost orders and an order to pay his son’s tuition for 2003/2004.
Gibb v. Gibb, 2004 CanLII 25933 (ON S.C.)
At present, the applicant’s support as indexed pursuant to the original agreement of the parties has risen
from the original support order of $2,500 monthly to $2,827.
While I believe that an increase in support at this time is mandated, it should not be an increase in the sum
as requested by the applicant of $8,000 per month. I find that an additional sum of $1,500 monthly
calculated from a yearly basis would be appropriate and I therefore fix the support on a monthly basis at
$5,500.
K. C. v. S. B., 2003 CanLII 2437 (ON S.C.)
[2] SB (the father) has no relationship with D.. D. is unaware of the existence of his biological father. SB’s
other two older sons are unaware of D.’s existence.
PS (the husband) has taken the position in the proceedings that D. is a child of the marriage, equally with
his daughter. He also agrees to pay the Child Support Guideline table amount in support for both children.
Pursuant to an interim, interim without prejudice order of March 7, 2202, the husband is paying $4000 per
month and $2000 per month for special expenses for both children
I am mindful that the mother earns $110,000 annually and the husband’s tax return indicates income of
$484,000.
Liao v. Liao, 2003 CanLII 2167 (ON S.C.)
Order
An interim order will issue in the following terms:
1.
The respondent is to pay child support of $813.00 per month commencing December 1, 2003.
2.
The respondent is to pay spousal support of $5,000.00 per month from December 1, 2003 to
January 31, 2004 and $6,500.00 per month thereafter.
3.
The applicant shall have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home until January 31, 2004.
4.
The respondent shall make a one time uncharacterized payment to the applicant of $20,000.00
forthwith
Johnston v. Johnston, 2004 CanLII 42945 (ON S.C.)
[67] I believe the husband can do creative borrowing and negotiate terms on interest paid on any such loan,
to enable him to support his wife at the rate of $5,000 per month, until trial.
Walsh v. Walsh, 2004 CanLII 36110 (ON C.A.)
[9] On September 23, 1997, after a long trial, Clarke J. granted the parties joint custody of the children,
though they were to live primarily with Mrs. Walsh. He ordered Mr. Walsh to pay spousal support of
$2,800 per month, but also found that within four to six months Mrs. Walsh could get a job in her field in
the Toronto/Oakville area earning between $60,000 and $100,000 annually. Of particular relevance to this
appeal, Clarke J. ordered Mr. Walsh to pay child support of $2,021 per month
Mr. Walsh consented to an increase beginning in the summer of 2002. However, on the return of the
interim motion, Snowie J. "recalculated" the child support payable under the Guidelines for the years 1998
to 2001, based on Mr. Walsh’s actual income for those years. She ordered him to pay the "shortfall",
amounting to $42,917.88.
[4] Mr. Walsh appeals this order
[30] I would allow the appeal and set aside paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the order of the motions judge dated
February 26, 2003.
Males Paying Between 25 K and 50 K Support Per Year
Matthews v. Matthews, 2002 CanLII 2801 (ON S.C.)
[12] Mr. Matthews is currently contributing $43,763.00 per year to the support of his wife
Mr. Matthews should pay interim, interim child support in the amount of $379.00 per month, commencing
December 1, 2002.
Sepiashvili v. Sepiashvili, 2001 CanLII 25708 (ON S.C.)
[2] Mrs. Sapir was awarded $4,000 per month in spousal support.
[4] As the wife was successful in receiving an increase in her support, she is presumed to be entitled to
costs
Miller v. Shankman, 2004 CanLII 5063 (ON S.C.)
Mr. Shankman was ordered to pay to Ms. Miller child support for Cory of $1,577/month and all reasonable
expenses for medical and dental care including all orthodontic and psychotherapy bills.
Private School
[18] In all the circumstances, I find that the school costs for 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 including basic
tuition, uniforms, books, outings and reasonable extracurricular activities are proper s.7 expenses which
shall be paid 90% by Mr. Shankman and 10% by Ms. Miller.
[24] Mr. Shankman shall pay on-going spousal support of $1500.00 per month commencing February 11,
2004.
Allaire v. Allaire, 2003 CanLII 26263 (ON C.A.)
On the basis of these figures, the trial judge ordered Ms. Allaire to pay her husband $750 monthly for the
support of Justin and Stephanie, and ordered Mr. Allaire to pay $1,357 to his wife for the support of
Christiane, resulting in a net child support payment to Ms. Allaire of $607
[14] Ms. Allaire concedes that the trial judge erred in failing to include in her income a stipend of $2,019
and bonus of $1,000 for the purpose of calculating child support. As a result, her child support obligation
for the two older children should be adjusted to $795 per month, resulting in a monthly payment to her of
$572.
[15] The trial judge ordered Mr. Allaire to pay his wife $2,500 monthly in compensatory spousal support,
based on her projected income of $68,000.
[16] The trial judge also ordered Mr. Allaire to pay $35,000 for retroactive spousal and child support
[26] Except for the adjustment to child support, we would dismiss the appeal.
[78] In February of 2004, there was a consent order requiring the husband to pay $3,450.00 per month
being $1,650.00 child and $1,800.00 spousal.
Walsh v. Walsh, 2006 CanLII 20857 (ON S.C.)
It turned out that JoAnne was really seeking additional support, however, and not merely clarification.
Michael agreed to pay JoAnne a further $8,781.20 in retroactive child support. This was incorporated into
Justice Tulloch’s January 11, 2005 Order, as was a stipulation based on agreement of Joanne and Michael
that neither one of them would make a further claim for retroactive support. Under the January 11, 2005
Order, Michael is to pay child support to JoAnne of $3,260 per month, while he continues to pay her
spousal support of $2,800 per month.
Accordingly, Joanne’s spousal support of $2,800 per month shall be reduced to $1,400 per month effective
July 1, 2006 and it shall terminate on December 31, 2006.
Maceus-Agyekum v. Agyekum, 2005 CanLII 10539 (ON S.C.)
[70] Mr. Agyckum’s net worth at separation was $895,000.00. He paid his wife a total of $380,000.00. His
net worth is now approximately $203,000.00.
[78] In February of 2004, there was a consent order requiring the husband to pay $3,450.00 per month
being $1,650.00 child and $1,800.00 spousal.
[79] While Mr. Agyckum made the unilateral decision to cease payments for either child or spousal
support, he took no steps to vary the support order.
[136] In the unusual circumstances here present, I order the husband to pay to the wife lump sum
retroactive spousal support of $20,000.00 an amount which is somewhat less than one of the RRSP’s the
wife was required to cash in.
For three children that amount is $1,076.00 and I order him to begin payment as of December 1, 2004
[147] The respondent Mr. Agyekum shall pay to the applicant the sum of $53,075.00 being made up of:
2002
Retroactive child support $ 5,700.00
Retroactive s.7 expenses $ 4,134.00
2003
October, November, December child support $ 4,696.00
Retroactive s.7 expenses $ 6,450.00
2004
Spousal and child support for May $ 3,450.00
Child care for January to May $ 1,475.00 *
Child support only-June to November $ 9,900.00
Retroactive Lump Sum Spousal $20,000.00
Dentist Bills $ 295.00
Extracurricular activities $ 270.00
Less October payment - 1,550.00
$54,820.00*plus uncalculated pro rata share of
child care expenses June to October
Gainer v. Gainer, 2006 CanLII 12969 (ON S.C.)
[4] Michael responds that his current economic state as an unemployed person will not allow him to pay
substantial spousal support to Mary
Mary should be entitled to receive spousal support proportionate to Michael’s percentage share of their
available asset base, and should be expected to call upon her own asset base to fund the balance. For this
reason, in my opinion Mary should be entitled to receive spousal support from Michael on a monthly basis
equal to 65% of what her monthly teaching income would be. Based on an annual income of $60,000, this
amounts to annual support of $39,000 or $3,250 per month. Michael shall therefore be obliged to make
monthly support payments to Mary in that amount commencing October 1, 2005 being about the date Mary
brought this motion. Michael shall have a period of 60 days to make full payment to Mary of accumulated
arrears since October 7, 2005, totaling $22,750.
Patan v. Patan, 2004 CanLII 50070 (ON S.C.)
I hereby order Mr. Patan to pay to Mrs. Patan spousal support in the amount of $2,500.00 per month
commencing September 1, 2003, and payable on the 1 st day of each month thereafter. Retroactivity is being
granted to the month the matter was first before the Court.
Huck v. Huck, 2004 CanLII 22079 (ON S.C.)
I award Lois the sum of $2,500 per month as spousal support, to begin from the date of the Trial.
Lois is, however, entitled to payment of her arrears of support which I fix at $20,402 plus 7% interest on
the arrears pursuant to the Order of Madam Justice McWatt
I find that Bob owes Lois an equalization payment of $43,359.85, plus Post-Judgment interest to be applied
at the Courts of Justice Act rate.
McGinn v. McGinn, 2006 CanLII 3281 (ON S.C.)
[15] Accordingly, in all these circumstances spousal support is varied and reduced to $1,200.00 per month
as of February 1, 2006. Retroactive adjustment of support, if any, is directed to the trial judge.
The respondent’s contribution for Bradley’s extraordinary post-secondary expenses is agreed to be $249.00
per month. Monthly support for Bradley is also not disputed at $920.00 per month pursuant to the
Guidelines.
[22] Based on the husband’s income of $122,000.00 per year, child support payable for Lawrence and
Bradley during the months September to December and January to May each year while Lawrence is in
full-time attendance at college shall be $1469.00. In the months of June, July and August the support for
Lawrence is suspended and support is payable for Bradley in the sum of $920.00 per month for reasons
stated above.
O'Brien v. Griffin, 2004 CanLII 10709 (ON S.C.)
[41] The child support remains at $715.00 per month and should have been set at that amount as of January
2002.
[45] I agree that the support being paid should reflect the wife’s earning capacity and established ability at
this time. I find that payment of $1,500.00 a month is appropriate and this amount should be retroactive to
January 1, 2002.
Bielanski v. Bielanski, 2005 CanLII 18719 (ON S.C.)
6. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant the sum of $92,204.32 as an equalization of the parties’ net
family property.
7. In addition, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant the sum of $3,339.67 to reimburse her for lease
fee for the cottage property, the orthotics, the overdraft payment and the R.E.S.P.
8. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant the sum of $14,752.69 as pre-judgment interest calculated on
the equalization payment, at the rate of 4% for 48 months since the date of the application.
9. Fifty percent of the Respondent’s right, title and interest in his pension with Inco Limited shall be vested
to the Applicant on the basis that the Respondent is credited with $56,000 toward the Applicant’s
entitlement to judgment herein
10. The Respondent shall pay spousal support to the Applicant in the amount of $1,000 per month effective
June 1, 2005.
11. The Respondent shall pay child support for the two children in the amount of $1,146 per month
commencing June 1, 2005.
McKinnon v. McKinnon, 2004 CanLII 34782 (ON S.C.)
[14] It is my order that the husband pay to the Wife for her support the sum of $2,200 per month,
retroactive to the date of separation
[22] This is the Husband’s claim for support. He has not satisfied me that he has any right to ongoing
support for any of these children.
[25] Accordingly, there will be no order for retroactive child support and the Wife’s obligation for ongoing
child support is now at an end.
Nanan v. Nanan, 2006 CanLII 12718 (ON S.C.)
[11] I order that commencing on May 1, 2006 and on the first of each and every month thereafter, the
respondent husband shall pay to the applicant wife the amount of $1500 per month. This obligation to pay
$1500 per month shall continue until determined otherwise by a court or by mutual agreement.
[12] Madam Justice Baltman made an interim order that Mr. Nanan pay child support in the amount of
$691
However, I do not wish to deal with this issue and leave it for the trial judge to determine when all the
relevant evidence is before him or her. Therefore, there will be no order for arrears child support.
[22] Having heard the submissions of both parties, I hereby fix costs for this motion and the two previous
motions in the total amount of $8,600 including GST and disbursements.
Lee v. Lee, 2004 CanLII 5056 (ON S.C.)
Taking into account the respective child support payments owed by the parties pursuant to Section 8 of the
Child Support Guidelines, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant for the three children in her care
monthly child support in the sum of $1,100.00, commencing January 1, 2004. Additionally, the Respondent
shall also pay spousal support to the Applicant in the monthly sum of $1,000.00 also commencing January
1, 2004.
Stancheff v. Stancheff, 2005 CanLII 2059 (ON S.C.)
[6] In respect to child support and based on Mark Stancheff earning $86,000 per year, the respondent shall
continue to pay $1,092 per month for the children’s child support, commencing September 12, 2003, and
payable on the 12th day of every month thereafter.
[7] The respondent shall pay to the applicant spousal support in the amount of $1,000 per month
commencing September 12, 2003, and payable on the 12 th day of every month thereafter
Dalgleish v. Dalgleish, 2003 CanLII 1944 (ON S.C.)
On that sum the husband’s child support obligation shall be $605 per month
[30] Taking into account the factors in S.15.2(4) of the Divorce Act and the facts of this case, I am of the
view that the husband shall pay spousal support in the sum of $1,200 per month.
The husband shall pay 70% of the allowed extraordinary expenses in the sum of $263 per month, to be paid
out of the secured sum for child and spousal support.
[41] The husband’s interest in the matrimonial home is to be vested in the wife in consideration of the sum
of $175,000. The proceeds are to be held as security for future child and spousal support as previously
ordered herein.
[44] The wife shall, therefore, receive $114,349.00 plus $53,278.29 for a total of $167,627.29
Males Paying Greater Than 100 K Support Per Year
Ruel v. Juodis, 2005 CanLII 14133 (ON S.C.)
Here, the father’s annual income was over $4.1 million and the Table amount for four children equaled
$65,803 per month. The Court of Appeal awarded $32,000 per month child support, plus $4,000 per month
for s. 7 expenses.
Kushnir v. Lowry, 2005 CanLII 20713 (ON C.A.)
[1] The appellant appeals from the divorce judgment that ordered the appellant, Mr. Lowry, to make an
equalization payment of $7,032,459 and to pay retroactive and ongoing spousal support to Ms. Kushnir of
$35,000 monthly from the date of separation to the date of satisfaction of the equalization payment.
[17] For these reasons, we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $20,000, inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements
Martin v. Martin, 2004 CanLII 48712 (ON S.C.)
Mr. Martin, in his Financial Statement, shows his calendar year 2003 net monthly income as $35,106.82.
He shows actual monthly expenses of $19,764.50 which includes the amount of $11,700 per month paid to
Mrs. Martin for her support and $1,000 per month for child support.
Again, having regard to the foregoing principles, I award spousal support to Mrs. Martin at the rate of
$27,000 per month.
The obligation to pay monthly support following the lockout shall not be time limited but shall be for an
indefinite period of time
V.A.W. v. R.C.L., 2004 CanLII 7043 (ON S.C.)
The defendant agreed to pay $2,710 per month support for each child, various living expenses, spousal
support of $5,000 per month from July 1, 1995 until June 1, 2000
[53] With respect to ongoing child support, Mr. R.C.L. shall pay $15,052.20 on a monthly basis plus
special and miscellaneous expenses until further order of the court.
Wells v. Wells, 2003 CanLII 2270 (ON S.C.)
[9] I fix child support at $5633.00, and spousal support at $7500.00 per month
My order therefore is that the petitioner will pay directly to the respondent the extraordinary expenses
represented by receipts which she provides, not to exceed the $675.00 per month asserted by the respondent
as the extraordinary expenses either incurred or to be incurred.
Selznick v. Selznick, 2002 CanLII 2778 (ON S.C.)
The Husband shall pay child support of $5,105 per month to the Wife for the support of their 3 children
from May 1, 2002
These expenses shall be shared in proportion to the parties' income, which I have set out under Interim
Spousal Support, 25.7% by the Wife and 74.3% by the Husband. The Wife's share is therefore $1,043 per
month and the Husband's $3,105 per month
Although I do not have support mate tables to assist me, having taken into account all the factors as noted
herein, I order the Husband to pay to the Wife as Interim Spousal Support, the sum of $6,000 per month
retroactive to May 1, 2002
Adams v. Adams, (2001), 15 R.F.L. (5th) 1
[30] In summary, I do not see any reason to interfere with the trial judge’s decision to set spousal support
payments at $5000 monthly. This allocation is not "unreasonable or outside an acceptable range", viewed
either in isolation considering Mrs. Adams’ history and current circumstances, or in conjunction with child
support payments of $6474 monthly.
Simon v. Simon (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 349
Ms. Simon would receive spousal support of $2,200 Canadian per month until September 1999, or earlier if
she remarried or cohabited with another man.3 Since no significant assets were acquired during the brief
marriage, there was no equalization payment.
[42] The appeal is allowed. The respondent is to pay child support for his son, Mitchell Simon, in the
amount of $9,215 per month.
De Zen v. De Zen, 2002 CanLII 45410 (ON S.C.)
[49] I find that Mrs. De Zen has been fairly precise in her estimation of the expenses of the children. In
doing so, I have relied on the child care budget presented by Mrs. De Zen at trial and find that an
appropriate amount of child support per month is $10,100.00. I order Mr. De Zen to pay $10,100.00 on the
first of each month. This amount shall be retroactive to the date of separation on November 15, 1999 with
credit to him for payments made to date.
Francis v. Baker,(1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 481
[10] The trial judge concluded that the separation agreement ought not to be set aside. But she awarded a
lump sum in the amount of $500,000 to Ms. Francis as spousal support pursuant to s. 15(7) [now s. 15.2] of
the Divorce Act
[16] The Federal Child Support Guidelines came into force on May 1, 1997. The strict application of these
Guidelines results in Mr. Baker being required to pay child support in the amount of $10,034 monthly. Mr.
Baker does not suggest that the quantum ordered is an incorrect amount under the Federal Child Support
Table. His complaint is that the amount is, on its face, inordinately high and well beyond the reasonable
needs of the children. He suggests that such a substantial child support order amounts to spousal support
disguised as child support, resulting in a windfall for Ms. Francis
54] … , Mr. Baker gave no evidence at trial. The onus was on him, as the party alleging the impropriety of
the Table amount, to satisfy the court that the amount was inappropriate. I see no basis, therefore, for
interfering with the trial judge's conclusion that Mr. Baker did not discharge that burden.
Tauber v. Tauber, (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 229
[7] At the retrial, the trial judge ordered Mr. Tauber to pay $11,173 monthly in child support to Ms. Tauber,
the amount stipulated by the Child Support Guidelines.
[8] The issue in this appeal is the trial judge’s decision to award Ms. Tauber $500,000 as a lump sum for
spousal support.
[17] In our view, the trial judge’s decision discloses no error either in principle or in law justifying
interference with her discretion.
MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 2005 CanLII 13191 (ON C.A.)
The trial judge also awarded prospective Guidelines child support of $5,794 per month. She dismissed the
wife’s claim for a proportionate sharing of the children’s expenses under s. 7 of the Guidelines. On the
issue of spousal support, she dismissed the wife’s claim for 2002 and 2003 but awarded spousal support of
$5,000 monthly beginning in January 2004.
[34] In the result, I would allow the appeal by substituting for paragraph five of the Divorce Order of
February 10, 2004 an order that the husband pay to the wife a lump sum of $52,500 for spousal support for
2002 and 2003. I would replace paragraph eight with an order requiring the husband to pay his
proportionate share of any childcare expenses incurred commencing in 2002 and continuing prospectively,
calculated in accordance with s. 7 of the Guidelines
Graham v. Graham, 2005 CanLII 23682 (ON S.C.)
With this figure in mind, the Court would set interim support at $10,000 per month; that figure combining
child and spousal support
Pakka v. Nygard, 2004 CanLII 5071 (ON S.C.)
In reasons for judgment dated April 30, 2002, Madam Justice Kiteley found the defendant’s income in each
for the years 2001 and 2002 to be $2,000,237.96, and ordered that the court "table an amount" for child
support of $15,091.54 to be paid monthly by the husband.
Ojo v. Ojo, 2005 CanLII 1498 (ON S.C.)
[19] Justice Hatton then went on to calculate the Child Support Guideline amount for three children at
$7,380.00 per month
[20] In respect of spousal support, the respondent wife filed a Supportmate calculation. Justice Hatton
equalized the net disposable incomes, inclusive of child support and ordered Dr. Ojo to pay the respondent
wife the sum of $9,000.00 per month effective February 1, 2002. Justice Hatton declined to impute income
to the respondent wife.
[35] I have carefully considered the order of Justice Hatton and her reasons together with materials filed by
the parties and their submissions. For the following reasons, I am not persuaded that there has been a
change in the applicant husband’s circumstances which would cause me to vary or change Justice Hatton’s
order of April 30, 2002
MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 2004 CanLII 5859 (ON S.C.)
Based on an income of $345,146, child support will be payable in the amount of $5,794 per month
[24] Taking all these factors into account, I order the husband to pay to the wife spousal support in the
amount of $5,000 per month, commencing January 1, 2004.
Biddle v. Biddle, 2004 CanLII 52809 (ON S.C.)
[35] Pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines, Mr. Biddle is to pay child support for the two
children of the marriage in the amount of $3,556 per month, commencing November 1, 2004.
Therefore, Mr. Biddle is to pay spousal support to Ms. Biddle in the amount of $5,500 per month
commencing November 1, 2004.
Sheikh v. Sheikh, 2005 CanLII 14151 (ON S.C.)
1. The parties shall have joint custody of their child,
[144] In my view, Hanif ought be paying child support of $1,778.00, pursuant to the Child Support
Guidelines, and spousal support of $6,500.00, both monthly.
[147] In the circumstances of this case, Hanif is liable for Fahreen’s deficit and I so find. Accordingly,
Hanif is directed to pay a lump sum support amount of $20,000.00.
Males Paying Between 50 K and 100 K Support Per
year
Bladwin v. Funston, 2004 CanLII 878 (ON S.C.)
2. Commencing on January 1, 2003, and on the first day of each month thereafter, Mr. Funston is to pay
$8,282.00 per month by way of support for David and Rachel, for as long as the children are children of the
marriage. In addition, he is to pay 95% of their educational expenses.
Brophy v. Brophy (2004), 45 R.F.L. (5th) 56
These considerations would ordinarily justify granting Mrs. Brophy’s motion and dismissing the appeal.
However, I need not do so because of my view of the merits of Mr. Brophy’s appeal, to which I now turn.
[32] Second, though perhaps generous, $8,000 per month does not exceed a range of reasonableness.
[34] The trial judge awarded Mrs. Brophy $18,490 in costs, consisting of $10,000 for legal fees and $8,490
for disbursements, including some of the costs for her experts. In making her costs order the trial judge
recognized that success was divided , …, I see no justification for interfering with it.
Sheppard v. Sheppard, 2005 CanLII 30878 (ON S.C.)
(a) The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant Spousal support in the sum of $8,000.00 per month
commencing June 1st, 2005.
Loy v. Loy, 2005 CanLII 27606 (ON S.C.)
[32] I therefore make an Interim Order for spousal support in the amount of $7,000 a month retroactive to
August 1, 2005, and a Child Support Order for Ryan and Lara in the amount of $1,000 a month each also
retroactive to August 1, 2005.
Miglin v. Miglin (2001), 53 O.R. (3d) 641
[43] The trial judge awarded her $4,400 per month as spousal support, limited to five years. She is content
with the quantum, but seeks in a cross-appeal to set aside the five year limit. She was also awarded $33,204
annually for child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines. The trial judge had assessed
Eric Miglin's annual income at $200,000. Ms. Miglin concedes that this amount is erroneous and that the
accurate income is $186,130, thereby requiring a reduction in the monthly amount of child support ordered
for the three children from $3,000 to a total of $2,767.
[101] … ,The propriety of the amounts awarded are not, in my view, undermined by the fact that the oldest
child is now living with her father.
Rothenburg v. Rothenburg, 2003 CanLII 2229 (ON S.C.)
[25] An interim order was granted on 18 November, 1998, which inter alia, directed the husband to pay to
the wife:
(a) $1,500 monthly for child support, based upon his stated income of $138,000 for basic support and
extraordinary child expense, and
(b) $4,000 monthly for spousal support.
[54] On the needs model, the wife’s expenses are $4,000 monthly or $48,000 annually. Investment income
of $10,000 and imputed income relative to the family home of $5,000 are deducted. Spousal support of
$33,000 annually or $2,750 monthly would be required.
[55] The wife, however, is entitled to a greater support award.
[57] Taking into consideration all of the factors relevant to these parties, I award future support,
commencing 1 May 2003, in the monthly sum of $4,500.
Antonopoulos v. Antonopoulos, 2006 CanLII 3289 (ON S.C.)
The Minutes provided that Ionnis was to pay to Elissavet:
(a) $4,500.00 per month for spousal support;
(b) $1,250.00 per month for child support for Christine;
(c) an equalization payment of $265,000.00.
Verscheure v. Verscheure, 2006 CanLII 4493 (ON S.C.)
Even if the applicant had the boys in his care more than 40 percent of the time, this would not be an
appropriate case to order him to pay less than the full table support amount, which is $2,698 per month.
Accordingly, the applicant shall pay to the respondent $1,349 on the 1st and 15th of each month beginning
on 15 June 2005 and ending on 1 September 2005.
I find it appropriate to order the applicant to pay to the respondent spousal support in the amount of $3,750
beginning on 15 June 2005. Although I recognize that there is a period of time when she had the children
and then a period when she did not, I find that support in this amount should continue for a period of six
months and then reduce to $3,000 for a further six months, recognizing her obligation to become selfsufficient to the best of her ability. If the matter has not reached trial in the latter six-month period, support
should further reduce to $2,500 per month. This latter reduction takes into account the wife’s ongoing duty
to become self-supporting and the relatively brief period of cohabitation.
ogi v. Elguindi, 2005 CanLII 23686 (ON S.C.)
[114] For these reasons, Mr. Elguindi will pay Ms. Onogi:
(a) an equalization payment of $485,214.46, with Mr. Elguindi being entitled to all the household contents
shipped from Sudan and currently stored in Japan;
(b) Commencing July 1, 2005 spousal support in the amount of $US 5,000 per month.
(c) A lump sum of $US 26,000 as additional spousal support for the period from November 2003 to and
including June 2005.
McLean v. Vassel, 2004 CanLII 4031 (ON S.C.)
[9] The father claims that these events, particularly his drastically reduced income, constitute a severe and
continuing financial reversal that justifies a variation of the child support amount notwithstanding the prior
agreement.
[25] In the result, in the particular circumstances of this case, the application is dismissed and the order for
the payment of $7,000 a month in child support is confirmed
Harris v. Harris, 2000 CanLII 17048 (ON C.A.)
[4] Lalonde J. rejected the husband’s variation application and ordered the support to stay at $5,000 per
month, fixed the arrears and ordered the company to assign a second mortgage on a cottage property to the
wife. The husband’s current wife is the mortgagor.
[7] With respect to the amount of support, the husband has continued to pay $2,000 per month rather than
$5,000, in effect creating his own stay,
[9] I therefore decline to order a stay of the order of Lalonde J
Bildy v. Bildy, 1999 CanLII 9319 (ON C.A.)
[2] The parties settled the corollary issues in this dispute, including custody, access, quantum of child
support and quantum of spousal support. It was agreed that the appellant would have sole custody of the
two children of the marriage. The respondent would have access as defined in the Minutes of Settlement
and would pay child support of $30,000 per year for each child. He was also to pay the appellant $30,000
per year in spousal support for a total of $90,000 per year in support payments.
Ayoub v. Osman, 2006 CanLII 9309 (ON S.C.)
[61] Mr. Hassan conceded in his submissions at the end of the evidence that the court ought to find or
impute an income to Mr. Ayoub of $60,000 per annum. I am convinced the figure should be higher than
that.
[64] Mr. Ayoub voluntarily agreed to pay $46,000 a year in spousal and child support according to the
terms of the Separation Agreement. That fact alone conclusively establishes that his income was higher
then than he has ever documented or admitted, even to his own professional advisers
[66] Turning to the question of child support, a table amount of $1,000 a month for two children
corresponds to an annual income of $77,000
[69] The application to vary the spousal support and child support, is dismissed
Jordan v. Stewart, 2002 CanLII 2678 (ON S.C.)
On an interim basis, I order guideline child support in the amount of $1623.90
Although I have not done the calculations to take account of the after-tax effect on payor and recipient, I
am satisfied that this is a fair amount for interim spousal support. It is arguable that based on income of
$227,000 Mr. Stewart could afford to pay more, but as $5,000 is the amount that was requested, I am not
inclined to order more. The payments are retroactive to May 1, 2002
Quinn v. Keiper, 2005 CanLII 43685 (ON S.C.)
[3] The separation agreement dated September 2001 provides that the father pay monthly child support in
the amount of $5000 (indexed) for the three children as well as 100% of an expanded definition of special
expenses, including for example the cost of Granite Club membership. The mother estimates that the father
spends between $10,000 and $18,500 per month on those special expenses. The mother is not required to
contribute to those special expenses. The mother received an equalization payment of 10 million dollars.
[4] The mother seeks child support of about $45,000 per month (inclusive of the special expenses) in her
application. While the father disputes that the support provisions in the Separation Agreement should be
varied, he concedes an annual income of 5 million dollars and concedes his ability to pay any amount
ordered by the Court including the full amount sought by the mother. The mother believes the father’s
income to be between $7.5 and $10 million annually
Da Silva v. Da Silva, 2004 CanLII 8940 (ON S.C.)
2. The respondent shall pay to the applicant interim child support in the amount of $1,500 per month in
accordance with the separation agreement dated June 1, 2003
3. The respondent shall pay to the applicant interim spousal support in the amount of $4,500 per month in
accordance with the separation agreement dated June 1, 2003
Salzmann v. Salzmann, 2004 CanLII 5009 (ON S.C.)
The total monthly child support payment to be paid by the Respondent will be $2011.00
Accordingly, I have assessed her needs and determined that an appropriate interim spousal support pending
trial should be in the amount of $3600.00 per month.
[57] As the Respondent’s income has declined since separation, in my view it is appropriate that this
amount be retroactive from the date of separation
Hewat v. Hewat, 2003 CanLII 2131 (ON S.C.)
[53] Given the quantum of child support payable, a reasonable amount of support from now until
September is $3,000. This gives her a combined child and spousal support of $5,551. In September 2003,
after she returns to work, spousal support will be reduced to $2000.
Yackobeck v. Hartwig, 2000 CanLII 16983 (ON C.A.)
[1] After a trial of 4 or 5 days, Rutherford J. awarded the plaintiff:
(1) $34,350.00 for unjust enrichment;
(2) Support of $1,200.00 a month;
(3) Arrears of $4,000.00 for interim support;
(4) Secured the payment of these amounts by a charge on 600 acres of farmland owned by the defendants;
and
(5) Cots of $20,000.00 to be secured by the above charge
[9] We would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
MacMillan v. MacMillan, 2002 CanLII 2685 (ON S.C.)
[5] On that income, the guideline child support amount for three children is $2,800.00 per month (assuming
a standard percentage for income over $150,000.00). The order provided for child support in the amount of
$3,000.00 total. The extra $200.00 was considered a contribution towards extraordinary expenses. Spousal
support was agreed upon in the amount of $2,250.00 per month, payable by the father to the mother
Bower v. Bower, 2002 CanLII 2771 (ON S.C.)
His position is that his support obligation should be an amount which is the sum of guideline support for
the youngest child, Daniel, plus 70% of the aggregate of Jordan’s and Jeffrey’s residence, tuition and other
expenses. This amounts to about $9,000 less per annum in child support payable by him than would be the
result under the guidelines.
She assumed that the matter was being looked after by their father and she accepts that Dr. Bower is paying
a total of $21,087 for fees and books. She knows that Dr. Bower pays Jordan’s and Jeffrey’s rent in London
totaling $920 a month. She knows that Jeffrey and Jordan receive allowances of $600 and $700 a month
respectively from their father.
[16] In my view, there is nothing inappropriate in requiring Dr. Bower to pay support at the guideline level
for all three boys.
Smolders v. Smolders, 2003 CanLII 2247 (ON S.C.)
Accordingly, I fix guideline support at $1,949 per month.
[11] Mother’s expenses have been grossly exaggerated. Nevertheless I am satisfied that $3,000 per month
is the appropriate spousal support figure. I order accordingly.
[20] Finally, in addition to guideline child support, Father will pay s.7 expenses to Mother under the
guidelines at the rate of $879.60 per month effective June 1, 2003.
D.F. v. J.S., 2004 CanLII 8474 (ON S.C.)
The total child support to be paid by the father, inclusive of his contribution to section 7 expenses, is
$4,576.00 per month.
Sitter v. Sitter, 2003 CanLII 2415 (ON S.C.)
[7] Justice Hambly in his Order stated that the amount of spousal support should be $7,000 a month.
[26] Therefore, I order that interim interim support be set at $4,500 a month retroactive to December 1,
2002. Any arrears accumulated at the $7,000 a month rate will not be enforced at this time. Any arrears at
the $4,500 rate a month will be enforced and the petitioner will pay those off within the next six months
D.J.C. v. N.C., 2004 CanLII 47783 (ON S.C.)
The total amount being paid by Mr. D.J.C. at this time for both child and spousal support is $4,889.00 per
month.
In the Order of November 13, 2002, it was ordered that Mr. D.J.C. pay child support for the youngest child
B.C in the amount of $1,389.00 per month. Mr. Justice O’Connor also ordered $1,000.00 per month
payable for the child J.C.. This $1,000.00 per month was a global amount to include the "Table" amount for
child support and Mr. D.J.C.’s contribution towards J.C.’s university expenses. Further, it was ordered that
the sum of $2,500.00 per month be paid by Mr. D.J.C. to Mrs. C. with respect to spousal support.
[63] This Court orders that:
(1) the parties shall share joint custody of the child B.C. B.C will spend reasonable and generous time with
both parents
Rybiak v. Rybiak, 2002 CanLII 2813 (ON S.C.)
[32] In result, an order shall issue on the following terms:
a) the respondent shall pay spousal support to the applicant in the monthly amount of $4,000, commencing
1 December 2000;
b) the respondent shall pay child support to the applicant in the monthly amount of $1,000, commencing 1
September 2001;
c) the respondent shall continue to pay for Paula’s university tuition, student fees and residency expense
Ballentine v. Ballentine, (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 481
[9] On October 9, 2001, Backhouse J. heard an application brought by the appellant in which he sought to
vary his spousal support obligation from approximately $4,500 per month to nil and to cancel all arrears,
which at that time were about $308,000.
The appellant has known of his cancer for several years and could have made this matter known to
Backhouse J.; bringing it to the attention of Low J. was not a new circumstance.
[47] I would dismiss both appeals. I would award the respondent her costs of the appeals, on a partial
indemnity scale, fixed at $6,200, inclusive of counsel fee at hearing, disbursements and GST.
Yetman v. Yetman, 2006 CanLII 7039 (ON S.C.)
[11] As a result of the above-mentioned findings, it is ordered that:
(c) From January 1, 2006 onward, the sum of $1,128 per month.
[12] I will not make any order today to vary the amount of money that the husband pays toward the
children’s education expenses. The husband will therefore continue to be obliged to pay the sum of $2,000
per year as set out in Paragraph 3 of the August 2002 order.
[17] Considering the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, in my opinion, the on-going quantum of
spousal support should be increased to the sum of $1,400 per month.
Sciuk v. Sciuk, 2005 CanLII 16642 (ON S.C.)
[37] The combined spousal and child support of $ 4,000 per month shall continue.
[38] In addition, I conclude that the spousal support should be adjusted by increasing it by increasing the $
4,000 payment [and attracted tax] by $ 1088 per month retroactive to March 1, 2003
Dunning v. Dunning, 2006 CanLII 15898 (ON S.C.)
Order
Clause 1 of the order of March 15, 2005 is amended to read as follows:
(a) Commencing July 1, 2005 the respondent will pay base child support to the applicant for two children
based upon an attributed income of $160,893 in Canadian dollars. In the amount of $2, 118 Canadian
Dollars per month
(d) Commencing July 1, 2005 the respondent shall pay spousal support to the applicant of $2,568 Canadian
dollars per month. Indexed in accordance with subsection 34(5) of the Family Law Act.
(e) The respondent shall pay any net arrears of child or spousal support accruing between July 1, 2005 and
the date of this order after credit for any amounts paid under the March 15, 2005 order at the rate of $300
Canadian dollars per month. This restriction does not apply to any future arrears, which may accrue
Males Paying Between 25 K and 50 K Support Per
Year
Horner v. Horner, 2004 CanLII 34381 (ON C.A.)
[37] In relation to child support, Killeen J. ordered that Mr. Horner pay child support for Samantha in the
amount of $1,610 per month and that Ms. Horner pay $236 per month for child support for Sean
[93] For the reasons I have given, I would allow the appeal in part. I would allow the appeal with respect to
the quantum of spousal support, and would order that spousal support be fixed at $2,445 per month instead
of the $1,750 ordered by the application judge. I would dismiss the appeal relating to the making of spousal
support retroactive beyond May 1, 2001, and the appeal from the application judge’s decision not to award
support for an indeterminate period of time. In relation to child support, I would allow the appeal, in part,
and order that child support should be retroactive to January 1, 2000. I would dismiss the appeal in relation
to the cross-application.
S.L. v. A.L., 2003 CanLII 2161 (ON S.C.)
[19] I accept the wife’s calculation of retroactive support for 2002. The Court therefore orders interim
spousal support in the amount of $2,500.00 per month and interim child support in the amount of $1,522.00
based on an imputed annual income of $132,228.00 with credit to the husband for amounts paid in 2002
towards child support. The Court therefore fixes arrears for 2002 at the total amount of $32,064.00
David v. David, 2004 CanLII 46652 (ON S.C.)
[10] The applicant wife described the marriage as rocky. The marital tension escalated to the point that the
husband allegedly assaulted the wife, at which time their daughter called the police and the husband was
criminally charged with two counts of assault against his wife.
[82] The wife asks that I impute income to the husband, per s.19 of the Child Support Guidelines.
ORDER:
1.
There being no prospect of reconciliation, Divorce Judgment to issue effective 31 days.
2.
Child support for 2 children in the amount of $1500 monthly, commencing January 1, 2005, as per
the order of Wildman J, dated December 2003.
Spousal support in the amount of $2500 commencing January 1, 2005 in accordance with the above
reasons.
Desramaux v. Desramaux, 2002 CanLII 45030 (ON C.A.)
At the same time, she signed a third proposed separation agreement that had been prepared by counsel for
Mr. Desramaux. It provided for $1,000 per month of child support and $500 per month of spousal support.
[32] In making that determination, I begin by considering the parties’ positions. Ms. Desramaux asks that
spousal support be set at $2,500 per month for the period from March 1, 1998 to August 1, 2000 and
thereafter in the amount of $3,000 per month subject to a set-off for the interim support ordered and paid in
these proceedings prior to trial
I am of the view that the amount of spousal support sought is justified and appropriate in the circumstances.
[38] Mr. Desramaux paid child support pursuant to the terms of the separation agreement. As a result, he
paid substantially less than he would have been required to pay pursuant to the Guidelines. He made no
contributions to the children’s post secondary education expenses
There is no error in choosing the date the counter-petition claiming spousal support was filed – namely,
December 9, 1997 – as the date from which to award retroactive child support. It was within the exercise of
his discretion to decline to order Mr. Desramaux to retroactively pay a proportionate share of postsecondary expenses. There is no error in the calculations he made as to child support payable and paid.
Bourget v. Fradkin, 2005 CanLII 24250 (ON S.C.)
[22] There will be an order of interim child support requiring the Respondent to pay to the Applicant
commencing on March 1, 2005 and on the 1st day of each month thereafter an amount of $1420.00 per
month as support for the child, Antoine B. Fradkin, born October 21, 2002.
[23] There will also be an order of interim spousal support requiring the Respondent to pay to the Applicant
commencing on March 1, 2005 and on the 1st day of each month thereafter an amount of $2,500.00 per
month
Simpkins v. Simpkins, 2004 CanLII 28909 (ON C.A.)
She was awarded interim support of $2,000 per month in June and July 1996 and then $3,500 as of August
1996.
[26] For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal. The respondent is entitled to her costs of the appeal
which I would fix at $12,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.
Innes v. Innes, 2005 CanLII 15463 (ON S.C.D.C.)
[1] William Innes ("the Appellant") appeals from a decision of Klowak J. dated July 16, 2003, which
ordered him to pay spousal support of $2,000.00 per month to his former wife, Patricia Innes ("the
Respondent"), retroactive to February 1, 2002, and to obtain life insurance to secure the amount.
The children were to reside with the Respondent, and the Appellant was to pay child support for three
children in the total monthly amount of $1,647.00 until the occurrence of a number of specified events,
including
Indeed, the Appellant voluntarily increased the amount of child support payments from $1,647.00 to
$1,946.00 per month, when his income went up.
38] For these reasons, the appeal is allowed in part, and the requirement for security in the form of life
insurance is set aside. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed
Marson v. Marson, 2001 CanLII 8534 (ON C.A.)
[9] The separation agreement provided for monthly child support payments by the father in the amount of
$575 for each child for a total of $1,150 each month for the two children. In addition, Mr. Marson was
obligated to pay the sum of $2,500 each year for the children’s activities.
Hugel v. Hugel, 2004 CanLII 15763 (ON S.C.)
Accordingly, the father shall pay child support for the two children in the sum of $3,530 per month
commencing March 1, 2004
[39] For the foregoing reasons, I Order the father to pay the sum of $28,000 as retroactive child support
In considering all the circumstances, an amount of $25,000 in a lump sum compensatory support is
reasonable.
[54] As a result, the father’s claim for a constructive trust is hereby dismissed
Procyk v. Procyk, 2006 CanLII 18370 (ON S.C.)
[1] The parties separated on July 23, 2001, after roughly twenty years of marriage. They have four children:
Natalie (now 21), Andrew (nearly 16), Victoria (now 13), and Shane (now 11
[5] From separation to June, 2005, Mr. Procyk voluntarily paid Ms. Procyk $3,800 monthly. Mr. Procyk
says that he was "downgraded" at work seriously in June 2005, and now receives $60,000 per annum in
base salary, and anticipated commission income of about $900 per month (a total projected annual income
of roughly $60,800). This reduction in income followed a prior dramatic reduction in income from over
$500,000 in 1999 and over $400,000 in 2000: in 2001 – the year of separation – income fell to just under
$200,000, and it has remained under $200,000 ever since.
[6] Mr. Procyk says that as a result of this change, he paid his wife $2,400 in July, and $800 in August,
2005. In September he paid her $3,500 pursuant to a court order.
[7] Mr. Procyk also says he has made lump sum payments to Ms. Procyk totaling $70,000, and additional
payments totaling $35,000 since separation
Scheel v. Henkelman, 2001 CanLII 24133 (ON C.A.)
Cosgrove J. dismissed the majority of Ms. Scheel’s claims. However, he awarded her damages of $15,000
on the ground that the respondent had breached the provision of the cohabitation agreement dealing with
her living arrangements, and damages of $3,200 for back wages
[25] For the above reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment dismissing the appellant’s
claims under s. 33(4) of the FLA and for support, and substitute an order setting aside the support waiver
provision of the domestic contract and awarding the appellant support of $3,500 a month commencing
December 14, 1999, and awarding the appellant the costs of the trial and the appeal
Haaksma v. Haaksma, 2006 CanLII 2772 (ON S.C.)
4) It is ordered that Mr. Haaksma's obligation to pay spousal support payments in the amount of $3500 per
month, which was previously ordered in this case, shall continue
7) It is ordered that Mr. Haaksma shall pay to Mrs. Haaksma an equalization payment of $775,708.62
Bruzas v. Bruzas, 2005 CanLII 36267 (ON S.C.)
Therefore, Mr. Bruzas shall pay the monthly amount of $3378.00 from and including 1 October 2005,
together with section 9 expenses, based upon their annual incomes.
O'Brien v. Griffin, 2004 CanLII 10709 (ON S.C.)
[1] This is an application by Dr. Griffin for a variation of a divorce judgment granted in Quebec. The
application seeks to rescind arrears of approximately $100,000.00
[5] The parties have been locked in a bitter legal battle since the separation. The husband was ordered, by
way of a Quebec judgment dated June 30, 1999, to pay a significant amount of both spousal and child
support. The Quebec court ordered spousal support of $2,000.00 a month and child support of $1,279.00
per month.
[48] Finally, I order that pursuant to Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, Dr. Griffin is prohibited from
instituting further proceedings without leave of the court.
He has recently sworn an information in order to have a public mischief charge laid against his ex-wife but
the Crown refused to lay the charges, as a result of what Dr. Griffin refers to as the anti-male gender bias
present in our courts.
Monaghan v. Monaghan, 2002 CanLII 2676 (ON S.C.)
[4] The divorce judgment with corollary relief was granted in February of 1988, and varied on appeal in
June of 1990. It provided for the Applicant to pay spousal support until February of 1995. The child
support was set at a fixed amount, to be increased by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price
Index. The Applicant currently pays $2839.97 per month.
[5] In February of 1996 the Respondent sought an order for spousal support. In a strongly worded judgment
Borkovich J. dismissed her application, refused to increase the amount of child support,
Accordingly, the Applicant should currently be paying child support in the amount of $3217, based on his
2001 income as reflected in his tax return.
Wamsley v. Moore, 2002 CanLII 2823 (ON S.C.D.C.)
He seems to have found that that her monthly needs were met by the benefits of $1522 monthly plus a
further payment of monthly support of $400. This suggests that he concluded that her interim needs were
$1922 per month. But when her unemployment insurance payments ceased, he fixed her support at $800
per month. On this basis alone, the decision must be set aside.
[23] In the result, we order that commencing January 1, 2002 the husband shall pay to the wife weekly
interim spousal support of $800.
Picollo v. Picollo, 2004 CanLII 50314 (ON S.C.)
[12] For the purposes of interim support, I need only determine if the husband has the ability to pay the
wife’s support needs, namely her monthly shortfall of $3,200. In this regard, I have no hesitation in
concluding he does have the financial ability to cover all of this shortfall. Such determination results from
adding to his stated income the many personal expenses paid by his company. There may be further income
to take into account, however, that is an issue for trial
Walsh v. Walsh, 2003 CanLII 2268 (ON S.C.)
[13] I find that inherent in the Federal Child Support Guidelines is the discretion of this Court to, from time
to time, recalculate in accordance with the Guidelines, the quantum of child support payable on the basis of
updated income information from the payor pursuant to s.25.
[17] As such, this Court orders on a recalculation of the Child Support owed by the Petitioner to the
Respondent for the years ’98, ’99, ’00, and ’01 that the Petitioner shall pay forthwith to the Respondent the
quantum of $42,917.88. $5,000.00 shall be paid forthwith and the balance is due and payable in 45 days
from the date of this order
[18] There is a consent order for ongoing child support in the amount of $3,071.00/month that will continue
to be paid pending further order of this court.
Meikle v. Meikle, 2003 CanLII 2183 (ON S.C.)
The parties concluded a separation agreement, which provided that the husband would pay the wife $6,000
per month in support.
In November 1996 support was reduced to $4000 per month.
[23] Support in the amount of $3000 per month will reflect both the former husband’s reduction in income
and an increase of the former wife’s income.
Naidoo v. Naidoo, 2004 CanLII 34415 (ON S.C.)
[62] On the evidence before me, I impute income to the respondent, after correcting the claimed
deductions, as $139,000.00 (rounded).
[64] For purposes of calculating child support, the respondent’s income is found to be $146,714.00
I have considered the parties’ net disposable incomes with the altered child support, and spousal support at
$1,500.00 a month (applicant NDI-54.8% and the respondent’s NDI-45.2%. The applicant must provide for
3 people as primary caregiver. There is a compensatory aspect to the spousal support. I see no grounds for
altering two spousal support which the parties agreed.
Paragraph 2 of the March 29, 2002 order is varied to provide that the respondent shall pay child support of
$1,719.00 per month based on imputed grossed-up income for 2002 of $146,000.00, effective November 1,
2003 and to be paid on the first of each month therafter.
Jagodich v. Jagodich, 2003 CanLII 2010 (ON S.C.)
With the child support set off, Mr. Jagodich will actually pay $2,779 per month to his former wife
Elik v Elik (1993) OJ No.3554
4 We see no reason to make the wife pay support for the children
5 The wife has cross appealed for support at the rate of $ 3000 per month commencing when the 5 year
period for payment of the purchase price has expired
6 The appeal is dismissed with costs. The cross appeal will be allowed as indicated above with costs
Neilson-Sewell v. Neilson-Sewell, 2006 CanLII 21597 (ON S.C.)
[17] For the above reasons I order the respondent husband to continue to pay the mortgage payments and
taxes on the matrimonial home in the amount of $1,605.71 per month until further order of this Court or on
the consent of both parties and to pay ongoing interim spousal support to his wife in the amount of
$1,200.00 per month commencing on July 1, 2006.
Wigle v. Wigle, 2003 CanLII 2359 (ON S.C.)
[2] There was an interim order of Master Donkin dated August 26, 1991 which gave the wife $1,500 per
month in spousal support plus an annuity assigned to her by the husband of $1,080.72
[17] There are no new circumstances would show that the terms of the agreement no longer reflect the
parties’ intentions at the time of execution.
[21] Mr. Wigle was not credible.
Arrears are fixed at $17,640 as of May 1, 2003. There will be a charging order against Mr. Wigle’s boat to
enforce payment.
Raaymakers v. Green, 2006 CanLII 719 (ON C.A.)
[32] On settling their affairs, the respondent agreed to pay the sum of $3,600 per month to the appellant and
to characterize the sum as child support.
[34] The parties agreed in December 2003 to a temporary order whereby the respondent paid $1,480 per
month for child support and $1,200 per month for spousal support retroactive to March 1, 2002. Prior to
trial, the parties settled the issues of child and spousal support and the December 2003 order is now a final
order which continues to this day.
Davignon v. Davignon, 2000 CanLII 5640 (ON C.A.)
From the time of separation in September 1993, the husband was paying, on consent, $3,250 per month in
spousal support. This amount was reduced, on motion, to $2,500 from August 1995 to the time of trial
[10] The appeal is allowed and the award of spousal support is reduced to $2,500 per month.
[11] As stated by the wife, the court proceedings were not being pressed at her instance. In these
circumstances, we see no valid reason why she should not get her costs of the trial and her costs of this
appeal, which are fixed at $3,500
Farrell v. Farrell, 2002 CanLII 2691 (ON S.C.)
Either way, her housing needs/costs will be taken care of. After receipt of the equalization payment she will
not have a need for support. However, until then Mr. Farrell will be ordered to continue paying interim
spousal support of $2500 per month, such amount to discontinue on the first day of the month following the
payment in full of the equalization payment.
Linton v. Linton, 1990 CanLII 2597 (ON C.A.)
The divorce was granted and Mr. Linton was ordered to pay $2,500 per month in support, indexed in
accordance with the indexation scheme established under s. 34(5) and (6) of the Family Law Act, 1986.
In my view the trial judge was entitled to make the support order he did. Accordingly, I would dismiss the
appeal with costs.
Fisher v. Green, 2003 CanLII 2311 (ON S.C.)
For each month that the four children reside with the Mother, the payment would be $2,663 per month, and
in the event that three children reside with the Mother, the payment per month would be $2,243
It is ordered that the arrears of child support owing of $25,381 shall be paid at the rate of $1,000 per month
commencing July 1, 2003 until all such arrears are paid.
Ruscinski v. Ruscinski, 2006 CanLII 9982 (ON S.C.)
[10] This 18-year relationship was interrupted on one occasion when the applicant left the house for a
period of about two months following an episode of alleged spousal abuse.
The applicant had already backed the car out of the driveway, so the respondent stood in front of the car.
The applicant proceeded forward as a result of which, in the respondent’s words, he went for a ride on the
hood of the car but without sustaining any injury.
[49] At one point the applicant said "We’ll see who gets f----- now". The respondent saw her using the
phone in the kitchen.
[157] The respondent has agreed to pay child support of $1,133.00 per month
In my view, there should be an order for spousal support in the amount of $1,200.00 per month,
Kreklewich v. Kreklewich, 2003 CanLII 1963 (ON S.C.)
The status of this pre-separation joint debt "assumed" by Sgt. Kreklewich by para.8 of the Minutes of
Settlement, signed at the start of trial (filed at pp.230-233 of the Record), is both important and significant
in light of Sgt. Kreklewich's position that he cannot continue to pay $1,000 per month spousal and $1,518
child support (based upon an income of about $75,000 per annum) because he has to pay off all of those
family loans himself.
I conclude that she and the children need the present level of support to meet their reasonable living
expenses.
Dhanna v. Dhanna, 2004 CanLII 46660 (ON S.C.)
[158] For the purposes of this case, it is sections (19)(1)(a) and (d) that may be applicable. Mr. Dhanna
claims he is not employed. He suggests that this is because of his mental health problems, namely his
suffering from an anxiety disorder. I have already commented at length about the lack of evidence to
support his position. Mr. Dhanna has deliberately exaggerated his condition, in an effort to mislead the
court. I cannot conclude that his unemployment is due to health needs
[160] On the basis of Mr. Dhanna’s imputed income of $77,000 per year, he should pay table support for
the two children of $1,000 per month. This payment should commence December 1, 2004
Mr. Dhanna will pay spousal support of $1,500 per month with effect from December 1, 2004. Ongoing
support is not to be paid out of the funds held in Ms. Puckering’s trust account;
Palinka v Palinka, 2003 CanLII 2195 (ON S.C.)
[1] Ms. Palinka seeks the following interim orders:
1. interim spousal support in the order of $12,000 per month retroactive to January 1, 2003 on the basis that
she will pay her housing and vehicle expense;
[16] (1) An interim order will issue(1) that the plaintiff pay as spousal support the following expenses for
the benefit of the respondent pursuant to sections 60.1(2) and 56.1(2) of the Income Tax Act:
1. mortgage on the matrimonial home;
2. joint loan for the cottage;
3. taxes for the home and cottage;
4. hydro accounts for the home and cottage;
5. gas for the home;
6. insurance for the home and cottage;
7. water accounts;
8. security alarm;
9. loan for the wife’s vehicle;
10. insurance for the wife’s vehicle;
11. the respondent’s reasonable expenses for tuition and books;
12. the respondent’s medical and dental expenses;
13. reasonable veterinary and grooming expenses for the parties’ dogs;
14. the respondent’s annual income tax liability.
(2) In addition, the petitioner shall pay to the respondent the sum of $2,500 per
month on account of spousal support
Doe v. Doe, 1999 CanLII 3065 (ON C.A.)
The Decree Absolute was varied on June 8, 1987 by order of Oyen J. increasing the quantum of spousal
support payable to the respondent from $3,000.00 to $4,500.00 per month.
In our view, the record supports the appellant’s contention that his retirement gave rise to a material change
of circumstances warranting a reduction in the support payments to the respondent. In the final analysis, we
believe that the support payments should be reduced from $4,500.00 to $2,500.00 per month. [9] We are
also of the view that in the circumstances, the appellant should be relieved of his obligation to maintain life
insurance for the respondent. In its place, there will be a term that the support payments shall be a first
charge on the appellant’s estate for the balance of the respondent’s life.
Nichols v. Nichols, 2005 CanLII 3473 (ON S.C.)
Under the domestic agreement, the mother was required to pay to the father child support in the amount of
$329 per month, commencing September 1, 2004, plus 23 percent of the child’s tuition and book expenses.
[4] Under the terms of the domestic agreement, the respondent/husband was to pay applicant/wife $2,000
per month spousal support to June 30, 2007.
[22] In all the circumstances, I will order that the husband pay to the wife the sum of $400 per month,
commencing February 1, 2005 with respect to child support for Erin while she remains a child of the
marriage
Woodall v. Woodall, 2005 ONCJ 253 (CanLII
She testified that she trusted her husband with respect to the promises he made. The agreement provided
that the husband pay spousal support to the wife in the amount of $600 per week, payable bi-weekly.
The result of this "COLA" clause is that the support currently being paid under the agreement is $1,264
payable bi-weekly.
I am not satisfied there has been a sufficient change in circumstances to justify varying the support
provisions of the agreement,
Sobotka v. Sobotka, 2005 CanLII 3399 (ON S.C.)
[13] Both Kyle and Trevor are in school full time and dependent children of the marriage. The parties have
agreed on child support of $1024.00 per month
Mr. Sobotka’s total proportionate share for 2002 to 2004 extraordinary expenses is, therefore, $9,592.00.
[27] Spousal support is set at $1,200.00 per month.
Hesketh v. Hesketh, 2005 CanLII 34364 (ON S.C.)
[54] Accordingly, it is ordered that the Husband will pay spousal support of $2,200 per month commencing
October 1, 2005
Johnson v. Johnson, 2005 ONCJ 325 (CanLII
In the result, the following order is granted:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2005
1 October to 31 1 January to 31 1 January to 31 1 January to 30 1 July and
December
December
December
June
ongoing
$52,372.45
$52,389.57
$57,835.08
*$56,262.25
$54,199.03
$731.00
$731.00
$796.00
$777.00
$752.00
2.THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT the respondent Frederick Johnson shall pay spousal support
to the respondent Olga Johnson in the amount of $1,400.00 on the first day of each month calculated and
accruing from 1 October 2002 and on the first day of each month thereafter until further order of the court.
4.THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT the full amount of arrears hereby created shall be paid in full
by Mr. Johnson to Mrs. Johnson not later than 1 March 2006.
Fang v. Fang, 2004 CanLII 13068 (ON S.C.)
[105.] It is difficult to fathom what action might be sufficient to goad Brian into finding employment. One
method is to impute to him, commencing in 2005 an income close to that he has historically earned, viz.,
$108,170.00. I impute to him in 2005 and later years an income of $100,000.00.
[108.] Commencing June 1, 2006 based on Brian’s imputed income of $100,000.00 and Corinna’s of
$25,000.00 I will order Guideline child of $1,240.00 and spousal support of $900.00. Brian will pay
$49.5% of any s. 7 expenses.
Neill v. Boudreau, 2005 ONCJ 96 (CanLII
19.Therefore the respondent’s monthly support for the children commencing on 1 September 2004 is
$1,611.00
Total post-secondary education costs are $9,000, with the child contributing approximately $2,500, and the
respondent’s share is 80% of $6,500 per year
TOTAL ARREARS OWING 1997-2003
$72,728.00
Spicer v. Benoit-Spicer, 2004 CanLII 11631 (ON S.C.)
She therefore fixed his income at $68,000 and ordered child support of $907 per month and spousal support
of $1,100 per month.
Females Paying Between 25 K and 50 K Support Per
Year
Gillett v. Smyth, 2002 CanLII 2786 (ON S.C.)
1.
The petitioner shall pay to the respondent for the four children of the marriage the sum of $2,782
per month commencing October 1, 2002, the court finding the petitioner has average annual
income of $154,528.
2. The petitioner shall pay to the respondent spousal support of $1,000 per month commencing October 1
3. The petitioner is ordered to pay spousal support to the respondent in the amount of $2,000 per month