Sorry, it is very complicated, as all family cases. I am appealing on the basis that the Judge did not take into account all aspects of the Divorce Act and Family Law Act of Ontario. She only focused on Self Sufficiency. My understanding through the case law is that no one factor should be of more significance than the other.
There is also a rule of 65. I can't remember right now, but I am 53, married from 21 - 50. I worked early in the marriage when boys were small to help him get ahead. I did not pursue a career with my degree because we had agreed on a traditional marriage. I only worked when we could not make the bills and they were menial jobs.
My ex played games from the start of the trial and the Judge just fell right under his spell and threw out the rules and procedures of the law it seems.
Because of the abuse I have suffered 4 major depressions since I was 40. this was documented by a psychiatric report and other evidence. She chose to believe that the Expert wasn't right. When did the judge become a Doctor? She decided it was my Ex who was experiencing all the after math of abuse!
Just on principle alone, I must pursue this.
((( ))) these are my comments.
Here are just some quotes directly from the decision: ((((they are public record I believe))))...
Mrs. McKinnon has engaged in some very disturbing behaviors over the past period ((((there was no sworn evidence or witnesses, just his lies)))
She persistently sought to provoke Mr. McKinnon to defend his past conduct, heaping blame upon his every action.
In contrast, I observed Mr. McKinnon to be flexible and accommodating.
He took no pleasure in the proceeding and asked only one question in his cross examination of Mrs. McKinnon, declining any questioning of her Financial Statement.
He is clearly litigation fatigued.
Combined with the turmoil of the past year in which he... lost that position to a younger employee, and is now establishing himself in a new position; has been too much.
He has begun to limit his participation in this proceeding, not accepting documents from the applicant.
The toil on Mr. McKinnon is apparent in his physical presentation, his evidence and his actions. He cannot tolerate this prolonged conflict. Neither could he manage it during the marriage.
Remarkably, Mr. McKinnon remains hopeful that the conflict between
My observations during this trial leave me considerably less hopeful. Mrs. McKinnon is rigid in her belief that every failing in her own life is the fault of her former spouse.
She appears to have allied at least two of her three sons in her relentless blaming of their father. I fear that she has used this Court process to continue punishing Mr. McKinnon, rather than to seek remedies.
Over the two and a half hours of her cross examination of Mr.
McKinnon, Mrs. McKinnon aggressively questioned her former spouse... She poured over details in his banking records.
This may have caused sorne confusion in that Mr. McKinnon's 2009 income shows as the $83,794 of earned income, plus the $59,448 of severance monies. In actual fact, only one eighth of the severance monies is attributable to 2009, bringing his income for support purposes to $91,225 for 2009. The balance are funds attributed to 2010 for the purposes of determining support.
Neither do I accept that she has been the victim that she portrays.
His income for the relevant years is thus:
2007 $103,312
2008 $104,045
2009 s 91,225
2010 $115,451 (projected)
20ll $63,000 (per current employment contract)
The period of time in which he eamed in excess of $91,300.00 is relatively brief: January 1,2010 - when the husband had two sources of
income, his severance package and employment - to July 31st
Child support effective June 1, 2010 would be $807 per month based on income of $91,225. ((((
The law includes Severance Pay in Income for Child Support Guidelines and case law...$143,000.00+ line 150 on his 2009 tax return)))))
This manner of calculating child support is the usual approach
39. Order to go varying the table amount of child support to $807 per month commencing June lst 20l0, based on 2009 income of $91,225.
I would not have been surprised were Mr. McKinnon to agree to her budget as he is not opposed to contributing to Nathan's expenses, rather to the barrage of fault, blame and accusations that accompany such requests'........She was unable to tell me the amount sought. Once again, the claim appeared to be a vehicle for denunciation of her former spouse, rather than a remedy of enforcing the payment of certain expenses
46- Order to go that the respondent father shall contribute 45% of the after tax costs of, any section 7 expenses.
First, that Mrs. McKinnon ought to be imputed with an amount of income as she has an obligation within the Divorce Actand the Separation Agreement to take steps to be self sufficient, and the ability to do so.
Although not well articulated by the parties, the wife in her pleading asks for an increase in spousal support as a result of the receipt of the severance package ((((case law and Severance is to be included))))
a variation of spousal is far more discretionary and flexible
If I take the same approach as that set out in the Agreement, and adjusting for the relevant time periods, the average income over the period of time from the signing of the agreement to the review period remains in the range of $92,000. In calculating this, I have used the three income figures of $91,225, $115,451 and $63,000 as set out in
paragraph 24 above.
Mrs. McKinnon appears to have overinvested herself in her son's life, perhaps out of a sense of obligation and guilt, perhaps out of necessity, but with the certainty that it shields her from moving forward in her own life.
In doing so she is modeling dependency, bitterness and
rigidity. Encouraging self sufficiency is not only a statutory requirement in the Divorce Act; it is also a moral imperative and essential component of responsible parenthood.
I have considered the applicable ranges with table child support as ordered within these reasons, and as projected to commence June 2011. This presents a difficult scenario for the father
He seeks the amount of $18,100 in costs. He was represented by counsel through most of this proceeding, up until the time of trial. This trial was three full days. I grant the amount of $6,500, as apartial recovery. Costs are payable forthwith.
Need I go on???
