Arsenault v. Arsenault, (1998) 59 O.T.C. 232 (GD)

• Judge: Wood, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 25, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 59 O.T.C. 232 (GD)

Arsenault v. Arsenault (1998), 59 O.T.C. 232 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. AP.076

Tiziana Arsenault (applicant) v. Gary J. Arsenault (respondent)

(File No. D0352-96)

Indexed As: Arsenault v. Arsenault

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Family Court Branch

Wood, J.

April 3, 1998.

Summary:

A separation agreement, registered with the Family Responsibility Officer for enforcement, obligated the father to pay $1,800 per month child and spousal support. The father was a computer consultant, working primarily for a hospital under a permanent contract with his numbered company, which was paid regularly by the hospital. The father's company paid him irregularly, frustrating the enforcement provisions of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act (i.e., automatic deduction of support at the income source). The mother applied to vary the separation agreement.

The Ontario Court (General Division), Family Court Branch, held that circumstances permitted a lifting of the corporate veil. The court stated that where "the income source as defined in the Act is no more than the alter ego of the payor and has no function other than as a vehicle through which funds owing to the payor are channelled, it is appropriate to look through that entity to determine the relationship between the real income source [hospital, not numbered company] and the payor [father]". The court ordered, inter alia, that for the purpose of payment under notices of support deduction orders under the Act, the income source for the father was deemed to be the hospital or any other entity owing funds to the father or his numbered company.

Company Law - Topic 311

Nature of corporations - Lifting the corporate veil - One person company - See paragraphs 1 to 30.

Family Law - Topic 2524

Maintenance of wives and children - Enforcement - Orders - Garnishment - See paragraphs 1 to 30.

Cases Noticed:

Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 21].

Kosmopoulos et al. v. Constitution Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (1987), 74 N.R. 360; 21 O.A.C. 4; 34 D.L.R.(4th) 208 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 1].

Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canada Life Assurance Co. et al. (1996), 2 O.T.C. 146; 28 O.R.(3d) 423 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 2].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Brunel Construction 2000 Ltd. et al. (1997), 41 O.T.C. 1 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 3].

Clarkson Co. v. Zhelka, [1967] 2 O.R. 565 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 3].

Lockharts Ltd. v. Excalibur Holdings Ltd. and Baron Developments Ltd. (1987), 83 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 210 A.P.R. 181 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 3].

Baltimore Aircoil of Canada Inc. v. Process Cooling Systems Inc. (1993), 16 O.R.(3d) 324 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 3].

B.B.M. v. W.W.M. (1994), 156 A.R. 392; 7 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Bregman v. Bregman (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 722 (H.C.J.), affd. (1979), 25 O.R.(2d) 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Crowe v. Crowe, [1985] O.C.P. 110 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 24].

Hildebrandt v. Hildebrandt (1991), 94 Sask.R. 215; 34 R.F.L.(3d) 373 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 4].

Hewitt v. Hewitt (1996), 13 O.T.C. 124 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 4].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, S.O. 1996, c. 31, sect. 1(1), sect. 1(2), sect. 22(1) [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gower, Modern Company Law (4th Ed. 1979), p. 138 [para. 22, footnote 1].

Counsel:

J. Bailey, for the applicant;

Respondent appeared on his own behalf.

This application was heard on February 25, 1998, before Wood, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), Family Court Branch, who released the following judgment on April 3, 1998.