Johnston v. Johnston, (1997) 86 O.T.C. 18 (GDM)

• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: June 25, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 86 O.T.C. 18 (GDM)

Johnston v. Johnston (1997), 86 O.T.C. 18 (GDM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. JA.018

Marie Eliza Johnston (applicant/respondent by counterapplication) v. Leslie William Johnston (respondent/applicant by counterapplication)

(Court File No. 97-GD-40237)

Indexed As: Johnston v. Johnston

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Nolan, Master

July 4, 1997.

Summary:

A Support Deduction Order was issued against a father. The mother applied to vary the child support payable to her, asserting that the father should pay upwards to Guideline level and share in the son's post secondary education. The father applied to terminate his obligation to pay support for the son, asserting that the son was not a dependent. At issue was whether it was unconscionable under s. 28(3) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 to suspend the support deduction order. The son, who attended university, worked and took responsibility for paying many of his own school expenses. The son's yearly net income was approximately $14,000.

A Master of the Ontario Court (General Division) suspended the support deduction order and stayed the support provision of the decree nisi until further order of the court. It was unconscionable to require the father to make support payments through a support deduction order until the issue of ongoing entitlement of the son to support was finally determined.

Family Law - Topic 2526

Maintenance of wives and children - Enforcement - Orders - Termination or variation - See paragraphs 1 to 15.

Words and Phrases

Unconscionable - The Ontario Court (General Division) considered the meaning of the word "unconscionable" as found in s. 28(3) and s. 28(5) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, S.O. 1996, c. 31.

Statutes Noticed:

Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, S.O. 1996, c. 31, sect. 28(3), sect. 28(5) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Shirley Jackson, for the applicant;

Tamara Stomp, for the respondent.

This motion was heard at Windsor, Ontario, on June 25, 1997, by Nolan, Master, of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision on July 4, 1997.