Rioux v. Rioux,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Laskin, Juriansz and Epstein, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2009 ONCA 569
• Citation: (2009), 252 O.A.C. 126 (CA),2009 ONCA 569,97 OR (3d) 102,66 RFL (6th) 256,[2009] CarswellOnt 4077,[2009] OJ No 2949 (QL),252 OAC 126,[2009] O.J. No 2949 (QL),252 O.A.C. 126,(2009), 252 OAC 126 (CA),97 O.R. (3d) 102
• Date: 09 April 2009
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Rioux v. Rioux (2009), 252 O.A.C. 126 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.066

Jayne Rioux (appellant) v. Jacques Rioux (respondent)

(C47727; 2009 ONCA 569)

Indexed As: Rioux v. Rioux

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Juriansz and Epstein, JJ.A.

July 14, 2009.

Summary:

A divorced wife sought ongoing spousal support from her former husband and sought to have him pay additional s. 7 expenses under the Child Support Guidelines for their daughter's post-secondary education.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Nadeau, J.), ordered the husband to pay guideline child support and a lump sum of $100,000 to cover all retroactive child support, including s. 7 post-secondary education expenses, retroactive spousal support, etc. The wife appealed, seeking to have the husband share the education expenses proportionate to his income and pay ongoing spousal support.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court ordered ongoing spousal support of $1,500 per month for five years, which would thereafter be subject to review by either party. The court refused to disturb the trial judge's ruling respecting the education expenses.

Family Law - Topic 4010

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - Periodic payments - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.4 ].

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Awards - To spouse - Extent of obligation - [See Family Law - Topic 4045.4 ].

Family Law - Topic 4045.4

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Child support guidelines (incl. nondivorce cases) - Special or extraordinary expenses (incl. calculation of amount) - A couple separated in 2005 after a 21 year traditional marriage - They had one child, then aged 19, who was about to start university - Following separation, the husband, who was earning $103,984, paid no spousal support and did not contribute to the child's education expenses - The wife who earned $26,208, with family assistance, paid the child's education expenses totalling $16,800 for the 2005-2006 academic year - The wife commenced legal proceedings - The husband failed to comply with court orders for interim support - The trial judge ordered the husband to pay guideline child support and a lump sum of $100,000 to cover all retroactive child support, including s. 7 post-secondary education expenses, retroactive spousal support, etc. - The wife appealed, seeking to have the husband share the education expenses proportionate to his income and pay ongoing spousal support - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that it was unclear as to whether the trial judge's decision provided the wife with ongoing spousal support - The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and ordered ongoing spousal support of $1,500 per month for five years, which would thereafter be subject to review by either party - The court stated that an order of that nature complied with the spousal support objective of recognizing the wife's economic disadvantage caused by the marriage breakdown while also encouraging her to become self-sufficient - The court held that the trial judge's treatment of the s. 7 special expenses was entitled to deference and saw no reason to interfere.

Cases Noticed:

Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 33].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 36].

Fisher v. Fisher (2008), 232 O.A.C. 213; 88 O.R.(3d) 241; 2008 ONCA 11, refd to. [para. 43].

Counsel:

Susan T. McGrath, for the appellant;

Jacques Rioux, in person.

This appeal was heard on April 9, 2009, before Laskin, Juriansz and Epstein, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Epstein, J.A., on July 14, 2009.