J. F.L.D. A.D. 1996 No. 299 J.C. R. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH (FAMILY LAW DIVISION) JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA BETWEEN: SUSANNE ARNDT APPLICANT (PETITIONER) and DOUGLAS DUNN RESPONDENT Anna M. Crugnale-Reid for the applicant (petitioner) Margot A. Dynna for the respondent JUDGMENT MALONE J. September 19, 1997 The only issue to be determined in this applicationis the amount of monthly maintenance to be paid by therespondent to the applicant as support for their child who wasborn on September 30, 1986. Both parties are medical practitioners and each enjoys significant income. The average income of the respondent over the past three years was approximately $180,000.00. In 1996, the applicant earned approximately $128,000.00, although she claims this was extra- ordinary because she received payment for projects completed during the previous two years. In addition to regular maintenance the applicantclaims pursuant to s. 7 of the Divorce Act Regulations,SOR/97-175 (the "Federal Child Support Guidelines"),additional maintenance to cover special or extra-ordinaryexpenses. These expenses are approximately $1,200.00 permonth to cover nanny and child care costs, approximately$125.00 per month for medication, $250.00 per month forrecreation and $200.00 per month for a university fund for thechild. In the present circumstances s. 4 of the guidelinesis applicable and it provides as follows: 4. Where the income of the spouse against whom child support order is sought is over $150,000, the amount of child support order is (a) the amount determined under s. 3; or (b) if the court considers that amount to be inappropriate, (i) in respect of the first $150,000 of the spouse's income, the amount set out in the applicable table for the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates; (ii) in respect of the balance of the spouse's income, the amount that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children who are entitled to support and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the children; and (iii) the amount, if any, determined under s. 7. In my opinion, and in the absence of any authority,the significant income enjoyed by the applicant is a factor tobe taken into consideration when determining the amount ofmaintenance to be paid by the respondent, particularly when Iam prepared to recognize a significant portion of theapplicant\'s claim for extra-ordinary expenses. Accordingly, order the respondent to pay maintenance on the basis of an annual income of $150,000.00, or the sum of $1,076.00 per month. With respect to the claims for special extra-ordinaryexpenses I am not satisfied the applicant has established thatthe claims for recreation and a university fund are expensesthat are "special" or "extra-ordinary". However, I amsatisfied that the claim for nanny and child care costs isjustified pursuant to s. 7(1)(a) of the guidelines and theclaim for medication is justified pursuant to s. 7(1)(c) ofthe guidelines. On the basis of their respective incomes, therespondent should be responsible for approximately 2/3 of theseexpenses which I calculate as follows:Nanny costs $1,200.00 x 12 $14,400.00Less income tax benefit availableto petitioner 3,000.00$11,400.002/3 x $11,400.00 = $7,600.00 ï¿½ 12 = $634.00Medication costs 2/3 $125.00 = 84.00$718.00. The parties agree that any order made shall beeffective as of May 1, 1997 and accordingly the monthlypayments to be made by the respondent from that date untilfurther order is $1,794.00. The respondent of course is entitled to the benefit of any monies already paid since May of this year. make no order as to costs.
The only issue was the amount of monthly maintenance to be paid by the respondent for the one child. The average income of the respondent over the past three years was approximately $180,000. The applicant claimed her 1996 income of $128,000 was extra-ordinary as payment was received for projects completed in the previous two years. The applicant claimed special monthly expenses of $1,200 to cover nanny and child care costs, $125 for medication, $25 for recreation and $200 for a university fund. HELD: 1)The respondent was to pay $1,794 per month. Section 4 of the guidelines was applicable. The significant income of the applicant is a factor to be taken into consideration. 2)The applicant did not establish that the claims for recreation and the university fund were expenses that were 'special' or 'extra-ordinary'. 3)The respondent was responsible for 2/3 of the nanny and child care costs which were justified pursuant to s7(1)(c) of the guidelines.