Gandy v. Gandy, 2016 NSSC 44

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Gandy v. Gandy , 2016 NSSC 44 Date: 20160205 Docket: STMCA 044413 Registry: Truro Between: Alan Clarke Gandy Applicant v. Kimberley Dawn Gandy Respondent Supplementary Decision Judge: The Honourable Justice Gerald R.P. Moir Heard: September 9, 2015, in Truro, Nova Scotia Final Written Submissions: December 30, 2015 Counsel: Lloyd I. Berliner, for the Applicant Tammy C. MacKenzie, for the Respondent Moir J.: [ 1 ] The parties require clarification of my decision dated October 23, 2015. [ 2 ] The ages of Ruth and Sara are incorrectly stated at para. 9.

They are 21 and 19. [ 3 ] The second line of para. 47 should refer to Ms. Sara Gandy, not Ms. Grace Gandy. [ 4 ] Para. 18 of the decision reads: Neither Ruth nor Sara complied with the requirements for statements of accounts from their universities or filing income tax returns. Dr. Gandy paid the expenses. He was able to claim the transferred tuition tax credit. He did not pay Sara's expenses for her last semester. Ms. Gandy said she paid $6,800 towards these expenses. Ms. Gandy also says she paid $5,600 in university expenses for Ms. Ruth Gandy, and Ms.

Gandy sough reimbursement for both. [ 5 ] As I wrote at para. 8: Those of Dr. Gandy's children who wanted him to pay for university had to provide him with statements of account from the university, file an income tax return, and transfer the deduction to Dr. Gandy. Otherwise, he was entitled to make reductions in the reimbursement for university expenses. [ 6 ] One of Dr. Gandy’s reasons for suspending child support payments was “the failure of Ruth and Sara to deliver accounts and file returns” (para. 19). “Dr.

Gandy was justified in suspending payments…” (para. 31). [ 7 ] The order of March 29, 2012, required Ruth and Sara Gandy to provide to Dr. Gandy account statements from their universities and for reduction in child support if they failed to do so (para. 5 for Ruth and para. 9 for Sara). Similar conditions were included for filing tax returns and allocating credits (paras. 4, 10, and 11). These provisions were ignored, and Dr. Gandy became frustrated. [ 8 ] The order should have been complied with. After putting up with non-compliance for some years, Dr.

Gandy was justified in refusing to cover some university expenses. In those circumstances, I would not order Dr. Gandy to reimburse Ms. Gandy for expenses she covered on account of the children’s dereliction.

Moir, J.