2013 ONSC 6067, 2013 ONSC 6067

CITATION : Natalia Dvoryadkina v. Constantin Badalov aka Contant Blessings, 2013 ONSC 6067 ST. CATHARINES COURT FILE NO.: 321/11 DATE: 2013/09/27 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Natalia Dvoryadkina Applicant Constantin Badalov aka Constant Blessings Respondent )))))))))))))) Roseanne Trivieri for the Applicant C. Blessings, In Person ) ) HEARD: September 16, 2013 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT C orrected Decision [September 27, 2013: Paragraph 30 has been added. Paragraph 27, the reference to “spousal” support was replaced by “child” support.

The plaintiff’s surname listed in the citation is now one word not two.] [ 1 ] This matter has been before the court on several occasions. [ 2 ] On September 23, 2011, Mr. Justice Sloan of this court made the following orders: 1. The Respondent shall provide all relevant financial records to Ontario Works; 2.

The Applicant shall have custody of the child David Badalov, born September 22, 2005, with reasonable access to the Respondent on reasonable notice. [ 3 ] A settlement conference was held before Justice Ramsay on August 9, 2012. [ 4 ] A temporary order was made by myself on January 12, 2013, I ordered the following: 1. After imputing an income on the basis of a minimum wage of $21,320, I ordered him to pay child support in the amount of $171.00 per month for his son, David Badalov, commencing February 15, 2013. 2.

The order of Justice Sloan to remain in full force. [ 5 ] Justice Mazza, on April 18, 2013, found the Respondent in contempt of the temporary order made by myself on February 12, 2013. He also found the Respondent in contempt of the temporary of Justice Scott dated March 7, 2013. [ 6 ] Ms. Wendy Johnson of Ontario Works was called by the Applicant. She gave evidence that the Respondent did not provide sufficient evidence that would indicate that he was looking for employment, nor did he provide medical evidence that he was not able to work because of illness.

He stated that he did not provide the medical evidence because it was personal. [ 7 ] Mr. Blessings filed the following documents of a financial nature. They are: 1. Income Tax return for 2011, showing income of some $220.03;

2. Income Tax return for 2012, showing income of some $336.27; 3. A financial statement, which was not sworn, although it was served on the Applicant on June 6, 2013. 4. Updated financial statement, sworn June 4, 2013. In that he states that his last year’s income was $336.27. He lists his debt at$116,052.26, although there are no supporting documents filed. [8] Mr. Blessing states that he was looking for work in the last three years but that there was nothing suitable for him. There wasno documentation as to the places that he was looking for employment. [9] Mr.

Blessings also had three rental properties, which he has now sold. [10] His girlfriend, Caroline Sodhi, with whom he had a 15 month relationship, was called as a witness for the Applicant. She isemployed by Industry Canada as a technical advisor. She went into some of the finances of the Respondent. [11] In June 4-5, 2012, she stated that Mr. Blessings asked her to hold some money in trust for him in the amount of $11,000consisting of two deposits being $9,500 and $1,500 (see Tab 16 of Document Brief). Mr. Blessing, according to her, was vague about thereason he wanted her to hold the money.

She stated later that some of his creditors were after him. [12] She stated that the two of them went on trips together. She named Charlotte, North Carolina and trips to Toronto for businessreasons. There was no dollar amount as to the cost of the trips or who paid. [13] He told Ms. Sodhi that he did not have to pay child support because he was a student. It appears that he was taking acorrespondence course with a religious group in the USA. [14] Mr. Blessings conducted a very short cross-examination of Ms. Sodhi which, in my opinion, did not assist him in his case. [15] Mr.

Blessings was on social assistance for a short period of time, as shown in Tab 2 of the Document Brief. He received atotal of $705.70 for the period of May and June of this year. [16] At Tab 10 of the Document Brief, there is the Qualifications Highlights of Constantin Blessings. It lists his skill areas, whichif true, is quite impressive. It also lists his education in Russia. He lists his previous employment history. [17] It states that he was working at All Communications Network from 2011 until the present.

He states that he was laid off.There is no evidence either documentary or by a witness that that was the case. [18] As stated earlier, there is no evidence as to the number of places that he has looked for employment. [19] Mr. Blessings in his examination-in-chief argued that if any federal or provincial law is in conflict with God’s law then thecourt must follow God’s law and not the law of Parliament or the Legislature. [20] He stated that since his wife left him for another man that she was not entitled to spousal or child support.

He gave noauthority for that statement other than hold the Bible up. [21] This argument was dealt with in Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571 , [2013] 3 W.W.R. 419 at paragraph 374: The inherent jurisdiction of Canada’s superior courts defeats almost all OPCA pseudo legal strategies. No person can claim to be outsidecourt authority because they are subject to no court or law, or a restricted kind of law. No ‘magic hat’ can ever create an exemption fromcourt supervision.

All these arguments are defective and fail as a consequence. [22] The Applicant is asking that the court impute income to the Respondent as he has failed to show that he has tried to get a joband has stayed unemployed. He has stated that he is not compellable to make child support payments, because she has broken God’sLaw. That position is rejected for reasons stated in the Mead decision. [23] David Badalov, who was born on September 22, 2005, is now in the custody of the Applicant pursuant to the decision ofJustice Sloan.

She is asking for child support and also s.7 support as stated in the Federal Child Support Guidelines. [24] David Badalov is now eight years old. He is fluent in English, Russian, Spanish and is learning French. He also is an activetennis and squash player. His mother is asking for contributions from the father for these activities. [25] I find that Mr. Blessings is still in contempt of my order of February 12, 2013 and that of Justice Scott dated March 7, 2013.He has failed to establish that he has attempted to get employment. [26] He has failed to show that he has tried to get employment and has failed.

Therefore, s. 19 of the Federal Child SupportGuidelines will be followed. It reads as follows: 19

(1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstancesinclude the following: (

a) The spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is requiredby the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the

spouse; [ 27 ] I, after reviewing the evidence, find that Mr. Blessings wilfully is not looking for employment although he has the skills to get employment. He is relying on his religious beliefs that he can avoid making those payments. I impute his income at the level of $30,000.00. Thus, he will make child support payments of $245 a month starting on October 1, 2013. My order of January 12, 2013 remains in force until October 1, 2013. [ 28 ] With respect to the s.7, special expenses, the Applicant is seeking payments for the language lessons and the tennis and squash costs.

I feel, under the circumstances, that only the language lessons should be partially paid by the Respondent. I assess that at $50.00 a month. That payment will also start on October 1 2013. [ 29 ] I will receive costs submissions in writing on the following schedule. The Applicant shall by October 15, 2013 serve and file her costs submission, not to exceed 10 pages, the Respondent will file his submissions by October 22, 2013, also not to exceed 10 pages. The Applicant may reply within 7 days with no more than 5 pages. [ 30 ] Support deduction order to issue. Matheson, J.

Released: September 27, 2013 CITATION : Natalia Dvoryadkina v. Constantin Badalov aka Constant Blessings 2013 ONSC 6067 COURT FILE NO.: 321/11 DATE: 2013/09/27

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Natalia Dvoryadkina Applicant – and – Constantin Badalov aka Constant Blessings Respondent Reasons for judgment Matheson, J. Released: September 27, 2013