2013 ONSC 6543, 2013 ONSC 6543

CITATION : Mwanri v. Mwanri, 2013 ONSC 6543 ORANGEVILLE COURT FILE NO.: 142/2010 DATE: 20131023 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEE N: ) ) IRENE ELIAS MWANRI ) ) ) Shirley R .W. Griffin, for the Applicant ) Applicant ) ) - and - ) ) ) ERNEST JOSIAH MWANRI ) ) ) Edward M. Otto, for the Respondent ) Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) HEARD in Orangeville: June 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and August 16, ,2013 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Seppi, J. [ 1 ] The Applicant, Irene Elias Mwanri, and Respondent, Ernest Josiah Mwanri, were married on March 9, 1996 in Tanzania.

They have two children: 17-year-old Anold born April 16, 1996, and 12-year-old Alice born December 12, 2000. The couple immigrated to Canada in 1999 when Anold was 3. Alice was born in Canada. [ 2 ] The parties separated in 2009. The precise date of separation is in dispute. The Applicant claims it was in February, 2009 after she and the children went to Tanzania, upon arrangements initiated by the Respondent. The Respondent claimed it was in September 2009, after the Applicant and children returned to Canada from Tanzania.

During and after the trial evidence he revised his position and now claims the date of separation was in August 2009, when he went to Tanzania and was met with resistance from the applicant, who did not come to meet him at the airport.

[ 3 ] The custody and access issues were resolved on a final basis by Minutes of Settlement, incorporated into an order dated December 10, 2010 with the assistance of counsel of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. It is obvious from the terms of that order, which mandated the parties’ communication to be “only by text message,” that the conflict between the parties remained at a very high level. The order granted sole custody of Alice to the Applicant mother and of Anold to the Respondent father.

There were numerous additional court orders as the financial and disclosure issues between the parties continued to be contentious. [ 4 ] The issues on this trial are: 1. The determination of the parties’ date of separation; 2. Equalization of the parties’ net family properties; and 3. Child and spousal support, for which both parties seek to impute additional income. Chronology of Proceedings [ 5 ] Before these proceedings the issues of custody and support were before the Ontario Court of Justice (O.C.J.) in an application commenced on September 10, 2009 by the Applicant.

The application for this trial in the Superior Court of Justice was commenced by her on August 25, 2010 to include a determination of the property issues. The Respondent in his Answer, dated October 13, 2010, claims a divorce.

The following are interim orders in this court which relate to the support issues: • November 22, 2010 – Order requiring the Respondent to pay the Applicant child support of $652 for one child based on 2009 income of $70,687 for the Respondent, and $2,108 for the Applicant; • January 10, 2011 – Order requiring the Respondent to pay $500 per month spousal support beginning January 1, 2011 to be revisited April 18, 2011, plus costs of $400; • September 19, 2011 – Order requiring spousal support of $500 per month to the Applicant to continue until August 1, 2012, at which time it would cease unless the Applicant brings a motion to have it continue; • A motion for spousal support to continue was scheduled for October 1, 2012 but adjourned on consent to February 4, 2013; • February 17, 2013 – Order that the motion proceed to a Trial Management Conference on April 5, 2013; adjourning the motion for spousal support, with three other interim motions, without a fixed date; and directing there be no further motions until that date; • April 5, 2013 – Leave granted at the Trial Management Conference for the Applicant to return her spousal support motion before trial; • April 15, 2013 –Applicant’s return of her motion for spousal support to continue.

On the same day the Respondent served her with a motion to grant him child support for the one child, and requesting the court impute an income of $40,000 to the Applicant, necessitating a brief adjournment for the Applicant to file materials in response; • On April 22, 2013 the court dismissed the motion for interim spousal support stating there was no medical evidence to support the Applicant’s claim she is medically unable to work more than three 6-hour shifts per week, stating that such evidence “will be needed for the trial which is shortly to be heard”; • On April 22, 2013 the court also declined to impute $40,000 income to the Applicant on what the justice called “such a sparse record”.

The court then adjourned that motion sine die to be brought back after the trial decision is released, or by such further order of the court. [ 6 ] The issues of support and imputing income were before this court at trial. Thus the final decision on support will be made on the trial evidence. No further support motions will be required, subject to rights which may arise in the future upon a material change of circumstances.

Separation [ 7 ] The Applicant’s evidence that the Respondent told her the marriage was over after she had gone to Tanzania with the children in January 2009 is credible and accepted regarding the date of separation. After marital issues arose between them, it was the Respondent’s plan to send the children away to boarding school without their mother. She insisted on accompanying them as she was appropriately sensitive to their age and circumstances. Alice was only 8 years old at the time.

Being sent to Tanzania into the unfamiliar environment of a boarding school in a foreign jurisdiction without a parent would have been difficult for her. Anold, at age 13, also needed a parent close by.

After discussing the matter, with the assistance of family and friends as mediators, it was agreed the Applicant would go with the children. [ 8 ] The Applicant believes it was the Respondent’s plan to gain custody and control of the children by sending them away to Tanzania which, as Pugsley J. of the O.C.J. found in September 2009, is a country in which children are by law considered the “property” of the father. The plan for the children to be sent away was imposed on the Applicant simultaneous with his accusations of infidelity against her.

The evidence as a whole supports the Applicant’s contention that she left Canada to be with the children, and the plan for the children to live in Tanzania was orchestrated by the Respondent as part of his separation strategy.

[ 9 ] The Respondent’s contention that the separation was in September 2009, or August 2009, is rejected. He claims that the fact he bought a spousal RRSP on March 2, 2009, gave the Applicant and children money for their support in Tanzania, and shipped the Applicant’s car there shows they were an intact family at the time. On the evidence as a whole, however, his actions after the Applicant left in January 2009 support a clear intention on his part to separate from the Applicant. Whatever modest support he provided to the Applicant and children in Tanzania was necessitated by their needs.

His obligation of support to his family did not end because of the separation. He was aware of that obligation, and it was reasonable for him to provide some financial assistance to them despite the separation. [ 10 ] The parties tried mediation to effect resolution of the marital issues. The mediation was not successful. This was before the Applicant and children were sent to Tanzania in January 2009 when the separation was imminent. [ 11 ] The Respondent listed the matrimonial home for sale after the Applicant left.

He secured her agreement to the sale by his promise that the net proceeds would be invested for a future home when she returned after one year. However very soon after she had arrived in Tanzania, at the beginning of February 2009, he informed her of the separation. The Applicant had no options at that time but to accept his direction in that effect.

Clearly there was no reasonable prospect of their continued cohabitation after he had made up his mind on the matter and informed her that the marriage was over. [ 12 ] Contrary to his promise to the Applicant, the Respondent did not invest the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home to buy another home. He maintained controlled of the proceeds. He made unilateral decisions regarding expenditures of funds.

The applicant does not deny signing a listing agreement before leaving for Tanzania and providing a power of attorney to the Respondent for purposes of the sale, but she is clear and adamant on the point that the money was to be invested for the two of them for a future home and that after the Respondent notified her of the separation she expected half of the money to have been invested on her behalf. [ 13 ] The events in August 2009, when the Respondent went to visit Tanzania, also support the conclusion the parties were separated and apart before that time, with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The Applicant refused to attend or bring the children to the airport to meet the Respondent on his arrival. She sought, but did not obtain, assurances that he would not abduct them. Thus she kept the children from going away with him. He, in turn, sought and obtained an ex parte custody order with notice of the proceeding being given to the Applicant by newspaper advertisement.

By the time that order was made the Applicant, who was apprehensive of the Respondent’s intentions to keep the children away from her in Tanzania, returned to Canada with the children via Kenya and immediately on her return she brought her O.C.J. application, as referenced above. [ 14 ] It is obvious the parties were separated upon the Respondent notifying the Applicant of the separation, and her implicit acceptance of that decision, which occurred at the beginning of February 2009. Her actions towards him in August 2009 support that conclusion.

Based on the evidence of all the circumstances in 2009, I find the separation occurred in February 2009 when the parties were living separate and apart and there was no reasonable prospect of them resuming cohabitation. [ 15 ] The valuation date for purposes of calculating the net family property (V-day) is therefore set as February 1, 2009. Equalization of Net Family Property [ 16 ] Cogent evidence that would assist the court in accurately calculating the value of the parties’ net family properties has not been presented in this case.

There was much confusing evidence from both parties regarding the existence, maintenance and ownership of property in Tanzania before and during marriage, and upon the date of separation. The best evidence of V-day values of that property is as contained in the valuation report filed at trial. There is no valuation report regarding the value of properties held by the Respondent in Tanzania on the date of marriage. [ 17 ] Statement of accounts and other assets held by the parties as of V-Day have also not been presented in an organized manner. There is an assortment of statements in evidence not focused on V-day.

Thus, the calculation of the parties’ net family properties cannot be precise. It is done as closely as possible based on the incomplete evidence received. [ 18 ] The Respondent deposited $10,000 in a spousal RRSP account for the Applicant on March 2, 2009, to gain a tax advantage for himself. He also later placed $5,000 in a tax free savings account in the Applicant’s name. Both of these deposits were after the date of separation. The money he borrowed for the RRSP transaction was repaid from the house proceeds he received in July 2009.

The $10,000 RRSP in the Applicant’s name and the $5,000 tax free bank account, which became her property, are thus amounts received by her as credit from the matrimonial home sale proceeds. Pending trial, the Applicant also received $7,500 and $20,000 as partial distribution from those proceeds. [ 19 ] Money the Respondent sent to the Applicant or paid on her behalf when she and the children were in Tanzania is in lieu of support payable from his income resources. It is not part of the property division, as claimed by the Respondent. These amounts are therefore not credited for purposes of the equalization.

Retroactive support is not ordered for 2009, as I have taken into account the fact that the Respondent contributed from his income to the support of the Applicant and children post-separation when they were in Tanzania. The Respondent is also not entitled to receive reimbursement or credit for monies he spent for travel to Tanzania and various other incidental expenses he has claimed to be credited as payments to the Applicant. [ 20 ] The children’s bank accounts are not included in the parties’ net family property, and both agree these funds are the children’s savings for their education.

Funds sent to Tanzania were depleted before separation, as were numerous other expenses incurred by the parties before separation. These are not included for property equalization. Such monies and expenditures are not part of either parties’ net family property, nor is either party entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred during the parties’ cohabitation. [ 21 ] The Respondent owned property in Tanzania before marriage. In the absence of a proper valuation, I have allocated a deduction for value based on evidence from both parties about the existence of those properties at the date of marriage.

The properties have increased in value during the marriage as a result of improvements and renovations, directed by both parties. Some of the

improvements were contributed to by the Applicant. The property value increase during marriage is accounted for in the equalization of the parties’ net family properties. This allows for recognition of the increase in value during marriage. Half of the increase accrues to the Applicant in the equalization process.

In all these circumstances there is no basis for an adjustment for unjust enrichment claimed by the Applicant wife. [ 22 ] Values of the date of marriage assets owned by the husband are estimated, based on evidence of improvements made to the properties and a modest inflationary increase during marriage. No evidence was received to support the values of pre-marriage bank accounts or pension for the Respondent, which he has also claimed as a date of marriage deduction.

Based on the Respondent’s evidence regarding his years of employment before marriage, a recognition of such savings is included in the total amount of $6,000. The value of the vehicle, which he owned on the date of marriage, is reasonably allowed at $3,500. [ 23 ] In calculating the parties’ net family properties the entire net proceeds from the matrimonial homes sale are shown in the Respondent’s column, having regard to the fact that he received those proceeds and had sole control of them post-separation. Adjustments are made for monies received by the Applicant from the proceeds after V-day.

No adjustment is made for personal property owned on V-day, such as furniture, cars, and household contents, which were divided in specie. [ 24 ] The following is the Net Family Property Calculation: Assets Applicant Wife Respondent Husband Matrimonial Home Net Proceeds of Sale, after payment of mortgage, real estate commission and legal costs $128,102 Property in Tanzania CAD $65,283 Pensions: RRSPs Private $3,356 $7,300 $4,010 $55,636 TOTAL ASSET VALUES $10,656 $253,031 Deductions as of date of Marriage Property in Tanzania $45,000 Car $3,500 Savings Accounts/Pension $6,000 TOTAL DEDUCTION $54,500 Net Family Property TOTAL $10,656 $198,531 Equalization Calculation: $198,531 - $10,656 = $187,875 divided by 2 = $93,937.50 to the Applicant.

Post V-day Adjustments: Applicant received: $10,000 $5,000 $7,500 $20,000 Spousal RRSP Tax free savings distribution, October, 2010 distribution, February 2011 Total: $42,500 Equalization still owing to applicant: $93,937.50 - $42,500 = $51,437.50 Support Issues [ 25 ] It is the position of the Respondent that a $40,000 per annum income ought to be imputed to the Applicant for the purpose of

calculating the set-off of the child support, and as a basis for denying the Applicant spousal support. [ 26 ] The Applicant’s position is that she was required to terminate her position as a Personal Support Worker (PSW), when she was earning almost $40,000 per annum in January 2009, as she needed to go to Tanzania where the children were being sent by the Respondent.

At the time she wrote a letter of resignation to her employer with the concurrence of her husband, noting her intention to reapply after return to Canada which she expected to be a year later. [ 27 ] Despite this, the Applicant has not been able to return to the same level of employment she had when she left. She submits that since her return she has been unable to find comparable employment because:

a) employers to whom she applied were demanding a two- year PSW diploma, and hers was just a six-month diploma; and,

b) over time her health issues have interfered with her ability to work a full time

schedule as a PSW. She points to the fact that she took a Community Service worker (CSW) course in the hope of moving into a field where the physical demands are not as challenging as in PSW jobs. The evidence supports the existence of these obstacles and genuine efforts on the part of the Applicant to maximize her level of income. [ 28 ] The Respondent disputes the evidence of the lack of opportunities as a PSW. He submits the Applicant is intentionally under- employed, and if the PSW work is physically too demanding, she should pursue employment as an assistant mortgage agent.

He also takes the position that her health issues are not genuine and have been raised just before trial as a tactic by the Applicant to establish her entitlement to spousal support. [ 29 ] I accept the evidence of both parties that the Applicant was employed during most of the time the parties lived in Canada before separation, from 1999 to 2009. It appears she took some time off after the birth of the child, Alice.

I also accept that both parents were involved in raising the children during the marriage. [ 30 ] However, there were differences in how each parent adjusted work responsibilities to accommodate the caregiving needs of the children. The Applicant accommodated her work

schedule and job opportunities around the needs of the children while the Respondent, who was the higher income-earner, followed a steady and uninterrupted path of employment progress in his field. For example, the Applicant, with concurrence of the Respondent, took a job limited to evening hours instead of pursuing advancement in her field so the children would have the benefit of one parent at home during most of the day. She was off on maternity leave after Alice was born.

In order to be with the children she had to leave her employment when the Respondent decided the children should go to boarding school in Tanzania for one year. [ 31 ] The Respondent, on the other hand, has had steady uninterrupted full-time employment throughout the marriage and following separation. In the years 2009 to 2012 his income has increased from about $70,687 to $77,576 per annum. [ 32 ] The Applicant, after returning from Tanzania in September 2009, has never been able to even approximate the $39,323 she earned in 2008 before she left, despite her efforts in that regard.

Her deteriorating health has clearly interfered with her efforts. She was diagnosed with Lupus in 2012, which is debilitating and affecting her lungs. The effect of this serious medical condition was patently obvious during the trial. It is also supported by evidence from her doctor. Her income in 2012 was only $10,707 of which $4,500 was from interim spousal support, and $290 from an RRSP. [ 33 ] The Applicant is not one to be intentionally under-employed. She has a history of diligence and hard work. She has a college degree obtained in Tanzania.

She also has a PSW diploma, a certificate of completion from a mortgage agent course, and a CSW diploma. All of these were achieved during the marriage, the latest after separation. Ms. Mwrani testified she did not have any interest or aptitude in the mortgage agency work but took the course to appease her husband. This is supported by her evidence of the only work related to that diploma being one mortgage transaction years ago, with a friend of her husband, done with his assistance.

There is no realistic prospect of her finding employment as a mortgage agent. [ 34 ] As is clear from Exhibit 18, an email dated July 2007 the Applicant sent to her sister when she was on maternity leave, she was under pressure from the Respondent throughout the marriage to contribute more financially, even where an infant at home required her care. This was in conflict with her reasonable desire and need to spend more time with the children. The Respondent filed that email at trial, suggesting it was proof of her intentional under-employment.

In the email, which was written when their youngest child was a 7 month old baby, she details the money she received while on maternity leave as fulfilling the pressure for her to be out and working. It does not support a finding of a lack of effort on her part. It shows she does what she can, in the circumstances, to contribute to the family finances. She states that collecting the money, … helps [her] because it makes the one not to harass me otherwise. I would have been kicked out to go and look for a job.

Even though every day he tells me to prepare my CV well so that I can look for a job but I thought of leaving Alice and the responsibility of taking her to the daycare that Tuesday which I will receive half of it will be spent at school and he, as it his custom, does not pay even a cent as was the case when I was paying for Ano. [ 35 ] During this trial the Respondent emphasized the need for the Applicant to work full time and earn more money for the best interests of the children. He stressed that money is tight. The Respondent highlighted the fact that he will have university expenses for Anold in the future.

It is true he has to provide a home for Anold who is in his custody, but Anold is not in university at this time. He complains Ms. Mwanri does not help with support for Anold. He believes the child support calculation as a set-off in the split custody situation should impute an income of $40,000 to the Applicant on the basis that she is intentionally under-employed.

[36] The applicable provision regarding this issue in the Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97, (Family Law Act) is s.19(1)(a)which states: 19. IMPUTING INCOME –

(1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in thecircumstances, which circumstances include the following: The spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required bythe 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. [37] The Court of Appeal in Drygala v Pauli (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731, 61 O.R. (3d) 711, 29 R.F.L. (5th)293 (Ont. C.A.) provides guidance on the

interpretation of intentionally under-employed, noting that “intentionally” means a voluntaryact of a parent who “chooses” to earn less than he or she is capable of earning. There is no requirement that there be an intent to evadechild support.

A parent cannot avoid or reduce his or her child support obligation by a self-induced reduction of income. [38] If a court finds there is an intentional under-employment on the part of a parent, and it is appropriate to impute income, thecourt must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances, including the age, education, experience, skills and health of the parent, aswell as job opportunities, expected remuneration, and the number of hours that the parent can work in the context of the parent’s otherobligations, including childcare. [39] When the Respondent was not rehired as a PSW upon her return to Canada in September 2009, she found that her six monthPSW certificate left her at a mere entry level in the field.

She secured a relief position in 2010 but was limited by not taking eveninghours, as she needed to be home for her young daughter who was in her sole care in the evenings. When her health and strength began todeteriorate she made a reasonable decision to take a course and obtain accreditation as a CSW, which would involve more sedentarytasks. She has not been able to secure employment as a CSW despite her efforts.

Clearly her efforts to improve her employment andincome situation have been affected by deteriorating health, which is now a prevailing, obvious limitation for her. [40] The Applicant’s health issues began with pain in her joints, even before the separation, with the diagnosis of Reynoid’sPhenomena. It progressed to Rheumatoid Arthritis and hospitalization in July 2012. Further testing led to the Lupus diagnosis asexplained by her physician at trial. [41] On balance, therefore, based on all the evidence I find the Applicant is not intentionally under-employed.

Her ability to earnincome was limited during marriage due to child care responsibilities. It was significantly impaired as soon as the Respondent made thechildren leave the country. She, as a responsible parent had no alternative but to leave Canada with them, thereby losing her job securityas a PSW and future income potential. Even if her failure to secure full-time employment were held to be intentional under-employment,which it is not, I find such under-employment is required by her reasonable health needs, which prevent her from working full-time.

Herdoctor has indicated she can work only six hours per day, three days a week, having regard to her weakened medical condition. [42] The Applicant is therefore entitled to and in need of spousal support. The Respondent has the ability to help the Applicant inher circumstances with financial support.

The Respondent’s obligations of support to the children including Anold who lives with himare taken into consideration in fixing the quantum of spousal support at the lower end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines(SAAG). [43] The Applicant submits the Respondent earns undisclosed income from Real Estate Transactions and estimates this to be asmuch as $24,000 per annum, thereby giving him an imputed income of about $101,500 per annum. She also submits he receives rentalincome from Tanzania.

However, there is no reliable evidence regarding this alleged additional income and thus it is not imputed to theRespondent for purposes of the support calculation. [44] Spousal support payable from the Respondent to the Applicant is fixed at $1,000.00 per month, commencing January 2012,assuming an income of about $77,500.00 per annum for the Respondent, and $5,900.00 per annum for the Applicant. Interim SpousalSupport paid since that date will be credited to the Respondent.

I do not make this order retroactive to an earlier date, as the applicant didnot submit the necessary medical and job search evidence before this court on her interim motions.

Further retroactivity at this timewould create hardship for the Respondent, who has the full-time care of Anold and will also be responsible for paying child support forAlice, based on the split custody. [45] Child support for Alice, payable from the Respondent to the Applicant is fixed at $704.00 per month as a set-off based on theabove incomes for each party, also commencing January 2012 with credit for amounts already paid as interim child support from January2012 to the present. [46] The claim for retroactive child support beyond January 2012 is disallowed.

The Applicant and children lived in Tanzania formuch of 2009 and the Respondent provided a level of support for them there. He claims a credit on property for the money he provided.

This has not been allowed, given his obligation for support of the Applicant and children in that period of time following separation.There is no reliable evidence provided for the court to calculate support obligations beyond what was provided in those circumstances ona voluntary basis by the Respondent. [47] Also, any amount the Respondent claims to have overpaid in child support before it was adjusted for the split custody is a faircontribution to their overall past support in all the circumstances, having regard to the uncertainty of his support quantum in 2009 whilethe children were in Tanzania and the absence of support paid following the children’s return to Canada from September 2009 untilDecember 2009 when child support commenced by an interim court order. [48] The Applicant’s claim for extraordinary expenses as pro-rata contribution to Alice’s piano lessons from 2010 to 2012 and her

2012 school trip is allowed, as per the Applicant’s calculation in

Schedule ‘A,’ attached, in the total amount of $2,937.82, payable by the Respondent to the Applicant within 30 days. Going forward, Alice’s piano lessons and other reasonable extraordinary educational expenses of both children shall be paid pro-rata, calculated on the incomes of each party, which shall be determined by deducting from the Respondent’s income the spousal support he pays, and adding to the Applicant’s income the spousal support she receives. Conclusion [ 49 ] For the reasons above the Divorce Order shall issue as follows: 1.

Irene Elias Mwanri and Ernest Josiah Mwanri, who were married on March 9, 1996 in Tanzania, are divorced, to take effect 31 days after the date of this Order. 2. The Respondent shall pay an equalization payment to the Applicant in the total amount of $51,437.50 in two equal installments of $25,718.75. The first installment is payable within 31 days from the date of this Order. The second installment is payable by no later than May 31, 2014. 3. The Respondent shall pay spousal support to the Applicant in the sum of $1,000.00 per month each month on the first of the month commencing January 1, 2012. 4.

The Respondent shall pay the Applicant child support for Alice Mwanri, in the sum of $704 per month which is set off of their 2012 annual incomes of $77,576 and $10,707 respectively, pursuant to s. 8 of the Child Support Guidelines commencing January 1, 2012. 5. Spousal support and child support previously paid to the Applicant by the Respondent for the period from January 1, 2012 to the present shall be credited to him on account of payments due under this Order. The balance due on the retroactive adjustment shall be paid within 60 days of this Order. 6.

The Respondent shall pay $2,937.82 for the extraordinary and special expenses of Alice for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 within 31 days of this Order. 7. Going forward all extraordinary expenses incurred for the children’s education shall be paid pro-rata by the parties, calculated upon their incomes, less spousal support paid on the part of the Respondent, and including spousal support received on the part of the Applicant. 8.

Submissions on costs will be received in writing by no later than December 1, 2013 from the Applicant; by December 15, 2013 from the Respondent; Reply, if any, from the Applicant by December 22, 2013. Costs submissions shall be delivered to the Superior Court Judges’ Chambers in the Brampton Courthouse. ___________________________ Seppi J. Released: October 23, 2013 CITATION : Mwanri v. Mwanri, 2013 ONSC 6543 ORANGEVILLE COURT FILE NO.: 142/2010 DATE: 20131023

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEE N: IRENE ELIAS MWANRI Applicant - and - ERNEST JOSIAH MWANRI Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Seppi, J. Released: October 23, 2013 CITATION : Mwanri v. Mwanri, 2013 ONSC 6543 ORANGEVILLE COURT FILE NO.: 142/2010 DATE: 20131023

Schedule “A” EXTRAORDINATRY CALCULATION OF EXPENSES ALLOWED FOR ALICE MWANRI Year Description Amount Amount owed by the Respondent 2010 Employment Income of Applicant $15,897 Employment Income of Respondent $77,694

Percentage to be paid by Respondent 83% Amount paid for Piano $952 x 0.83 Amount due to Applicant = $790.16 2011 Employment Income of Applicant $7,633 Employment Income of Respondent $76,668 Percentage to be paid by Respondent 91% Amount paid for Piano $1,000 Amount due to Applicant = $910 2012 Employment Income of Applicant $5,917 Employment Income of Respondent $78,139 Percentage to be paid by Respondent 93% Amount paid for Piano $1,055.82 Amount paid for school exchange trip to Montreal $275 Amount due to Applicant = $1,237.66 TOTAL OWED BY THE RESPONDENT= $2,937.82