Spoiler Alert: The argument failed.
But let’s examine it closer.
In this case, Traci-Lynne and Renaud began cohabiting in 2010 and separated in 2022.
They have two children together, who are 8 and 3 years old.
Traci-Lynne asked for spousal support based on Renaud’s annual income of $100,000.
Renaud argued that her motion should be dismissed because:
- Traci-Lynne is only 37 years.
- The children are in school and daycare all day.
- Paying Traci-Lynne spousal support has already prevented her from seeking employment and becoming self-sufficient.
- Paying Traci-Lynne spousal support disincentivizes employment.
- If Traci-Lynne did work, she could earn $34,000 per year.
Traci-Lynne argued that there are only approximately 5.5 hours in the day during which she can work because the children are in school or daycare from 8:30 am to 3 pm, and she has to transport them to and from daycare and school. Traci-Lynne argued that this reduces the time she has available to work. Plus, when the children are sick, it is she who stays home with them.
The Judge wrote:
“I find it would be unreasonable to attribute an income of $34,000 to Ms. Crozier at this time. She is the children’s main caregiver and is required to stay home with them when they are sick. I find that the imputed income of $25,000 for Ms. Crozier is reasonable at this time. Ms. Crozier is building a base of clients for her house-cleaning business and thinks she will be able to improve on her income of $8,461 in 2023. I accept this information as a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which to base the imputation of $25,000 as Ms. Crozier’s income.”
In the end, the Judge granted Traci-Lynne spousal support based on Renaud’s income of $100,000 and her estimated future income of $25,000.
CASE LINK: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc4343/2024onsc4343.html
Share this article on: