Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 288/13 Date: July 14, 2014

Ontario Court of Justice

Re: Jennifer Claire Jones-Whyte – Applicant And: Trevor Ray Whyte – Respondent

Before: Justice Roselyn Zisman

Heard On: June 17 and 27, 2014

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

[1] The only issues in this trial are the Respondent's income, that is, whether or not income should be imputed to him and if so, in what amount and his proportionate share of the children's extraordinary expenses. Both parties represented themselves.

Background

[2] The parties began to reside together in 1997 and then married on May 16, 1998. They permanently separated on January 1, 2013 but resided together in the matrimonial home until the Respondent moved out in March 2013.

[3] There are two children of the marriage, Lauren Rose Whyte born March 7, 1998 and Jillian Rae Whyte born October 10, 2004.

[4] The Applicant commenced this application on July 3, 2013. The parties reached a temporary agreement on November 25, 2013 that provided the Respondent have access to Jillian on alternate week-ends and to Lauren on reasonable notice and taking into consideration her schedule. Pending further disclosure, on a without prejudice basis and based on an income of $33,000.00 the Respondent agreed to pay child support of $488.00 per month as of December 1, 2013. It was also agreed that the Respondent would pay 50% of any special or extraordinary expenses to include child care expenses, health related expenses, cub scouts, swimming and dance to a maximum of $4,500.00 in each calendar year.

[5] The parties reached a final agreement on January 31, 2014 on all of the custody and access issues. Although the parties entered into a "shared parenting" arrangement, primary residence of both children remained with the Applicant and the Respondent continued to have access on alternate week-ends to Jillian and reasonable access to Lauren. The agreement provided for specified holiday access. The Respondent was ordered to provide specified financial disclosure.

[6] The parties were before the court again on February 18, 2014 for a settlement conference. Some changes were made to the final custody and access order of January 31, 2014 to provide that if the Respondent could not pick up Jillian by 4:30 pm on Fridays that he needed to notify the Applicant and then he could pick her up at the Applicant's home at 6:00 pm. The endorsement indicates that the Respondent was seeking to have his income fixed at $21,000.00 and the Applicant was seeking to have income fixed at a significantly higher amount. The matter was adjourned for a trial management conference.

[7] At the trial management conference before me on April 2, 2014 the Applicant advised that the Respondent had provided all of the disclosure previously ordered except his November 2013 bank statement. The Respondent was ordered to provide the missing bank statement and further disclosure regarding ongoing proof of his current employment income.

[8] The trial was scheduled to commence on June 17th at 2:00 pm. By 2:40 p.m. as the Respondent was still not present, the Applicant was requested to contact him. The Applicant was not able to reach the Respondent on his cellphone and left a message. The Applicant also called the Respondent's mother to see if she knew if the father was coming to court but she did not know about the court date and thought the father was at work.

[9] The Applicant began her testimony and the Respondent arrived shortly thereafter. The Respondent advised the court that he thought the trial was scheduled for another date and he left work to come to court after receiving the message about court. He stated that did not have any of his documents and also he wished to call his employer as a witness.

[10] The trial continued and both the parties testified. The trial was adjourned to June 27th to provide the Respondent an opportunity to complete his testimony by filing any further documents regarding his job search and his income since January 2013 and for his employer to testify. The Respondent was again ordered to provide his Bank of Nova Scotia 2013 statement or proof that the statement was not available or accessible.

[11] The trial resumed on June 27th, 2014. The Respondent completed his evidence and called his employer as a witness. The decision was reserved.

Position of the Parties

[12] It is the Applicant's position that in addition to working as a roofer during part of the year, the Respondent can work throughout the rest of the year and earn an average of $28.00 per hour. She therefore asks the court to impute an income of $58,240.00 to him. The Applicant also requests that the Respondent pay his share of all of the children's special and extraordinary expenses.

[13] The Respondent is content to have income imputed to him the amount of the temporary order namely, $33,000.00.

Applicant's Financial Circumstances

[14] The Applicant is 37 years old and employed as an insurance broker. Her income in the last 3 years has ranged from $31,000 to $28,130.00. The latter amount being her most current income.

Respondent's Financial Circumstances

[15] The Respondent is 40 years old. Since the separation he has been living in Oshawa in his parents' home. The Respondent completed high school and attended community college for a year in an early childhood education program but then changed to a general education program. He did not complete the program as he felt it was not going anywhere and joined his brother in the roofing business. He has been a roofer for about the last 11 years. He is also has skills as a sheet metalworker and can do a variety of handwork as he said from "the basement to the roof". The Respondent testified that he was a skilled roofer and worked quickly.

[16] The Respondent also testified that he is very knowledgeable and comfortable working on computers. He is planning to enter a computer securities training program through IBM this winter. Although he does not have any formal training his girlfriend, who works at IBM, will be helping him get into this program. He would then he qualified as an assistant project manager. He did not indicate what income he could earn. He testified that he did want to continue in the roofing business.

[17] The Respondent testified that he had worked as a roofer through the union in new home construction but that about 7 years ago the housing boom in Milton dried up so he was now working on repairing and replacing roofs for existing homes that pays less. He agreed in cross-examination that he could return to working through the union by paying his union fees but as he as he only had about 10 years of experience he would not have any seniority.

[18] The Respondent did not agree with the Applicant's testimony that when they resided together he worked steadily during the winter doing odd jobs. He testified that he usually only did some work for friends and relatives and at most earned about $1,000.00.

[19] The Respondent testified that he had been trying to obtain work while laid off during the winter and that he had applied for jobs at gas stations, convenience stores and through temporary employment agencies but he was told he was overqualified. He did not provide proof that he had applied for any jobs.

[20] When questioned about why he could not do any snow shoveling during the winter he testified that he did not have the proper equipment and couldn't afford to outfit his truck with this equipment. He did not explain if he had ever tried to work doing snowplowing for a company that did have the proper equipment. He agreed that during the winter, roofers do emergency work and do some preparatory work.

[21] The evidence with respect to the Respondent's income is extremely unclear. He produced a T-4 for 2013 indicating his income was $9,565.00 from his current employer Roof-on-Homes. He testified that he worked for this company on and off for 3 years. But a letter introduced into evidence from the company and signed by the president Danny Areia stated that he only worked there from mid-2012 to mid-2013 and then at the present time and earned more or less between $8,00 to $10,000.00. When Danny Areia testified he stated that the Respondent has worked for his company on and off for 3 years and confirmed his income.

[22] A record of employment was produced from 591472 Ontario Limited indicating that the Respondent worked from September 16 to October 18, 2013 and earned $26.00 per hour for a total of $5,067.30. The form indicates that the Respondent quit this job. Although the Respondent did not deny that he quit the job he testified that he left because there were only 2 jobs left and he could get more work by returning to his former employment at Roofs-on-Homes. He testified that he had not worked long enough at 591472 Ontario Limited to qualify for employment insurance and as he was employed as a sub-contractor through Roofs-on-Homes he did not qualify for employment insurance.

[23] Mr. Areia testified that the hourly rate for roofers is more or less $20.00 per hour but that the rate was variable depending on the length of the job and the number of workers. In cross-examination, he agreed that the rate could be as high as $30.00 per hour but that was rare. He testified that there was a great deal of work but the problem was finding workers. He testified that there was at least 40 hours of work a week available, weather permitting and that his crew would begin work at 7:00 a.m. and continued until dark.

[24] Mr. Areia testified that the Respondent does not usually arrive at work until 9:30 or 10:00 a.m. and leaves at about 3:30 p.m. and does not work on any week-ends because he has his children with him. He testified that the Respondent worked about 20 to 24 hours a week.

[25] The Respondent testified that he travelled from Oshawa to his current job sites with Mr. Areia's company in the Halton and Peel area and he spent about two to two and a half hours a day travelling.

[26] Mr. Areia testified that a supervisor in his company earns about $40,000.00 and that a roofer earns about $25,000.00 to $30,000.00. But the Respondent testified that he expected earn about $33,000.00 working for Mr. Areia.

[27] The Respondent did not produce any his tax returns or Notices of Assessment.

[28] When cross-examined and shown printouts for available jobs for roofers paying $23.00 to $30.00 per hour for 40 to 44 hours a week, the Respondent denied that he could obtain these jobs and that the print-outs do not reflect what is actually being paid in the roofing business.

[29] When the Respondent returned to testify on June 27th, he did not produce any documents about his own job searches or proof of his income. Despite being asked by the court if he had documents he wished to produce into evidence, the only document he produced was a printout of salary ranges for an experienced registered insurance broker to show that the Applicant could earn more income. In reply, the Applicant testified that the print-outs were not actual jobs but just a salary range and did not pertain to the work she was qualified to do.

[30] In closing submissions, the Respondent then tried to introduce his missing November 2013 bank statement that he had been ordered to produce and that the Applicant had requested on several occasions. Upon reviewing the statement the Applicant then stated that it raised more questions and she wished some time to examine it. Given that the evidence had been completed and the Respondent had been given the opportunity to produce any documents, I refused to permit the statement to be entered as an exhibit or to permit the Applicant to re-open the case to cross-examine the Respondent about the statement.

Special and Extraordinary Expenses for the Children

[31] The Applicant introduced into evidence proof of various expenses for the children. Jillian attends a before and after child care program and attends camp when she is not in school. Initially the cost was $20.25 per day; it was then reduced on a partial subsidy to $10.13 a day. As of June 2013 the Applicant received a full subsidy so the cost is only $3.11 per day. The Applicant calculated the total cost she has incurred from March to November 2013 is $1,872.72.

[32] The Applicant is also claiming the cost of Jillian attending cub scouts of $200.00 per year and a monthly $5.00 fee and $70.00 for a hearing test.

[33] The Applicant provided proof of prescription costs of $744.22 for the children. She also produced proof of physiotherapy costs of $804.30 for Lauren and of her high school fees of $205.00. Lauren has been participating in competitive dancing at a very high level for the last 4 or 5 years. The Applicant submitted receipts for expenses for entry fees for competitions, dance school tuition, costumes and extra choreography expenses for 2013 and 2014 that total $11,108.61.

[34] Based on the Applicant's income of $28,130.00 and imputing an income of $58,240.00 to the Respondent she is seeking the Respondent pay his 67% being his proportionate share of these expenses.

[35] The Applicant testified that the Respondent has not complied with the temporary support order and has not paid child support or his share of these special expenses.

Applicable Legal Considerations Regarding Imputing Income

[36] Section 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines permits the court to impute such income as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which include:

(a) the parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse;

(b) Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children.

[37] Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing responsibility of parents to support their children.

[38] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:

1. Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
2. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child of the marriage or reasonable health needs?
3. If not, what income is appropriately imputed?

[39] In Drygala v. Pauli, supra, the court interpreted section 19(1)(a) by stating that "intentionally" means a voluntary act and that a parent is intentionally under-employed if that parent choose to earn less than he or she is capable of earning. The court does not need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations or bad faith.

[40] The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally under-employed or unemployed. Once under-employment is established, the onus shifts to the payor to prove that his decision was reasonable.

[41] If the payor is intentionally under-employed, the court must consider if this is by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs.

[42] If a court finds a payor is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, a court cannot arbitrarily allocate an imputed income. There must be an evidentiary basis for the chosen income. Factors such as age, education, experience, skills, health and availability of job opportunities must be considered.

Discussion Regarding Imputing Income to the Respondent

[43] The Respondent has agreed that he can earn $33,000.00 and therefore that income be imputed to him at that level. He concedes that in previous years he has earned less than he is capable of earning. Therefore, the Applicant has met her onus of proving that income should be imputed to the Respondent.

[44] The onus then shifts to the Respondent to prove what income he can earn. I find that the Respondent is capable of earning more than $33,000 based on the following factors:

• The Respondent quit his job at 591472 Ontario Ltd. a company that was close to where he lived and where he earned $26.00 per hour and where if he worked long enough he could have qualified for employment insurance

• The Respondent then worked for only $20.00 per hour at Roofs-on-Homes as a self-employed sub-contractor and therefore is not entitled to employment insurance

• The Respondent is currently only working 20 to 24 hours a week and is not prepared to work any week-ends due to his access to his children but he only has access on alternate week-ends and therefore could work on week-ends and more hours during the week

• The Respondent did not provide any proof that he could not obtain better paying positions through reactivating his union status

• The Respondent did not provide any proof on any job searches

• The Respondent did not comply with orders for financial disclosure

• The Respondent is a highly qualified, experienced and skilled roofer and can do sheet metal work

• The Respondent is skilled at general construction and labour work

• The Respondent has a high school education and has computer skills

[45] Although I find that the Respondent can earn more than he is currently earning and I find that he has in the past earned some cash working during the winter months, I am not satisfied that he can realistically earn $58,240.00 as submitted by the Applicant. There is no evidence that the Respondent has ever earned $28.00 per hour. The printouts of available jobs presented by the Applicant indicate a wide range of hourly rates of $23.00 to $30.00. The Respondent did have a job earning $26.00 per hour and this appears to be a fair hourly rate to attribute to him. At that rate if he worked 40 hours a week for 9 months of the year, he could earn about $40,000.00.

[46] Based on the evidence of both the Respondent and his current employer, I find that there is overtime and week-end work available. I also find that the Respondent could earn at least another $5,000.00 working some overtime and over the winter months either doing either odd jobs as he has done in the past or if he obtained a job as an employee he could qualifying for employment insurance. I therefore find that in addition to earning $40,000.00 as a roofer during regular hours, the Respondent could earn another $5,000.00 and therefore income in the amount of $45,000.00 should be imputed to him.

Applicable Statutory and Legal Principles Regarding Special and Extraordinary Expenses

[47] The relevant provision of section 7 of the provincial Guidelines reads:

(1) In child support order the court may, on either spouse's request, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child's best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family's spending pattern prior to the separation:

(a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial parent's employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment;

(b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;

(c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least of $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;

(d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child's particular needs;

(e) expenses for post-secondary education; and

(f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.

The Guidelines define "extraordinary" as follows:

(1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(d) and (f), the term "extraordinary expenses" means

(a) expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse's income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or

(b) where paragraph (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account

(i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate,

(ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities,

(iii) any special needs and talents of the child or children,

(iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and

(v) any other similar factor that the court considers relevant.

[48] The onus is on the parent seeking the special or extraordinary expenses to prove the expenses claimed fall within one of the categories under section 7 and that the expenses are necessary "in relation to the child's best interests" and reasonable "in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family's spending pattern prior to the separation".

[49] Further, if the expenses claimed fall within section 7(1)(d) or (f), the court must determine whether or not the expenses are "extraordinary". Finally, the court must consider what amount, if any, the child should reasonably contribute to the payment of these expenses and then apply any tax deduction or credits.

Discussion Regarding Section 7 Special and Extraordinary Expenses

[50] The Applicant did provide proof of the expenses claimed. However, except for some brief evidence regarding Lauren's dancing there was little direct testimony and no cross-examination, with respect to either the necessity or reasonableness of the expenses claimed. Based on the Applicant's current income of $28,130.00 and the Respondent's imputed income of $45,000.00, the Respondent's share of any special and extraordinary expenses will be 61%.

[51] I will deal with each category of expense and the applicable analysis.

a) Childcare and Summer Camp Expenses

[52] The Applicant is employed on a full-time basis and it was not disputed that she requires before and after care for Jillian who is only 9 years old. In addition, it is necessary for arrangements to be made for Jillian to attend camp or some other organized activity when she is not at school and the Applicant is working.

[53] It is apparent that the Applicant applied for a subsidy for the cost of daycare. Prior to the costs being fully subsidized the total costs from March 2013 to June 2013 was $1,559.34. As of June 6, 2013 the cost was $3.11 per day and the Applicant provided proof of the costs from June 6 to November 25 of $285.39. I have calculated a further $71.53 for the rest of 2013. Therefore the total cost for 2013 is $1,844.73.

[54] At first instance the ongoing cost of only $3.11 a day appears minimal when considered for the entire year (as this cost also applies to summer and spring break camp). I have roughly calculated that the cost for the entire year would be approximately $600. Although the amounts are small, I see no reason why the Applicant should shoulder the entire burden of this expense. I therefore find that the cost for childcare should be shared in proportion to income. The Applicant is entitled to a tax deduction for the cost of the childcare. The Respondent shall pay a lump sum of $1,152.00 being his proportionate share of the childcare cost from March 2013 to the end of December 2013. As of January 1, 2014 his share of the estimated cost of $600.00 per year is $31.00 per month.

b) Health Related Costs

[55] The parties do not have any extended medical or dental health plan through their employment and therefore any of these expenses should be paid by the parties in proportion to their respective incomes. There is no issue that these expenses are necessary and reasonable and within the parents' financial means. I further note that the father agreed to pay these expenses in the temporary consent order but has neglected to do so.

[56] The Applicant has submitted receipts for prescriptions, physiotherapy and a hearing test totaling $1,618.52 that are appropriate special expenses. The father's proportionate share of these expenses is $995.00.

c) High School Fees

[57] The Applicant has submitted an expense of $205.00 for Lauren's high school fees. The claim for primary or secondary school fees must meet the test of being an "extraordinary expense." Ordinary school fees do not meet that test and should be payable from child support. I find does not qualify as a special expense.

d) Expenses for Extracurricular Activities

[58] Any claim for extraordinary expenses requires an initial determination if the expense is an "extraordinary" expense. If it is an extraordinary expense then a determination is required as to whether the recipient can afford to pay the expense. If the recipient cannot afford to pay this expense and then there needs to be a determination as to whether or not the expense is necessary and reasonable.

[59] The only claim for the expenses of extracurricular activities for Jillian is for Scouts that costs $200.00 a year plus a monthly fee of $5.00. This type of ordinary and usual expenses for extracurricular activities do not in my view qualify as "extraordinary". I have also considered that the Applicant is entitled to a fitness tax credit of up to $500.00 for these types of expenses.

[60] The Applicant claims expenses for Lauren's dancing. Lauren has been involved in competitive dancing for several years. I find that these expenses are extraordinary. The receipts submitted by the Applicant for 2013 and part of 2014 are $11,108.61. No questions were asked of the Applicant as to how on her income she could afford to pay these costs. There was no evidence about Lauren's contribution, if any. The Respondent did not dispute that Lauren was talented and did not argue that she should not continue to be involved in competitive dancing but he submitted that he could not afford to pay.

[61] Based on the levels of incomes of these parties it is financially impossible for the Respondent, who would be responsible for paying 61% (based on an imputed income of $45,000.00) of the cost, to meet both his ongoing child support obligation and his proportionate share of these expenses. Based on my calculations if the Respondent was required to pay his share of this expense, he would pay child support of $664.00 per month plus a further $569.00 per month for a total of $1,233.00 per month which would leave him with 34% of the net disposable income.

[62] The child support guidelines provide that a payor can be required to pay a portion of the cost and that in my view is the most feasible solution. I find that the concept of fixing a maximum amount for the Respondent's share of the extraordinary expenses is a fair and practical solution. The Applicant would still need to provide proof to the Respondent of these expenses annually and advise the Respondent and the Family Responsibility Office once these expenses are no longer being incurred.

[63] The parties agreed at the time they negotiated the temporary order that the Respondent's contributions would be limited to $4,500.00 per year. But both parties were not represented and were assisted by duty counsel. There is no indication anyone attempted to calculate the financial consequences of this agreement. Based on the calculations I have prepared, even the Respondent was required to pay only $4,500.00 per year, his monthly share would be about $369.00 per month (after taking into consideration the tax benefits) and his net disposable income would be 35.7% compared to the Applicant's net disposable income of 64.3%. Based on the Respondent's imputed income of $45,000.00 it would not be reasonable for him to pay this amount. I have concluded that a maximum payment of $2,000.00 per year for extraordinary expenses is a reasonable amount based on the current incomes of the parties. In the future should the parties' financial circumstances improve a greater contribution may be appropriate. This amount would not include his obligation to also pay his share of the childcare and medical related expenses.

e) Effective Date of Claim

[64] Although the Applicant has only requested payments be calculated as of July 1, 2013, that is, as of the date she commenced this Application, she had included claims for special expenses, in particular her child care expenses as of March 1, 2013. I have considered that the Applicant is self-represented and that some flexibility should be permitted especially in this case where the Respondent has always been aware of the claim for these expenses.

[65] In summary, the Respondent shall pay his share of the childcare expenses and health related expenses based on the receipts already submitted and on an ongoing basis and a contribution to be maximum of $2,000.00 per year for the extraordinary expenses for both children.

Order

[66] Order as follows:

1. Based on an imputed income of $45,000.00, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant in accordance with the child support guidelines, child support in the monthly amount of $664.00 for the two children of the marriage, Lauren Rose Whyte born March 7, 1998 and Jillian Rae Whyte born October 10, 2004 as of July 1, 2013.

2. For clarity, this order supersedes the temporary child support order of September 30, 2013. The Respondent shall receive credit for any funds paid pursuant to that order.

3. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant his share of the special expenses related to medical and health related expenses in the amount of $960.08 being 62% of the total costs of medical expenses of $1,548.52.

4. The Applicant will provide to the respondent a copy of any receipts for any health related expenses including but not limited to prescriptions, dental, and physiotherapy expenses within 30 days of incurred any such expenses. The Respondent shall pay his proportionate share, currently 62% of the expense within 30 days.

5. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant his share of the childcare expenses for 2013 in the amount of $1,167.62 being 62% of the total childcare costs of $1,883.26.

6. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant as of January 1, 2014 $31.00 per month based on his share of the approximate cost of anticipated child care expenses of $600.00 per year. The Applicant shall provide to the Respondent proof of the after-tax cost of her childcare expenses as of June 1st of each year and the amount paid for the previous year shall be adjusted if needed.

7. The Applicant shall notify the Family Responsibility Office when the Respondent's obligation to pay for childcare expenses is terminated.

8. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $2,000.00 as his contribution to the extraordinary expenses for 2013. Such amount to be paid at a rate of no less than $100.00 per month.

9. The Applicant shall provide to the Respondent proof of any extraordinary extracurricular expenses for either of the children exceeding $500.00 per year on a quarterly basis, the Respondent shall pay his share, 30 days upon receiving proof up to a maximum of $2,000.00 for each calendar year. Any amount owing shall be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office if the Respondent does not pay this amount to the Applicant directly.

10. The Respondent shall advise the Applicant of any change in his employment within 30 days and provide her with the name and address of his employer and proof of his income.

11. The Applicant and Respondent shall exchange copies of their respective income tax returns with all attachments and notices of assessment or any notice of re-assessment by June 30th, 2015 and each year thereafter as long as child support is payable. The child support and the proportionate share of section 7 expenses shall be adjusted, if necessary for the preceding year except that the Respondent's income shall not be calculated at less than an imputed income of $45,000.00.

12. Support Deduction order to issue.

There shall be no order as to costs as neither party was totally successful in their respective positions and both were self-represented.

Justice Roselyn Zisman

Date: July 14, 2014