Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-08-167-2 DATE: 2019/07/16 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Angela Menses Delulio, Applicant -and- Cliff Persi, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice P. MacEachern

COUNSEL: Deanne Fowler for the Applicant Gonen Snir for the Respondent

HEARD: April 4, 2019

Endorsement

[1] Both parties seek to change the child support payable between them under their Separation Agreement, signed in 2008 and filed with the court in May of 2017 under s.35 of the Family Law Act [1]. The agreement provides for Mr. Persi to pay child support to Ms. Delulio of $448 per month for the support of their two children, now ages 11 and 15, based on his annual income of $47,000. The agreement also requires the parties to exchange income disclosure annually, and if they determine an adjustment to child support is required, to do so as of July 2nd in each year.

[2] Before 2016, neither party provided the income disclosure required under the agreement, nor requested an adjustment to child support. During this period, Mr. Persi’s income more than doubled.

[3] Ms. Delulio seeks to retroactively increase child support to January 1, 2013, three years before she gave effective notice to Mr. Persi that she sought to change child support.

[4] Mr. Persi opposes the retroactive claim on the basis that neither party provided the required income disclosure, and that the children were in his care more than provided for under the original agreement. Mr. Persi agrees that Ms. Delulio gave effective notice to review child support on January 13, 2016, but argues this means child support should only be changed effective July 2, 2016. Mr. Persi’s position is that he has overpaid child support based on the children spending equal time with each parent as of May 1, 2016, and living with him as of July 1, 2018. Mr. Persi states that Ms. Delulio owes him child support, including s.7 expenses, for the period after July 1, 2018, and seeks to impute income to her.

[5] The parties agree that the children primarily resided with Ms. Delulio until May 1, 2016, when the children moved into an equal time-sharing arrangement. The equal timesharing arrangement continued until July 1, 2018. Since July 1, 2018, both children have primarily resided with Mr. Persi.

[6] The parties further agree that during the period from May 1, 2016, to July 1, 2018, when the children were in an equal timesharing arrangement, child support should be payable based on a set-off calculation.

[7] The issues to be decided are:

1. What is Ms. Delulio’s income for child support purposes?
2. What is Mr. Persi’s income for child support purposes?
3. What is the date that child support should be changed after Ms. Delulio gave effective notice that she was seeking a change on January 13, 2016?
4. What amount of child support is payable for the period from January 1, 2013, to present? a. During the period when the children were spending equal time with each parent (May 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018)? b. During the period when the children are primarily with Mr. Persi (July 1, 2018, to present)? c. During the period after January 13, 2016, to April 30, 2016, when the children were primarily with Ms. Delulio? d. During the period after January 1, 2013, to January 13, 2016, when the children were primarily with Ms. Delulio?
5. Does Ms. Delulio owe amounts for s.7 expenses?
6. Should Ms. Delulio be required to reimburse Mr. Persi for his life insurance premiums?
7. Does Ms. Delulio owe Mr. Persi amounts for the Child Tax Benefit?

Issues 1: What is Ms. Delulio’s income for child support purposes?

[8] Ms. Delulio’s income is relevant to determining the child support payable after May 1, 2016, as well as her share of s.7 expenses.

[9] I find that Ms. Delulio’s income is $42,000, as determined under the Child Support Guidelines. I have imputed additional income to her because I find that she is voluntarily underemployed.

[10] Ms. Delulio is self-employed as a hairdresser. She states her income is $30,000.

[11] I do not accept Mr. Persi position that Mr. Delulio’s income should be determined to be $80,000 to $100,000 per year. The private investigator report upon which he relies in support of this income level does not account for the fact that another hairdresser works at the same location. Mr. Persi’s revenue estimate is also based on Ms. Delulio working 52 weeks per year, which does not allow for reasonable vacations and other absences due to illness.

[12] I also do not place any weight on the fact that Ms. Delulio agreed, on a without prejudice basis, to having income imputed to her at $40,000 per year. This agreement was without prejudice, and it would be improper to attribute prejudice to it.

[13] Ms. Delulio has not significantly increased her income since 2008 when she earned $27,000 per year. I do not accept Ms. Delulio’s reasons for this, which she states are due to her caregiving responsibilities. These reasons are inconsistent with the fact that her income has not increased even though the children moved into an equal timesharing arrangement on May 1, 2016, and, since July 2018, have been in the primary care of Mr. Persi. The evidence supports that Ms. Delulio has several clients seeking her services. Ms. Delulio works limited hours, normally from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., and has not provided a reasonable explanation for why she cannot work longer hours, and serve more clients.

[14] For these reasons, I find that Ms. Delulio is voluntarily underemployed and could earn more income if she made reasonable efforts. Ms. Delulio currently works approximately 25 hours per week. I find it is reasonable for her to increases this by two hours per day, resulting in a 40% increase in her income without diminishing her generous vacation schedule or allocations for sick leave. This increase in work hours would increase her income by $12,000 (40% of $30,000), for a total income of $42,000.

Issues 2: What is Mr. Persi’s income for child support purposes?

[15] The parties agree that Mr. Persi’s income for child support purposes is as follows:

• 2013 - $97,985 (table for two children is $1,391 [2])
• 2014 - $132,331 (table for two children is $1,808 [3])
• 2015 - $107,025 (table for two children is $1,501 [4])
• 2016 - $114,168 (table for two children is $1,589 [5])
• 2017 - $96,169 (table for two children is $1,369 [6])
• 2018 - $102,649 (table for two children is $1,504 [7])

Issue 3: What is the date that child support should be changed after Ms. Delulio gave effective notice that she was seeking a change on January 13, 2016?

[16] Both parties agree that the letter sent by Ms. Delulio’s lawyer on January 13, 2016, constitutes effective notice to Mr. Persi that she is seeking to change child support. I find that child support should be adjusted by at least January 13, 2016. After this effective notice, the parties exchanged financial information to review the child support and were in negotiations to adjust the support. When negotiations were not successful, Ms. Delulio reasonably pursued changes to child support by serving this Motion to Change on May 27, 2017.

[17] I do not accept Mr. Persi’s argument that Ms. Delulio’s effective notice on January 13, 2016, should only result in a change to child support as of July 2, 2016. Mr. Persi relies on the wording of the Separation Agreement that provides that child support will be reviewed annually, and any adjustments will be made as of July 2nd in each year. Mr. Persi argues that the January 13, 2016 notice, therefore, only results in a change to child support as of July 2, 2016. I reject this argument. The Separation Agreement does not state that if a party is late in seeking a review, they give up their right to do so until the next July 2nd date. I find that Ms. Delulio is entitled to change child support as of the date of the effective notice – being January 13, 2016.

[18] I also find that the letter of January 13, 2016, constitutes “formal notice” of Ms. Delulio’s claim to change child support.

Issue 4: What amount of child support is payable for the period from January 1, 2013, to present?

[19] The determination of child support is broken down into four different periods, each with different considerations. The first two periods that I deal with below are the periods when the children were in an equal timesharing arrangement (from May 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018) and when the children were primarily residing with Mr. Persi (July 1, 2018, to present). Both of these periods took place after the effective notice on January 13, 2016. Given this notice, the parties’ negotiations, and positions within this motion to change, child support should be changed for these periods.

[20] The second two periods that I deal with below cover the period for which Ms. Delulio is seeking retroactive adjustments to child support, and when the children primarily resided with her – being from January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2016. I divide this period into two – one being the period after Ms. Delulio’s effective notice (January 13, 2016, to April 30, 2016) and the second being the period before Ms. Delulio’s effective notice (January 1, 2013, to January 13, 2016).

4A: During the period when the children were spending equal time with each parent (May 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018)?

[21] During the period from May 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018, the children were in an equal timesharing arrangement. The parties have agreed that child support is payable based on a set-off calculation. Child support is, therefore, the table amount for Mr. Persi’s income, less the table amount for Ms. Delulio’s income.

May 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016

[22] For the period from May 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016, Mr. Persi’s table amount based his income of $114,168 is $1,589/m. Ms. Delulio’s table amount based on her income of $42,000 is $614/m. The set-off calculation is $975/m ($1,589 less $614).

[23] Mr. Persi should have paid child support to Ms. Delulio of $975 per month, or $7,800 in total. Mr. Persi’s support documentation shows that he paid $500 in May of 2016, $600 in each of June and July of 2016, and $448 per month for the remainder of the year, or $3,940 in total. Mr. Persi owes child support arrears of $3,860 for the period from May 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016 ($7,800 less $3,940).

January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017

[24] For the period from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017, Mr. Persi’s table amount based his income of $96,169 is $1,369/m. Ms. Delulio’s table amount based on her income of $42,000 is $614/m. The set-off calculation is $755/m ($1,369 less $614).

[25] Mr. Persi should have paid child support to Ms. Delulio of $755 per month, for a total of $9,060 for the year. Mr. Persi’s support documentation shows that he paid $448 per month, until he increased his payments to $1,000 per month for November and December of 2017, for a total of $6,480 for the year. Mr. Persi owes child support arrears of $2,580 for the period from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017 ($9,060 less $6,480).

January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018

[26] For the period from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018, Mr. Persi’s table amount based his income of $102,649 is $1,504/m. Ms. Delulio’s table amount based on her income of $42,000 is $624/m [8]. The set-off calculation is $880/m ($1,504 less $624).

[27] Mr. Persi should have paid child support to Ms. Delulio of $880 per month, for a total of $5,280 for this period. Mr. Persi’s support documentation shows that he paid $1,000 per month and an additional payment in June of 2018, for a total of $8,448.49 for this period. Mr. Persi overpaid child support of $3,168.49 for the period from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018 ($8,448.49 less $5,280).

Total for These Periods

[28] Mr. Persi owes total child support arrears of $3,271.51 ($3,860+$2,580-$3,168.49) in child support arrears to Ms. Delulio for the period from May 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018.

4B: During the period when the children are primarily with Mr. Persi (July 1, 2018, to present)?

[29] During the period after July 1, 2018, the children primarily reside with Mr. Persi. Child support is, therefore, the table amount based on Ms. Delulio’s income of $42,000, which is $624/m [9].

[30] Mr. Persi stopped paying child support to Ms. Delulio as of July 1, 2018. Ms. Delulio has not made any child support payments to Mr. Persi. For the period from July 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019 (13 months), Ms. Delulio owes Mr. Persi child support arrears of $8,112 ($624 X 13 months).

4C: During the period after January 13, 2016, to April 30, 2016, when the children were primarily with Ms. Delulio?

[31] I find that Ms. Delulio is entitled to change child support as of the date of her effective notice – January 13, 2016. I have calculated this period from February 1, 2016, to April 30, 2016 – a period of three months. During this period, Mr. Persi’s income was $97,985 per year. Under the Child Support Guidelines, he should have been paying child support of $1,589/m [10].

[32] Mr. Persi increased his child support payments upon receiving the January 13, 2016 letter. He paid child support of $1,500 per month in February and March of 2016, and $800 per month for April of 2016, for total payments of $3,800. He should have paid $4,173 for the same period ($1,589 x 3). Mr. Persi owes $967 in child support arrears for this period.

4D: During the period after January 1, 2013, to January 13, 2016, when the children were primarily with Ms. Delulio?

[33] I find that Mr. Persi is required to pay retroactive child support for the period from January 1, 2013, to January 13, 2016.

[34] Ms. Delulio seeks retroactive child support for three years before the date that she gave Mr. Persi effective notice that she was seeking a change. During this period, the children were primarily in Ms. Delulio’s care. The amount of child support is, therefore, the table amount based on Mr. Persi’s income, which is as follows [11]:

• 2013 - $97,985 – table amount is $1,391/m
• 2014 - $132,331 – table amount is $1,808/m
• 2015 - $107,025 – table amount is $1,501/m
• 2016 – $114,168 – table amount is $1,589/m

[35] During this period, Mr. Persi paid the child support set out under the Separation Agreement, which was $448 per month. If child support is retroactively adjusted to January 1, 2013, Mr. Persi would owe child support arrears of $41,413 for this period [12].

Legal Framework

[36] The Family Law Act permits an award of retroactive child support [13]. Whether the Court retroactively increases child support based on the payor’s increased income raises the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231 [14].

[37] Before I consider the application of the D.B.S. principles, I will address the terms of the annual adjustment of child support in the Separation Agreement. I do not find that these terms are such that take this matter outside of the application of the D.B.S. principles into one of contractual enforcement.

[38] I find this for three reasons. First, both parties are in breach of their contractual obligation under the Separation Agreement to exchange annual income disclosure. I acknowledge that Ms. Delulio’s obligation to provide income disclosure is significantly different during this period than Mr. Persi’s, given that her income is not relevant to the determination of the table child support when the children primarily reside with her. However, as a matter of contract, Ms. Delulio is also in breach of the agreement. Second, the agreement does not mandate automatic adjustments to child support. The agreement provides for an adjustment only if a party determines there should be one. Third, the agreement provides for an amount of monthly child support, $448, which is below the table amount payable for Mr. Persi’s annual income of $47,000 [15]. This reduction reflects the parties’ agreement that child support is not determined solely by the application of the Child Support Guidelines table amount but may be adjusted to an amount that, using their words, “was appropriate given the circumstances of the parties and the needs of the children.”

[39] I find, therefore, that the D.B.S. principles apply to Ms. Delulio’s claim for retroactive child support. D.B.S. v. S.R.G. makes it clear that there is no automatic right to retroactive child support, nor is it an exceptional remedy [16]. Whether retroactive child support will be granted is a matter of judicial discretion. Three major interests in play in retroactive support cases are:

1. The need on the part of the child and the custodial parent for financial support;
2. The payor’s interest in certainty and predictability when financial obligations appear settled; and
3. The need for flexibility to ensure a just result.

[40] Ultimately, the analysis of child support issues must always be undertaken with a focus that remains primarily on the interests of the child. This focus includes the core principles that apply to child support, such as that child support is the right of the child, and that ultimately the goal is to ensure that children benefit from the support they are owed when they are owed it.

[41] Within these overarching principles, the court should consider the following four factors in determining whether to allow a retroactive claim:

1. Whether there was a reasonable excuse as to why a variation in support was not sought earlier;
2. The conduct of the payor parent;
3. The circumstances of the child and;
4. Any hardship occasioned by a retroactive award.

[42] The general rules from D.B.S. v. S.R.G. are that a retroactive child support order should start from the date of formal notice and that it will usually be inappropriate to make a support award retroactive to a date more than three years before the formal notice was given.

Analysis

[43] Considering all of the factors under D.B.S. v. S.R.G., and taking a holistic view of this matter, and its particular circumstances, I find that it is appropriate for Mr. Persi to owe retroactive child support for the period from January 1, 2013, to January 13, 2016.

[44] At the outset, I have considered several factors positive to Mr. Persi in the analysis of the retroactive claim. These include that Mr. Persi’s consistently paid the child support of $448 per month set out in the agreement, that he provided his financial information quickly when asked to do so in 2016, and immediately increased the child support payments at least for a few months before the children began spending equal time in his care. It also appears that he consistently contributed to s.7 expenses on behalf of the children when requested to do so.

[45] Although neither party complied with their obligation to provide annual income disclosure, I do not find that Mr. Persi had a reasonably held belief that he was complying with his obligation to pay child support when his income, by 2013, was double what it had been in 2008 yet his child support payments remained the same. This disconnect is even more so for the period from 2014 to 2016, when his income was even higher. I find that Mr. Persi’s conduct in not adjusting his child support payments during this period to be blameworthy conduct on his part.

[46] The blameworthiness of Mr. Persi’s conduct is muted somewhat by Ms. Delulio’s conduct. Ms. Delulio also failed to provide her income disclosure and delayed in seeking adjustments to child support. Ms. Delulio does not provide any substantial explanation for her delay, other than that she found interacting with Mr. Persi on financial issues to be difficult, and she experienced him as bullying. While I accept that the parties’ communications were strained, I do not place the blame for the delay solely on Mr. Persi. I find that one reason for Ms. Delulio’s delay is that she did not want to disclose aspects of her self-employed income. However, Ms. Delulio’s failure to disclose is less significant than Mr. Persi’s, given that the children primarily resided with her at the time.

[47] I have taken into consideration that the overriding interests include the need for the payor to have certainty and predictability, but also for children to receive the support to which they are entitled when they are entitled to it. Again, Mr. Persi knew he had an obligation to pay child support to Ms. Delulio, that this was based on his income being $47,000 per year, and he should have been aware that this obligation would increase when his income more than doubled. A court cannot condone a payor failing to disclose his income in these circumstances.

[48] Mr. Persi argues that the children were spending more time with him during this period and that this factor should ameliorate a retroactive claim. I disagree. I do not find Mr. Persi’s claim that he thought he was meeting his child support obligations because the children were in his care more, to be credible. Mr. Persi’s evidence is that the children were on a two-week rotating schedule, in his care from Wednesday to Sunday on week one, and from Wednesday to Thursday in week two. This schedule amounts to approximately 36% of the time and, if so, does not warrant a reduction in child support. Even if the children were in his care half of the time, applying the set-off calculation the parties agreed to use for the period after May 1, 2016, Mr. Persi would have owed significantly more child support (for example, in 2013 the set-off calculation is $777 per month), yet he did not increase his child support.

[49] I am concerned that the child support of $448/m that was payable under the Separation Agreement is below the table amount for Mr. Persi’s income of $47,000 per year. The full table amount would have been $710/m [17]. This reflects that the parties had agreed to reduce the table amount, even though the factors for why they did so are not clear. Ms. Delulio states that she “gave in,” but I do not find evidence to support this claim. It may equally reflect other expenses Mr. Persi was paying for the children, or that he often had the children in his care for additional periods. Alternatively, it may simply reflect that they each had different perspectives on how they arrived at the child support amount. In balancing these considerations, although I find that Mr. Persi should have increased his child support payments, I also find that, before he received effective notice that Ms. Delulio sought a change, his reasonable expectation, based on the past agreement, would have been that he pay only a portion of the full table amount.

[50] The child support of $448/m set out in the Separation Agreement equals 63% of the table amount ($448/$710=63%). Taking all of the factors into consideration, I find that the amount of child support arrears owed for this period should similarly be 63% of the amount calculated by applying Mr. Persi’s actual income to the tables. This results in child support arrears owed of $26,090 ($41,413 x 63%).

[51] The consequences of this finding on the children’s interests are addressed by Ms. Delulio’s position on how she seeks the repayment of the arrears. Ms. Delulio seeks to have any arrears owed to her by Mr. Persi set-off against her obligation to pay him child support, including her contribution to s.7 expenses. If there is any amount still owed to her when the children are independent, any amount still owed to her would be forgiven. In this way, the payment of the arrears will not have a significant financial impact on Mr. Persi by making him pay a lump sum, which will benefit the children who are now in his care.

[52] I also find that the payment of the arrears, in this manner, will not cause a financial hardship on Mr. Persi, or the children in his care. Mr. Persi has a good income. He has a positive net worth. Moreover, Mr. Persi has been able to meet the needs of the children since July 1, 2018, without receiving support from Ms. Delulio. On the whole, the finding for the child support arrears owed before January 13, 2016, and the manner of payment, represents a holistic and flexible approach that is in the best interests of the children.

Issue 5: Does Ms. Delulio owe amounts for s.7 expenses?

[53] I find that Ms. Delulio owes Mr. Persi her share of the children’s extraordinary activity expenses that Mr. Persi has paid for since 2018, being $4,002. Based on the parties’ 2018 incomes, Mr. Persi’s share of these expenses is 71%, and Ms. Delulio’s share is 29%. Ms. Delulio, therefore, owes Mr. Persi the sum of $1,160.58.

[54] Ms. Delulio does not take issue with the activity expenses listed in Mr. Persi’s affidavit material, which are largely made up of hockey, summer camps, and horseback riding. Her position is, however, that Mr. Persi never asked her to contribute to these expenses until March of 2019. She states Mr. Persi did not discuss the expenses with her in advance, provide her with receipts, or ask her to contribute. On this issue, Mr. Persi argues that Ms. Delulio was aware of the activity expenses – they were the same as when the children were in her care, and yet she never offered to contribute.

[55] Although Ms. Delulio does not object to contributing to these expenses, she seeks to set-off her obligation against the child support arrears that Mr. Persi owes her, and I so order.

Issue 6: Should Ms. Delulio be required to reimburse Mr. Persi for his life insurance premiums?

[56] I do not find that Ms. Delulio is required to reimburse Mr. Persi for the cost of his life insurance premiums.

[57] Mr. Persi claims reimbursement for the premiums he paid to maintain a life insurance policy to secure his child support obligation as required under the Separation Agreement. Ms. Delulio has a similar obligation under the agreement, but he states she did not maintain the policy as required. Ms. Delulio states she does have the required life insurance, and this is reflected in her financial statement sworn on March 15, 2019.

[58] Even if Ms. Delulio did not maintain the policy as required, the remedy for a breach of her contractual obligation is not to reimburse Mr. Persi for the cost of him complying with his contractual obligation. The Separation Agreement already provides for remedies if a party dies without having the policy in place.

[59] Both parties have requested that I incorporate an order herein that mirrors their obligations to maintain life insurance to secure their child support obligations in the Separation Agreement. I so order although I leave the precise wording of this order to counsel to work out. If the parties are unable to agree on such wording, they may re-attend before me.

Issue 7: Does Ms. Delulio owe Mr. Persi amounts for the Child Tax Benefit?

[60] Mr. Persi sought an order requiring Ms. Delulio to pay to him the amount she received for the Child Tax Benefit in 2016 and 2017. I decline to make this order. Whether or not Mr. Persi should have been eligible to receive the Child Tax Benefit during the period in issue is a matter he needs to pursue with the Canada Revenue Agency. The amount that Ms. Delulio may have received during this period does not necessarily equate to what Mr. Persi would have been eligible to receive, and, in any event, eligibility for such benefits is determined under the Income Tax Act. No submissions have made to me regarding the application of that legislation.

Disposition

[61] For the above reasons, I make the following orders:

1. For the purposes of the Child Support Guidelines, Ms. Delulio’s income is determined to be $42,000, based on her declared self-employed income of $30,000 per year plus additional imputed income.
2. For the purposes of the Child Support Guidelines, Mr. Persi’s income is determined to be as follows: a. 2013 - $97,985; b. 2014 - $132,331; c. 2015 - $107,025; d. 2016 - $114,168; e. 2017 - $96,169; f. 2018 - $102,649.
3. For the period before July 31, 2019, the amount of child support arrears owed by Mr. Persi to Ms. Delulio for the support of A, born XXXX, 2003 and M, born XXXX 2007, is fixed at $21,055.93 [18]. These child support arrears are for the period from January 1, 2013, to the end of July 2019, and credit Mr. Persi with amounts owed to him by Ms. Delulio as set out above. If I have made any math errors in these calculations, the parties may reattend before me to seek any corrections.
4. The parties shall share reasonable and necessary s.7 expenses incurred for the benefit of the children in proportion to their annual incomes which, based on their 2018 incomes, is 71% Mr. Persi and 29% Ms. Delulio.
5. Commencing on August 1, 2019, Ms. Delulio shall pay child support to Mr. Persi for the support of A, born XXXX, 2003 and M, born XXXX 2007, on the first day of each month, until further order or agreement of the parties, in the amount of $624 per month. This is the table amount payable for two children based on her income of $42,000.
6. Ms. Delulio’s child support obligation to Mr. Persi under paragraphs 4 and 5 above shall be set-off against the child support arrears he owes to her under paragraph 3 above. When the child support arrears owed to her are paid in full, Ms. Delulio shall begin to pay her child support obligation to Mr. Persi.
7. Mr. Persi shall not be required to pay any amounts to Ms. Delulio concerning the arrears owed under paragraph 3 above until both children are independent at which time any amount of arrears still owed to Ms. Delulio shall be forgiven.
8. Both parties shall secure their child support obligations by maintaining a life insurance policy on their life with coverage in the amount of $100,000 and designate the other as an irrevocable beneficiary in trust for the children. This policy shall be maintained until neither child is entitled to be supported under the Family Law Act. Each party shall provide the other with proof that this policy is in force, all premiums are paid, and it is not encumbered, within 30 days of this order and after that on a request not more than once per year. If the parties are unable to agree on appropriate wording for this clause, they may re-attend before me.
9. All other relief claimed in this Motion to Change and Response to Motion to Change is dismissed.

Costs

[62] If the parties are unable to agree on the costs of this motion, Ms. Delulio may file submissions concerning costs on or before August 23, 2019. Mr. Persi may file submissions concerning costs on or before September 6, 2019. Cost submissions of both parties shall be no more than three pages in length, plus any offers to settle and bills of costs and shall be spaced one point five spaces apart, with no less than 12 point font.

Justice P. MacEachern Date: July 16, 2019 Released: July 16, 2019

Footnotes

[1] Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.3, as am [2] Under the December 31, 2011 tables [3] Under the December 31, 2011 tables [4] Under the December 31, 2011 tables [5] Under the December 31, 2011 tables [6] Under the December 31, 2011 tables [7] Under the November 22, 2017 tables [8] Under the November 22, 2017 tables [9] Under the November 22, 2017 tables [10] Under the December 31, 2011 tables [11] Under the December 31, 2011 tables [12] Total arrears of $41,413 made up of arrears for 2013 of $11,316 ($16,692-$5,376), arrears for 2014 of $16,320 ($21,696-$5,376), arrears for 2015 of $12,636 ($18,012-$5376), and arrears for January of 2016 of $1,141. [13] Family Law Act, s.34 ((f) [14] D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231 [15] The table amount payable for two children for income of $47,000 under the May 1, 2006 tables was $710/m [16] D.B.S. v. S.R.G., para 97 [17] Under the May 1, 2006 tables [18] Based on $3,860 (May to December 2016 arrears) + $2,580 (2017 arrears) - $3,168.49 (2018 overpayment) - $8,112 (2018 to 2019 amounts child support to Mr. Persi) + 967 (February to April 2016 arrears) + $26,090 (2013 to January 2016 arrears) - $1,160.58 (s.7)