Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2013-11-05

Court File No.: Brampton 420/11

Between:

Susan Smith Applicant

— And —

James Scott Smith Respondent

Before: Justice L.S. Parent

Heard on: September 16, 2013

Reasons for Judgment released on: November 5, 2013

Representation:

• Susan Smith — on her own behalf
• Michael Freeman — counsel for the respondent

PARENT J.:

BACKGROUND

[1] The parties are the parents of four children, namely Nathan Davis Smith, born October 8th, 1996; McKay Elizabeth Smith, born September 13th, 1998; Ryan Scott Smith, born October 18th, 2001 and Kealan Ray Smith, born June 6th, 2003. The children are currently 17, 15, 12 and 10 years of age. The children live primarily with the Applicant and see the Respondent frequently.

[2] The only issues before the court are financial, namely the calculation of child and spousal support. There is no dispute between the parties that all four children remain dependent children entitled to child support or that the agreement provides that either party may claim spousal support from the other given a material change in circumstances.

[3] On May 20th, 2010, the parties signed a Separation Agreement which resolved all matters, on a final basis, resulting from the breakdown of their marriage. The relevant paragraphs of this agreement are as follows:

CHILD SUPPORT

4.3 Commencing June 1st, 2010, and on the first day of each month thereafter, Scott will pay Susan as child support for the children the Table amount of $1,888.00. The child support shall be adjusted each year on June 1, 2010 and shall be based on Scott's income in the previous calendar year. Scott and Susan will exchange their Income Tax Returns on or before May 15th, 2010 and Notice of Assessments once received.

SPOUSAL SUPPORT

6.1 Based on the present financial circumstances of the parties, there shall be no spousal support paid by either party to each other at this time. The parties agree that this provision is being made on a without prejudice basis and that either party may make a claim for spousal support in the future should there be a material change in circumstances.

[4] The parties complied with the terms of the agreement and re-negotiated the amount of child support payable based on their exchange of financial disclosure. The parties' last agreed on the issue of child support in October, 2011.

[5] On October 14th, 2011, the parties signed an Amending Agreement. Paragraph 6 of this agreement provides that the adjusted amount of child support payable by the Respondent to the Applicant is $2,022.00 per month commencing July 1st, 2011. The amount of child support payable is based on the Respondent's 2010 confirmed income of $92,436.25.

[6] As required by their original Separation Agreement, the parties engaged in discussions regarding the amount of child support in 2012. It is during these discussions that the Respondent advised the Applicant that his income relied upon to calculate his 2009, 2010 and 2011 child support obligation was incorrect. The Respondent informed the Applicant that he had recently been informed that he was entitled to deduct from his income certain employment expenses resulting in a lower income and child support.

[7] The Respondent presented an Amending Agreement to the Applicant in August 2012. This Amending Agreement was filed at Exhibit "M" at the hearing. The agreement recognized the incorrect calculation of the Respondent's income for child support retroactively for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. The agreement further provided that any overpayment by the Respondent, based on the revised calculations, would be credited towards his ongoing child support obligations.

[8] The Applicant did not agree that the child support amount should be adjusted retroactively or on an ongoing basis.

[9] On December 12th, 2012, the Respondent brought his Motion to Change.

[10] In his claim, the Respondent is requesting a retroactive adjustment to his child support for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. In seeking this retroactive adjustment, the Respondent seeks a court order recognizing that his income for ongoing child support purposes not include the amount he claims for motor vehicle expenses. Should this order be granted, the Respondent claims that he has overpaid child support for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.

[11] The Applicant filed a Response to the Motion to Change on January 10th, 2013. She disagrees with the claim requested by the Respondent.

[12] The Applicant has raised her own claims in her Response. She seeks the following:

1. An order increasing the Respondent's child support to $2,228.00 based on his 2012 total income of $101,731.65. In advancing this claim, the Applicant seeks an order requiring that the undeclared rental income received by the Respondent be included in his income for child support purposes;

2. An order requiring the Respondent to provide a fixed contribution to section 7 expenses, namely hockey fees for Kealan; orthodontic fees for McKay and a psycho-educational assessment for Nathan;

3. An order for spousal support in the amount of $749.00 per month effective October 31st, 2012; and

4. An order requiring the Respondent to sign the necessary documentation to allow her to submit claims directly to the Respondent's health care provider in accordance with paragraph 4.12 of the parties' Separation Agreement.

ISSUES

[13] The issues to be determined are as follows:

1. Are the expenses claimed by the Respondent, namely "motor vehicle expenses", captured under paragraph 1(f.1) of Schedule III of the Child Support Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines), Ont. Reg. 391/97 and therefore deductible from the Respondent's income to determine his child support obligation? If so, should this income adjustment be retroactive, at what amount and effective which date?

2. Should the Respondent's child support obligation be retroactively increased by allowing the inclusion of rental income to his income and if so, at what amount and effective which date?

3. Should the Respondent be required to provide fixed contributions to the expenses claimed by the Applicant as section 7 expenses she incurred on behalf of the children and if so at what amount and effective which date?

4. Has a material change in circumstances occurred which results in the Applicant being entitled to spousal support and if so, at what amount and effective which date? and

5. Is the Respondent in breach of paragraph 4.12 of the parties' Separation Agreement?

POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT AT THE HEARING

[14] The Respondent submits that his child support obligation should be retroactively adjusted to January 1st, 2009 so as to permit the deduction of his motor vehicle expenses from his income. The Respondent submits that these expenses are permissible deductions in establishing his income for child support purposes.

[15] The Respondent submits that the claims raised by the Applicant should be dismissed. Specifically, he submits:

1. That his income for child support purposes should not be increased to include any rental income as this income is completely offset by expenses;

2. That the section 7 expenses claimed by the Applicant were not consented to by him in advance which is required under paragraph 4.6 of the parties' Separation Agreement or incurred prior to the parties signing their Separation Agreement;

3. That he has not breached his obligation in facilitating the Applicant to directly submit claims to his insurer for medical expenses; and

4. That there has been no material change in circumstances justifying an entitlement to spousal support by the Applicant.

POSITION OF THE APPLICANT AT THE HEARING

[16] The Applicant agrees that there should be a retroactive adjustment to the Respondent's current child support obligation. She submits however that this adjustment should be an increase so as to set the child support at an income which includes the rental income received by the Respondent.

[17] The Applicant disputes that the deductions sought by the Respondent as motor vehicle expenses should be allowed to reduce his income for child support purposes. The Applicant submits that these amounts are not employee expenses but rather are a car allowance that the Respondent receives.

[18] The Applicant submits that the Respondent has failed to comply with the provisions of the parties' Separation Agreement in that he has failed:

1. to contribute to section 7 expenses she has incurred on behalf of the children; and

2. to sign the necessary documentation so as to permit her to submit re-imbursement claims directly to the Respondent's health provider.

[19] The Applicant submits that there has been a material change in circumstances which triggers a review of spousal support, namely that her common-law partner is currently unemployed.

[20] The hearing of this matter proceeded by affidavit evidence alone and submissions made by counsel on behalf of the Respondent and the Applicant on her own behalf directly.

ANALYSIS

(1) Motor Vehicle Expenses Deduction

[21] Are the expenses claimed by the Respondent "motor vehicle travel expenses" as defined under paragraph 1(f.1) of Schedule III of the Guidelines and therefore deductible from the Respondent's income to determine his child support obligation? If so, should this income adjustment be retroactive, at what amount and effective which date?

[22] The Respondent has filed an affidavit sworn August 7th, 2013. This affidavit provides the following evidence:

(a) the Respondent has been employed as a sales representative for Federal Express Canada Limited since January 6th, 1997;

(b) the Respondent's primary employment responsibility is to travel to various location in Toronto and the GTA to meet existing and potential clients;

(c) Federal Express Canada Limited pays for the Respondent's car lease and all other business related travel expenses, including a mileage expense reimbursement based on the Respondent submitting travel logs; and

(d) the expenses paid by Federal Express Canada Limited are declared as a taxable benefit by the Respondent and included in his line 150 income which is used to set his income for child support purposes

[23] Paragraph 1 of Schedule III provides as follows:

"Employment expenses – Where the parent or spouse is an employee, the parent's or spouse's applicable employment expenses described in the following provisions of the Income Tax Act (Canada) are deducted:

(f.1) paragraph 8(1)(h.1) concerning motor vehicle travel expenses;"

[24] Paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) R.S.C. 1985 c.1 (5th Supp.) provides:

"8. (1) In computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as are wholly applicable to that source or such part of the following amounts as may reasonably be regarded as applicable thereto…

(h.1) where the taxpayer, in the year,

(i) was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of the office or employment away from the employer's place of business or in different places, and

(ii) was required under the contract of employment to pay motor vehicle expenses incurred in the performance of the duties of the office or employment,

amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year in respect of motor vehicle expenses incurred for travelling in the course of the office or employment, except where the taxpayer

(iii) received an allowance for motor vehicle expenses that was, because of paragraph 6(1)(b), not included in computing the taxpayer's income for the year, or

(iv) claims a deduction for the year under paragraph 8(1)(f);"

[25] Subparagraph 10 provides:

"(10) An amount otherwise deductible for a taxation year under paragraph (1)…(h.1)….by a taxpayer shall not be deducted unless a prescribed form, signed by the taxpayer's employer certifying that the conditions set out in the applicable provision were met in the year in respect of the taxpayer, is filed with the taxpayer's return of income for the year."

[26] A review of the applicable legislation clearly establishes that an employee is entitled to deduct motor vehicle expenses incurred in the year for employment travel provided:

(i) the amounts are reasonable in the circumstances;

(ii) all conditions of paragraph 8(1)(h.1) of the Act are met, namely:

(a) that the employee must be required to carry on his/her employment duties away from the employer's place of business,

(b) the employee must be required to bear those travel expenses,

(c) the employee must not have received a motor vehicle allowance from his/her employer that was not included in income because of paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Act), and

(d) the employer has signed a Form T2200.

[27] Paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act (supra) provides:

"There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable…

Personal or living expenses…

(b) all amounts received by the taxpayer in the year as an allowance for personal or living expenses or as an allowance for any other purpose, except…

vii.1) reasonable allowances for the use of a motor vehicle received by an employee (other than an employee employed in connection with the selling of property or the negotiating of contracts for the employer) from the employer for travelling in the performance of the duties of the office or employment."

[28] The legislative framework clearly establishes that the burden of proof falls on the Respondent to establish that the expenses he claims are entirely applicable to earning his income. The Respondent must also establish that the claimed expenses are not in respect of an allowance for travel expenses that was not included in his income and were not capital repayments.

[29] Exhibit "C" to the affidavit of the Respondent is a letter dated May 31st, 2013 from Ms. Lina Barbuto, Manager, Accounting and Payroll at Federal Express Limited.

[30] Ms. Barbuto provides the details of Box 40 on the Respondent's 2012 T4 slip (Exhibit "D"). She identifies these payments as Taxable Benefits and provides the following details "car allowance - $9,230.12 and Mileage Exp Reimbursement (15,739 km) - $3,263.41 for a total of $12,493.53." The letter also confirms that the Form T2200 has been provided by the employer on the Respondent's behalf.

[31] Canada Revenue Agency defines a taxable benefit as a benefit provided to an employee by an employer that has to be added to the employee's income each period to determine the total amount that is subject to source deductions.

[32] The letter from Ms. Barbuto clearly demonstrates that the amount of $12,493.53 was a taxable benefit in the hands of the Respondent and as a consequence, included in his 2012 income.

[33] Accordingly the necessary requirements of section 8(1)(h.1) as previously outlined have been met by the Respondent. It flows from this conclusion that the monies received by the Respondent are not a car allowance as claimed by the Applicant. The Respondent should be entitled therefore to deduct the amount confirmed annually by his employer as motor vehicle travel expenses from his income in accordance with Schedule III of the Guidelines and that this deduction is reasonable given all these circumstances.

[34] The Respondent seeks an order retroactively adjusting his income to 2009 and if ordered a recalculation of his child support for those years.

[35] I have reviewed the evidence of the parties regarding when the issue of deductibility of expenses was raised between them. The only evidence before me is that notice was provided by the Respondent to the Applicant via email on May 11th, 2012 (Exhibit "L").

[36] The Respondent has provided as Exhibit "C" to his affidavit a letter from his employer confirming the amounts received by him as a taxable benefit for motor vehicle expenses for the year 2012.

[37] The Respondent has also provided as Exhibit "I" his T4-Statement of Remuneration Paid for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. There is however no evidence before the Court confirming that the Respondent's employer completed the required T2200 or the identity and corresponding amounts of any taxable benefits earned by the Respondent during those years. The result is that I cannot be satisfied that the requirements of section 8(1)(h.1) of the Income Tax Act have been complied with for the taxation years 2009, 2010 and 2011.

[38] Even if this information was to have been provided by the Respondent, the Court is not satisfied that a retroactive award should be awarded.

[39] The leading decision on retroactive child support is the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in D.B.S. v. S.R.G. [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 100. Although this decision dealt with a claim to retroactively increase child support, the four factors listed by Bastarache to be considered when faced with a claim for a retroactive decrease in support apply.

[40] The factors listed in D.B.S. (supra) are:

1. the reasons for delay in a recipient parent's application;

2. the parent's behaviour or blameworthy conduct;

3. the children's general circumstances; and

4. whether a retroactive award would constitute hardship.

[41] The Respondent's evidence is that he was only made aware of the deductibility of his expenses in 2012. His evidence is that he immediately attempted to engage in discussions with the Applicant.

[42] Of particular relevance to this case are factors 3 and 4. The Respondent has filed as Exhibit "K" a calculation which indicates that should an order be made to retroactively adjust his income for child support purposes, an overpayment of $7,706.00 would have resulted for the period between June 1st, 2010 and March 31st 2013.

[43] I am satisfied that if the Respondent's child support was retroactively adjusted as requested, the children's circumstances would be affected to their detriment and an ensuing hardship would be attributable to the Applicant given that the Respondent is seeking to credit his ongoing child support as the method by which he is seeking to be re-imbursed.

[44] It is also impossible to determine what impact, if any, this factor could have had on the parties' overall settlement terms and particularly on the issue of spousal support, had the lower amount of child support been discovered by the parties at the time of the signing of their Separation Agreement in May 2010.

[45] For all of these reasons, the order sought by the Respondent to retroactively adjust his income for child support purposes is granted however only to January 1st, 2013 as the Motion to Change was commenced on December 12th, 2012.

(2) Rental Income Inclusion

[46] Should the Respondent's child support obligation be retroactively increased by allowing the inclusion of rental income to his income and if so, at what amount and effective which date?

[47] The Applicant seeks an order requiring that rental income received by the Respondent be included in his income for child support purposes.

[48] There is no dispute between the parties that the Respondent has had a tenant residing in the basement apartment of his home since September 2009 and paying a monthly rent of $900.00.

[49] There is no dispute between the parties that the Respondent has never declared this rental income to Canada Revenue Agency.

[50] There is no dispute between the parties, as evidenced by paragraph 1.2 of their Separation Agreement dated May 20th, 2010, that their date of separation is December 3rd, 2007 and that they were living separate and apart at the time.

[51] Paragraph 21 of the affidavit of the Applicant sworn September 6th, 2013 and filed for the purposes of this hearing, confirms the following information known to the Applicant, namely:

1. that the Respondent purchased his current home in April 2009; and

2. that a tenant has been residing in the basement apartment since September 2009 and paying a monthly rent of $900.00.

[52] The evidence is clear therefore that the Applicant had knowledge of this income source by the Respondent at the time of the signing of the Separation Agreement.

[53] Paragraph 4.2 of the parties' Separation Agreement states as follows: "For purposes of determining support for the children, Scott's annual income for 2009 was $84,763.72… .". The Respondent's 2009 T4-Statement of Remuneration paid filed as Exhibit "I" indicates his employment income as $85,028.14. The difference in these two amounts is $264.43 which does not correspond with any amount should the rental income, either gross or net, received by the Respondent be included in the calculation of his income for child support purposes.

[54] Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the intention of the parties at the time of the signing of the Separation Agreement and the subsequent Amending Agreement was that any rental income received by the Respondent was not to be included as income for the purposes of establishing his child support obligation. The evidence clearly establishes that the inclusion of this rental income arose out of the claims raised by the Applicant once served with the Respondent's Motion to Change.

[55] Section 15(2) of the Guidelines provides as follows:

"(2) Agreement – Where both parents or spouses agree in writing on the annual income of a parent or spouse, the court may consider that amount to be the parent's or spouse's income for the purposes of these guidelines if the court thinks that the amount is reasonable having regard to the income information provided for in section 21."

[56] The issue therefore becomes whether or not the Court is of the view that the continued exclusion of the rental income is reasonable.

[57] Given the totality of the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the parties' agreed to exclude the rental income received by the Respondent when child support was based on the line 150 income of the Respondent. The Applicant sought to alter this arrangement and gave notice to the Respondent in her Response filed on January 10th, 2013.

[58] Given these circumstances, I find that it is reasonable on an ongoing basis, namely from January 2013, to include a percentage of the rental income so as to determine the Respondent's global income for child support purposes.

[59] The Applicant's claim to include any rental income retroactive to 2009 is dismissed.

[60] The Applicant's position is that the full monthly payment of $900.00, which totals $10,800.00 on an annual basis, should be included in the Respondent's income for child support purposes.

[61] The Respondent's position is that no amount should be included in his income. The Respondent's claims that he does not profit from the rental income he receives as this amount is negated by his carrying expenses. In support of his claim, the Respondent has provided evidence of the initial costs incurred to construct the apartment and the percentage allocated to the apartment for mortgage, property taxes, insurance and utilities.

[62] Section 19(2) of the Guidelines provides "(2) Reasonableness of expenses - For the purposes of clause (1)(g), the reasonableness of an expense deduction is not solely governed by whether the deduction is permitted under the Income Tax Act (Canada)."

[63] The Respondent admits to not declaring any of the rental income he receives. This income and the ensuing expenses however would appear to be permissible under the Income Tax Act. I find however that the total amount of expenses that the Respondent is seeking to result in a net effect of nil is not reasonable.

[64] I further find no justification to distinguish the case at bar from the authoritative cases on this issue and referred to by counsel for the Respondent, namely Graves v. Eager (2002), 29 R.F.L. (5th) 313 (Ont. C.A.); Wilkinson v. Wilkinson 2008 ONCJ 96; and Crabtree v. Crabtree (2009), 70 R.F.L. (6th) 371 (Ont. SCJ). Accordingly, only the "hard costs" of mortgage interest, property taxes and insurance will be deducted from the gross rental income received by the Respondent.

[65] Paragraph 50 of the Respondent's affidavit states that the basement apartment represents 39.2% of the total space of his home. This evidence is not disputed by the Applicant.

[66] Paragraph 55 of the Respondent's affidavit details the annual hard costs of mortgage interest, property tax and home insurance in the amount of $10,500. The dollar value attributable to the apartment is $4,116.00 annually or $343.00 per month.

[67] Given this evidence, the amount of rental income to be attributed to the Respondent's income for the purposes of establishing his child support obligation is $6,684.00 annually namely the gross rent of $10,800.00 less the applicable percentage of hard costs of $4,116.00.

[68] Given the Court's decision on issues 1 and 2, the Respondent's income to be used in determining his 2013 child support obligation effective January 1st, 2013 is as follows:

2012 Employment income (Ex. E – line 150 income)	$97,444.50
Less
Motor vehicle expenses (Ex. C)	$12,493.53
Plus
Net rental income	$6,684.00
Income for child support purposes:	$91,634.97
Child support payable per month:	$2,039.00

[69] The evidence of the Respondent is that he has been paying child support in the amount of $2,022.00 from June 1st, 2012 to present (Exhibit "K"). Accordingly the Respondent would be in a position of owing support in the amount of $187.00, namely $17.00 (the difference between $2,022.00 and $2,039.00) for the period January 1st to November 30th, 2013. The Respondent shall make payment to the Family Responsibility Office of this shortfall within fourteen (14) days. If there is an overpayment, this will be applied to any arrears owing.

(3) Section 7 Expenses

[70] Should the Respondent be required to provide fixed contributions to the expenses claimed by the Applicant as section 7 expenses she incurred on behalf of the children and if so at what amount and effective which date?

[71] The Applicant seeks an order requiring the Respondent to contribute his proportionate share to a psychological assessment of Nathan, extra-curricular expenses for the other children and braces for McKay.

[72] The re-imbursement sought by the Applicant regarding the costs for the psychological assessment for Nathan is dismissed as this cost, if wished to be recovered by the Applicant, should have been addressed in the negotiations of the parties' Separation Agreement signed on May 20th, 2010 as this expenses was incurred in February 2010 (Applicant's affidavit Exhibit "L").

[73] The Applicant indicates that the costs for the extracurricular activities was consented to by the Respondent but never paid. The Respondent denies having agreed to pay the costs as claimed by the Applicant.

[74] I am not satisfied with the evidence before me that paragraph 4.6 of the parties' Separation Agreement was adhered to by the parties for all of the expenses being claimed by the Applicant.

[75] Exhibit "O" to the Applicant's affidavit is an unsworn Statement of Arrears that the Applicant indicates she intends to submit to the Family Responsibility Office (FRO). The amount of arrears owing are listed as totaling $935.00. The Respondent consents to paying this amount and indicates that his current arrangement with FRO is to provide a monthly payment of $150.00.

[76] I am therefore fixing arrears for section 7 expenses to date in the amount of $935.00 as of September 16th, 2013. The balance owing, once confirmation has been obtained by FRO of any $150.00 payments made by the Respondent, shall be paid to the Family Responsibility Office by the Respondent within fourteen (14) days of this order.

(4) Spousal Support

[77] Has a material change in circumstances occurred which results in the Applicant being entitled to spousal support and if so, at what amount and effective which date?

[78] The Applicant seeks spousal support in the amount of $749.00 retroactive to October 31st, 2012.

[79] The Applicant claims that she is entitled to spousal support given that her common-law partner's income has significantly decreased since the signing of her Separation Agreement with the Respondent in May, 2010. The Applicant relies solely on this fact in support of her position that a material change in circumstances has occurred.

[80] There is no dispute between the parties that the Applicant began residing with her current common-law partner in January 2010.

[81] The Respondent submits that Applicant has not satisfied the burden of proof that a material change in circumstances has occurred resulting in a review of spousal support to occur in accordance with paragraph 6.1 of the parties' Separation Agreement. He therefore seeks this claim to be dismissed.

[82] The Applicant has filed as Exhibit "K" to her affidavit, the Notices of Assessment of her common-law partner for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.

[83] A review of this evidence indicates an elimination of commission income, other employment income and RRSP income in the year 2012. The affidavit of the Applicant does not provide any information as to why this has occurred. An affidavit from the Applicant's common-law partner was not filed for the purposes of this hearing.

[84] Given this evidence, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has met her burden to establish that a material change in circumstances has occurred which entitles her to receive spousal support. I am therefore dismissing the Applicant's claim for spousal support.

(5) Health Insurance Enforcement

[85] Is the Respondent in breach of paragraph 4.12 of the parties' Separation Agreement?

[86] There is insufficient evidence before the Court to conclude that the Respondent is in breach of paragraph 4.12 of the parties' Separation Agreement. The Applicant merely states that this has occurred yet does not provide any details supporting her claim that a breach has occurred. This claim is therefore dismissed.

ORDER

[87] For the above reasons, I make the following final order varying the Separation Agreement dated October 14th, 2011 and filed with the court on November 10th, 2011 to provide as follows:

1. Paragraph 4.2 is varied by adding that for the purpose of determining the amount of monthly child support payable by The Respondent (Scott), his annual income will be his line 150 income less the amount certified by his employer in the Canada Revenue Agency Form T2200 (or subsequent form) to be a taxable benefit for "car allowance and mileage expense reimbursement" plus adding in the net amount of rental income, namely the monthly rent received by the Respondent less 39.2% of his annual costs for mortgage interest, property taxes and insurance;

2. The Respondent's child support obligation shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph 1 above, effective January 1st, 2013;

3. Any overpayment resulting from the re-calculation of the Respondent's income for child support purposes shall be put towards any arrears of support owing as calculated by the Family Responsibility Office;

4. Any underpayment resulting from the re-calculation of the Respondent's income for child support purposes shall be paid within 14 days by the Respondent to the to the Family Responsibility Office;

5. The arrears of child support for section 7 expenses are hereby fixed at $935.00 as of September 16th, 2013. The balance owing, once confirmation has been obtained by FRO of any $150.00 payments made by the Respondent, shall be paid within 14 days to the Family Responsibility Office;

6. The Applicant's claim for spousal support is dismissed;

7. The Applicant's claim regarding enforcement of paragraph 4.12 is dismissed; and

8. A Support Deduction Order will issue.

[88] Should the Applicant and counsel for the Respondent wish to address me on the issue of costs, please contact my legal assistant, Ms. Laurie Findlay, at (905) 456-4833 within ten (10) days of the date of this order to arrange a teleconference to discuss a timetable for this issue.

Released: November 5, 2013

Justice Parent