Court File and Parties

Court File No.: D57547/12 Date: 2014-03-21

Ontario Court of Justice

Toronto North Family Court

Between:

Latoy Sagica Dormer Paulina Sbrocchi, Agent for the City of Toronto, Assisting the Applicant

Applicant

- and -

Clifford George Tucker Acting in Person

Respondent

Heard: March 3 and 19, 2014

Justice: S.B. Sherr

Reasons for Decision

Part One – Introduction

[1] This trial was about the respondent's (the father's) support obligations for the parties' two children, Jodane, who is 12 years old, and Jayla, who is 7 years old (the children).

[2] The applicant (the mother) seeks an order that the father pay her the child support guideline (the guidelines) table amount of child support retroactive to February 1, 2012.

She also seeks an order that the father pay his proportionate share of Jodane's orthodontic expenses pursuant to section 7 of the guidelines.

[3] The mother has assigned her interest in the support order and any support arrears to the City of Toronto. She was assisted by an agent from the City of Toronto in the presentation of this case.

[4] The father proposed to pay child support between $400 and $500 per month on an ongoing basis only, inclusive of any section 7 expenses. He asks that all child support arrears that have accrued pursuant to temporary orders of the court be rescinded.

[5] The parties disagree on what income should be attributed to the father for support purposes for the years 2013 and 2014. The father asks the court to fix his income at $36,713 per annum. The mother asks to fix the father's income at $40,160 for 2013 and $56,160 per annum starting on January 1, 2014.

[6] The parties also disagree about how much support the father has paid to the mother since February 1, 2012. The father claimed that he made significant cash payments to the mother in excess of the sums she has declared to the court.

[7] The issues for this court to determine are:

a) What annual income should be attributed to the father for support purposes?

b) Should there be an order for retroactive support?

c) If so, when should the support order begin?

d) Does the father have a valid undue hardship claim pursuant to section 10 of the guidelines that justifies reducing the table amount of child support?

e) Is the orthodontic expense an eligible section 7 expense?

f) If so, what is the amount of the expense, after taking into consideration any tax deduction or tax credit?

g) If the orthodontic expense is an eligible section 7 expense, what portion of this expense should the father pay, and how should it be paid?

h) What credits should the father receive for child support paid to the mother?

i) How should any arrears of child support, if any, be paid?

Part Two – Factual Background

[8] The parties never lived together. They had a relationship from 1999 until 2004. They had the two children together.

[9] The mother is 32 years old. She resides with the two children and a 3-year-old child from another relationship. She is in receipt of public assistance.

[10] The father is 31 years old. He has two other children (ages 3 and 5) who live with their mother. He lived with the mother of these children for about eight years. They married on August 5, 2012 and separated 3 days later. They have remained apart since then. The father is presently employed as a handyman.

[11] The mother issued an application for custody and child support on September 14, 2012. She did not seek a contribution to section 7 expenses in that application.

[12] On November 22, 2012, the parties consented to an order granting the mother final custody of the children. A final access order was also made. The parties agreed, on a without prejudice basis, that the father would pay temporary child support to the mother in the sum of $438 per month, based on an imputed annual income of $30,000. The support payments were to begin on January 1, 2013. The father was required to provide specified financial disclosure.

[13] The father did not make any support payments pursuant to this temporary order.

[14] The parties returned to court on March 1, 2013. A further financial disclosure order with respect to the father was made. The father did not comply with this order and on May 14, 2013, the parties consented to an order granting the father a 10-day extension to serve and file his financial disclosure.

[15] On August 26, 2013, the mother issued an amended application. She was now seeking a contribution to Jodane's orthodontic expenses.

[16] On August 26, 2013, the father represented to the court that he had been unable to find work since November of 2012, but might find work within the week. On agreement, the case was adjourned, on terms that the temporary support order be suspended and that the father provide a job search list and immediately notify the mother when he obtained employment.

[17] On October 21, 2013, based on the father's admission that he was now working at the rate of $58,000 per annum, the court ordered him to pay temporary child support of $858 per month, starting on October 1, 2013. The father represented to the court that he had started work on August 28, 2013. This representation was false.

[18] On February 21, 2014, the father provided the mother a letter from his employer stating that he had been employed on a full-time basis since May 13, 2013. This directly contradicted his representation to the court on August 26, 2013 that he had been unemployed since November of 2012 and his representation to the court on October 21, 2013 that he had started working on August 28, 2013.

Part Three – Retroactive Support

[19] The mother seeks an order that the support order be retroactive to February 1, 2012. She also seeks an order that the father contribute his proportionate share of the orthodontic expenses. Some of this expense is retroactive in nature as it was incurred prior to her issuing her amended application.

[20] The Supreme Court in D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; Laura Jean W. v. Tracy Alfred R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37 outlined the factors that a court should take into account in dealing with retroactive applications. Briefly, there are four points that the court raised:

1. Reasonable excuse for why support not considered earlier.

2. Conduct of the payor parent.

3. Circumstances of the child.

4. Hardship occasioned by the retroactive order.

[21] None of the above factors are decisive or take priority and all should be considered in a global analysis. In determining whether to make a retroactive award, a court will need to look at all of the relevant circumstances in front of it. The payor's interest in certainty must be balanced with the need for fairness and flexibility.

[22] Where ordered, an award should generally be retroactive to the date when the recipient gave the payor effective notice of his or her intention to seek an increase in support payments; this date represents a fair balance between certainty and flexibility (D.B.S., par. 5).

[23] Effective notice is defined as any indication by the recipient parent that child support should be paid, or if it already is, that the current amount needs to be renegotiated. All that is required is for the subject to be broached. Once that has been done the payor can no longer assume that the status quo is fair (D.B.S., par. 121).

[24] Once the issue is raised, the recipient must still be responsible in moving the discussion forward. If he or she does not, legal action should be contemplated. A prolonged period of inactivity after effective notice may indicate that the payor's reasonable interest in certainty has returned. Thus, even if effective notice has already been given, it will usually be inappropriate to delve too far into the past. (D.B.S., par. 123).

[25] The D.B.S. principles also apply to retroactive claims for section 7 expenses. See: Smith v. Selig, 2008 NSCA 54, 56 R.F.L. (6th) 8 (NSCA); Hetherington v. Tapping, 2007 BCSC 209; Surerus-Mills v. Mills [2006] O.J. No. 3839 (Ont. S.C.J.).

[26] The mother testified that she frequently asked the father to pay child support, but he would provide little. She said that he would constantly tell her that he was not working and could not afford to pay her much. She said that the father rarely told her when he was working. She said that she made another request for support in April of 2012 and the father did give her three money orders for $100 each, in April and May of 2012. When the father failed to give her any more money, she said that she applied for legal aid. She was not approved for legal aid and with the assistance of the City of Toronto commenced this claim in September of 2012.

[27] The father deposed that the mother only sought support from him in July of 2012 when she learned that he was getting married. He testified that he had always provided the mother with support and she was satisfied with what he provided to her.

[28] The mother deposed that she first asked the father to contribute towards Jodane's orthodontic expenses in April of 2013. The father acknowledged that this was the case, but said he asked her to hold off on treatment as he hoped to soon obtain work which would have medical benefits.

[29] The mother's claim for retroactive support is quite modest in the circumstances. She adequately explained the delay in coming to court from February 1, 2012 until September of 2012 and her subsequent delay in seeking contribution from the father towards the section 7 expense. She tried to avoid a court application and gave the father the opportunity to voluntarily pay support. It was only when he stopped making payments that she issued her application.

[30] The father has engaged in blameworthy conduct. I find that he only made the three support payments of $100 each to the mother in 2012, despite the fact that he has been employed full-time and was aware that he had a far greater support obligation. He preferred his own interests to those of the children.

[31] The court does not accept the father's evidence that he made further cash payments to the mother. He provided no proof of such payments. The father was not a credible witness. He misrepresented to the court on August 26, 2013 that he had not been working since November of 2012, when he had actually been working since May of 2013. As a result, his support obligation was temporarily suspended. He did not reveal that he had been working since May of 2013 until February of 2014. He did not comply with the temporary support orders, claiming that he did not understand that he had to start paying the support. This was not credible. He claimed in his Answer that he bought a home in Barrie. In an effective cross-examination by Ms. Sbrocchi, the father claimed that this statement in his Answer was untrue and blamed his wife for preparing the document inaccurately. This also was not credible. At one point in his evidence, he claimed that he did not work for most of 2012. This was contradicted by evidence showing that he earned over $32,393 in 2012 and was only laid off in November of that year.

[32] The circumstances of the children have been adversely affected due to the failure of the father to pay adequate support. They are living on a shoe-string budget.

[33] There will be some hardship to the father due to a retroactive order. However, this court has little sympathy for him. He has underpaid support for many years. He has placed his own interests ahead of his children's interests. Any hardship is directly a result of selfish choices that he has made. Any hardship can be addressed through a reasonable repayment plan.

[34] The father is very fortunate that the mother did not seek a larger retroactive support order.

[35] The court will order the father to pay the table amount of child support retroactive to February 1, 2012. It will also order him to pay towards the section 7 expenses that are retroactive in nature.

Part Four – The Father's Income and the Table Amount of Child Support

[36] It was agreed that the father's income in 2012 was $32,393.

[37] The father was laid off by his employer in November of 2012. He remained unemployed until May 13, 2013. He has been employed since then.

[38] The father says that his 2013 income for support purposes should be based on his gross income earned that year. His gross income based on his 2013 T4 statement was $36,713.12.

[39] The mother asks the court to fix the father's income for 2013 at $40,160 for support purposes. She asks the court to impute an additional $3,447 to him. This represents the amount that the father would have been entitled to if he had applied on a timely basis for employment insurance benefits.

[40] Section 19 of the guidelines provides that the court may impute to a spouse "such amount of income … as it considers appropriate" and provides a non-exhaustive list of such circumstances.

[41] Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed. See: Drygala v. Pauli, [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (Ont. CA).

[42] The father did not make an application for employment insurance benefits until after he found new employment on May 13, 2013 and did not follow through with his application. He did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why he failed to apply for these benefits in a timely manner. He did not dispute that he would have been entitled to the benefits that the mother seeks to impute to him. The father is very familiar with the employment insurance benefit system. He works in a field where people are frequently out of work and he has often applied in the past for these benefits. In fact, he received EI benefits in 2009, 2011 and 2012. He had the ability to earn this additional income and chose not to. The children should not be disadvantaged by this choice.

[43] The father's income in 2013 shall be imputed at $40,160.

[44] The mother seeks to fix the father's income starting on January 1, 2014 at $56,160 per annum. She bases this calculation on the father's earnings from May to December of 2013 extrapolated over a full year.

[45] The father testified that his work is seasonal and he doesn't earn as much at this time of the year. He testified that he is earning $30 per hour and he is averaging about 30 hours per week. This would project to an income of about $46,800 per annum.

[46] I accept that there is a seasonal aspect to the father's work and his earnings are likely reduced somewhat in the winter months. I've also considered his evidence that he started with this employer earning $22 per hour and is now earning $30 per hour.

[47] The court will assess the father's annual income at $50,000 per annum for support purposes starting on January 1, 2014.

Part Five – Undue Hardship Claim

[48] Although not specifically pleaded, by asking the court to make a support order that is less than the guideline table amount, the father is essentially making an undue hardship claim.

[49] Undue hardship claims are governed by section 10 of the guidelines, which reads as follows:

Undue Hardship

10. (1) On the application of either spouse or a mother under section 33 of the Act, a court may award an amount of child support that is different from the amount determined under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9, if the court finds that the parent or spouse making the request, or a child in respect of whom the request is made, would otherwise suffer undue hardship.

Circumstances That May Cause Undue Hardship

(2) Circumstances that may cause a parent, spouse or child to suffer undue hardship include:

(a) the parent or spouse has responsibility for an unusually high level of debts reasonably incurred to support the parents or spouses and their children during cohabitation or to earn a living;

(b) the parent or spouse has unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access to a child;

(c) the parent or spouse has a legal duty under a judgment, order or written separation agreement to support any person;

(d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage, who is:

(i) under the age of majority, or

(ii) the age of majority or over but is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessaries of life;

(e) the parent has a legal duty to support a child, other than the child who is the subject of this application, who is under the age of majority or who is enrolled in a full time course of education;

(f) the parent or spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to an illness or disability.

Standards of Living Must Be Considered

(3) Despite a determination of undue hardship under subsection (1), an application under that subsection must be denied by the court if it is of the opinion that the household of the parent or spouse who claims undue hardship would, after determining the amount of child support under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9, have a higher standard of living than the household of the other parent or spouse.

Standards of Living Test

(4) In comparing standards of living for the purpose of subsection (3), the court may use the comparison of household standards of living test set out in Schedule II.

Reasonable Time

(5) Where the court awards a different amount of child support under subsection (1), it may specify, in the order for child support, a reasonable time for the satisfaction of any obligation arising from circumstances that cause undue hardship and the amount payable at the end of that time.

Reasons

(6) Where the court makes an order for the support of a child in a different amount under this section, it must record its reasons for doing so.

[50] It is very difficult to make out a successful undue hardship claim under section 10 of the guidelines. There are three parts to the test:

1. The person making this claim must show that there are circumstances that could create undue hardship.

2. If this is the case, the person making the claim must show that his or her standard of living is lower than that of the responding party's.

3. If the first two parts of the test are made out, the court has the discretion to make a support order different than the table amount, based on the means, needs and circumstances of the parties.

See: Matthews v. Matthews, [2001] O.J. No. 876 (SCJ).

[51] The father must prove more than hardship. He must show that the hardship is exceptional, excessive or disproportionate, not merely awkward or inconvenient. See: Hanmore v. Hanmore, 2000 ABCA 57.

[52] The father has the onus of providing adequate supporting documentation to prove his undue hardship claim. See: Van Gool v. Van Gool.

[53] The basis of the father's undue hardship claim is that he has a support obligation towards his other two children. This is a circumstance that can create undue hardship. See: clause 10(2)(d) of the guidelines.

[54] However, the father provided no evidence (even with an adjournment between trial dates) that he is paying any support for his other children. Given his dismal history of paying child support for Jodane and Jayla, the court is not prepared to accept that the father is suffering any undue hardship due to his support obligations for his other children.

[55] Even if the father had been able to meet the first part of the undue hardship test, his claim would still have failed as he did not come close to meeting the second part of the test – his standard of living is higher than the mother's. The mother is on public assistance. The father has a good income, owns two vehicles (including one car he bought in December of 2011 for $41,000) and claims in his sworn financial statement that he spends $2,373 per month for vehicle expenses alone.

[56] The father's claim for undue hardship is dismissed.

Part Six – Section 7 Claim

[57] The mother is asking that the father pay his proportionate share of Jodane's orthodontic expenses pursuant to section 7 of the guidelines.

[58] The cost of the orthodontic work is $6,000. The mother paid lump sums totaling $1,600 to the orthodontist in 2013. In addition, she has paid the orthodontist $275 per month since September 1, 2013. The payments should be completed by the end of September in 2014.

[59] In awarding s. 7 special and extraordinary expenses, the court calculates each party's income for child support purposes, determines whether the claimed expenses fall within one of the enumerated categories of s. 7 of the guidelines, determines whether the claimed expenses are necessary "in relation to the child's best interests" and are 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." If the expenses fall under clause 7(1)(d) or (f) of the guidelines, the court determines whether the expenses are "extraordinary". Finally, the court considers what amount, if any, the child should reasonably contribute to the payment of these expenses and then applies any tax deductions or credits. See: Titova v. Titov, 2012 ONCA 864.

[60] The relevant provision of the guidelines reads:

Section 7 – Special and Extraordinary Expenses

7. (1) In a 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 $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.

[61] The orthodontic expense falls within clause 7(1)(c) of the guidelines.

[62] The father claims that the orthodontic expense is neither reasonable nor necessary. He does not dispute that Jodane required the orthodontic work, but takes the position that the mother should have held off doing the work until he obtained his new job which would have medical and dental benefits that could pay for a large portion of the expense.

[63] There is no merit to the father's claim. I accept the mother's evidence that she advised the father about the need for the orthodontic work in April of 2013 and asked him then to pay 50% of this expense and he advised her that he could not pay towards it. The evidence filed from the orthodontist confirms that Jodane required serious orthodontic work right away. He was in serious pain and couldn't chew properly. The mother made a responsible medical decision for the child. The father had given the mother no reason to believe that she could count on him for any financial contribution or honest disclosure of his income. She could not wait for him at the expense of Jodane. The subsequent facts bore this out. Despite obtaining full-time employment (with health and dental benefits) in May of 2013, the father failed to advise the mother of this until February of 2014. He misrepresented his employment status to both the mother and the court.

[64] The father testified that his benefit plan covers orthodontic costs up to $3,000, but did not believe that he could submit a claim for costs already incurred. He filed a copy of his company's medical benefit plan booklet. This booklet indicates that there is a $2,500 Lifetime Maximum benefit for Orthodontics. It states that the proposed treatment must be submitted to an administrative agent, in advance, for approval and that failure to do so may result in payment of a lesser benefit amount because of the difficulty in determining the need for such treatment after it has been provided.

[65] It remains uncertain what, if any, benefit may be obtained from the insurer for the orthodontic expenses at this time. The father provided no evidence that these children are covered under this plan. It is unclear whether the benefit will be approved, close to one year after it began. This is the complete fault of the father. If he had been forthright about his employment and benefits, this issue could have been addressed in a timely manner and the mother would have likely received reimbursement up to $2,500. The mother has had to borrow money from family and friends to pay for the orthodontic expenses. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to assume that there might not be any insurance coverage available at this time for this expense.

[66] The court must next determine what the net amount of the orthodontic expense is as the mother is entitled to tax credits for this expense. The mother provided software calculations showing that she would receive tax credits of $1,142 spread over 2013 and 2014, leaving a net medical expense of $4,858. The court accepts this evidence.

[67] This leads to what share of the orthodontic expenses the father should pay. I have already determined that he should contribute to the portion of the expense that is retroactive in nature. Subsection 7(2) of the guidelines states that the guiding principle in determining the amount of a special expense is that the expense is shared by the parents or spouses in proportion to their respective incomes.

[68] Even if a payor does not meet the difficult undue hardship test in section 10 of the guidelines, the existence of other support obligations could support an argument that the court should deviate from the guiding principle in subsection 7(2) of the guidelines and reduce the payor's proportionate contribution. Due to the father's behaviour in this case, I am not prepared to do this. It would not be just.

[69] The father, through his failure to advise the mother about the availability of a benefits plan, has possibly deprived her of reimbursement of a significant portion of the orthodontic expenses. According to the benefit booklet, this would amount to $2,500. The mother should not lose any of this benefit. This order will require the father to pay the first $2,500 of the orthodontic cost. He will also be ordered to pay his proportionate share of the remainder of the net amount of this expense ($4,858 - $2,500 = $2,358).

[70] The father will be required to submit the entire amount of the orthodontic expense to his insurer for reimbursement with a direction that any amounts covered be paid directly to the mother. If the insurer will only reimburse him personally, he is to promptly pay this amount to the mother and provide documentary proof of the amount reimbursed. The father will receive a credit for any such amounts reimbursed towards the total amount he will be ordered to contribute for the section 7 expenses.

[71] In calculating the mother's income for calculating her share of section 7 expenses, the court only includes the social assistance payments payable to her, not those paid to the child. This totals $5,220 per annum.

[72] For the purpose of calculating the father's income to determine his proportionate share of the section 7 expense, his annual income will be averaged for 2013 and 2014. This averaged amount is $45,080.

[73] The software calculation indicates that the father's proportionate share of the remaining portion of the section 7 expense is 86.1%. This comes to $2,030. He shall pay this amount in addition to the first $2,500 of the orthodontic expense for a total of $4,530. The father will be given 18 months to pay this expense at the rate of $252 per month, starting on May 1, 2014 until repaid.

Part Seven – Support Credits and Calculation of Support Arrears

[74] I accept the mother's evidence that the father only paid her $300 in 2012, prior to issuing her application. The father will be credited for this amount.

[75] The records of the Family Responsibility Office with respect to payments made by the father since this court case was started were filed. The father did not dispute the accuracy of these records. They indicate that the father paid no child support in 2013 (despite the temporary orders) until November of 2013. The father has paid a total of $1,400 in support since then and he will be credited for these amounts.

[76] The father's child support arrears shall be calculated as follows:

2012 – Table amount based on $32,393 ($473 per month times 11 months) = $5,203

2013 – Table amount based on $40,160 ($583 per month times 12 months) = $6,996

2014 – Table amount based on $50,000 ($743 per month times 3 months) = $2,229

Total support accrued = $14,428

Less credits for support paid = $1,700

Total support owing = $12,728

[77] The mother indicated that she is willing to have these arrears repaid at the rate of $100 per month. This is a very reasonable proposal during the time the father is paying towards the section 7 expenses. The software analysis shows that this will leave the father with about $2,000 in net disposable income each month, even after paying the monthly amounts required by this order. However when his obligation to pay section 7 expenses ends in 18 months, his obligation to repay arrears should be accelerated, as he will have more money available to him. At that time, his arrears payment will be increased to $300 per month.

[78] The father is receiving a benefit by not having to immediately pay the support arrears (as well as the section 7 expenses that the mother has been paying). This benefit is conditional on keeping all of his payments in good standing. If any payment is more than 30 days in default, he will lose this benefit and the full amount of the arrears and section 7 expenses outstanding at that time shall immediately become due and payable.

[79] The father should be covering the children on his medical, dental and extended health benefits available through his employment. This order is appropriate pursuant to clause 34(1)(j) and subsection 34(2) of the Family Law Act as the mother is on public assistance and this coverage is required for the provision of necessaries of life.

Part Eight – Conclusion

[80] A final order shall go on the following terms:

a) The father shall pay the mother the guideline table amount of child support for two children, based on his 2012 income of $32,393, in the sum of $473 per month for 2012.

b) The father shall pay the mother the guideline table amount of child support for two children, based on his 2013 income of $40,160, in the sum of $583 per month for 2013.

c) The father shall pay the mother the guideline table amount of child support for two children, based on an annual income of $50,000, in the sum of $743 per month starting on January 1, 2014.

d) The father shall be credited for $1,700 for child support paid since January 1, 2012, as well as any support paid in March of 2014, as reflected in the records of the Family Responsibility Office.

e) The father's support arrears are fixed today at $12,728, subject to any adjustment for child support paid to the Family Responsibility Office in March of 2014, as reflected in their records.

f) The father shall pay the sum of $4,530 towards Jodane's orthodontic expenses over the next 18 months. These payments shall start on May 1, 2014, in the sum of $252 per month.

g) The mother shall immediately provide the father with the receipts for Jodane's orthodontic expenses and he shall submit them to his insurer for reimbursement, together with a written direction that all payments are to be made directly to her. If the insurer reimburses the father directly, he is to immediately notify the mother about this and pay the amount to her. He shall also provide her with documentary proof of the amount of the expense that the insurer has reimbursed. He shall be credited towards his section 7 expense obligation for the full amount of any reimbursement by the insurer.

h) The father shall cover the children on any medical, dental or extended health coverage that he has available to him through his place of employment and immediately provide the mother with documentary proof that such coverage is in place. He shall promptly process all claims submitted by the mother on behalf of the children.

i) This order changes all temporary support orders that were made.

j) The father shall repay the support arrears at the rate of $100 per month starting on May 1, 2014. Starting on November 1, 2015, these payments shall be increased to $300 per month. However, if the father is more than 30 days in default of any ongoing support payments, section 7 expense payments or arrears payments, the entire amount of the arrears and the section 7 expense outstanding shall immediately become due and payable.

k) The father shall, starting in 2015, annually provide the mother by June 30th with copies of his complete income tax returns, notices of assessment and his three most recent pay stubs. It is anticipated that the guideline table amount of child support will then be adjusted in accordance with his income for the prior year.

l) A support deduction order shall issue.

m) Nothing in this order precludes the Family Responsibility Office from collecting support arrears from any government source, such as HST or income tax refunds, or lottery or prize winnings.

n) The Family Responsibility Office is requested to amend their records to be in accordance with the terms of this order.

[81] If the mother wishes to seek costs, she shall serve and file written submissions by April 3, 2014. The father will then have until April 17, 2014 to serve and file a written response to these submissions. The written submissions are not to exceed 3 pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs. The submissions should be filed at the trial coordinator's office on the second floor of the courthouse.

Justice S.B. Sherr

Released: March 21, 2014