Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 81042/15 Date: August 19, 2016

Ontario Court of Justice

Re: Linda Theodora Aprile (also known as Linda Tsigoulis)

and

Giuseppe Corrado Aprile (also known as Joe Aprile)

Before: Justice Roselyn Zisman

Counsel:

• Julie Zimmerman, for the Applicant
• Taragh Bracken, for the Respondent

Heard On: July 29, 2016

Endorsement

1. Introduction

[1] This is a Motion to Change by the Applicant ("the mother") with respect to a separation agreement dated October 20, 2007 which was filed with the court on June 17, 2015. In the Motion to Change the mother sought financial disclosure from the father, retroactive adjustment from January 1, 2012 to the amount of child support payable by the Respondent ("the father"), an order fixing the arrears of child support and special and extraordinary expenses as of 2009.

[2] The father disputes these claims and seeks a retroactive readjustment as he claims he has overpaid child support and with respect to the special and extraordinary expenses that he was not consulted by the mother and that he paid for special expenses that the mother refused to contribute to.

[3] During the course of the argument, the father agreed to pay his share of the special expenses being, $12,303.16.

2. Background

[4] The parties were married on October 28, 1998 and separated in May 19, 2005. There are two children of the relationship Michael Vincent Aprile born January 24, 1998 and Jessica Phyllis Aprile born March 10, 2002. The parties entered into a separation agreement dated October 20, 2007 that provided the parties have joint custody of the 2 children with the mother having primary residence. Based on the father's annual income at the time of $120,000 and the Child Support Guidelines, he was required to pay child support of $1,644 per month.

[5] With respect to the special and extraordinary expenses, the separation agreement provided that initially the parties share those expenses equally but as of January 1, 2010 the father pay his share of the expense proportionate to his and the mother's income as the expenses are incurred. The separation agreement contemplated that the cost of daycare, summer camp, activities and medical and dental expenses were considered special and extraordinary expenses.

[6] With respect to disclosure, the parties were required on an annual basis to provide each other with financial disclosure and the father's child support obligation would be based on his line 150 income pursuant to his prior year's income.

[7] As of about 2010, the father refused to provide such disclosure despite the mother's requests. The mother then filed the separation agreement with the court in June 2015 and initiated this Motion to Change on June 17, 2015.

[8] Subsequently, the father retained counsel who corresponded with the mother's counsel in August 2015 and provided a spread sheet prepared by the father setting out his income and child support payments from 2009 to 2015. The father alleged that he overpaid child support in the amount of $21,914.4. [1] On September 29, 2015 the father's counsel wrote to mother's counsel advising that the father had provided all of the necessary disclosure documents.

[9] The parties attended a first appearance court on August 19, 2015 that was adjourned as the parties were negotiating a resolution. The parties attended a further first appearance court on December 4, 2015 and a case conference date was set. The parties did not file any consent.

[10] At the case conference before me on February 29, 2016 the parties agreed to a disclosure order by the father. If the disclosure was not available, father was also given an option to file an affidavit to explain his efforts to obtain such disclosure. All disclosure and any affidavit was to be provided 30 days prior to the return date.

[11] At a further case conference before me on April 21, 2016, I was advised that the father provided some but not all of the disclosure and he had not prepared an affidavit to explain his efforts to comply with the outstanding disclosure order. The father requested that the court order the parties into mediation. I was not prepared to suggest the parties enter into mediation as that offer had previously been made to the father.

[12] The father consented to pay 68% of any ongoing special expenses. A timetable was set for the serving and filing of any further affidavits. The father's time to serve and file his affidavit was extended to June 13th, in effect he was given further time to comply with the disclosure order. It was agreed that the Motion to Change would proceed before me based on the affidavits filed. The father was ordered to pay costs of $1,000 forthwith as he was unprepared at the case conference and he did not comply with the outstanding disclosure order.

[13] On June 21, 2016 the date set to argue the motion, the father sought an adjournment as the counsel he retained was not available. Mother's counsel was only told that the father might be requesting an adjournment and that counsel was trying to juggle things. Reluctantly a further adjournment was granted and neither counsel was permitted to file any further documents or affidavits. As a result the mother lost a day of work and the father was ordered to pay her lost wages of $275 and legal costs on a full recovery basis of $2,658.45 payable forthwith. If costs not paid, the mother's counsel was granted leave to bring a motion to strike the father's pleadings.

[14] The Motion to Change proceeded as scheduled on July 29, 2016.

[15] The mother relies on her Motion to Change, the Change Information form sworn June 3, 2015, affidavit sworn May 26, 2016 and her responding affidavit sworn June 16, 2016.

[16] The father relies on his financial statement sworn April 6, 2016 and his affidavit sworn June 13, 2016. Father's counsel also served further disclosure on the mother's counsel subsequent to my endorsement that no further materials could be filed. Counsel for the mother objected to the filing of those materials as it was contrary to the timetable set by the court, she did not have a reasonable opportunity to review the documents and the documents raised more questions than they answered. The father was not permitted to file any further documents.

3. Evidence with Respect to Father's Income

[17] The father's employment history, income and source of funds can be summarized as follows:

YEAR	EMPLOYMENT	INCOME	SOURCE OF FUNDS / EXPLANATION
2010	KML/Genesis	$120,000	Based on Line 150 income on Notice of Assessment
2011	KLM Engineered Homes Ltd. bought by Canadian Steel Frame Solutions and Light Steel Joist Solutions Inc. ("CSFS/LSJSI")	$111,400	Based on Line 150 income on Notice of Assessment
2012	CSFS/LSJSI	$111,761	Based on Line 150 income on Notice of Assessment
2013	CSFS/LSJSI closed; began company as part owner of InsideOut Cleaning Services Group Inc.	$90,426.70	Line 150 income on Notice of Assessment is $20,000; $70,426.70 received in installments tax free from US subsidiary of CSFS/LSJSI
2014	InsideOut Cleaning ceased operation at end of 2014; employed by SLB Prefab Systems at salary of $45,000 as of March 2014 on part-time and then as of July full-time at salary of $90,000	$60,179 ($2,000 from InsideOut and balance from SLB)	Line 150 income on Notice of Assessment $58,679; $42,500 plus HST received for sale of drawings from prior employment paid in installments of $3,000 plus HST through InsideOut; Not declared as alleged to be sale of asset not income
2015	SLB	$120,226	Line 150 income of Notice of Assessment; no explanation of increase in income from $90,000
2016	SLB closed Ontario branch; started new business as 1/3 owner of Skyrise Prefab	Income unknown	Financial Statement sworn April 6, 2016 indicates anticipated income of $120,000

4. Position of the Parties

[18] The father deposes that he has struggled financially, tried to pay child support sometimes to his financial detriment, lived close to the poverty line, needed to borrow $50,000 from his mother to pay off his debts and pay for his rent, tried his best to provide financial disclosure and that his life has been extremely stressful. He claims that based on his actual income he has overpaid child support.

[19] Counsel for the mother submits that the court should draw a negative inference from the father's late and incomplete disclosure and raises several issues with respect to the correct calculations with respect to the father's income. She seeks that the court impute income to the father and adjust child support retroactively.

5. Evidence of the Father's Income and Inferences to be Drawn

[20] The father was obligated to provide annual disclosure in accordance with the terms of the separation agreement and the parties were then required to re-adjust the amount of child support he should pay. The mother has filed proof of her emails to the father commencing in 2010 requesting that he provide her with proof in his income and seeking his proportionate share of the children's special expenses.

[21] The father does not explain in any satisfactory manner in his affidavit why he neglected to provide proof of his income on an ongoing basis.

[22] The explanation he offers for non-disclosure in 2011 when he only received income of $111,400 is that he "realized that the Applicant would not be amenable to a change in support and realized that I would need to take the matter to Court and I did not feel comfortable doing this myself and could not afford a lawyer." However, he produces no response to the mother's email asking for proof of his income and no request by him that child support be reduced as a result of his lower income. The separation agreement provided a simple mechanism for reducing child support and would not have required a court proceeding if the mother agreed to change his child support obligation based on his line 150 income.

[23] The only other explanation offered was that he did not file his 2013 income tax return until 2015 as he did not receive a T4 when Canadian Steel Frame Solutions and Light Steel Joist Solutions Inc. closed down. The father deposes that he told the mother about his situation but she did not believe him. He files no proof that he ever provided this explanation to the mother. None of the emails between the parties filed by the mother indicate that he raised this issue with the mother.

[24] It was not until the mother was forced to commence this Motion to Change that the father through his previous counsel provided any disclosure whatsoever.

[25] The February 29th, 2016 order for financial disclosure required the father to provide his complete personal income tax returns or file an affidavit to explain his efforts to do so. It was not until the father's June 13, 2016 affidavit that he provided some of the disclosure ordered or provided an explanation as to why he could not provide the ordered disclosure. His excuse for not proving copies of his income tax returns because his accountant was away and he did not know he could obtain copies directly from CRA is incredulous.

[26] The father deposes that he has "done his utmost" to provide the requested disclosure but was hindered because of his self-employment in 2013 and 2014 with InsideOut Cleaning Services Group Inc. He deposes that he was unable to provide the ordered disclosure because he had partners, he did not have access to the accounts and the bank statements and the company's financial statements have not been completed. He describes what can only be described as minimal efforts to contact one of the partners asking about the bank statements and was told they went to another partner's wife. He did not contact the other partner or the bank. He alleges that he believes the mother contacted the Canada Revenue Agency as he received a notice to file the company's returns. The mother denies that she contacted the Canada Revenue Agency and in any event this is irrelevant to the father's obligation to provide the court ordered disclosure.

[27] In April 2016, the father provided, as part of his court ordered disclosure, the Articles of Incorporation for Skyrise Prefab Building Solutions Inc. effective on December 11, 2015. He represented that he was a 1/3 owner but proved no disclosure to prove this. In his June 13th affidavit, the father attached a draft share agreement with respect to the purchase, with 2 new partners, of all of the shares of Skyrise for $165,000. He does not explain why he is purchasing shares from two partners that he originally purchased the company with or what his share of the sale price will be. Although he states that his contribution is as the "intellectual contributor" there is no proof that this is turn results in a waiver of his financial contribution. The share purchase agreement refers to the assumption of leased equipment, materials contracts and corporate bank accounts with no disclosure of any of these documents.

[28] The father deposes that he has not earned any income from this company. But the father alleged that his employment with SLB Prefab Solutions ended sometime in 2016 and he started his new business in December 11, 2015, and therefore he would not have earned any income for about the last 6 months and yet his financial statement sworn April 6, 2016 does not show any corresponding debt or loss of equity to explain how he is sustaining his expenses of $9,923 monthly.

[29] There are other discrepancies in the disclosure that was provided that raise serious issues with respect to the father's credibility. For example, the father alleged that he required a guarantor for his financing of the purchase of his Nissan Maxima and the guarantor is listed as "S Aprile". The mother alleges that she is unaware of any of the father's relatives with this name and that the information with respect to the employment or address of "S Aprile" is blank and the telephone number listed is an unlisted number. However, in his affidavit the father states that Salvatore Mazzulla signed as his guarantor for his car loan.

[30] The father states that his mother loaned him $50,000 to pay off his loans, allow him to pay off several small bills and rent his own accommodations. Although there is proof of a transfer of $50,000 into the father's bank account on September 2, 2015, there is no corresponding debt listed on the father's financial statement nor is there any accounting of the payment of debts or rent that would total his lump sum. In 2015 the father's stated income was $120,226 and in 2014 his stated income was $60,179 plus he received a further $42,500 for the sale of his drawings. Regardless of how that payment is accounted for, in 2014 the father had access to funds totalling $102,679. To suggest that he needed a loan from his mother makes no logical sense.

[31] It was only upon filing his affidavit of June 13th, 2016 that the mother became aware that the father had received $70,426.70 as a tax free payment in 2013 as he previously took the position that he only earned $20,000 in 2013.

[32] The father deposed that he lived close to the poverty line and suffered financially yet based on his income and his life style there is no basis for this gross exaggeration of his financial circumstances. Although the father deposes that some of the vacations he took were paid for by his girlfriend or obtained at bargain prices, no proof is provided.

[33] I find that a negative inference should be drawn from the father's failure to comply with his obligation to provide annual disclosure as required by the terms of the separation agreement despite requests by the mother that he provide this information. I also draw a negative inference as a result of his failure to comply fully with the court order for disclosure made on February 29th, 2016 and the extension given to comply with the order. I further draw a negative inference from the father's lack of timely disclosure. The father failed to file any responding materials to the mother's Motion to Change despite being served on June 25, 2015 until June 13, 2016 that is, almost a year since he was served and only a week before this motion was heard thereby depriving the mother of the opportunity to cross-examine him on the information provided.

[34] I also find that based on the disclosure that the father has filed there are discrepancies and unanswered questions that raise issues with respect to the father's credibility.

6. Findings with Respect to the Father's Actual Income for Child Support

[35] It is submitted by mother's counsel that the father did not provide an executed T2200 Declaration of Conditions of Employment forms confirming that he is entitled to deduct employment expenses from his income for income tax purposes. Therefore it is submitted that any amounts deducted for employee expenses that are not permitted by the Child Support Guidelines should be added back and grossed up for income tax purposes. Counsel relies on the case of Orser v. Grant [2] for the principle that the onus rests on the parent seeking to deduct expenses from income to provide meaningful documentation to substantiate those deductions, failing which the court may draw an adverse inference.

[36] Although I accept that this is a correct statement of the law, on the father's tax returns such expenses are not deducted from his line 150 income but rather they are deducted to reduce his taxable income and therefore did not affect the amount of child support that he should have paid.

[37] It is submitted by mother's counsel that the amount of $70,426.70 the father received tax free in 2013 from the US subsidiary of CSFS/LSKSI should grossed up for income tax purposes and if received in US funds the amount should be converted into Canadian funds. During submissions father's counsel agreed that the $70,426.70 should be grossed up for child support purposes. Based on the bank statements produced by the father showing these funds being deposited to his account, it appears that funds were in Canadian currency.

[38] It is further submitted by mother's counsel that the father has not submitted any documentation to verify his earnings from his self-employment with InsideOut Cleaning. The father only declared he earned $2,000 from InsideOut in 2014. As no documentation was provided it is impossible to determine what, if anything, the father earned from this company.

[39] However, the father did disclose that he received $42,500 plus HST for the sale of some drawings he had produced for a former employer and that these funds were paid into the bank account of InsideOut. The father deposes that he withdrew the funds, in installments of $3,000 but left the HST in the company. It is the father's position that these funds should not be included in his income as they represent the sale of an asset. The father provided no documentation to verify any of these representations. If the funds represent a sale his personal property he does not explain why the funds would not be paid to him personally but to a company in which he had other partners. He does not provide any documents to explain how the company accounted for these payments. I draw the inference that these payments are income and should be added to his income on a grossed up basis.

[40] For the year 2013, I have recalculated the father's income based on his declared income of $20,000 and grossed up the $70,000 he received tax free.

[41] For the year 2014, I have recalculated the father's income based on his declared employment income of $58,679, net self-employed income of $2,000 and grossed up the $42,500 he received. [3]

[42] I therefore find that the father's actual income and the amount of child support payable for child support purposes is as follows:

YEAR	ADJUSTED INCOME	MONTHLY CHILD SUPPORT PAYABLE PER ADJUSTED INCOME	CHILD SUPPORT PAYABLE PER AGREEMENT ANNUALLY	CHILD SUPPORT PAYABLE PER ADJUSTED INCOME ANNUALLY	ANNUAL DIFFERENCE
2010	$120,000	$1,644	$19,728	$19,728	NIL
2011	$111,400	$1,543	$19,728	$18,516	-$1,212
2012	$111,760	$1,559	$19,728	$18,708	-$1,020
2013	$125,003	$1,721	$19,728	$20,652	$927
2014	$129,799	$1,779	$19,728	$21,348	$1,620
2015	$120,226	$1,663	$19,728	$19,956	$228
2016	$120,000	$1,660	TBD	—	—

7. Applicable Legal Considerations

[43] As this is a Motion to Change the onus is on the mother as the moving to prove on a balance of probabilities that there has been a change in circumstances since the making of that order that would result in a different child support order.

[44] The relevant legislation provision is subsection 37(2.1) of the Family Law Act R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, as amended, which provides that:

(2.1) In the case of an order for support of a child, if the court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances within the meaning of the child support guidelines or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the court may,

(a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order, prospectively or retroactively;

(b) relieve the respondent from the payment of part or all of the arrears or any interest due on them; and

(c) make any other order for the support of a child that the court could make on an application under section 33. 1997, c. 20, s. 6

[45] Therefore, it is clear that the court has the discretion to grant the relief sought by the mother however, the granting of any variation of ongoing or retroactive child support and the reduction or recession of child support arrears is discretionary.

[46] A court also has the discretion to impute income to a parent in an amount it considers appropriate. Subsection 19 (1) (a) of the Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97, as amended, provides that:

19. (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,

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

[47] As the mother is seeking a retroactive order for child support, the court must consider the criteria as set out in the seminal case of D.B.S. v. S.R.G. et al. [4] The court held that generally a claim for an increase in support should be calculated as of the date of "effective notice" that is, when the recipient indicated that an increase in child support was requested and that unless the payor demonstrated bad faith or blameworthy conduct, the award should not be more than three years before formal notice in given. In this case, there was formal notice when the Motion to Change was issued. But there is proof that the mother requested proof of the father's income as of 2010.

[48] The court further held that the decision to order retroactive support should be based on a consideration of factors and that none of the factors is decisive. The court should strive for a holistic approach and strive to balance the payor's need for certainty with the need for fairness and flexibility. The factors to be considered are:

a) The reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking an increase in support;

b) The conduct of the payor;

c) The circumstances of the child, both past and present;

d) Any undue hardship.

8. Application of the Legal Considerations to the Facts of This Case

[49] Neither counsel made submissions with respect to the initial consideration of whether or not the mother, as the moving party, had met the onus on her to prove that there had been a change in the father's financial circumstances since the parties entered into their separation agreement.

[50] In order to determine if the mother has met the onus on her it is necessary to consider the issue of both parties' claims for a retroactive re-adjustment of child support.

[51] The mother commenced this Motion to Change to obtain financial disclosure from the father as she was not in a position to determine if there had been a change in the father's financial circumstances without this information. The mother also sought to enforce the father's payment of his share of the children's special expenses. Having then received only partial disclosure and the father's affidavit claiming his income had decreased and that he had overpaid child support, she was then required to continue with her Motion to Change, if only to submit that there was no merit in the father's position that his child support obligations should be retroactively re-adjusted. Based on the father's initial calculations he would have set off his overpayment which he calculated to be $21,914.40 against the amount he owed the mother for his share of the special expenses namely, $12,303.16 and then the mother would have owed him $10,111.76. However, he then revised his calculations as set out in his affidavit of June 13th, 2016 and deposed that he had overpaid child support by $5,276.30 and setting this amount off against the $12,303.16 he owed the mother for his share of the special expenses, he owed the mother $7,026.86.

[52] It is submitted by mother's counsel that the court should not consider the father's claim for a reduction of child support as he did not serve and file a response to the Motion to Change but merely makes this argument in his responding affidavit. Although procedurally mother's counsel is correct, in view of my finding that I would not permit a retroactive reduction in any event, I prefer to deal with the father's claim on the merits.

[53] I find that there is no merit in the father's claim for a retroactive reduction in his child support obligations. The father never requested such a reduction despite a simple mechanism set out in the separation agreement, he failed to provide financial disclosure as required in the separation agreement and failed to comply with the court orders for financial disclosure. In applying the D.B.S. factors to his claim, I find that there is no reasonable excuse provided by the father for not notifying the mother of his request for a reduction in his child support obligation and he engaged in blameworthy conduct by not providing financial disclosure. More significantly, based on my recalculation of the father's income for 2013 and 2014, even if a reduction in his support obligations for the years 2011 and 2012 was allowed, the overall adjustment as of 2010, would result in the father owing the mother $543.00.

[54] With respect to the mother's claim for retroactive child support, theoretically she should be entitled to her claim as the mother requested financial disclosure from the father as of 2010 and continued to request this information. It is understandable that she delayed in commencing a court application while the father generally continued to pay the base amount of child support in accordance with the terms of the separation agreement even if he neglected to pay his share of the special expenses. The father engaged in blameworthy conduct and forced the mother to commence this court proceeding to obtain the financial disclosure that he agreed to provide in their separation agreement. He has now provided some but not all of the financial disclosure that was requested and an adverse inference has been drawn against him for his failure to provide full and complete financial disclosure. The mother has incurred financial hardship as a result of the need to incur legal fees to obtain basic financial information from the father and as a result she has used funds that should have been used for the benefit of the children. There would be no financial hardship to the father in any retroactive readjustment.

[55] In calculating the mother's claim for a retroactive re-adjustment, I have re-adjusted the father's income for the years 2013 and 2014 to account for income that should be grossed up and included in his income for those years. However, for the years 2011 and 2012, the father was employed for an arm's length employer and there is undisputed evidence that there was a change in the ownership or corporate structure to the companies and in the subsequent year the company closed. The father provided copies of his Notices of Assessment to verify his income. I do not find that the mother has provided any basis to impute a higher income to the father for those years. Even if I had found that income should be imputed to the father for those years in the amount of the $120,000, this would only result in an overall retroactive readjustment of $2,775 owing to the mother by the father.

[56] In the end result, I find that the mother's Motion to Change must be dismissed as she has not met the onus on her to prove that there has been a significant or long lasting change in the father's financial circumstances since the parties entered into their separation agreement. The father has historically been able to earn in the range of $120,000. In other words, there is no basis to change the outstanding obligation for the father to continue to pay child support based on his income of $120,000.

[57] Despite the mother's Motion to Change being dismissed, I wish to be abundantly clear that the mother will be entitled to her costs. The mother was unnecessarily forced to commence and continue this litigation as a direct result of the father's failure to abide by his obligation to annually provide proof of his income pursuant to the separation agreement that both parties consented to and then he continued to fail to fulfill his obligation to provide the financial disclosure ordered by the court. It was only in the course of submissions that the father agreed to pay his share of the retroactive special expenses. It was only less than one week before this motion was argued that the father provided his affidavit that he revealed that he had received income that he had previously not disclosed and he still has not complied with the outstanding orders for disclosure. Parties have a fundamental obligation to provide full and frank financial disclosure and the father's failure to meet this obligation needs to be sanctioned.

[58] Although the mother requested that the court determine the outstanding child support arrears, in my view such a calculation should be left to the Family Responsibility Office as there is a dispute between the parties as to arrears owing prior to the separation agreement being filed with the Family Responsibility Office and this issue was not addressed in the affidavits filed on this motion.

[59] The father continues to have the obligation to pay child support of $1,644 per month for the years 2010 to 2015 in accordance with the terms of the separation agreement. Based on the father's estimate and the court's determination that he has the continued ability to earn $120,000 income for 2016, his child support obligation should now be $1,660 per month in accordance with the current Child Support Guidelines.

9. Order

[60] There will be an order as follows:

1. For clarity, the Respondent's obligation to pay child support for the years 2010 to 2015, shall continue to be $1,644.00 per month with credit for any funds he has already paid;

2. As of January 1, 2016 based on an imputed income of $120,000, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines for Michael Vincent Aprile born January 24, 1998 and Jessica Phyllis Aprile born March 10, 2002 in the amount of $1,660.00 per month with credit for any funds he has already paid;

3. On consent the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $12,303.16 as his share of the children's retroactive section 7 expenses. Such amount to be payable within 30 days.

4. All of the remaining terms of the separation agreement dated October 20, 2007 shall remain in full force and effect including the Respondent's ongoing obligation to provide financial disclosure on an annual basis.

5. Support Deduction Order to issue.

[61] If counsel are unable to resolve the issue of costs, the Applicant shall submit brief written cost submissions, not to exceed 3 pages, with a Bill of Costs and any Offers to Settle attached, within 30 days. The Respondent shall submit brief written cost submissions, not to exceed 3 pages, with her own Bill of Costs if desired and any Offers to Settle attached, within 30 days of receipt of the Applicant's costs submissions. It is not necessary to include copies of any cases counsel may be relying upon.

Justice Roselyn Zisman

Date: August 19, 2016

Footnotes

[1] Both parties subsequently retained new counsel who argued this motion.

[2] [2000] O.J. No 1429 (SCJ)

[3] After submissions were completed, I requested counsel provide me with their Divorcemate calculations. However, as of the date I was ready to release this decision I had not received the calculations and I therefore prepared the calculations myself and attach the calculations I rely on.

[4] 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231