Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: May 29, 2018

Court File No.: D11689/17

Between:

Applicant

— AND —

Daniel MacDonald

Respondent

Before: Justice Roselyn Zisman

Heard on: May 17, 2018

Reasons for Judgment released on: May 29, 2018

Counsel:

• Aristoteli Lebedev, for the Applicant
• Murray Lightman, for the Respondent

Reasons for Judgment

Zisman, J.:

1. Introduction and Background

[1] This is a motion by the Respondent ("father") and a cross motion by the Applicant ("mother") with respect to parenting arrangements for their child, Cassandra Mirabella Bronislawa Eulalia Beauvais ("Cassie" or "the child") born July 15, 2013.

[2] The father seeks an order for temporary joint custody with primary residence, specified access to the mother and child support on a set off basis.

[3] The mother seeks a temporary order for sole custody with primary residence, specified access to the father and child support retroactive to the date of the child's birth.

[4] The parties were involved in a very brief casual relationship and as a result of which Cassie was born.

[5] In 2011, the mother moved into the same building where the father resided and both of them have continued to reside there. Prior to this court proceeding there was no specific schedule with respect to when the father saw Cassie.

[6] The mother has purchased a new condominium and will be moving in mid-June and as a result wishes to change the child's school.

[7] Cassie is in junior kindergarten and is a friendly and happy child.

[8] The mother is 46 years old and works as a nurse. She is currently working 12 hour shifts, 2 days from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. followed by 2 nights from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and then she has 4 or 5 days off. As of July 1st, she will be working a permanent night shift from 7:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. with the same 4 days on and then 4 or 5 days off.

[9] The father is 52 years old and is employed by the TTC. He did not provide any details with respect to his current work schedule.

[10] Other than these basic facts, the parties do not agree on any other facts not even who initiated the idea of conceiving a child together or the circumstances of the mother moving into the same building as the father.

[11] There is a very significant disagreement with respect to the extent of the father's involvement with the child since her birth.

2. Summary of Court Proceedings

[12] The mother commenced this Application to obtain an order for sole custody on the basis that she has been the primary parent and that a joint custody order is not in the child's best interests in view of the father's hostility towards her, his inability to work cooperatively to set a child-focused schedule and his lack of insight into Cassie's needs.

[13] The father alleges that the mother commenced this Application to curtail his time with Cassie and that she continually threatened him with court proceedings and reminded him that her sister was a family lawyer. The father alleges that the parties are already co-parenting and it is the mother who is refusing to communicate with him. He alleges that primary residence should remain as is, namely with him in the same building where Cassie currently resides.

[14] On January 12, 2018 at the first case conference the parties agreed to a temporary without prejudice order with a specified access schedule namely, that the child reside with the father on alternate week-ends from Friday at 3:00 p.m. to Monday at 9:00 a.m., Tuesdays after school until Wednesday return to school on the weeks he does not have week-end access and on Tuesdays and Thursdays from after school until 7:00 p.m. on the weeks he has week-end access. The father was granted leave to amend his pleadings to seek child support from the mother or child support on a set off basis.

[15] On the return date of April 13, 2018, the parties consented to the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and counsel for the father requested a motion date that was granted.

[16] On this motion the father relies in his affidavit sworn April 30, 2018 with exhibits including a memory stick of conversations between himself, the child and Felicidad Esteban, ("Lola"), the child's maternal step-grandmother. The father also relies on 15 affidavits from friends and neighbours and his reply affidavit sworn May 10, 2018.

[17] The mother relies on her affidavit sworn May 7, 2018 and the affidavits of her sister, the maternal step-grandmother and the father's nephew. Counsel for the mother also filed a factum and book of authorities.

[18] At the outset of the motion, counsel advised that the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) had agreed to be involved in the case. Nevertheless, both counsel wished to proceed with the motion as the length of time for the OCL to complete its investigation and report was unknown. Further, both parties had filed extensive materials for this motion and were seeking changes to the temporary without prejudice order and the issue of the child's primary residence and which school she was to attend this September needed to be resolved.

[19] The parties agreed that the child spend 2 consecutive weeks in the summer with each parent. No schedule was proposed but counsel indicated that they could arrange the dates.

[20] The father also consented to an order not to leave the child unattended in the presence of his brother, Herbert Macdonald. However, the father stipulated that he had never left his brother alone with the child.

3. Issues

[21] The issues to be determined on the motions are:

1. What parenting arrangements are in the best interests of the child?
2. Should the mother be permitted to change the child's school?
3. What amount of child support is payable and when should it commence?

4. Preliminary Evidentiary Issues

4.1 Admissibility of Taped Conversations

[22] The father appended to his affidavit a memory stick with 6 conversations between himself and the child and a few of which involve Lola. He has also appended his own summary of the relevant portions of the conversations.

[23] The father did not advise Lola or the child that he was taping their conversations on his cell phone.

[24] The father deposes that these recordings are "unedited and spontaneous" and are being introduced to assist the court in understanding the extent to which the current access regime is causing sadness and suffering to Cassie. The dates of the various recordings are from December 17, 2017 to January 24, 2018.

[25] Mother's counsel objects to the admission of the tapes based the public policy that the courts should discourage family litigants from secretly recording conversations.

[26] At the hearing of the motion, I advised the parties that although I had read the father's summary of the discussions I had not listened to the recording as I wished first to hear submissions on the admissibility and probative value of the recordings.

[27] I have now had the opportunity of listening to the recordings.

[28] The Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of Sordi v. Sordi affirmed that a trial judge has the discretion to determine if taped conversations should be admissible taking into account "the sound public policy of trying to discourage the use of secretly recorded conversations in family proceedings" but also a trial judge needs to assess "the probative value of the tapes in relation to the issues".

[29] In this case, there is no certified transcript of the recordings and portions of the recording especially with Lola were not clear. These discussions were relied upon by the father to show that Lola, who has always been the child's primary caregiver when the mother was working, was upset with the mother or did not agree with some of the mother's decisions although it is not clear which decision she did not agree with.

[30] Lola deposes that those discussions are out of context and like any family there are disagreements or misunderstandings from time to time but they are resolved. She corroborates the mother's position that the mother has always been the child's primary caregiver, the difficulties the mother had with the father and supports the mother's position on this motion.

[31] I find that the recordings that involve Lola are not admissible on the public policy principle of discouraging the use of secretly recording conversations. Further they are not reliable given the fact it is the father, an interested party who recorded them, the method of recording and the lack of a transcript by a neutral third party. Most importantly they have no probative value to the issues on this motion.

[32] With respect to the recordings with Cassie, despite the concerns about the "spontaneous" and "unedited" versions of the recordings I find that they are admissible for a limited purpose.

[33] I do not find that the recordings support the father's position that the child is suffering or is experiencing sadness as a result of what the father considers a "restrictive access scheme".

[34] Rather I find that recordings support the position of the mother that the father is manipulating the child and that he is not child focused. In a similar situation in the case of Reddick v. Reddick taped recordings were ruled admissible as the evidence went to "such important issues of parental alienation and inappropriate pressure on the children."

[35] For example, rather than soothing the child when she is crying and asking to sleep over at his home, he continues to tape her and continually tells her that the mother will not allow her to sleep over, blames the mother, tells her that he will get into trouble and tells the child to tell the mother she wants to sleep over.

[36] Instead of quickly saying good bye to the child and saying he will see her soon, he prolongs the good byes and causes the child to cry. Lola in her affidavit makes reference to the father sometimes taking 15 to 30 minutes to say good bye despite being aware that Cassie cries whenever she needs to say good-bye to anyone. This is corroborated in the recordings. Even when the child had a nightmare, the father tapes Cassie who says she dreamt about nothing but then apparently says "spontaneously" that her mother won't let her sleep at her father's house (even though that is where she is sleeping). The father says nothing to discourage this thought or explain how often she is sleeping at his house.

4.2 Admissibility of Child's Statements

[37] The mother is her affidavit cites several statements made by the child as follows:

a) January 17, 2018: the mother arrived to pick Cassie up at school, Cassie pointed to her mother and told her friend, "Mama is not nice to my Daddy and she doesn't like to hold Daddy's hand or play games with Daddy. She's not nice and she lies".

b) February 14, 2018: after spending an overnight with the father, Cassie asked the mother why she was "stealing Daddy's money" and when asked who told her this she replied, "Daddy". The mother deposed that ever since the temporary without prejudice order of January 12th, the child has repeatedly made reference to her stealing the father's money.

c) February 22, 2018: after returning from an access visit, she told the mother that "I'm only going to listen to Daddy. I'm not going to listen to Lola or Mama". When asked why she said this, she replied, "Daddy said".

d) March 6, 2018: after an access visit, Cassie held up 5 fingers and said, "Why I stay with Daddy's this much and I stay with Mama this much?" and held up 10 fingers. Cassie again told the mother that she was "stealing Daddy's money" and when the mother told her that was not true, she replied "but Daddy said". On the same day, the mother was putting money in an envelope for a school fundraising event, Cassie took the money and wanted to keep it. When the mother told her that it was not her money, Cassie replied, "that's my money. Mama you steal Daddy's money and when told it was not true, Cassie again said "but Daddy said".

e) March 12, 2018: after picking the child up, the mother made casual conversation and asked Cassie if her father was going to work and Cassie replied, "No, he is going to court". The mother was startled by the comment and then asked why the father was going to court and Cassie responded, "He is going to court with Mama".

[38] The father is his reply affidavit states that he cannot respond to every allegation and will focus on the items he believes are relevant to the court's determination of the parenting plan that is in the child's best interests.

[39] However, with respect to these alleged statements, his only response is that it is difficult to conceal from Cassie that there are ongoing court proceedings but that he never attempted to enlist her as his ally or denigrate the mother to her.

[40] With respect to the comments about child support, he deposes that on one occasion he went to the post office with Cassie to mail a support check. He deposes that Cassie likes to be fully involved and inquired in detail what he was doing and as he does not like to lie to her he explained he was mailing a support check to the mother. He deposes that he did not do so in an effort to make an issue about child support or raise any concerns in the child's mind. He deposes that Cassie asked a question and he answered honestly as he had been given this advice in parenting classes.

[41] The father did not object to the child's statements being admissible on this motion and simply offered his explanations as noted.

[42] Subrule 14 (19) of the Family Law Rules permits the admissibility of hearsay statements on condition that the source of the information is identified and the person signing the affidavit believes the information to be true.

[43] I find that for the purposes of this motion, the statements are also admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as showing the child's statement of mind.

[44] I find that these statements are consistent with the father's statements in the recorded conversations he introduced in which it is clear that he blames the mother and he attempts to make an ally of the child.

[45] I do not find his explanation of why the child made these statements about the mother stealing his money to be plausible. Further, I do not accept this reasoning that it was difficult to conceal from a 5 year child that her parents were in court. A more child focused response, if the issue was raised at all, would be that the parents were working out a plan for when she would spend time with both of them.

[46] I also note that the father has deposed that he has attended several parenting programs and has read books on parenting. It is therefore concerning that even after obtaining parenting education he has continued to act in ways that are not in the best interests of the child.

[47] I find that the child's statements are relevant in the court's determination with respect to an appropriate parenting plan and also with respect to which parent is best able to encourage the child's relationship with the other parent.

5. Applicable Statutory Provisions and Legal Principles with Respect to a Temporary Motion Regarding Custody and Access

[48] Any proceeding with respect to custody of or access to children is determined according to the best interests of the particular child before the court in accordance with the factors set out in section 24 (2) of the Children's Law Reform Act. This applies to both temporary and final orders. The best interests criteria are as follows:

Best interests of child

(2) The court shall consider all the child's needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child's family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child's care and upbringing;

(b) the child's views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) any plans proposed for the child's care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

[49] The father is requesting joint custody, therefore it is important to review the principles with respect to an order of joint custody.

[50] The leading case with respect to joint custody is still the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis. The court set out the following principles in determining whether a joint custody order is appropriate:

1. There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them.
2. It cannot be ordered in the hope that it will improve their communication.
3. Just because both parents are fit does not mean that joint custody should be ordered.
4. The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not preclude an order for joint custody.
5. No matter how detailed the custody order, there will always be gaps and unexpected situations and, when they arise, they must be able to be addressed on an ongoing basis.
6. The younger the child, the more important communication is.

[51] Courts do not expect communication between separated parties to be easy or comfortable, or free of conflict. A standard of perfection is not required and is obviously not achievable.

[52] However, the issue is whether a reasonable measure of communication and cooperation is in place and is achievable in the future, so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis.

[53] On the other hand, cases have held that a joint custody order may be appropriate, even where there is no reasonable cooperation or communication in place, to preserve a child's contact with a parent who is attempting to alienate or restrict the other parent's contact the child.

[54] As this is a temporary motion the court is also required to consider the principles with respect to temporary orders.

[55] A temporary motion is meant to provide a reasonably acceptable solution on an expeditious basis for a problem that will be later fully canvassed at subsequent conferences and if not, the issues will be resolved at a trial.

[56] The status quo should be maintained until trial unless there is material evidence that the child's best interests requires an immediate change.

[57] Children should have maximum contact with both parents if it is consistent with the child's best interests.

[58] The party seeking to reduce normal access will generally be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it is to justify that restriction.

[59] I have also considered that at this stage of the proceedings temporary orders are based on limited evidence without the benefit of cross-examinations and such orders are meant to come to a reasonable acceptable solution to a difficult problem pending trial.

[60] I have also considered that a temporary order can have and frequently does have long term implications.

[61] Even though on this motion, many more affidavits were filed than are usually seen by the court on temporary motions, none of this evidence has been scrutinized as it will if this matter proceeds to trial or after the court and parties have had the benefit of reviewing the OCL report.

6. Application of the Statutory Provisions and Legal Principles to the Facts

6.1 Parenting Arrangements

[62] I find that this is not an appropriate case for a temporary joint custody order on the following basis:

a) There is no history of co-operation or effective communication between the parties. The father's text messages to the mother are filled with some of the most vile and inappropriate language seen by this court. Even though the father has apologized for the language and deposes that he acted out of anger and fear nevertheless, it will take a lengthy period of time for the father to prove that he now has the ability to control his anger and to show that he respects the mother's role in the child's life.

b) The parties were unable to work out a reasonable parenting schedule prior to the court proceedings. When the mother attempted to do so on many occasions, the father refused any suggestion that did not give him unfettered daily access to the child. His response was, "Here's the schedule…when I say so."

c) The mother deposed that she has had to move due to the verbal abuse and hostility of the father which is corroborated in the text messages sent by the father to the mother. The father's insistence on having a key to the mother's apartment and banging on her door after she changed the locks is also corroborated by the father's text messages to the mother. I do not accept the father's position that the mother is moving to curtail his relationship and time with the child rather it is the father's behaviour that has required that the mother to move.

d) Even after agreeing to a temporary without prejudice order, both parties are seeking changes to that order. The mother was prepared to continue the order as although not perfect it did provide a routine and consistency for the child. However, as the father wished to proceed with a temporary motion and sought significant changes she then also sought some changes.

e) The parties specifically do not agree with respect to the child changing schools which is a major decision that the court needs to resolve. There will inevitably be other decisions that need to be resolved and in view of the conflict between these parents there is no basis to conclude that they will in the future be able to make joint decisions.

f) Although at this stage, there is evidence that both parties are fit parents and both have a close relationship with the child that is not the basis of a joint custody order.

g) Based on the evidence presented on this motion, I find that is no basis for the father's allegation that the mother is frustrating or curtailing the father's relationship with the child. On the contrary, I find that the mother has tried her best to facilitate that relationship. Once the father began to request access, she permitted almost daily access when the child was young. However, as the child became older and needed a routine the mother naturally wished a schedule be put in place. It was natural that the mother did not wish the father to have unfettered access to her apartment. I find that it was the father's resistance to any limits being placed on his access that has created years of conflict.

h) Based on the evidence presented in this motion, I find that since the father was served with the Application in October 2017, it is the father who has attempted to interfere with the child's relationship with the mother and has unnecessarily involved the child in these proceedings.

[63] Based on my finding that a joint custody order is not workable or in the child's best interests, I find that it is the mother who should be granted sole custody for the following reasons:

a) The child has resided primarily in the mother's care since birth based on the detailed evidence on the motion of the mother, her sister, the step maternal grandmother and the father's nephew. I prefer that evidence in contrast to the father's vague and exaggerated statements of the time the child spent with him and the general comments and observations of the many friends and neighbours who have filed affidavits on behalf of the father.

b) The father's evidence that the child has resided in his primary residence is contradicted by his own text messages in September 2017 when he refuses to give the mother week-end access when she was off work because he complaints that he only has the child for 2 overnights a week and complains that the mother has the child 75% of the time even if he took her every week-end.

c) The mother has been the parent who has been responsible for all of the child's medical needs and has taken her to all of her routine doctor's appointments, ensured she received her immunizations, took her to yearly ophthalmology appointment and regular dental appointments.

d) The mother is the parent best able to meet the child's medical needs. On the one occasion the father had the child in his care when she developed a high fever, instead of giving her Tylenol, he panicked and called 911 and she was taken to the hospital by ambulance. She was discharged after 5 hours and given Tylenol.

e) Based on the evidence of the mother and step maternal grandmother, the father has regularly depended on them until recently to get the child ready for him to take her for a visit, to get her ready for school, to bathe or change her and to help in caring for her. Even in the last few months, when the child developed a fever he expected the mother to supply him with Tylenol.

f) The mother has presented a parenting plan that is in the child's best interests. She is moving to be closer to her workplace which will maximize the amount of time that she can spend with the child. She deposes that she is also moving to get away from the father's abusive and vulgar outbursts and to prevent him from banging on her apartment. She is hoping to enrol the child in a local school that offers a French immersion program. It would be beneficial for the child to learn French and the father's family is French. The mother is the parent that has facilitated the child's relationship with the father's family. Her plan would include Lola, the child's step maternal grandmother, who has been in the child's life since July 2014, continuing to care for the child when the mother is working. The mother also has a babysitter that she has relied on in the past when the step-grandmother is away.

g) The mother's proposed schedule closely resembles the current access schedule and provides the father with regular contact with the child. It does not unduly minimize his involvement. Under the current order, the father returns Cassie to school Monday mornings, the mother raises concerns that the child has been tired and sleepy and having trouble waking up on Tuesdays. The mother deposes that historically the father has never followed a consistent sleeping routine for Cassie and accordingly she seeks a return on Sundays at 4:00 p.m. instead of Monday mornings with an exchange halfway between their residences.

h) I find that the father's plan is vague and without sufficient details to find that it is in the child's best interests. It is the father's plan that the child reside with him when the mother is working. He has not presented any information about his work schedule. In his affidavit there is a reference that early on he changed his schedule to be able to pick up the child at school. But he deposes that he will need to make arrangements for someone to drop the child off in the mornings and to be cared for after school and on school vacations if he is not personally available and makes reference to several alternatives he has explored. He does not explain why introducing a third party to care for the child as opposed to Lola who has been her constant caregiver is in the child's best interests. The father maintains that the child has many friends at school and in the neighbourhood and that her attendance at her present school should not be disrupted. But the child is only in junior kindergarten and the father can arrange for her to spend time with any of her school friends when she is in his care.

i) I find that mother's plan provides for stability, less confusion for the child and less opportunity for the child to be exposed to the conflict between the parties if they do not live in the same building. With respect to changing the week-end return day to a Sunday, on a temporary basis I find this to be in the child's best interests as it is unclear if the father would now to be able to return the child on Mondays as he provided no details with respect to his schedule.

[64] However, I see no basis for a return on Sundays as early as 4:00 p.m. as the return during the week is currently 7:00 p.m. Although I agree that after a week-end visit a somewhat earlier return may be appropriate. I find that a return of 6:00 p.m. is consistent with providing the father with a few more hours of time with Cassie and would still permit enough time for her to settle down and prepare for school on Mondays.

[65] Further, I find that after the mother moves the father should return the child to the lobby of the mother's building rather than some unspecified mid-way exchange location suggested by the mother. This will be normalize the exchanges for the child. As I expect the parties to conduct themselves appropriately on the exchanges, the child should not be exposed to any further conflict between her parents.

6.2 Retroactive Child Support

[66] As the father has not yet provided proof of his 2017 income, the mother did not seek to change the temporary without prejudice order that was based on the father's estimate of his 2017 income.

[67] A court has the jurisdiction to order retroactive child support on a temporary motion in accordance with clause 34(1) (f) of the Family Law Act.

[68] However, on this temporary motion there has not been any questioning and the evidence consists of affidavit evidence and many facts are in dispute. Although I have found on this motion that the mother was the primary parent, it is possible after a trial that another judge might find that there was a shared parenting arrangement in place. The mother raises issues with respect to the father's actual income specifically with his claims for rental expenses. The father raises issues with respect to the amount of support and direct contributions he has made over the years.

[69] As stated by the court in Orsini v. Orsini:

The motions court cannot conduct a complete inquiry into all aspects and details or make final findings of fact regarding entitlement and quantum of support. An interim order is designed to be a "holding order" to get the parties to trial by considering the strength of the claims, on (usually conflicting and incomplete) motion materials and the particular circumstances of the case in an effort to achieve fairness to the parties by balancing financial needs, means and any hardship to the parties should an interim order be made or not made.

[70] The court also held that the issue for the motion judge is to consider the factors in D.B.S. based on the motion materials and ascertain whether and the extent it is fair and appropriate to both parties that such relief is granted on an interim basis in the circumstances of the evidentiary record of the motion.

[71] Where there are substantial issues in dispute regarding entitlement of a party to retroactive support, the analysis should be left to the trial judge.

[72] I find that in this case, caution should be exercised. Although based on the record before the court at this stage there is evidence to support the mother's delay in commencing this Application based on the father's conduct and some evidence of blameworthy conduct by the father, there is almost no evidence with respect to the child's circumstances or the hardship to the father of a retroactive order. Further, the mother only proposes that she is willing to discuss an appropriate repayment plan without providing any guidance to the court as to what she is seeking.

Conclusion

[73] There will be a temporary order as follows:

1. The Applicant shall be granted sole custody and primary residence of Cassandra Mirabella Bronislawa Eulalia Beauvais born July 15, 2013.

2. The Applicant shall be permitted to move with the child within the Greater Toronto Area.

3. The Respondent shall have access to the child as follows:

   a) 2 week-end visits per month from Fridays after school to Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

   b) on Tuesdays and Thursdays from after school to 7:00 p.m. on the week-ends he has access.

   c) on Tuesdays after school to return to school on Wednesdays at no later than 9:00 a.m. on the week-ends he does not have access.

   d) If the Respondent is unable to personally pick up the child at school, all pick-ups shall be at the Applicant's residence or if the child is in daycare at the daycare.

   e) The Respondent shall return the child to the lobby of the Applicant's residence and shall notify the Applicant when he is in the lobby so that she or another adult may then meet the child in the lobby.

   f) The Respondent shall not delay or prolong the return of the child to the Applicant's care.

   g) The Respondent shall not leave the child unattended in the presence of his brother, Herbert Macdonald.

   h) The Respondent shall not speak disparagingly of the Applicant or permit any third party in his presence to do so.

4. Neither party shall expose the child to any conflict or discuss the court proceedings with her.

5. Each party shall have 2 consecutive or non-consecutive weeks of summer access to the child for the summer of 2018. If the parties are unable to agree upon a schedule for summer access, the Applicant shall advise the Respondent of her desired weeks by the June 15th and the Respondent shall advise the Applicant of his desired weeks by June 29th. For the summer of 2019, the Respondent shall have first choice of his summer holidays with the child.

6. The Respondent shall continue to pay child support of $945.00 per month based on his estimated 2017 income of $104,376.00. The Respondent shall forthwith serve the Applicant and file with the court his 2017 income tax return and his Notice of Assessment, as soon as it is received. This order is without prejudice to the Applicant's claim for a re-adjustment of this order based on the Respondent's actual 2017 income and her claim for retroactive child support.

[74] If either party is seeking costs, they shall serve and file their written costs submissions by June 15, 2018. The other party will have until June 29, 2018 to respond. The costs submissions shall not exceed 3 pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs. The costs submissions should be delivered to the trial coordinator's office.

Released: May 29, 2018

Signed: Justice Roselyn Zisman