Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: August 10, 2018

Court File No.: Brampton 1041/10

Between:

Bashir Levingston Applicant

— And —

Faydene Tulloch Respondent

Before: Justice Sullivan

Heard on: In Chambers July 25, 26, 2018

Reasons for Judgment released on: August 10, 2018

Counsel:

• K. Cunningham, Counsel for the Applicant
• Faydene Natalee Tulloch, on her own behalf

Decision

SULLIVAN J.:

Introduction

[1] This is the decision in an Application pursuant to The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, commenced by Mr. Bashir Levingston.

[2] Mr. Levingston resides in California, USA.

[3] The Application, located at tab 2 of volume 2 of the continuing record, Mr. Levingston requests initial child support and medical coverage.

[4] The child support is for his son Bashar Levingston born February 9, 2005.

[5] The respondent is Ms. Faydene Tulloch who resides in Brampton, Ontario.

[6] This Application was filed with this court on April 7, 2016.

Procedural History

[7] At the start of this file I requested additional information in order to complete this matter.

[8] In response to the Court's request, Mr. Levingston filed his financial statement and an affidavit located at tabs 3 and 5 of volume 2 of the continuing record providing additional information.

[9] In particular, the Court required details regarding the medical needs of the child Bashar and details of the joint custody order regarding the child Bashar between the applicant and the respondent.

[10] Ms. Tulloch filed an Answer and an affidavit located at tabs 7, 8 of volume 2.

[11] In addition Ms. Tulloch filed a second affidavit as well as her financial statement and income tax information for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016.

[12] Ms. Tulloch filed a further affidavit in volume 5 believing she needed to respond to a number of comments made by the applicant.

[13] This then led to Mr. Levingston requesting, through a lawyer that he retained, the ability to file a reply which he did with pleadings dated June 20, 2018 principally found in volume 6.

[14] I wish to comment on this last Reply affidavit filed on Mr. Levingston's behalf from an associate lawyer Ms. McBean, from the law firm that he retained. Swearing an Affidavit for your client and not directly from the litigant is frowned upon in litigation, as potentially this lawyer could end up being a witness in the litigation.

[15] I have accepted the affidavit of Ms. McBean principally as submissions on behalf of her client, Mr. Levingston.

[16] I also must comment also on the pleadings filed by Ms. Tulloch in volume 5 and Mr. Levingston in volume 6. Much of what is produced in these two volumes is not of benefit to the Court in deciding the narrow issue of child support and medical costs. The latter are known as Section 7 costs under the Ontario Child Support Guidelines.

[17] It is obvious in my review of these last two volumes of pleadings that much of what is discussed deals with unresolved issues surrounding their custody and access litigation that was resolved in the United States with a decision of The Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, dated May 23, 2011.

[18] In this order Mr. Levingston has the primary physical custody of the child Bashar with him in California. The parties have joint legal custody regarding decision making, with Ms. Tulloch having parenting time during the summer and school vacations.

[19] It appears, from my review of the parties pleadings, that communication between them both is not as constructive as it should be in a joint custody arrangement. I am not reviewing that issue other than how it impacts on the legal issue before this Court, which deals with monthly child support payable by Ms. Tulloch to Mr. Levingston and the Section 7 cost dealing with medical expenses for the child Bashar.

[20] Ms. Tulloch within her Answer and responding affidavits has raised the issue of her costs (airline tickets) for exercising her son's access time with her here in Canada, which from my review of each of the party's evidence, both seem to agree is approximately 2 months in the summer. I will consider this cost and the effect on monthly child support in this decision.

[21] I note here that the parties had the ability to negotiate, discuss and litigate the issue of child support years ago when they were in court over the issues of custody and access and did not do so. I will return to this later below.

[22] In this matter as each filed further affidavits their demands against each other grew beyond what each initially pled in the Application and Answer. The end result is that I will not be considering any other claims other than what was pled initially by each party against the other. I will not consider retroactivity beyond the date of the Application or requests not outlined initially.

[23] Considering the differences of opinion and difficulties in communication between the parties and the age of their son, I believe it is important that some finality be given to the family to move on from this stage.

Factual Background

[24] Mr. Levingston did indicate, and the evidence points to the fact, that there has never been an official child support order in place, nor has there been a regular pattern of support between the parents for their son Bashar.

[25] There is some uncontested evidence that Ms. Tulloch was paying for her airplane costs and that of her son as agreed upon between the parties. Mr. Levingston assisting with some transportation around where he resides, in order to meet up with Ms. Tulloch when she traveled to the United States to exercise access with her son.

[26] There is conflicting evidence about how expensive airplane transportation costs can be and the need for their son to be flying as an unaccompanied minor and when he can do so on his own. It is my understanding that he may travel unaccompanied now and therefore only his ticket is needed to facilitate this travel.

[27] In addition Ms. Tulloch indicates that she has bought Bashar clothes when he was in Canada and this includes some for the start of the school year.

[28] Mr. Levingston contests the support that Ms. Tulloch has provided to Bashar in this regard and again underlines that Ms. Tulloch has not paid regular child support.

Income Determination

[29] Ms. Tulloch is employed with Fossil Canada and has been with this Company since at least 2014, based on the Income tax documents filed.

[30] In Ontario child support is based on a payor's gross income found at line 150 of income tax returns and notice of assessments and/or the best evidence provided to the Court through their sworn financial statements.

[31] In completing this decision I have considered the Ontario Child Support Guidelines along with the jurisprudence that governs how to interpret and apply these guidelines, and defines Section 7 expenses, such as the medical requests noted above for Bashar.

[32] Ms. Tulloch's notices of assessment for 2014, 2015, 2016, have been filed.

[33] I am prepared to set child support as of the date of the application, April 2016 noted above, and therefore will concentrate on Ms. Tulloch income for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018.

[34] Normally the Court will use a payor's income for the year prior to the actual year that child support is commenced or set. However, it is preferable, and the jurisprudence directs, that if I have the best evidence in front of me for a person's income for the year in question, I should use that figure. As in my calculations I will use the best number provided by Ms. Tulloch for the years 2016, 2017 and estimate her ongoing 2018 on the prior year's income.

[35] In all child support orders made in Ontario there is a clause for annual disclosure between the parties to establish an anniversary date to review the child support to be paid based on the Payor's best income and to set the proportionate share of Section 7 costs.

[36] If a Section 7 cost is considered legitimate by the Court or the parties it can be paid at a percentage between them both as they may agree, if not it is set proportionate to income. In this case Mr. Levingston in his pleadings has conceded that the Section 7 medical expenses requested should be apportioned equally 50-50 between each family and I will do so for those expenses that I consider legitimate as noted below.

Applicable Law: Income Determination

Vanos v. Vanos, 2010 ONCA 876: When calculating prospective child support, income from the previous year is used to calculate future support, essentially as a matter of convenience, because actual income for the upcoming year is incapable of exact determination. However, where, as here, the actual amount of income earned in a prior year is known, it is that amount that should determine the quantum of support that should have been paid. Also see: Wright v. Christie, 2011 ONCJ 109.

The court should not do a 3 yr. average, if current income information is available. Miner v. Miner, 2 R.F.L. (6th) 105 (Ont. SCJ); Quiquero v. Quiquero, 2016 ONSC 6696.

When on a balance of probabilities, a payor's income will be substantially different from historical levels, the calculation for support should not be based on outdated historical information. See: Kajorinne v. Kajorinne, [2008] O.J. No. 2789 (SCJ).

Court should use current year's income wherever possible. L. (R.E.) v. L. (S.M.), 2007 ABCA 169, 40 RFL 6th 239 (Alb.C.A.). West v. West, (2001) 18 R.F.L. (5th) (Ont. SCJ); Lewis v. Adesanya, 2014 ONCJ 326.

Ms. Tulloch's 2016 income based on her Notice of Assessment attached to her April 6, 2018 financial statement tab 3 of volume 4 puts her line 150 income at $55,653.00.

[37] For the year 2017 Ms. Tulloch filed her financial statement dated April 6, 2018 indicating her 2017 income was $54,883.93

[38] For 2018 the income of 2017 - $54,883.93, will be used on a go forward basis and adjusted as noted above annually with disclosure by the parties to each other.

[39] There is a simple procedural form that can be filed on consent, if the parties disclose as ordered annually, and an adjustment is made accordingly.

[40] This order will be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office and all payments and any arrears accumulated will be recorded. Each party can request a Director's Statement for a nominal fee to show all payments and any arrears that may accumulate or not from the date that the order is made and registered.

[41] It should be noted that the child support guidelines table amount was adjusted to the current cost of living as of November 2017.

[42] At this point in the decision I will set Ms. Tulloch's arrears in child support payments for 2016/17 and 2018, for one child, based on her annual income noted above:

• Between May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 is $505 per month x 8 = $4,040.00
• January 1 2017 through to November 2017 is $496.00 per month x 11 = $5,456.00
• December 1 2017 through to the present and continuing until changed by a further court order is $506 per month x 8 = $4,048.00

Reduction for Periods of Reduced Residence

[43] At this point I will consider the fact that Bashar spends two months per year with Ms. Tulloch in the summer. This is similar to when a child is not living at home and attending University. The Supreme Court of Canada has given direction on this. Unless agreed upon it does not mean that the payor is absolved completely of monthly child support. The reason for this is that there are set costs in maintaining a home and some associated costs for the child. Obviously there are some costs associated with food, transportation, entertainment, and the use of utilities that are not being incurred at the child's principal residence.

Jordan v. Stewart, 2013 ONSC 902: "The Superior Court of Justice has maintained robust support obligations even during periods when the child is residing away from the recipient parent's home: see Birch v. Birch, 2010 ONSC 2915; Armaz v. Van Erp. This continued support obligation is based on the reality that while the recipient parent will realize modest reductions in expenses when the child is away at school, maintaining a permanent home for the child results in incidental expenses that subsist even in the child's temporary absence."

[44] What that reduction in monthly child support should be is always somewhat of an inaccurate exercise. I do not have a breakdown of the child's personal expenses. As such I will divide in half Ms. Tulloch's monthly child support payments for the two months that her son has been with her for the above period of time to arrive at the arrears owed and provide below a formula for the parties to use in future years when they do their annual financial disclosure to each other as will be directed in this order.

[45] As such this will place her arrears in support owing as of the date of this order to be in $12,037.00.

[46] I set out below in the final order a repayment schedule per month for Ms. Tulloch to pay an amount towards these arrears and in addition her monthly support which as of Sept. 1 2018 and on the 1st of the month thereafter is $506.00 based on her annual income of $54,833.93 according to the table Child Support guidelines. However, considering that reduction for the two months that Bashar is with her, as noted above this would place the monthly support at $463.00.

(This is achieved by taking what would be total yearly amount of support based on the CSG TABLE of $506 x 12 = $6072.00 less or discounted by one month payment (OR HALF EACH MONTH) – $506 for the adjusted annual total $5566 / 12 = $463.00)

Section 7 Expenses: Overview of the Law

An order for contribution to special and extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Guidelines is discretionary as to both entitlement and amount: Julien Payne and Marilyn Payne, Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2009, Irwin Law (Toronto), p. 227, 231.

Where the expense is not within the means of the parties, the court may limit or deny recovery of that amount. Ebrahim v. Ebrahim, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2039 (SCJ); L.H.M.K. v. B.P.K., 2012 BCSC 435.

The framework is as follows:

1. Does the expense fall within the listed special or extraordinary expenses?
2. Is the expense necessary in relation to the child's best interests?
3. Is the expense 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?
4. Are there any subsidies, benefits or income tax deductions or credits relating to the expense to be taken into account?

Titova v. Titov, 2012 ONCA 864: In awarding s. 7 special and extraordinary expenses, the trial judge 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 s. 7(1)(d) or (f) of the Guidelines, the trial judge 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.

The onus is on the parent seeking the special or extraordinary expenses to prove that the claimed expenses fall within one of the categories under s. 7 and that the expenses are necessary and reasonable, having regard to the parental financial circumstances. See Park v. Thompson.

The list of special and extraordinary expenses under s. 7(1)(a) to (f) is exhaustive; if a claim doesn't fall within any of the listed categories, it must be dismissed: Kilrea v. Kilrea, [1998] O.J. No. 3677 (Gen. Div), para. 13; and Park v. Thompson.

Apportionment – the court has the discretion to apportion the Section 7 expense in a different manner than pro-rata to incomes, depending on the circumstances of the case. Salvadori v. Salvadori, 2010 ONCJ 462.

Subsection 7(3) of the guidelines states that in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection 7(1), the court must take into account any subsidies, benefits or income tax deductions or credits relating to the expense, and any eligibility to claim a subsidy, benefit or income tax deduction or credit relating to the expense. This should be done even if the recipient indicates that he or she will not be claiming any tax credit or deduction related to this expense (for example, he or she obtains a discount from the child care provider by not reporting the child-care expense to Revenue Canada). Whether the recipient claims the credit or expense is her choice. The payor is only required to pay the after-tax amount of the expense. See: Ramm v. Rice, [2012] N.W.T.J. No. 82 (NTSC); D.L. v. F.K., [1998] N.W.T.J. No. 42 (NTSC); K.H. v. T.K.R., 2013 ONCJ 418.

Section 7 Expenses: Reasonable and Necessary

If the expense is extraordinary, the Court must ask, is it reasonable and necessary? It is not necessary for a parent to prove undue hardship to escape some or all liability under Section 7 of the guidelines. Section 10 does not apply.

Three questions:

1. Is the expense necessary in the sense that it is in the best interests of the child to be incurred?
2. Is the expense reasonable, having regard to the means of the parties and the spending pattern of the parents during cohabitation?
3. Does the noncustodial parent have the ability to pay a pro rata share of the expense or failing that, any share?

Ward v. Ward, 1999, 44 R.F.L. 4th 340 (Ont. C.J.- General Division).

Medical Diagnosis and Needs

[47] Mr. Levingston filed with the court as requested a psychological evaluation of the child Bashar. This is from the University of California, Davis- Mind Institute. The report is dated December 19, 2013. It is located in the continuing record volume 3, tab 5, and exhibit G. It is a comprehensive report, which indicates that the Bashar has Autism Spectrum Disorder and he will require supports on an ongoing basis. The autism spectrum disorder is without accompanying intellectual impairment, and without accompanying language impairment, but will require educational and community supports.

[48] The report does indicate that potentially some resources would be required for Bashar at school. Possibly a regional center might provide some services to the family, such as the Alta California regional center. Here he might receive associated adaptive skills services, some respite care and assistance in applying for other required support services that he might need either at school or in the community. I received no evidence if this potential support was applied for.

[49] Overall in reviewing the evidence presented this medical diagnosis is not contested, although Ms. Tulloch raises issues as to her son being in the United States and comparative services here in Canada, which I cannot resolve and will not comment on other than how it applies to the issue of Section 7 costs and each parent's contribution based on what I have considered to be legitimate shared costs.

Analysis of Section 7 Medical Expenses

[50] Mr. Levingston in his August 18, 2017 affidavit provides a comprehensive list of medical expenses for Bashar and is seeking from Ms. Tulloch an annual contribution towards these costs.

[51] As noted above, it is the obligation of person seeking the potential Section 7 costs to provide proof that these are being incurred. Mr. Levingston has provided some proof but not all receipts.

[52] It also appears from the evidence that the parties have not exchanged receipts in the past for these expenses and also have not discussed and agreed between them what are the special expenses not covered by basic monthly child support. In this decision I will set out the starting section special expenses. It will be incumbent on the parties to discuss if these are needed each year and what changes might occur.

[53] The parties should know that monthly child support is understood to cover a wide range of costs associated in raising a child. These are many of the basic costs such as shelter, utilities, food, clothes, local transportation.

[54] From Mr. Livingston's list of Medical costs for Bashar I do find from the list provided the following to be expenses that would be included in the enumerated grounds as extraordinary and special expenses:

• a) Psychiatrist once every three months - $80.00 dollars per year
• b) Behavioral assessment costs per year - $489.00
• c) Psychotherapy costs per year - $560.00
• d) Medication per year - $600.00
• e) Dental expenses per year - $325.00

[55] Considering Bashar's needs as outlined in the evaluation filed, I find the above noted expenses to also be necessary and in the best interest of Bashar.

[56] In terms of the reasonableness of these I find that the family would have paid for these costs if together and that in their respective incomes and budgets there is the ability for these costs to be covered.

[57] At this point I want to comment on the following. Mr. Levingston does note a further cost in paragraph 34 of his above-noted affidavit for "medical insurance family plan". He indicates that this yearly cost of $2,749.24 would be applied to one or for all members of his family and therefore this he argues is a cost for Bashar alone.

[58] Regarding this cost I find it to be not reasonable. I have no information as to what this plan covers. I'm not certain why it would not cover some of the medications that are included above. I'm not certain why it would not include a visit to the pediatrician or a family doctor. I question the usefulness of this plan if it has none of these basic coverages. When it comes to this Court's ability to consider the reasonableness of this between the respective families, I note Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) would be available to the child if he was a resident of Ontario, and therefore not something that Ms. Tulloch would be considered to pay out of her income.

[59] Also, I do not have available to me whether Ms. Tulloch's employment benefit program might be able to cover some of these expenses for such things as medication and dental, despite the fact that they are incurred in the United States.

[60] I recognize that the communication between the parties poses a difficulty in this regard. There was some evidence that Bashar might be brought to a doctor and/or dentist here when he is visiting with his mother, however, I'm not certain of this.

[61] Considering the above, I find that the total annual Section 7 costs to be split between the parties is $2,054.00 up to the date of this decision. These costs will be divided equally between the Applicant and the Respondent on a 50-50 basis.

[62] The accumulated costs from the date of this application being commenced April 2016 to the present is:

• a. for 6 months in 2016 = $1,027.00;
• b. $2,054.00 for 2017;
• c. Up to December 31, 2018 = $2,054.00;
• d. For a total of $5,135.00 / 2 = $2,567.50. This is the amount, $2,567.50 owed by Ms. Tulloch to Mr. Levingston;
• e. For future medical expenses from January 1, 2019, receipts are to be sent to Ms. Tulloch as they pertain to the 5 medical costs which I have recognized above as Section 7 expenses;
• f. It will be incumbent on the parties to discuss and negotiate how these costs will be covered.

[63] I have no evidence of this at this time, but potentially some of these might be covered with Ms. Tulloch's benefits and covered while the child is in Canada. This of course would require a higher degree of communication between the parties than what exists presently.

[64] The point is that Mr. Levingston will need to provide receipts to Ms. Tulloch and the parties will need to agree on the changing medical needs of their son.

[65] On this issue I have on the balance of probabilities accepted the evidence he has presented as reasonable and most likely expenses for his son. I do not have any evidence to support the assertion that these are fraudulent or do not exist as alleged by Ms. Tulloch.

[66] As I have noted above I will not be considering any other arguments as to other potential costs outside of monthly child support presented by Mr. Levingston in his initial pleadings and medical coverage.

Airline Costs and Access

[67] Ms. Tulloch in her Answer requests compensation for airline costs for her son when visiting her in Canada. She argues that Bashar is with her for two summer months each year during which she incurs costs. She argues that these costs should be considered or factored in to this decision.

[68] I wish to comment that the parties were in court dealing with custody and access, according to their information in 2011, 2012 – 2013 and again in 2015 and on each of these occasions, both had the ability to make requests regarding costs associated with the exercise of the custody and access and they did not.

[69] The reason I point this out is that the Applicant and the Respondent both should share responsibility at this point in time for not having done so. Although not impossible for this Court to enter into an exercise of retroactive support calculation using principles in the leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada, DBS v SRG, 2006 SCC 37, it is an exercise that requires specific proof and notice to both parties from the start of litigation.

[70] In this Application retroactivity was not sought from the start. I am granting some from the date of the Application which is not unusual given the length of time that it is taken.

[71] Ms. Tulloch's request for this Court to consider her costs as noted above is raised I find more in the sense of a defense. I have reviewed the evidence that she has presented regarding the airline expenses. I have reviewed both the applicant and the respondent's arguments in this regard. I note that to some degree historically there was an understanding that seems to have gone off the rails that this would be her contribution to her son's support and no monthly support was to be paid.

[72] After my review of the evidence I find that she has incurred costs for her son's airline tickets and does support Bashar for the two months that he is here. I am not able to conclude one way or another whether the airline costs are reasonable or whether more affordable or more economical flights might have been arranged. This is beyond my analysis given the multiple variables that are involved.

[73] Therefore when it comes to the airline tickets I will set off this cost in a rough calculation against the arrears owing in medical costs noted above up to this point in time. This is because I find this cost reasonable and a Section 7 cost that responds to an important need for the child which is to maintain contact with a parent, Ms. Tulloch, in a meaningful fashion.

[74] In the future it is incumbent on both the Applicant and the Respondent to discuss both the medical costs and airline tickets on a go forward basis from the date of this order as Section 7 costs.

[75] For the purposes of this decision Ms. Tulloch's support will be based on the monthly amount that she should pay considering her gross income and the child support guidelines over 11 months of the year. In future years when the parties discuss further and other costs they can consider this in their negotiations.

[76] In my final order outlined below the monthly child support is based on an 11-month average including the arrears owing. The arrears in medical Section 7 costs are set off against the airline costs associated with Bashar spending his access time with his mother here in Canada.

Conclusion

[77] I further recognized that not all of the costs associated in caring and raising a child can be covered in these child support applications. There is much more that goes into this process both in terms of time, money and love.

[78] Obviously a difference has arisen between the parties after many years. It is in part my hope that with this decision, although not perfect, will assist the family to move on, focusing their time and energy on Basher's needs in accordance with their abilities to provide the same.

Final Order

1. Faydene Tulloch shall pay monthly child support to Bashir Levingston for one child, Bashar Levingston born February 9, 2005, in the amount of $463.00 per month on the 1st of each month commencing September 1, 2018 and on the first of each month until a further order of this court based on her 2017 income of $54,883.93. This amount of monthly child support on payment of the full table amount for 11 months considering the two months that the child Bashar spends with the respondent for which only half monthly support will be paid.

2. As of the date of this order, Faydene Tulloch, owes arrears in monthly child support in the amount of $12,037.00. Faydene Tulloch shall pay on the first of each month, commencing September 1, 2018 $150.00 per month towards these arrears until paid down in full. (This amount was calculated from the date of the application averaging an 11-month per year payment towards child support, consistent with paragraph 1 of this order).

3. Commencing January 1, 2019 the Applicant and the Respondent must first exchange information of all future extraordinary Section 7 expenses that are being claimed, the expense prior to the expense being incurred; second, agree in writing that the expense is to be considered a Section 7 expense between them both for the benefit of their son; and third, the percentage that each will pay towards this expense.

4. The set Section 7 expenses are:

• a. Psychiatrist visit once every three months;
• b. Behavioral assessment costs per year;
• c. Psychotherapy costs per year;
• d. Medication per year;
• e. Dental expenses;
• f. Airline ticket for Bashar to visit the respondent once per year to and from his summer access.

These set Section 7 expenses are to be shared equally 50% between the Applicant and the Respondent.

The parties are to use the following protocol as needed when dealing with each other regarding payment of the above section expenses that may continue to exist, and any future expenses that need to be discussed as potential Section 7 costs.

5. Regarding Section 7 costs the Applicant and the Respondent must first exchange information about a proposed extraordinary Section 7 expense that's being claimed prior to the expense being incurred; second, agree in writing that the expense is to be considered a Section 7 expense between them both for the benefit of their son.

6. A Support Deduction Order shall issue.

7. To set Section 7 costs other than an equal sharing and Ms. Tulloch's yearly child support, the Applicant and Respondent shall provide to the other a copy of any Notice of Assessment or Re-Assessment or equivalent proof of income in the USA for the most recent taxation year by May 15th of each year, and if he or she has not received it by that date, within 7 days of the Applicant's Respondent's receipt of this document from CRA or USA Tax Department, in accordance with section 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.

8. Unless this order is withdrawn from the Director's office, Family Responsibility, it shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under the order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed.

9. This order bears post judgment interest at the rate of 3% per annum effective from the date of the order. Where there is a default in payment, the payment in default shall bear interest only from the date of the default.

10. Ms. K. Cunningham shall take out this order forthwith.

Released: August 10, 2018

Signed: Justice A.W.J. Sullivan