Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: November 20, 2019

Court File No.: Toronto D1821/90

Between:

MAXINE RODNEY Applicant (Mother)

— AND —

ROBERT BROWN Respondent (Father)

Before: Justice Robert J. Spence

Heard on: October 8 and November 7, 2019

Reasons for Judgment released on: November 20, 2019

Counsel:

• Mr. Reide Kaiser, counsel for the applicant Mother
• Mr. Aaron Pipersberg, counsel for the respondent Father

Judgment

SPENCE, J.:

1: INTRODUCTION

[1] There are two motions to change before the court.

[2] The father issued his change motion first. In that change motion he seeks to change the child support order dated January 29, 2014 (original order) which required him to pay child support to the mother in the amount of $540 per month, for two children, based on an annual income to him in the amount of $37,481.60.

[3] More specifically, he asks that instead of paying support for two children, he now pays support for one child only.

[4] He also seeks an order requiring the mother to repay to him the support which exceeded the amount that, according to him, he ought to have paid to her.

[5] In her response to the father's change motion, the mother has sought her own change to the original order. She acknowledges that the support for the older of the two children ought to terminate.

[6] The parties agree that the support for the older child terminated effective April 1, 2017.

[7] However, the mother seeks a retroactive change back to 2014 based on increases in the father's income since the date of the original order. And once that underpayment is calculated, she seeks an order that it be paid to her, together with ongoing support for the younger child.

2: THE ISSUES

[8] The issues for the court are as follows:

(1) What income for child support purposes has the father received since the date of the original order?

(2) In readjusting the father's support obligation – either up or down – at what date should the retroactive adjustment take effect?

3: BACKGROUND

[9] The original order was made on a consent basis. It required the father to pay support for two children, Ko.. born December 16, 1993 and Ka.. born July 23, 2000, in the amount of $540 per month. This was based on father's annual income of $37,481.60.

[10] That order also provided:

Beginning in the year 2014 and for as long as support is payable, the payor shall by June 1st of each year provide to the recipient a copy of his income tax returns and notices of assessment and reassessment for the previous year.

[11] On January 26, 2018, the father issued his change motion seeking two heads of relief.

[12] First, he sought a termination of support for Ko.. as at November 30, 2017.

[13] And second, he sought a change in support for Ka.. based on his then-stated income of $39,000, together with a repayment to him of any support which he had overpaid to the mother since November 30, 2017.

[14] In subsequent case conferences the court ordered disclosure by both parents, including proof that the younger child Ka.. was still enrolled in school. The mother did provide that proof.

[15] On March 6, 2019, the parties consented to an order terminating support for Ko.. effective April 1, 2017.[1]

[16] As well, on the same date, the court made a temporary order that father pay child support for Ka.. in the amount of $380 per month, based on an imputed income to him in the amount of $41,953 yearly.

[17] On August 6, 2019, the court ordered a focused trial to proceed to address the issues referred to earlier in these reasons.

4: FATHER'S INCOME ACCORDING TO FATHER

[18] There are two sources of income for the father. One source is his employment income. Those income amounts are not in dispute. Those amounts, together with the required child support are as follows:

• 2014 - $41,079 – Child Support Guidelines (Guidelines) for two children - $598 monthly;
• 2015 - $39,840 – Guidelines for two children - $577 monthly;
• 2016 - $40,376 – Guidelines for two children - $586 monthly;
• 2017 - $38,823 – Guidelines for two children for three months (until March 31st) - $560 monthly, thereafter Guidelines for one child for eight months (until November 30th) in the amount of $346 monthly; and for the month of December 2017, support in the amount of $345;[2]
• 2018 - $40,615 – Guidelines for one child - $366 monthly; and
• 2019 – unknown as the year is not yet over, although father says his "likely" income is $39,237- Guidelines on this amount for one child $350 monthly.

[19] In determining whether there was either an underpayment or an overpayment in support, the arithmetical calculations would flow from the foregoing, which would then be offset against the actual support paid by the father to the mother, the amount of which is not in dispute.

[20] The second source of income, which is in dispute, is rental income paid to the father and his current partner from their adult children.

[21] The dispute in respect of this source of income is two-fold. First, the father says that the rental income should not be included at all, as this was not a formal arrangement between himself and his children. Rather, the father characterizes those monies as the children contributing toward their own expenses. There was no formal rental agreement between the children and the father and his partner. He characterizes these payments as a sort of redistribution of "family income".

[22] Second, the father argues that if the court is to attribute a portion of the rental income to him for child support purposes, the court ought to deduct certain expenses which he incurred to generate that rental income.

[23] What is not disputed is that the following "rental" amounts were paid by the children to the father and his partner for the years in question:

• 2014 - $9,792;
• 2015 - $10,858;
• 2016 - $10,957;
• 2017 - $11,052;
• 2018 - either $0 or $8,400[3]; and
• 2019 - $Nil

[24] Father's best case scenario is that no rental income would be attributed to him and that the support calculations would then be based on his employment income alone.

[25] Alternatively, father argues for various other scenarios that would be based on a combination of reducing the retroactive adjustment period as well as various deduction amounts for expenses from the rental income.[4]

5: FATHER'S INCOME ACCORDING TO MOTHER

[26] Mother argues that the court should make the support adjustment retroactive to January 1, 2014.

[27] She also argues that all of the rental income for the father's share of the ownership in the house should be included for child support purposes and that no deduction for expenses should be allowed because the rent was paid in respect of his own personal residence.

[28] The father's various disclosures revealed that his ownership in the home was 50%[5] and 40%.[6]

[29] Mother's best case scenario would therefore be based on the following income amounts, assuming a 50% ownership in the home and, accordingly, 50% of the "rental" incomes attributed to him:

• 2014 - $41,079 + $4,896 = $45,975;
• 2015 - $39,840 + $5,429 = $45,269;
• 2016 - $40,376 + $5,478 = $45,854;
• 2017 - $38,823 + $5,526 = $44,349;
• 2018 - $40,615 + $4,200 = $44,815; and
• 2019 - $40,615[7]

[30] Alternatively, the mother argues for calculations based on a number of other scenarios, which include various percentage deductions for expenses to offset the "rental" payments which he received.[8]

6: ANALYSIS

6.1: Retroactive Support

[31] I turn first to whether the court should make a retroactive adjustment in the support obligation.

[32] In D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 SCR 231, the Supreme Court of Canada held that there are a number of factors which a court must consider in determining whether to award retroactive support:

(1) First, does the support recipient have a reasonable excuse for not seeking the support adjustment earlier? The recipient will generally lack a reasonable excuse if she knew that higher support payments were warranted but took no steps to seek that increased support. (paragraph 101).

(2) Second, what was the conduct of the payor parent? Specifically, the Court stated, at paragraph 106:

Courts should not hesitate to take into account a payor parent's blameworthy conduct in considering the propriety of a retroactive award. Further, I believe courts should take an expansive view of what constitutes blameworthy conduct in this context. I would characterize as blameworthy conduct anything that privileges the payor parent's own interests over his/her children's right to an appropriate amount of support.

(3) Third, what are the circumstances of the child? At paragraph 110, the Court stated:

A retroactive award is a poor substitute for an obligation that was unfulfilled at an earlier time. Parents must endeavour to ensure that their children receive the support they deserve when they need it most. But because this will not always be the case with a retroactive award, courts should consider the present circumstances of the child — as well as the past circumstances of the child — in deciding whether such an award is justified.

(4) Fourth, would hardship be occasioned by a retroactive award? While courts should attempt to craft a retroactive award which avoids or minimizes hardship, the Court stated at paragraph 116 that avoiding hardship is not always possible, and the issue of hardship will be less of a consideration "where it is the product of his/her [payor's] own blameworthy conduct".

[33] I turn next to the question how far back the retroactive adjustment ought to be made. At paragraph 125 of D.B.S., the Court stated [my emphasis]:

The proper approach can therefore be summarized in the following way: payor parents will have their interest in certainty protected only up to the point when that interest becomes unreasonable. In the majority of circumstances, that interest will be reasonable up to the point when the recipient parent broaches the subject, up to three years in the past. However, in order to avoid having the presumptive date of retroactivity set prior to the date of effective notice, the payor parent must act responsibly: (s)he must disclose the material change in circumstances to the recipient parent. Where the payor parent does not do so, and thus engages in blameworthy behaviour, I see no reason to continue to protect his/her interest in certainty beyond the date when circumstances changed materially. A payor parent should not be permitted to profit from his/her wrongdoing.

[34] In the present case, the father does not dispute that some retroactive adjustment in support ought to be ordered. In the court's view, the overriding consideration is the father's blameworthy conduct in failing to notify the mother of a change in his circumstances.

[35] Not only did the father's income increase, but he breached the provision in the original order which obligated him to make financial disclosure to the mother on an annual basis. He freely acknowledged his failure to do so.

[36] The father's counsel argued that the mother was equally blameworthy because she failed to ask the father for that disclosure and, in any event, she continued to accept support for two children beyond 2017 when she ought to have known that she was entitled to support for only one child.

[37] I reject both of these arguments. First, the mother was not obligated to remind the father of his court-ordered responsibility. And second, more than three years had elapsed after the original order before the child support obligation had changed from support for two children to support for only one child. While I might have been inclined to assign some blame to mother for continuing to receive support for two children after April 1, 2017, that blame would not rise to the level of the father's blameworthy conduct in refusing to comply with a court order which required him to provide yearly income disclosure to the mother. Furthermore, even though the mother continued to receive $540 per month in support after April 1, 2017, she would have no way of knowing whether this amount was greater than she was entitled to, as she would not have known how much the father's income had increased since the date of the original order.

[38] Based on the foregoing, I have concluded that it is just and proper to make the support adjustment retroactive to January 1, 2014, as requested by the mother.

[39] In coming to this conclusion I have taken into account all of the D.B.S. considerations, as well as my ultimate determination of the amount owing by the father on the retroactive adjustment, an amount which I conclude will not cause him unnecessary hardship.[10]

6.2: How to treat the "rental" income paid by the Father's children

[40] As I noted earlier, the father said that these monies ought not to be treated as real rent, such that the payments should be added to his income for child support purposes. He says this was a highly informal arrangement between himself (and his partner) and the children.

[41] I do not accept the father's argument for two reasons.

[42] First, the documentary evidence contradicts the father's position in this regard.

[43] His income tax returns for each of the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 all disclose rental income received. In each of those years the father claimed gross rental income and deductions from that income, to arrive at a net rental income which he then included in his taxable income.

[44] Simply put, the father himself treated these monies in a formal manner by declaring them to Canada Revenue Agency.

[45] Second, the father failed to make full financial disclosure. Subrule 13(1) of the Family Law Rules (Rules) provides that a party in a support case shall serve and file a financial statement. Parties are expected to make complete and frank financial disclosure in their financial statements. See Khan v. Parlee, 2012 ONCJ 60.

[46] In the case of Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated, beginning at paragraph 11 [my emphasis]:

The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information. This requirement is immediate and ongoing. Failure to abide by this fundamental principle impedes the progress of the action, causes delay and generally acts to the disadvantage of the opposite party. It also impacts the administration of justice. Unnecessary judicial time is spent and the final adjudication is stalled. Financial disclosure is automatic. It should not require court orders.

[47] The importance of this "fundamental principle" in the present case is the parties' awareness that determining father's income was very much the central issue in this trial, and in the proceedings leading up to trial.

[48] In the present case, the father did file financial statements. However, the combination of the content of those statements, together with the father's trial testimony revealed a lack of candor by the father. I turn to a number of examples of the father's lack of disclosure, his mis-disclosure and his general lack of credibility.

[49] His first financial statement was filed January 26, 2018. In that statement he swore that his annual income for 2017 was $40,814 and that his expenses were $59,868. He was asked on cross-examination how his expenses could be $19,000 greater than his income without any corresponding debt.[11] He replied:

I understand that I made a lot of errors.

[50] He then said:

I must have borrowed it from my wife.

[51] He swore a financial statement on February 8, 2019. At Schedule A of that statement he deposed that his "gross annual rental income" was $8,400 for 2017. However, his income tax return for 2017 revealed gross rental income of $11,027. He was asked to explain this inconsistency. He acknowledged that his financial statement was incorrect.

[52] Schedule B of that financial statement failed to show any financial contribution by his partner. He acknowledged that this omission was incorrect.

[53] He swore a financial statement on July 30, 2019. In that financial statement he failed entirely to include Schedules A and B. He was asked why. He responded:

I didn't know that was necessary.[12]

[54] And yet, on his two prior financial statements, when he was not represented by counsel, he did know that it was necessary to include Schedules A and B.

[55] When the father did eventually disclose some of his financial documents, that disclosure revealed that he was earning interest income on investments at the Bank of Montreal. Despite this, he failed to make disclosure of these investments in his financial statements.

[56] His disclosure also revealed that he was the owner of Registered Retirement Savings Plans held with Canada Trust in 2015. He testified that he still owns these investments. Once again, however, he failed to disclose the existence of these Plans in any of his sworn financial statements.

[57] There were other non-disclosures and mis-disclosures by the father. The foregoing represents merely a sampling.

[58] During the course of father's testimony, many questions that were put to him on cross-examination were met with responses such as:

I don't think I disclosed it; I didn't fill this out; I do not know; and My wife handled the information and gave the information to the accountant.

[59] At one point in his testimony he acknowledged depositing the rental income into his personal savings account. He was asked why he failed to disclose the existence of those accounts. He replied:

My personal account is my business.

[60] Accordingly, for all of the foregoing, I do not accept the father's bare statement that these income amounts were merely an informal arrangement and should not be included in the calculation of his income for child support purposes.

6.3: Rental income for 2018?

[61] The father's financial statement sworn February 8, 2019 reveals rental income in the amount of $8,400 for the previous year, namely, 2018.

[62] It is for that reason that the mother asks the court to find that the father should be attributed with $4,200 in gross rental receipts for 2018.

[63] However, the father testified that he was thinking of the prior year, namely, 2017 when he swore that financial statement.

[64] At trial the father filed his 2018 income tax return which revealed that he had not declared any rental income.

[65] Accordingly, the evidence is conflicting on whether the father received rental income for 2018.

[66] Despite my findings earlier that the father's credibility was somewhat lacking, with some hesitancy I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on this and conclude that he did not have any rental income for the year 2018 and subsequently.[13]

6.4: Should the court allow any expenses to be deducted from the gross rents?

[67] Section 19 of the Guidelines provides [my emphasis]:

Imputing income

19 (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following [my emphasis]:

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

(b) the spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax;

(c) the spouse lives in a country that has effective rates of income tax that are significantly lower than those in Canada;

(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these Guidelines;

(e) the spouse's property is not reasonably utilized to generate income;

(f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;

(g) the spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income;

(h) the spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax; and

(i) the spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or other benefits from the trust.

[68] Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and impute income to them. See Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548.

[69] As I noted earlier in the father's income tax returns, he variously claimed to have either a 40% interest in the home in which he and his partner live, as well as a 50% interest. I draw an adverse inference against the father and attribute to him a 50% interest in his home.

[70] I draw this adverse inference for two reasons. First, I rely on the Szitas case, specifically, because of the father's lack of full disclosure. And second, in the father's financial statements he referred to himself as a "co-owner" of the home, and he did not provide any explanation as to why his ownership interest may have changed from 50% to 40%.

[71] As I noted earlier, the father did fail to provide certain relevant pieces of income information. He also provided erroneous income information. These failures would be one of the bases for attributing income to him under clause 19(1)(f) of the Guidelines.

[72] I turn next to clause 19(1)(g) of the Guidelines, namely, whether the father has unreasonably deducted expenses in respect of the rental income. A review of the father's income tax returns discloses that he has deducted a number of expenses which have had the effect of limiting his net rental income for tax purposes to a very small amount.

[73] These expenses include insurance, interest (presumably mortgage interest), maintenance and repairs, property taxes and utilities.

[74] What he has done on his income tax returns is to disclose the entirety of the expense in question, and then used 60% of that expense as a deduction, allocating 40% of the home for personal use.

[75] The father did not actually explain how he arrived at this 60/40 percentage allocation. However, because he was not challenged on this allocation, there is no need to address it in this decision.

[76] The mother takes the position that all of these expenses which were deducted for income tax purposes should be ignored and that the gross rental income[14] should be attributed in full to the father for child support purposes.

[77] She argues that, regardless of the personal/rental allocation, all of these expenses would have to be paid by the father and his partner, whether or not his adult children were paying monthly rent. In other words, there would have been no increase in the enumerated expenses which the father claims, simply by virtue of his children occupying certain rooms in the home and paying rent to their parents.

[78] On the other hand, the father argues that these are all legitimate expenses which have been allowed by Canada Revenue Agency and they accurately reflect what he and his partner actually paid.

[79] A parent has the onus of proving his income. Where a parent seeks to deduct expenses from his income, the parent has the onus of proving those expenses as well as establishing that those expenses should be taken into account in reducing his income. See Wilson v. Wilson, 2011 ONCJ 103, paragraph 122.

[80] In the present case, the father has not provided sufficient disclosure to prove that the rental expenses he claimed on his income tax returns were in fact incurred. However, the mother did not seriously challenge the amount of those expenses. Accordingly, I will proceed with my analysis on the basis that the expenses which the father claimed were what he actually incurred.

[81] The bigger issue is whether any or all of those expenses should be deducted from the rental income for child support purposes.

[82] Were this a discrete rental property, the issue would be easier. The expenses incurred[15] would be offset against the income received.

[83] However, this was the father's personal home. Whether or not he rented rooms to his adult children, his expenses for mortgage interest, insurance and realty taxes would have been the same.[16]

[84] It was that argument which the mother relied upon to submit to the court that there should be no deduction allowed for the rental expenses claimed by the father on his income tax return.

[85] In some of the cases, the courts have allowed a percentage of the "hard costs" to be deducted from rental income for the purpose of calculating child support. See for example, Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 2008 ONCJ 96.

[86] However, as the court noted in Taillefer v. Taillefer, 2012 O.J. No. 5676, at paragraph 29, the issue becomes somewhat more complicated when dealing with rental income from a personal residence.

[87] In the present case, I have decided on an add-back of 80% of the expenses which the father claimed on his income tax return to be deducted from the rental income for child support purposes.

[88] In arriving at this percentage, as compared to what the father actually claimed on his income tax returns for the expense deductions, I have considered the fact that the father and his partner live in the home in which their children paid rent. The father and his partner would have paid virtually all the expenses which he claimed on his income tax return regardless whether rental payments were made to them. There is little or no proven link between the expenses claimed and the rental income earned. In other words, the father has not demonstrated that the expenses which he claimed were necessary in order to generate the rental income.

[89] The absence of this proven link lends weight to the mother's argument for disallowing all the expenses. However, to disallow 100% of the expenses fails to recognize the reality that many people live in homes which are too expensive to carry without some financial assistance which comes from renting out a room or a basement apartment. And it is for that reason, that I have decided it is fair and just to allow the father to deduct 20% of the total expenses.

[90] I recognize the somewhat arbitrary nature of the 20% figure. However, in balancing the foregoing considerations, it is not possible to arrive at a precise mathematic formula. The court's decision is based less on mathematics, and more on an attempt to do justice to both parties.

7: FATHER'S INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT PURPOSES

[91] Accordingly, I make certain adjustments to the father's income for child support purposes, together with his adjusted child support obligation. In the following, I set out 50% of the gross rental income for each of the years in question, and then deduct 20% of the expenses claimed on his income tax return (for his 50% share of the rental income), to arrive at an income for Guideline support, and then set out the underpayment/overpayment by the father as compared to the $540 per month he was required to pay in the original order:

2014 - $4,896 rental income – less $933 ($4,665 x 20%) = $3,963

• Employment income $41,079 + net rental income $3,963 = $45,042
• Child support for two children $665 per month
• Father underpaid by $665 - $540 = $125 per month – underpayment for the year $1,500

2015 - $5,429 rental income – less $1,026 ($5,127 x 20%) = $4,403

• Employment income $39,840 + net rental income $4,403 = $44,243
• Child support for two children $651 per month
• Father underpaid by $651 - $540 = $111 per month – underpayment for the year $1,332

2016 - $5,478 rental income – less $986 ($4,931 x 20%) = $4,492

• Employment income $40,376 + net rental income $4,492 = $44,868
• Child support for two children $662 per month
• Father underpaid by $662 - $540 = $122 per month – underpayment for the year $1,464

2017 - $5,513 rental income – less $1,032 ($5,160 x 20%) = $4,481

• Employment income $38,823 + net rental income $4,481 = $43,304
• Child support for two children (January to March) $652 per month
• Underpayment for January to March $652 – $540 = $112 per month x 3 months = $336
• Child support for one child (April to November) $400 per month – overpayment is $540 - $400 = $140 per month x 8 months = $1,120
• Child support for one child for December $398
• Overpayment for December is $540 - $398 = $142
• Total overpayment for 2017 - $142 + $540 = $682 less underpayment of $336 = $346

2018 - $40,615 – child support for one child $366 per month

• Overpayment of support - $540 - $366 = $174 per month - total $2,088

2019 - $40,615[17] - support for one child is $366 per month

• Support was adjusted by a temporary order requiring father to pay $380 per month, so that the overpayment by him is $14 per month for 11 months (to November 30th) = $154

[92] On the basis of the foregoing, I fix the total amount of underpayment by the father as at November 30, 2019 at $1,708 ($1,500 + $1,332 + $1,464 - $346 - $2,088 - $154).

8: CONCLUSION

[93] The arrears of support owing by the father to the mother are fixed at $1,708 as at November 30, 2019.

[94] Commencing December 1, 2019, the father shall pay to the mother $366 per month for one child, based on his annual income of $40,615.

[95] The arrears of support owing by the father shall be paid by the father to the mother at the rate of not less than $200 per month commencing January 1, 2020, until fully paid.

[96] If either party finds a mathematical error in this decision, they may serve and file written submissions by December 13, 2019. The other party will then have until December 23, 2019 to serve and file a written response. Submissions are to be limited to issues pertaining to mathematical errors – nothing else. Any submissions should be delivered to the trial coordinator's office on the second floor of the courthouse.

[97] Should either party seek his or her costs of this proceeding that party shall file written submissions at the trial coordinators' office no later than 21 days following the later of the date of this judgment and the court's response to submissions pertaining to mathematical errors. The other party shall have 14 days thereafter to file responding submissions. Parties' submissions shall not exceed three pages, in 12-point font, double-spaced, exclusive of attachments including any Bill of Costs and authorities relied upon.

Released: November 20, 2019

Signed: Justice Robert J. Spence

Footnotes

[1] Even though the father had originally requested in his change motion that this support termination date be November 30, 2017.

[2] The Guideline amounts were changed by Regulation at the end of November 2017.

[3] Father says rental income stopped after 2017; mother argues that it continued, based on father's own evidence. I will address this point later in these reasons.

[4] I do not find it necessary to reproduce the calculations based on all the various scenarios submitted to the court by the father.

[5] In his 2015 income tax return

[6] In his 2017 income tax return

[7] Based on 2018 income, as the 2019 income is yet to be determined

[8] Once again, I do not find it necessary to reproduce the calculations based on all the various scenarios submitted to the court by the mother.

[9] Although he seemed to suggest that the period of retroactivity should be limited to three years – from 2015 – rather than the beginning of 2014 as sought by mother.

[10] Neither party led evidence regarding the third D.B.S. factor, namely, the circumstances of the child(ren).

[11] Apart from the mortgage on his home

[12] The father was represented by counsel at this point in the litigation.

[13] It is not disputed that there was no rental income for 2019

[14] That is, 50% of the gross rental income, reflecting the father's 50% ownership of the home

[15] Or at least, the "hard costs", such as mortgage interest, insurance and realty taxes

[16] Arguably there could have been extra maintenance and repair costs, as well as extra utilities costs arising from the rentals. However, no evidence was led by the father on this issue.

[17] Using the same income as 2018 as the 2019 income amount is not yet known