C.L.B. v. A.J.N., 2022 ONCJ 313

DATE: July 7, 2022 COURT FILE NO.: D56415/12

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

C.L.B. Applicant

KATIE GABOURY, for the Applicant

• and -

A.J.N. Respondent

LISA BAUMAL, for the Respondent

HEARD: MAY 5 and JULY 4, 2022

JUSTICE S.B. SHERR

Endorsement

Part One – Introduction

[1] There are two motions before the court.

[2] The applicant (the mother) has brought a motion asking to lift the stay ordered by the court on April 3, 2017 (the stay order) of her Motion to Change the parenting and support terms contained in the court’s order dated July 24, 2015 (the existing order). The mother also seeks to amend her Motion to Change to claim that the parties’ 14-year-old son (the youth) should have his primary residence with her.

[3] The respondent (the father) opposes the lifting of the stay order and seeks an order for security for costs as he pursues his own support claims against the mother. In the alternative, the father seeks numerous pre-conditions prior to the stay order being lifted, including terms that the mother pay him outstanding costs and child support, provide security for costs of $7,500, pay the costs of these motions and provide him with specified financial disclosure.

[4] The court must determine if it should lift the stay order and whether it would be just to order pre-conditions, including that the mother provide security for costs, before doing so.

Part Two – Brief background

[5] The father is 36 years old. The mother is 33 years old.

[6] The parties had a relationship from 2004 until 2008.

[7] The parties have been engaged in litigation regarding the youth, off and on, since 2012.

[8] On October 9, 2013, on consent, the mother was awarded custody of the youth, although the father was granted decision-making responsibility over the youth’s medical and dental issues. The father was ordered to pay child support of $210 each month to the mother.

[9] On January 13, 2014, the parties consented to a temporary order that the youth live full-time with the father and have access with the mother.

[10] The youth has primarily lived with the father since that date.

[11] On July 24, 2015, the father was granted final custody of the youth and the mother was granted specified access. The mother was ordered to pay the father child support of $360 each month, based on an annual income of $39,994. This remains the operative court order.

[12] On August 20, 2015, the court ordered the mother to pay the father’s costs of $7,500. The court permitted her to pay the costs at the rate of $250 each month.

[13] The mother did not make a costs payment for six years.

[14] The mother brought a Motion to Change the existing order on August 8, 2016. She sought an increase in access and a reduction in child support, both retroactively and prospectively. The father brought a Response to Motion to Change dated September 28, 2016, seeking a contribution by the mother to the youth’s special and extraordinary expenses (section 7 expenses) pursuant to section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines).

[15] On January 5, 2017, the court made an order requiring the mother to provide the father with detailed financial disclosure.

[16] On April 3, 2017, the court stayed the mother’s Motion to Change. The court endorsed that the mother had not paid any of the outstanding costs order and that she had not provided any of the financial disclosure ordered. The court endorsed that the mother would need to do the following before the stay order was lifted:

a) Provide proof that she had paid costs of $2,000 to the father towards the $7,500 costs order and;

b) Fully comply with providing the financial disclosure ordered.

[17] The father subsequently brought a contempt motion against the mother. It was dismissed on July 25, 2018. The father was ordered to pay the mother $500 costs, to be offset against the costs that the mother owed him.

[18] On April 8, 2020, the court dismissed the mother’s Form 14B motion for leave to bring a contempt motion against the father and a Motion to Change.

[19] On April 27, 2020, the court heard a motion brought by the father to suspend the mother’s access with the youth because he said that she was violating COVID-19 health protocols. The court made a finding that the mother had violated health protocols and did not grant her make-up time for her missed visits. However, the court accepted her assurance that she would follow health protocols in the future and maintained her access with the child.

[20] On May 12, 2020, the mother brought another Form 14B motion seeking leave to bring a Motion to Change custody of the youth and to have the father’s access with the youth supervised. The court dismissed the motion writing:

Ms. C.L.B.’s concerns about her son are long-standing. That is why she brought her Motion to Change in 2017. At anytime since April 3, 2017 Ms. C.L.B. could have pursued her Motion to Change by paying the small portion of the costs ordered. She has chosen not to do this even though she advised the court on April 23, 2020 that she had worked at Rogers and now has her own business. The costs payment required was not a barrier if Ms. C.L.B. truly felt the matter was urgent – she has left the matter alone for three years.

In fact, Ms. C.L.B. has chosen not to pay any of the costs order. She has not come to the court with “clean hands”, an important consideration for a court in deciding whether to lift a stay order.

[21] On June 16, 2020, the court dismissed the father’s motion to suspend the mother’s access due to violating COVID-19 health protocols. The court criticized both parties for their conflictual behaviour.

[22] In August and September 2021, the mother paid a total of $2,050 towards the outstanding costs order.

[23] The mother brought her most recent Form 14B motion to lift the stay order on April 13, 2022. The court directed that the motion be heard in open court.

[24] On April 27, 2022, the mother filed a Form 12 Notice of Withdrawal regarding her claim to change support contained in her Motion to Change.

[25] The hearing of the motions began on May 5, 2022. The court adjourned the motions to July 4, 2022 as the financial disclosure provided by the mother was inadequate to justly determine them.

[26] On June 20, 2022, the mother paid the father a further $5,450 towards the outstanding costs order. The parties agree that the amount of $436 remains owing.

[27] The parties also agree that the mother remains $1,467 in arrears of child support.

Part Three – Legal considerations

3.1 Lifting a stay order

[28] Where children’s interests are involved, courts should use utmost caution in striking pleadings because trial courts need the participation of both parties and information that each can provide about best interests. See: King v. Mongrain, 2009 ONCA 486, [2009] O.J. No. 2466, C.A.). The same principle applies when a court is determining whether it should order a stay of proceedings involving children. See: Dalechuku v. Dalechuku, 2021 ONCJ 53.

[29] A stay should not be ordered if there is merit to the claim and the person ordered to pay costs is genuinely impecunious. See: Larabie v. Montfils, 2004 CarswellOnt 186 (Ont. C.A.).

[30] These principles should also apply to requests to lift a stay.

[31] However, there will be situations where it is necessary for a just determination of the case to order (or maintain) a stay of the proceedings where there has been a wilful failure of a party to follow the Family Law Rules or to obey orders in the case. See: Martin v. Martin, [2005] O.J. 4567 (Ont. S.C.J.); Wreggbo v. Vinton, 2013 ONCJ 250.

[32] In Pearce v. Kisoon, 2019 ONSC 4389, the court observed that different considerations may apply to stay orders on Motions to Change, writing at paragraph 27:

Different considerations apply, in my view however, where it is the party in default who seeks to change a final order in which the best interests of the child respecting custody and access have already been determined. The admonition against striking pleadings (or staying proceedings) may not carry the same force where it is the defaulting party who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the court to vary an existing final order respecting custody and access and the non-defaulting party simply seeks to have the final order upheld. Subrules 2(2) and (3) of the Family Law Rules directs Courts to deal with cases justly, including to ensure that the procedure is fair to all parties.

[33] In Dalechuku, supra, Justice Robert Spence relied on Pearce and also considered the merits of the case in deciding whether to stay the moving party’s Motion to Change.

[34] In determining these motions, the court must also consider the primary objective set out in rule 2 of the Family Law Rules - to deal with cases justly. Subrules 2 (2) to (4) read as follows:

Primary objective

(2) The primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.

Dealing with cases justly

(3) Dealing with a case justly includes,

(a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties;

(b) saving expense and time;

(c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and

(d) giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2 (3).

Duty to promote primary objective

(4) The court is required to apply these rules to promote the primary objective, and parties and their lawyers are required to help the court to promote the primary objective.

3.2 Security for costs

[35] Subrules 24 (13) to (17) of the Family Law Rules set out the court’s jurisdiction to order security for costs as follows:

Order for security for costs

(13) A judge may, on motion, make an order for security for costs that is just, based on one or more of the following factors:

1. A party habitually resides outside Ontario.
2. A party has an order against the other party for costs that remains unpaid, in the same case or another case.
3. A party is a corporation and there is good reason to believe it does not have enough assets in Ontario to pay costs.
4. There is good reason to believe that the case is a waste of time or a nuisance and that the party does not have enough assets in Ontario to pay costs.
5. A statute entitles the party to security for costs.

Amount and form of security

(14) The judge shall determine the amount of the security, its form and the method of giving it.

Effect of order for security

(15) Until the security has been given, a party against whom there is an order for security for costs may not take any step in the case, except to appeal from the order, unless a judge orders otherwise.

Failure to give security

(16) If the party does not give the security as ordered and, as a result, a judge makes an order dismissing the party’s case or striking out the party’s answer or any other document filed by the party, then subrule (15) no longer applies. s. 14.

Security may be changed

(17) The amount of the security, its form and the method of giving it may be changed by order at any time.

[36] The purpose of an order for security for costs is to protect a party from nuisance or irresponsible litigation, conducted without regard to the merits of the case or the costs likely to be incurred. See: Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2015 ONSC 3684.

[37] Orders for security for costs are a blunt instrument. They are not intended to act as a roadblock to genuine claims. They should be used sparingly and carefully because they may well have the effect of barring a party from access to the court process. See: Gauthier v. Gauthier, 2019 ONCA 722; Krzewina v. Beaumont, 2021 ONCJ 351.

[38] Security for costs is not intended as a roadblock for a person who has a genuine claim. In most instances the merits of a case should not be determined by a party’s inability to post security for costs. See: Bragg v. Bruyere, 2007 ONCJ 515.

[39] In Izyuk, at paragraph 40, the court set out the following principles that courts must apply in determining whether to order security for costs:

a) The initial onus is on the party seeking security for costs to show that the other party falls within one of the enumerated grounds in subrules 24 (13) to (17).

b) If the onus is met, the court has discretion to grant or refuse an order for security.

c) If the court orders security, it has wide discretion as to the quantum and means of payment of the order. See: Clark v. Clark, 2014 ONCA 175.

d) The order must be “just” and be based on one or more of the factors listed in subrule 24 (13). See: Hodgins v. Buddhu, 2013 ONCJ 137.

[40] In Baker v. Rego, 2013 ONSC 3309 (Divisional Court), the court found that while the appeal had little prospect of success, that was not sufficient in itself to allow a finding that the appeal was “frivolous and vexatious” – there must be something more than a low prospect of success to justify security for costs. There must be good reason based on the overall facts surrounding the litigation, or from the conduct of the appellant, which would lead to a conclusion that the claim is without merit and brought for some other purpose.

[41] Although a claim might appear to have significant challenges, that does not equate to it being a nuisance or a waste of time. See: Krzewina, supra.

[42] In cases where custody and access are at stake, security for costs should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. See: Hodgins v. Buddhu, supra.

[43] Whether an order for security for costs is just in any particular case is an objective determination, based on the record before the court. See: Wreggett, supra; Krzewina, supra.

Part Four – Positions of the parties

4.1 The mother

[44] The mother deposed that she is very worried about the youth. She says that he is struggling in school and with anxiety. She said that he frequently asks to come and live with her. She deposed that the youth tells her that the father gets aggressive and angry at him when he tells him that he wants to live with the mother. She said that the father is dismissing her concerns about the youth and will not agree to obtain counseling for him. The youth is starting high school in September and the mother disagrees with the father about what school the youth should attend.

[45] The mother believes that the stay order should be lifted as she has made meaningful efforts to pay the outstanding costs order and the existing support order.

[46] The mother acknowledges that she has not provided complete financial disclosure. However, she feels it is sufficient to justify a lifting of the stay order. The mother submitted that the financial disclosure order made on January 5, 2017 has little relevance as she has now withdrawn her claim to change support.

[47] The mother deposed that she has limited financial ability to meet the financial terms that the father seeks to impose on her to lift the stay order. She said that she couldn’t work for most of 2020 and 2021 and relied on Canada Emergency Response Benefits. She said that she had a falling out with her employer in 2021 and was let go. She has started a new business in day trading cryptocurrency and says that she is now grossing between $2,500 and $3,000 each month. She said that she borrowed money from a friend to pay $5,450 towards the costs order.

4.2 The father

[48] The father asks that the stay order not be lifted or that stringent terms, including security for costs of $7,500 be ordered for lifting it. The father submitted that:

a) The mother took six years before she paid anything towards the costs order.

b) The mother ignored all his requests to pay the costs order.

c) There are still costs and child support outstanding. The mother’s history is that she will not willingly pay costs or support unless there is a strong incentive for her to do so.

d) The mother has recklessly litigated throughout this case.

e) The mother has not complied with financial disclosure orders.

f) The mother has still not provided meaningful financial disclosure.

g) The mother has not been forthright in disclosing her financial affairs.

h) The mother is being disingenuous about withdrawing her support claim since if she is successful in her claim to have the youth primarily live with her, the support order will have to be changed.

i) The mother has had the ability to pay costs and child support and she has the ability to provide security for costs. The father alleged that the mother recently took a vacation to Jamaica instead of putting support and costs into good standing. The mother did not deny taking this vacation.

j) There is no merit to the mother’s parenting claim. The father says that the youth is thriving in his care and wants to remain with him. He maintains that the mother’s parenting claim is a nuisance and a waste of time and that the mother does not have enough assets in Canada to pay costs.

k) The mother is still in default of a costs order.

Part Five – Analysis

[49] On April 5, 2017, the court set a low bar for the mother to lift the stay order – just pay $2,000 towards the outstanding costs order of $7,500 and provide the financial disclosure contained in the January 5, 2017 order.

[50] The mother chose to pay nothing towards costs for six years despite having the ability to make costs payments. This was the major factor in dismissing her request to lift the stay order in April 2020.

[51] The mother has now substantially paid the costs. The balance of $436 outstanding is interest accrued on the costs. The mother is also behind $1,467 in child support. These arrears are not so high that they would dissuade the court from lifting the stay order if this was the only consideration – especially when at issue is the best interests of the youth.

[52] However, this is not the only consideration to make a just determination of these motions.

[53] The second piece of the stay order was for the mother to provide the disclosure set out in the January 5, 2017 order. The court had ordered the mother to provide disclosure that included her 2013 to 2015 income tax returns with all slips and schedules, monthly bank account and credit card statements, monthly line of credit statements and copies of any credit applications. The mother stated that she was self-employed at the time. The disclosure order was routine and not onerous. It was also ordered on consent of the parties.

[54] The mother provided none of this disclosure. She still has not provided any of this disclosure.

[55] The mother submitted that this disclosure is no longer relevant since she has withdrawn her support claim. This argument lacks merit for the following reasons:

a) The mother’s financial disclosure is relevant to the father’s claim for a contribution to section 7 expenses.

b) The mother’s financial disclosure is relevant to determining child support if a shared parenting order is made as requested by the mother.

c) Annual financial disclosure is also essential for a support recipient to assess if support should be changed, whether prospectively or retroactively. See: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24.

d) The mother’s financial circumstances are an important consideration in determining what order is just on these motions – the court does not want to impose financial terms on the mother that she is incapable of complying with.

e) The mother’s financial disclosure is relevant because the court expects parties to comply with its orders – parties do not get to unilaterally determine what parts of orders are no longer relevant and do not have to be complied with.

[56] At the start of these motions, the court told the mother that the financial disclosure she had provided was inadequate to determine the merits of the motions. The court gave her another opportunity to provide better disclosure and adjourned the motions over the father’s objection. The court told the mother that she should be financially transparent and provide complete copies of her income tax returns, bank statements for the past few years and documentary proof of her 2021 and 2022 income.

[57] The mother’s disclosure continues to be inadequate. She only provided income summaries for 2018 to 2020, screenshots of current bank balances, a letter from the bank confirming that the bank has suspended its dealings with her and an updated financial statement with little supporting documentation.

[58] The mother submitted that the financial disclosure requested by the court is no longer that relevant because she has substantially paid the costs order. Again, the mother failed to recognize the multiple reasons why she has to provide this disclosure, as set out in paragraph 55 above.

[59] The mother did not provide complete income tax returns. She has still not filed her 2021 income tax return. She provided no documentary evidence of her 2021 income or expenses. She did not provide her credit card or bank statements so that the father and the court could analyze the flow of her income and expenses to accurately assess her income.

[60] The mother provided no evidence supporting her income or expenses in 2022.

[61] The mother also failed to mention in her financial statement, or in any of her affidavits, that she has an interest in two corporations. The father discovered this in an online search. The mother is the sole director of B[…] Enterprise Holdings Corp. This business was incorporated on September 21, 2021. She is also one of three directors of a company called […] Canada Inc.

[62] The mother did not explain the nature of her involvement with these corporations at the hearing of these motions. She filed no corporate tax returns or financial statements for these corporations as required by section 21 of the Child Support Guidelines.

[63] The mother provided a plethora of excuses for not providing meaningful financial disclosure, none of which were satisfactory. She claimed that she could not obtain bank statements because her accounts were frozen. She knew she had to produce these. She could have brought a third party records motion or served a summons on the bank if the bank was refusing to produce these records (she provided no evidence that this was the case). She claimed that she could not obtain her full income tax returns from H and R Block, yet she refused a reasonable request from the father to sign a direction so that he could obtain them himself. She blamed her past employer for her not filing her 2021 income tax return and claimed that she was contemplating litigation against the employer. She provided no explanation for her failure to file any documentary evidence of her 2022 income.

[64] The mother has not been transparent about her financial affairs for a very long time.

[65] The financial disclosure provided by the mother raised more questions than answers. For instance, how was the mother able to meet her stated annual expenses of over $55,000 when she has not declared annual income of over $20,000 since 2015, and in some years showed nominal or no income?

[66] The father has a legitimate concern that if the stay order is lifted that he will be put to another expensive paper chase to determine the mother’s finances.

[67] The court also has to look at the merits of the case – both in assessing if it should lift the stay order and in determining whether security for costs should be ordered.

[68] The mother has an uphill battle in changing the parenting terms in the existing order. At this point, her evidence to establish a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the youth is very thin for the following reasons:

a) The mother has maintained for a long time that the youth wants to live with her. However, as noted in its April 2020 endorsement, the mother chose to do nothing to comply with the terms set by the court to lift the stay order so that she could assert her claim. She has only done so recently.

b) The mother offers no independent corroboration that the youth wants to live with her. It is a bald statement by her. No details were provided about when he made these statements or the context for these statements. The father says that the youth has never said this to him.

c) The mother alleged that a teacher told her that the child was failing at school. The father produced the youth’s report card. He is not failing at school. The youth has ADHD and struggled with schooling during the acute phase of the pandemic. However, he is doing better at school now.

d) The mother alleged that the father is not meeting the youth’s academic needs. She provided no independent corroboration of this – such as from the school. It should also be noted that in its reasons for decision in transferring custody of the youth from the mother to the father in July 2015, the court made a finding that it was the mother who had failed to meet the child’s academic needs.

e) The mother alleged that the child is suffering from anxiety. It is noteworthy that she only mentioned this in her last of four affidavits – her allegations appear to be escalating. She provided no specifics about the child’s anxiety. She has not provided any specifics of her concerns to the father. She provided no independent corroboration of the child’s anxiety from the school. The father provided an email from the child’s teacher that she has not observed anything concerning about the youth – he is typically very happy and upbeat while he is at school and has friends.

f) The father has complied with the court order for the mother’s parenting time with the youth.

g) There is an established status quo of the youth primarily residing with the father.

h) The youth has been in the middle of the power struggle between the parents for the past 10 years. Both parents at times have been over-litigious. The court has to consider the potential impact of placing the youth in the middle of this conflict yet again.

[69] The court has to balance the deficiencies in the mother’s case with the right of the youth to be heard on this issue. The 2021 amendments to the Children’s Law Reform Act place a heightened importance on hearing the views and wishes of the youth. This is consistent with Article 12 (1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Article provides children with two rights:

1. The right to be heard if they are capable of forming their own views
2. And the right to have those views given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity.

[70] Hearing the voice of the child is even more important when that child is 14 years old.

[71] If the child’s views and wishes are as stated by the mother, this could constitute a material change in circumstances.

[72] Although the mother’s case to change the parenting order does not appear to be strong, the court does not find that it is a nuisance or a waste of time.

[73] This means that the father’s claim for security for costs only falls within one of the enumerated factors to make such an order under subrule 24 (13) of the Family Law Rules – there is an unpaid costs order of $436. This amount is very small in proportion to the total costs that were ordered. The mother has made a meaningful attempt to pay it. It would not be just to order security for costs based on this factor.

[74] The father’s request for security for costs, whether as a term of lifting the stay order or as a stand alone order regarding the support litigation is dismissed.

[75] However, it is just in the circumstances of this case to impose pre-conditions to lift the stay order. To achieve a just result, the court needs to ensure that it does not create unreasonable barriers for the mother to litigate the parenting issues while at the same time ensuring fairness to the father. The merits of the mother’s case are a factor in determining how to achieve this balance.

[76] The father should not be put to the cost of chasing after financial disclosure from the mother yet again. The mother’s history is that she will not provide this disclosure unless pre-conditions to lifting the stay order are imposed.

[77] In paragraph 25 of his most recent affidavit, the father listed the financial disclosure he was seeking as a pre-condition for the stay order being lifted. For the most part, he listed basic disclosure required under section 21 of the guidelines that should have already been provided. He has reasonably asked for copies of the leases for the properties of the two corporations in which the mother appears to have an interest. With minor modifications to ensure proportionality, the court will order the mother to produce the requested disclosure as a pre-condition to lifting the stay order.

[78] The father also seeks full payment of the outstanding costs order and support arrears as a pre-condition to lifting the stay order. This totals $1,903.13. This is a reasonable request and will be ordered. The mother is expected to comply with court orders. Her track record in doing so has been very poor. The mother did not provide an acceptable explanation for why these payments remain in arrears or why she took so long to comply with the costs order. The court finds that she has the ability to pay this amount if she wishes to proceed with her Motion to Change.

[79] The father also asked that the mother pay $5,000 for the costs of this motion as a pre-condition of lifting the stay order. The court is not prepared to do this. The court still needs to determine who was the successful party on these motions and will invite written costs submissions. Making the requested order is too high a barrier to place on the mother in balancing the competing factors.

[80] The court agrees with the father’s submission that the pre-conditions to lift the stay order should be time-limited. It is unfair to have the mother’s Motion to Change hanging over his head indefinitely. The mother will have 120 days to comply with the financial disclosure order that will be made and to pay the amount of $1,903.13 to the father, while keeping ongoing child support in good standing.

[81] If the parties disagree about whether the mother has met these pre-conditions they are to arrange an appearance before the court through the trial coordinator’s office to make submissions.

[82] If the mother complies with the conditions to lift the stay order, she will also be entitled to amend her Motion to Change respecting the parenting orders requested.

Part Six – Conclusion

[83] An order shall go as follows:

a) The mother shall provide the father with the following disclosure within 120 days:

i. Complete copies of her personal and corporate income tax returns from 2019 to 2021.

ii. Her monthly bank account and credit card statements, both personal and corporate, from January 1, 2020 to the present.

iii. Financial statements for any corporation in which she has an interest from 2019 to the present.

iv. The current leases for the properties listed in paragraph 25 of the father’s affidavit sworn on June 27, 2022.

v. Documentary evidence of her 2022 income form all sources. This should include any business ledgers showing revenues and expenses.

vi. If the mother does not have any of these corporate income tax returns, corporate financial statements, corporate bank accounts and credit cards or the two lease agreements, then she is to serve and file an affidavit setting out that this is the case with an explanation as to the nature of these businesses, the extent and nature of her involvement with the corporations, when they have and have not operated and why these documents are not available.

b) The mother shall keep her ongoing child support payments in good standing, pay the outstanding child support arrears of $1,467.16 and the outstanding costs amount of $435.97 to the father within 120 days.

c) If the mother meets the conditions set out in subparagraphs a) and b) above, then the court will lift the stay order and permit her to amend her Motion to Change respecting the parenting terms in the existing order.

d) If the parties agree that these pre-conditions have been met, counsel should file a Form 14B with suggested return dates for a case conference.

e) If the parties agree that the pre-conditions have not been met, then the father may bring a Form 14B motion, on notice to the mother, to dismiss the mother’s Motion to Change.

f) If the parties cannot agree on whether the mother has met these pre-conditions, then counsel shall arrange a court date with the trial coordinator to have the matter spoken to.

g) The father’s claim for security for costs is dismissed.

[84] If either party seeks costs of these motions (including the preliminary 14B motions) and the costs related to the mother’s withdrawal of her request to change support in her Motion to Change, they shall serve and file written submissions by July 21, 2022. The other party will then have until August 3, 2022 to serve and file their written response (not to make their own costs submission). The 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: July 7, 2022 _____________________ Justice S.B. Sherr