Karnes v. Reid, 2023 ONCJ 167

Citation: Karnes v. Reid, 2023 ONCJ 167

Date: April 11, 2023

Court File No.: F133/07

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Sheri-Lynne Karnes, Applicant

— and —

Donald Reid, Respondent

Before: Justice K.A. Baker

Heard on: March 28, 29 and 30, 2023

Reasons for Judgment released: April 11, 2023

Counsel:

R. Sanger, Counsel for Sheri-Lynne Karnes

D. Reid, on his own behalf

JUDGMENT

BAKER, J.:

[1] This is a Motion to change brought by the Respondent, Donald Reid, seeking to terminate child support for the subject children, Bryen William Reid, born July 26, 2001 (now known as ‘Winter’) and Megan Elizabeth Reid, born May 12, 2003 (now known as ‘Aleksey’). Winter identifies as female and accordingly, my judgment will utilize female pronouns for Winter. Aleksey identifies as male and accordingly, my judgment will utilize male pronouns for Aleksey. Winter is now 21 years of age. Aleksey is now 19 years of age.

[2] The Applicant has filed a Response to the motion to change, seeking the continuation of child support for both children on the basis that they are disabled and unable to withdraw from parental charge. The Applicant also seeks retroactive adjustment of Guideline table support. Finally, the Applicant seeks to impute income to the Respondent as a result of his November 2021 termination from employment.

[3] The Order under review is that of Edward, J., dated June 16, 2015. It requires the Respondent to pay support of $711 per month on account of the two children. It does not stipulate that this is Guideline Table support, nor does it state the income upon which the support is based.

[4] Much of the factual background in this matter is undisputed. Both Winter and Aleksey continue to reside with their mother. Ms. Karnes is in receipt of Ontario Works and receives a monthly income of $1,364.14, which results in an annual income of $17,477.64. Aleksey is also covered on this cheque. Winter is in receipt of ODSP and she receives monthly benefits totalling $944. $109.00 is paid directly to the landlord, Victoria Park Homes. The remaining $835.00 is paid to Winter.

[5] Winter typically keeps about $100 from her monthly cheque and gives about the same amount ($100) to Aleksey. The remainder is provided to Ms. Karnes, to be put toward household expenses.

[6] Aleksey has no income of his own. He may have recently applied for ODSP, but no application has yet been determined. The Applicant did not enter an ODSP application into evidence.

[7] Dr. Shreekant Sharma testified and was qualified as an expert in psychiatry and disability assessment. Two of his reports, dated January 6, 2020 and September 12, 2022, respectively were entered into evidence. Dr. Sharma testified that Winter has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, autism spectrum disorder and social anxiety. Her psychosocial global functioning is moderately to severely impaired. Winter’s ability to tolerate stressful situations is compromised. When subjected to day-to-day stress, she tends to decompensate further and becomes overwhelmed easily. This results in a worsening of her anxiety symptoms. Due to these symptoms, Winter dropped out of school after grade nine.

[8] Dr. Sharma concluded that Winter is completely disabled and is not suitable for competitive employment for the foreseeable future.

[9] In cross-examination, Dr. Sharma was asked about his observation that Winter has, “a restricted life”, despite the fact that Winter does socialize with some friends and is able to go into the community to go to stores and fast food restaurants. Dr. Sharma responded that he would expect that a young adult of Winter’s age would be in school, working on a vocation, socializing with friends and thinking of a career or university. That is not happening for Winter, and this is the result of a lack of ability rather than unwillingness to do all those things.

[10] In response to questions from the court, Dr. Sharma noted Winter’s overall lack of resilience as a result of her autism. Although gender dysphoria and social anxiety are treatable, there is no medication or treatment program that would be likely to address Winter’s autism spectrum disorder. When asked about the possibility of Winter working in a sheltered work environment, Dr. Sharma said this might be a goal for the future. At present however, Winter’s inability to maintain any routine, erratic sleep times and inability to face novel situations are not compatible with any type of employment.

[11] Winter spends much of her time in her room, writing music and practising guitar. She sometimes goes for walks and will at times, walk by herself or with her sister in the very early morning hours. She and Aleksey will attend fast food restaurants and stores on their own. Ms. Karnes does, on occasion, leave the two alone in the apartment including overnight. Ms. Karnes makes a meal for the household once or twice a week. The rest of the time, Winter will make herself ramen noodles, or open a can of food.

[12] Winter does play in a band that performs in various public venues such as bars in both Brantford and Hamilton. She attends both practices and performances without her mother or brother. She also posts material on the internet. She has built musical equipment such as amplifiers.

[13] Aleksey has worked at various jobs over the last three years. The longest of these jobs lasted for two weeks. In general, Aleksey is fired for coming in late, or being away, ill. He is not currently employed, and a recent job interview did not result in a job offer.

[14] Aleksey acknowledged having been previously offered full time hours with an employer, which he declined. Aleksey described working full time as “difficult” and “not fun”. He acknowledged complaining to Mr. Reid that full time employment would cut into his social life.

[15] Aleksey described his disability as being related to tooth aches, stomach aches and social anxiety. He could not recall if any of these ailments had actually been diagnosed by a doctor.

[16] There have been two occasions when Ms. Karnes, Winter and Aleksey have discussed the possibility of Winter moving to Toronto with a friend or Ms. Karnes moving out to her own independent unit. To date, nothing has come of those plans.

[17] The law governing applications of this nature is as follows: S. 31 of the Family Law Act establishes the obligation of a parent to provide support for his or her unmarried child. It reads as follows:

Obligation of parent to support child

31 (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so, for his or her unmarried child who,

(a) is a minor;

(b) is enrolled in a full-time program of education; or

(c) is unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents. 2017, c. 34, Sched. 15, s. 1.

[18] In Jefic v. Jefic (Grujicic) 2022 ONSC 7240, Madsen, J reviewed the jurisprudence relating to adult children unable to withdraw from parental charge as a result of disability or illness. The court noted that being under parental charge includes consideration of whether the child remains financially dependent on a parent. It also includes consideration of whether the child is unable to manage daily living without the consistent and direct monitoring, care and support of a parent.

[19] Disability in and of itself does not, without more, ground entitlement to support for an adult child. The court requires credible and trustworthy evidence that the child (1) does in fact have that disability or illness, (2) is under the charge of the claimant parent and (3) is unable to withdraw from that parent’s charge due to inability to manage daily living on their own without the parent’s consistent care, monitoring and support or is unable, due to the disability or illness, to obtain the necessaries of life.

[20] There must be evidence regarding the nature of the disability or illness and specifically, how that results in an inability to withdraw from parental charge or to obtain the necessities of life. That an adult child is in receipt of disability benefits through government or other assistance may be relevant to whether the child is able to withdraw or obtain the necessities, but it is not determinative. However, a child who can meet his or her economic needs may remain eligible for support if he or she continues to require daily caregiving of a parent. In that circumstance, entitlement to child support will be shown and the question is the quantification of child support, if any, in the circumstances.

[21] Where an adult child meets the entitlement criteria based on disability, the question is then how to quantify the child support payable, if any, having regard to all of the circumstances of the child and the ability of the parents to contribute to the child’s support. The child’s means are relevant in this assessment.

[22] One form of means may be disability payments, such as receipt of ODSP. The leading case on how to account for such payments is Senos v. Karcz 2014 ONCA 459. Senos held that ODSP income was in itself sufficient to displace the “one size fits most” approach in s. 3(2) of the Guidelines in favour of the “tailor made” approach in s. 3(2)(b). That approach requires the court to have regard to the child’s condition, means, needs and other circumstances”.

[23] Geishardt v. Ahmed 2017 ONSC 5513 was a spousal support case in which the Applicant sought indefinite support because of an asserted inability to work. The court’s statement of the evidence required has, in my view, application to an adult child seeking support on account of illness or disability. As noted by Corbett, J:

“A party who wishes to have her medical condition taken into account as a basis that she cannot work bears the onus to establish material disability. That goes beyond testifying that she suffers from depression and anxiety: she must establish the extent of her condition disables her from work. This onus cannot ordinarily be discharged solely on the basis of the party’s testimony. Here, it is simply not sufficient for Dr. Geishardt to testify she cannot work. She would need to produce medical records and expert evidence about her condition, prospects and treatment.”

[24] In Davidson v. Patten, 2021 ONCJ 437, Justice Carole Curtis set out that a party resisting a claim for imputation of their income based on medical reasons should provide a medical report setting out at least the following information:

i. Diagnosis;

ii. Prognosis;

iii. Treatment plan (is there a treatment plan? And what is it?);

iv. Compliance with the treatment plan; and,

v. Specific and detailed information connecting the medical condition to the inability to work. (e.g., this person cannot work at the pre-injury job; this person cannot work for three months; this person cannot work at physical labour; this person cannot return to work ever.)

[25] Logically, the same requirement should apply to a support claimant relying upon disability or illness as the basis for the claim.

[26] Where a support payor claims disability or illness interferes with their ability to generate income, there is a clear expectation that the payor will, if possible, remediate that condition.

[27] As noted in Cole v. Freiwald, [2011] O.J. No. 3654, support payors must use reasonable efforts to address whatever medical limitations they may have to earn income. This means following up on medical recommendations to address these limitations.

[28] In my view, this expectation also applies to a support claimant alleging disability. This is part of the assessment of the child’s condition, means, needs and other circumstances.

[29] On the issue of imputation of income, the leading case is Drygala v. Pauli, (2002), 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA). At paragraph 23 of Drygala, the Court of Appeal set out a three-part test to determine whether income should be imputed:

1. Is the spouse intentionally under-employed or unemployed?

2. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs?

3. If the answer to question #2 is negative, what income is appropriately imputed in the circumstances?

[30] “Intentionally” means a voluntary act, such as when a party chooses to earn less than what they are capable of earning. There is no requirement of bad faith.

[31] The second step of the Drygala test is generally treated as an overall test of reasonableness. Once intentional underemployment or unemployment is established, the onus shifts to the payor to show one of the exceptions of reasonableness.

[32] The determination to impute income is discretionary, as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, the court may decide not to impute income where the payor establishes the reasonableness of his or her decision or his or her situation.

[33] The Court must have a rational and solid evidentiary basis to justify an imputation. The onus is on the person requesting an imputation of income to establish the evidentiary basis.

[34] The first issue is that of entitlement to support for each of the subject adult children, Winter and Aleksey.

[35] The Applicant says that Aleksey is disabled or suffers from illness preventing withdrawal from parental control because he; a) has stomach aches and cramps, b) has social anxiety and c) has tooth aches. To support this position, the Applicant included as an Exhibit to her affidavit for evidence in chief, a letter from family physician Dr. Don Williamson dated March 30, 2022. That letter reads as follows:

“This patient was seen on Wednesday March 30, 2022.

This information was confirmed on the basis of my direct examination or management of this patient.

Additional notes:

Currently not able to seek or maintain gainful employment due to medical reasons.”

[36] At the time that the Applicant’s affidavit was marked as an Exhibit in the trial, I had directed that this letter be removed. This was because it was not properly admissible in this format. The Applicant would have had to call this physician to testify and have him qualified as an expert in medicine and assessment of employability or disability. The Applicant would also have to produce the Evidence Act notice showing compliance with the Family Law Rules. This was not done.

[37] By inadvertence, the note was not removed from the affidavit prior to it being marked as an Exhibit.

[38] I place no weight on this evidence. First, it purports to be expert opinion. No curriculum vitae for this physician was attached and he was not qualified to provide opinion evidence. Second, the letter is dated from more than one year ago. It does not establish current inability to work. Third, it does not specify a diagnosis, a description of symptoms, a treatment plan or a prognosis. Finally, since the time of the preparation of the letter, Aleksey has secured gainful employment, albeit of very short durations.

[39] The only evidence then of Aleksey’s illness or disability is his statement that he suffers from social anxiety, tooth aches and a stomach ailment of some kind. At some point both Aleksey and Ms. Karnes referred to the stomach ailment as Irritable Bowel Syndrome or “IBS”. Later, Ms. Karnes conceded that she has simply guessed that it was IBS. Although Aleksey definitively asserted that he suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome in his affidavit in chief, he later acknowledged uncertainty as to whether it or any other of his asserted conditions had actually been diagnosed by a physician. It would appear that these were all self diagnosed conditions.

[40] This evidence is insufficient to establish that Aleksey is an adult child whose disability or illness prevents him from withdrawing from parental control.

[41] There was also no evidence that Aleksey had taken any meaningful steps to address these issues. Aleksey has spurned the Respondent’s offers to take him for dental care. The only efforts to remediate these issues that Aleksey and his mother described were having had Aleksey attend various physicians to address his complaints. No specifics as to dates, the identity of the doctors or specific treatments was provided.

[42] It is also significant that both the Respondent father and his partner/friend Teresa Hoo testified that they have taken Aleksey to various social activities including crowded venues and observed no social anxiety.

[43] Aleksey turned 18 on May 12, 2021. There is no evidence that demonstrates that he remained in a full-time program of education or equivalent subsequent to turning 18. His entitlement to support ended as of May 12, 2021.

[44] Winter is clearly unable to secure gainful employment at this time. She struggles with day-to-day tasks such as ensuring her own proper nutrition. She is unable to do her own laundry. She is not capable of managing the usual adult tasks of daily living, such as paying bills, or managing her own money.

[45] Ms. Karnes testified that she maintains virtually constant cellphone contact with Winter when Winter goes for walks or goes out in the community to retail stores or restaurants. When Winter plays at bars, she is with friends who give her support.

[46] As Dr. Sharma noted, Winter’s ability to attend to activities she enjoys does not mean she is not disabled. The assessor must look at the totality of the person’s functioning, not pockets of it. Winter is a talented musician and is able to build complicated musical equipment. She does not however, have the cognitive or emotional resilience to deal with the day-to-day stressors and that renders her unable to withdraw from parental charge.

[47] The ‘plan’ for Winter to move to Toronto with a friend is untenable and might best be described as aspirational. There is no substance to it in reality. The same would seem to be true for the ‘plan’ for Ms. Karnes to move into her own separate unit. That discussion seems to have arisen only as a result of frustration because of household conflict. There is no obvious viability to the plan.

[48] The next issue is the quantum of support on both a prospective basis and over the time frame since Winter turned 18 on July 26, 2019. Mr. Reid is currently earning $70,000 per annum.

[49] Winter is in receipt of ODSP. I am satisfied that in accordance with the decision in Senos, it would be inappropriate to adopt the Guideline table approach to determining the appropriate quantum of support. The matter must then be approached under s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines and an assessment of Winter’s conditions, needs, means, and other circumstances is required.

[50] Winter and Aleksey both appended proper budgets to their affidavits comprising their evidence in chief. The budget for Winter proposes monthly expenses totalling $1,399. This includes expenses of rent, groceries and other items. It was extremely difficult to ascertain how either budget was determined. Ms. Karnes said she had helped with the preparation of the budget document. Winter said she had not provided the numbers for the budget. She seemed at a loss to explain how they had been determined. No one, including Winter could explain how the budgets were created.

[51] There are other issues with Winter’s budget. It is, for example, difficult to reconcile Ms. Karnes Financial Statement, as well as with Aleksey’s proposed budget, with Winter’s budget. Ms. Karnes says that the household pays a total of $100 for monthly pet care and $500 for cellphones, internet and cable. Aleksey and Winter’s proposed budgets suggest that they should spend $250 each on cellphones/internet/cable and $50 each on account of pet care. It makes little sense that Winter would pay half the cost of the three cellphones that are shared among all three household residents, or half the cost of the pets.

[52] Then there is the claim for $250 on account of medicine and drugs. There was no evidence of any current expense on medicine and drugs. There was no clear proposal with respect to what medicine and drugs would be required for Winter in the future or what the cost would be.

[53] The figure selected for rent, being $144, was also problematic. There was no evidence as to how this number was selected. Winter’s ODSP already directly pays $109 directly to rent.

[54] Ms. Karnes Financial Statement dated March 10, 2023, asserts a household monthly rent cost of $995. In her testimony, she said it is actually higher and around $1,000. She also said the rent had increased in January 2023, and therefore the Financial Statement figure was wrong. She did not provide any confirmatory evidence of rental expense. No explanation for the absence of this evidence was provided.

[55] In her testimony at trial, Ms. Karnes spoke of her rent being subsidized and it was not clear from her evidence precisely how much she is actually required to pay each month.

[56] The Applicant was seeking a contribution of $580.50 in total for support of Aleksey and Winter. This amount was said to reflect one-half the amount of Guideline table support due for two children. In closing submissions, the Applicant submitted that even support for one child should approach this figure.

[57] The rationale for this figure and the reason why it should be a benchmark for either one or two children was not clear. The proposed monthly budget for Winter amounted to $1,399. Her ODSP payments total $835. The shortfall then between the two is $564.00.

[58] The support claimant has some onus to provide clear and credible evidence as to the child’s needs. She has the informational advantage.

[59] Both parents have an obligation to contribute to Winter’s support to the extent there is need, after receipt of social assistance. Ms. Karnes currently has a limited income through Ontario Works. Ms. Karnes however, provided only a vague explanation of why she is not able to work, and thus support herself and contribute to Winter’s support. She said only that she suffers from social anxiety and stomach issues that she thought might be IBS. She did not provide any medical evidence to support this contention.

[60] Ms. Karnes has the same obligation that Mr. Reid does, to support Winter. In considering Winter’s circumstances, Ms. Karnes’ ability to contribute to support should be assessed. In my view, income should be imputed to her in this regard. Given Ms. Karnes’ limited experience in the workplace, an amount equal to the minimum wage in the province of Ontario, at full-time employment, or $29,250 should be imputed.

[61] Turning to the proposed budget: This document includes a monthly rent payment of $144. There was no evidence as to why this figure was selected. The evidence was unclear as to what amount is actually being paid, aside from the amounts diverted directed by OW and ODSP. There was no evidence as to why $144, in addition to the direct ODSP payment of $109 is appropriate.

[62] Ms. Karnes said that she was not expecting Winter to make any direct contributions to rent.

[63] The Applicant has not established why the budget should include this additional amount on account of rent.

[64] The household costs are generally reasonable, with a reduction of the pet expenses to one third of the actual monthly expense. This totals $478.00 per month. No specific evidence was lead with respect to transportation expenses, however $75 would seem to be a reasonable figure. One third of the overall cellphone/internet/cable costs can be rounded to $166. The proposed personal costs are $135.00. This amounts to a monthly budget of $ 854.00. The shortfall from Winter’s ODSP, after taking into account the direct payment on account of rent, is $19.00.

[65] Given the significant disparities in income, even taking into account the imputation of income, and the modest contribution to the shortfall required, Mr. Reid should assume a significant majority of the contribution.

[66] Then there is the issue of retroactive adjustment for support. Mr. Reid continued to pay his monthly support in the amount of $711, as per the Order of June 16, 2005 for two children until November 2021, when he was laid off from his employment. He has not paid since that time.

[67] Mr. Reid was required, by the terms of the governing Order to make financial disclosure. He did not do so.

[68] Aleksey was no longer entitled to support after May 12, 2021.

[69] The issue of retroactivity of support is governed by the principles set out in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 and D.B.S. v. S.R.G, 2006 SCC 37, [2006], 2 SCR 231. The Applicant acknowledges that there was no effective notice prior to the formal notice. The Response to Motion to change is dated December 3, 2020. It is logical to assume it would have been served upon the Respondent by January 1, 2021. The Applicant therefore seeks retroactive adjustment for the entirety of 2018 and subsequent years up until the end of December 2020. Retroactive support adjustment was not sought for subsequent years.

[70] Unfortunately, the order for support does not state the income upon which it is premised, nor does it stipulate it is Guideline table support as is required by s. 13 of the Guidelines. No evidence was lead with respect to the Respondent’s annual income at the time of making of the Order. The Applicant seems to be asking the court to work backward from the amount of support imposed, assume it is a table amount, and consequently, assume it is predicated on an annual income of $47,200.

[71] I am not prepared to proceed in this fashion. The previous Order was made on the basis of a Consent Motion to Change. Evidence as to the basis for the making of the Order would be available. The Applicant has not chosen to elicit that evidence. It is not appropriate for the court to make guesses about the basis of the Order when evidence is available.

[72] Without a baseline with respect to the circumstances at the time of that Order, it is difficult to ascertain the date by which a material change occurred prior to the children turning eighteen and no longer being in a full-time program of education.

[73] Further complicating the matter is that no evidence was lead with respect to when Winter began receiving ODSP. Again, such evidence would have been logically available to the Applicant.

[74] In the circumstances, I am only prepared to make retroactive adjustment following the material change in circumstance of each child turning 18 and ceasing to be presumptively eligible for support. This adjustment should reflect the Guideline table amount payable based on the income that Mr. Reid was earning each year that each of the children remained under the age of 18.

[75] Finally, there is the issue of imputation of income prospectively. This request was based on the fact that Mr. Reid was employed at a higher earning job from which he was terminated in November 2021.

[76] In 2021, Mr. Reid earned an income of $74,968. He testified that he received some sort of settlement from the employer as a result of his termination. His income was also in part derived from bonuses. It is difficult to say that his 2021 income would have been reduced in any way as a result of his termination.

[77] Mr. Reid’s line 150 income in 2022 was $33,540.00. By this point, both children were over the age of 18 years. Aleksey was no longer eligible for support. Winter did remain eligible for support, however this calculation would be based on s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines. The contribution to budget shortfall is modest. I have already determined that Mr. Reid should bear most of the contribution to shortfall. In the circumstances, imputation of income would make little difference to the actual obligation.

[78] Even were this not the case, it would not be appropriate to impute income. This is because of the circumstances surrounding the reduction in income. The reason for the Respondent’s termination was that he refused to get the COVID vaccine, and his employer required vaccination as a condition of continued employment. The Applicant did not provide any authority on imputation as a result of refusal of COVID vaccine.

[79] There are cases in which income has been imputed as a result of a support payor refusing to be vaccinated and being terminated as a result. The decision of Sherr, J in L.S. v. M.A.F., 2021 ONCJ 554, is one example. That case however can be distinguished factually.

[80] Basic principles can be extrapolated from Drygala. Essentially the court must consider whether the Respondent intentionally reduced his income through his decision to refuse the vaccine. If so, the Respondent must show that his decision was reasonable.

[81] Obviously, choosing to refuse the COVID vaccine in the face of an employer’s vaccine mandate is intentional. The real issue is whether it was reasonable.

[82] The main problem with respect to this issue is that it was unclear to what extent the Respondent was on notice that income was sought to be imputed to him as a result of this event. The Response to Motion to Change predated the event, and thus did not mention any such claim. It was not noted as an issue in the Trial Management endorsements. It was not contained in the Applicant’s Factum filed for trial. It is not mentioned in the written Opening Statement. The Respondent’s ability to prepare to respond to this claim then, was compromised.

[83] As a result, there was a dearth of evidence specific to this point. It was clear from the Respondent’s evidence in cross-examination that he was philosophically opposed to the vaccine. But he also provided some evidence about environmental sensitivities that may have played into his decision.

[84] It would be unfair to the Respondent in these circumstances, to find that his decision to refuse the vaccine in the face of the employer’s mandate was unreasonable. He provided some prima facie basis for his refusal. He was not pressed on that rationale.

[85] As a final matter, the Respondent asked in closing submissions that any Order for prospective child support be made payable to the child herself. A provision of this nature however would run counter to my finding that Winter is unable, at least at present, to manage her own finances and pay her bills. She currently turns over the bulk of her ODSP income to the Applicant, for management of household expenses. Clearly it is the Applicant who is managing the household finances and accordingly, it is appropriate to make the support payable to the Applicant for the benefit of the child.

[86] Final Order to go:

1. The child support payable under the Order of June 16, 2015 shall be terminated effective July 31, 2019.

2. The Respondent Donald Reid shall pay to the Applicant, Guideline table support for the child, Megan Elizabeth Reid (aka Aleksey Reid), born May 12, 2003 based on his 2019 income of $70,540, in the amount of $659.00 commencing August 1, 2019 until December 31, 2019.

3. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant Guideline table child support for the child Megan Elizabeth Reid (aka Aleksey Reid), born May 12, 2003, based on his 2020 income of $76,488, in the amount of $713.00 per month, commencing January 1, 2020 until December 31, 2020.

4. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant Guideline table child support for the child Megan Elizabeth Reid (aka Aleksey Reid) born May 12, 2003 based on his 2021 income of $74,968 in the amount of $700 per month, commencing January 1, 2021 and terminating on May 31, 2021.

5. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant, child support for his adult child, Bryen William Reid (aka Winter Reid), born July 26, 2001, pursuant to s. 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, based on his asserted annual income of $70,540 in the amount of $15.00 per month, commencing August 1, 2019.

6. The Applicant and the child shall notify the Respondent in writing should the child cease residing on a fulltime basis with the Applicant. Such notification to occur within ten (10) days of the cessation of residence.

7. Support Deduction Order to issue.

8. For so long as child support is paid, the payor and the recipient and the adult child shall provide updated income disclosure to the other party each year, within 30 days of the anniversary of this Order, in accordance with section 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.

9. Should either party seek costs, written submissions may be filed within ten (10) days of the release of this judgment. The responding party shall then have ten (10) days to file responding submissions. Written submissions to be limited to four (4) pages exclusive of Offers to Settle and Bill of Costs (or in the case of the Respondent, receipts or documents confirming lost income).

Dated at Brantford, Ontario

This day of April 11, 2023

The Honourable Justice K.A. Baker