SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-377319
DATE: 20130221
RE: KIMBERLEY ANNE PRICE, Applicant
- and -
BRUCE MARTIN BURGESS, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice S. M. Stevenson
COUNSEL:
Paul S. Pellman, for the Applicant
Carole E. F. Jackson, for the Respondent
DATE HEARD: February 5, 2013
E N D O R S E M E N T
Introduction
[1] Pursuant to the order of Paisley J. dated July 10, 2012, which was on consent, the respondent, Bruce Martin Burgess, was ordered to pay to the applicant, Kimberley Anne Price, temporary child support for the parties' two children, Mackenzie and Madelaine, in the amount of $1,383 per month, and temporary spousal support for the applicant in the amount of $1,617 per month. Both parties acknowledge that the gross annual income used for determining support on the motion for the respondent was $120,000. The gross annual income used for the applicant was approximately $17,000 to $18,000.
[2] The issues of temporary child support and temporary spousal support payable in 2013 were to be reviewed in December 2012, at a Case Conference and, if no agreement was reached, then the issues were to be reviewed on a motion. Pursuant to the order, the respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $5,000 on account of arrears of support from February 2012, to the date of the order.
[3] Unfortunately, the parties were unable to resolve the issues at a Case Conference and both parties have now brought a motion. The respondent has brought a motion seeking to reduce child support to $342 per month commencing January 1, 2003, based upon the respondent's current gross annual income which he states is $49,920, and the applicant's current gross annual income, which he states is $27,267. The respondent seeks that the child support amount reflects the shared custodial arrangement as the parties each spend 50% of the time with the children. At the time of the order of Paisley J., the parties were in the same shared custodial arrangement.
[4] The respondent is also seeking that no spousal support be payable to the applicant commencing January 1, 2013, given his decrease in income.
[5] The applicant has brought a motion seeking that the respondent pay child support in the amount of $1,590 per month pending trial, which is scheduled for September 30, 2013, and that the respondent pay spousal support to the applicant from January 1, 2013, until trial in the amount of $2,550 per month based on a gross annual income of $140,000 for the respondent (although the applicant acknowledges that the respondent's 2012 income was approximately $137,000 gross now that she has received additional disclosure since the commencement of the motion) and based on a gross annual income for the applicant of $20,000.
Facts
[6] The parties began residing together in approximately April of 1991. They were subsequently married on September 20, 1991, and separated on October 1, 2010, after 19 years of marriage. The parties’ two children, Mackenzie and Madelaine are 18 and 15 years of age, respectively. As indicated, the children reside with each parent 50% of the time.
[7] The applicant is 48 years of age. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Toronto, but throughout most of the marriage was a stay-at-home parent being responsible for the care of the children and the household. The applicant was self-employed as a designer of jewellery throughout most of the marriage and continues to operate this business from her home. The applicant also works part-time in retail having commenced her employment after separation in January of 2011.
[8] The respondent is 53 years of age and has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Waterloo and a Business Administration diploma from Wilfred Laurier University. The respondent was employed by TD Bank on a full-time basis in their marketing department for approximately 12 years until August of 2011 when his employment was terminated.
[9] The respondent claims that the applicant has not made diligent efforts to achieve self-sufficiency since separation given her part-time employment. The applicant claims that the respondent is intentionally under-employed, or is understating his income, given that he presently works in retail selling high-end jewellery which the applicant contends is not within the respondent's field of expertise.
[10] Both parties state that they suffer from depression. The respondent also states that he has suffered from anxiety and panic attacks which have affected his job performance and that he can no longer continue to work in his field of expertise given the high amount of stress and the effect this has had on his health.
Issues
[11] The issues are as follows:
(i) What are the incomes of the applicant and respondent for support purposes?
(ii) Should there be a change in child and spousal support as ordered by Paisley J. on July 10, 2012?
(i) What are the incomes of the applicant and respondent for support purposes?
Determination of the Applicant's Income
[12] The respondent submits that the applicant's gross annual income for support purposes is $27,267. The respondent states that in the applicant's own sworn Financial Statement dated January 17, 2013, she indicates that her gross annual income is $28,980.
[13] It is the respondent's position that the applicant earns additional income from cash sales with respect to her jewellery business. Additionally, the respondent submits that the applicant claims a business use of home deduction on her income taxes in the amount of $1,948 which should be added back on to the applicant's income. The respondent has calculated the applicant's income, based on her statement in her sworn affidavit that she works approximately 25 hours per week at $12.50 per hour which amounts to $16,250 gross per year. The respondent states that the applicant earns additional business income in the amount of $11,017 from her jewellery business as evidenced on her “Statement of Business or Professional Activities” schedule to her 2011 Income Tax Return. From the $11,017 declared income, the applicant has deducted approximately $1,948 for business use of home expenses to arrive at a net income of approximately $9,068. As indicated, the respondent submits that there should be no deduction for business use of home of $1,948. The respondent submits that the Court should add the applicant's part-time income of $16,250 to her self-employment income of $11,017 to arrive at the figure of $27,267 as the applicant's gross annual income for support purposes.
[14] The respondent further contends that if the applicant were to work full-time in retail she would earn at least $26,000 gross per year or alternatively, she could pursue the same career as the respondent and earn approximately $49,000 gross per year, plus commissions. It is also the respondent's position that the applicant sells rather expensive jewellery pieces and a significant portion of her payment is made in cash that he contends is not declared for income tax purposes. He also points to what he submits are large purchases of inventory for the applicant's business.
[15] The respondent states that the applicant has a university degree, she has not made significant efforts to secure full-time employment, she has not produced a resume and she has not attended any job interviews. He further indicates that the applicant's lifestyle shows that she is not in need of support as she has taken many trips since separation, has purchased substantial inventory for her business and she visits her boyfriend in Port Perry every other weekend when she does not have children with her. It is the respondent's position that the applicant is more than capable of securing full-time employment and becoming self-sufficient.
[16] The applicant submits that her income is not $27,267 gross per year. In the applicant's sworn Financial Statement dated January 17, 2013, her total annual income is stated as $28,980 gross. However, counsel for the applicant points out that this includes support of $342 per month and child tax benefits of $390 per month. The applicant indicates that her income is approximately $20,000 to $21,000 gross per year.
[17] The applicant denies that she earns a significant amount of cash through her sale of jewellery and she states that all of her income has been disclosed. The applicant also contends that the parties had a traditional marriage and that the applicant stayed home to raise the children with the support of the respondent. The applicant was not employed outside of the home at all during the marriage and since separation the applicant has been working approximately 20 to 25 hours per week in a retail business. It is the applicant's position that she has done her best to achieve self-sufficiency, given that she has been out of the workforce for a substantial period of time other then selling jewellery from her home. Additionally, she submits that the eldest child, Mackenzie, is having significant difficulty with her schooling and Madelaine is suffering from anxiety. The applicant submits that she is the parent responsible for bringing the children to their appointments in order to assist them with these ongoing difficulties. Further, she states that she herself has suffered from depression and has been treated with counselling and medication for a substantial period of time.
[18] I find the applicant's income for support purposes to be $25,000 gross per year. I make this finding on the basis that the applicant works approximately 20 to 25 hours per week and earns $12.50 per hour. Taking an average of 22.5 hours per week, this amounts to an income of approximately $14,600. In addition, the applicant, on her 2011 income tax return, showed net business income of approximately $11,000 before the business use of home deduction was applied, which should not be deducted from the applicant's income for support purposes. I also note that applicant's counsel handed up support calculations and used an income for the applicant of $25,000 gross.
[19] I acknowledge that the applicant has made efforts to achieve self-sufficiency since the date of separation by obtaining a retail position on a part-time basis and continuing her jewellery business, which was a business that she was involved in throughout the entire marriage. Perhaps it is not realistic, given the separation and the small amount of income earned from the applicant's jewellery business that she continue to pursue this employment long-term. It may be more advantageous to the applicant and the children if the applicant were to pursue full-time employment outside of the home in the hopes of earning additional income. However, I find that given the applicant did not work outside the home for the entire length of the marriage, for the purposes of this motion for temporary support, she has made efforts to secure employment outside of the home and to move towards self-sufficiency, which is only one factor to consider when determining the quantum of support.
Determination of the Respondent's Income
[20] The respondent submits that when he first commenced his new employment in the jewellery business in late August 2012, he earned $20 per hour but that this was increased to $24 per hour after a three-month period. The respondent indicates that he now works approximately 40 hours per week and earns a gross annual income of approximately $49,920.
[21] The respondent states that, as evidenced in his offer of employment dated August 15, 2012, he had the ability to earn commissions effective August 16, 2012, and that commission is based on 3.7% of net profit of each sale that he makes. His employer indicated in the offer that the respondent's sales in the first year would be approximately $600,000 which could potentially earn him $11,000 in commissions. It is the respondent's position that he has earned minimal commissions since commencing his employment, initially at the Guelph location and now at a new location in Yorkville in Toronto, but he submits that any commissions earned during the calendar year 2013 up to September 30, 2013, the anticipated date of trial, can be dealt with at trial.
[22] The respondent disputes that he is intentionally under-employed or that he is understating his income. It is his evidence that he has suffered from anxiety and panic attacks for several years and that he became depressed upon learning that his wife had an affair, as he alleges, with the parties' accountant. He indicates that the breakdown in his marriage and his struggles with anxiety and depression have substantially affected his job performance and ability to function at work. He deposes that jobs and projects were taken away from him and at times he had to retreat to the bathroom at work in order to deal with panic attacks. He also deposes that this ultimately led to his being fired from TD Bank in September 2011. In support of his medical concerns, the respondent has produced a letter from his family doctor, Dr. Ruderman, dated April 10, 2012. In the letter, Dr. Ruderman indicates that he has known the respondent for 17 years and for the past two years the respondent has been under a great deal of stress. This stress has affected the respondent's personal health as well as his ability to perform in the workplace. Dr. Ruderman also indicates that the respondent has required treatment, including medication for anxiety and depression and has had counselling.
[23] The respondent contends that he has made substantial efforts to secure employment and that upon being terminated he engaged in career counselling, attending regular sessions and he networked extensively. He indicated that he was advised by the career counsellors that it was important for him to network and that it would not be effective for him to simply send out resumes in search of employment. The respondent also argues that in his business, which was advertising, his age is an impediment as employers are looking to hire younger employees in touch with the ongoing trends. In support of this position, the respondent has attached to his affidavit letters from colleagues which, he contends, verify this fact. The respondent also points to the large number of contacts whom he has spoken to in search of employment. He has compiled these contacts into a list and attached the list to his affidavit.
[24] The respondent indicates that he searched for employment for a lengthy period of time and was finally able to secure employment in the jewellery business as he had a friend who was a manager at Knar Jewellery. He indicates that he felt that this was an opportunity to develop a career where his age was not an impediment. He also states that he is now working at the Yorkville location in Toronto and is dealing with high-end jewellery and hopes to earn commissions. He contends that he needed to find employment where he was not encountering high stress and anxiety on a daily basis. He further submits that he did not conceal his employment from the applicant as alleged, as he shared news of his employment with his children, and the applicant's mother and brother.
[25] The respondent further contends that contrary to what has been alleged by the applicant, he fully disclosed his severance from TD Bank in his Answer dated May 1, 2012, in that he indicated at paragraph 11 of the Answer that he received a lump sum severance payment in the gross amount of $145,035.44. He acknowledged that the sum of $25,000 gross, less statutory deductions, was paid to him in 2011 and the balance was paid to him in 2012 in the amount of $120,035, less statutory source deductions. He further argues that although he did not state that he earned income when receiving the severance payments on his sworn Financial Statements, the funds in his bank accounts set out in his sworn Financial Statements, represented the severance payment and what remained of that payment.
[26] The applicant contends that disclosure in this matter is absolutely critical and that the respondent has not fully disclosed his income. She acknowledges that the respondent stated in his Answer that he received a severance payment, but submits that nowhere else did the respondent detail when the severance was obtained.
[27] Further, it is the applicant's position that the current support payments should be based on the respondent's true 2012 income, which was approximately $137,000 gross. The applicant contends that the respondent did not disclose his severance payments on his Financial Statements filed with the Court and that counsel for the applicant only received a copy of the respondent's severance letter a short time ago, despite the fact that the letter was signed by the applicant on October 4, 2011. Counsel for the applicant submits that despite the fact that this letter was available by the time of the Case Conference in July 2012, it was not produced by the respondent.
[28] Additionally, the applicant deposes that even though the respondent was working in August of 2012 in the jewellery business, she only learned of this information through a third-party and not from the respondent. Counsel for the applicant contends that this information was not disclosed by the respondent until late November 2012. The respondent earned approximately $17,000 in 2012 from Knar Jewellery making his total income $137,000 gross and the order of Paisley J. is based on an income of $120,000.
[29] It is also the applicant's position that the respondent indicated to her that he would never agree to pay support and that he is intentionally under-employed or understating his income.
[30] Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent's argument that he has encountered significant stress and anxiety because of the marriage breakdown and the alleged affair of the applicant is not substantiated by the evidence. Counsel for the applicant indicates that the respondent was to provide his entire employment file from TD Bank. The file received by the applicant does not contain the two years prior to separation, which the applicant's counsel submits is the key period when the respondent alleges that he suffered from severe anxiety and depression which affected his performance at work. As a result, counsel for the applicant contends that there is no evidence before the Court to determine what caused the respondent to lose his employment at TD Bank. I note that counsel for the respondent in reply indicated that she provided a letter to the applicant's counsel from a TD Bank representative verifying that TD Bank had sent the complete file, except for the Settlement and Release document which was kept at a different site.
[31] The applicant also submits that the respondent's letter from Dr. Ruderman does not contain sufficient details to substantiate the respondent's position that he cannot work in the same type of employment. In contrast to this, the applicant's counsel points to the applicant's letter from her treating physician, Dr. Walsh, dated January 14, 2013. The applicant contends that the letter is extremely detailed and outlines that Dr. Walsh worked with the applicant in assessment and psychotherapy from December 15, 2009, until April 27, 2011 over the course of 58 sessions and that she had a diagnosis of Major Depressive Episode and was being treated with medications.
[32] Additionally, counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent's letters from his colleagues, one of which is unsigned, are not helpful and should be in the form of sworn affidavits. Further, one of the letters indicated that one of the respondent's colleagues had started his own consulting company, which the respondent has not attempted. With respect to the contact list provided by the respondent and attached to his affidavit, counsel for the applicant indicates that this is only a list of people's names and that there are no letters to or from them and there is no way to test the validity of the list provided. He further contends that an average of two contacts in a month is not indicative of an active pursuit of employment.
[33] With respect to the respondent's employment in the jewellery business, it is the applicant's position that the respondent has no connection to the jewellery business and that he had spent 12 years with TD Bank and prior to the TD Bank, with other organizations within the corporate field. It is the applicant's position that the respondent had over 17 months to find employment in the corporate field and based on his work experience, education and minimal or cursory job search, he is under-employed. The applicant contends that there is no evidence of the respondent even pursuing an interview despite his extensive experience in banking, marketing and advertising. The applicant further contends that the amount of commission available to the respondent in his current employment is too low and that the respondent is attempting to retire at age 53, while he still has substantial support commitments, which he should not be allowed to do.
[34] In the alternative, the applicant argues that the respondent would not move from an approximately $110,000 gross per year income in the banking industry to employment that would earn the respondent, if he is to be believed, an income of half that amount.
Analysis
[35] Section 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 ("Child Support Guidelines”) reads as follows:
- (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following:
(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; …
[36] In the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (C.A.), the Court set out at para. 23, the three-part test in applying the provision under s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines. The first part of the test is to determine whether the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed. If so, the second part of the test asks is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of a child or reasonable health needs? If the answer to the second part of the test is negative, the third part of the test is what income is appropriately imputed in the circumstances.
[37] In Drygala at para. 28, the Court determined that "intentionally" means a voluntary act. The Court went on to state that: "The parent required to pay is intentionally under-employed if that parent chooses to earn less than he or she is capable of earning. ... The word ‘intentionally’ makes it clear that this section does not apply to situations in which, through no fault or act of their own, spouses are laid off, terminated or given reduced hours of work." The Court also found that there was no requirement of bad faith.
[38] As stated in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No.1552 at para. 28: "The onus is on the person requesting an imputation of income to establish an evidentiary basis for such a finding."
(a) Is the Respondent intentionally under-employed?
[39] I find that the respondent is intentionally under-employed. Even though the respondent was terminated from his position with TD Bank in August 2011, the respondent is a highly qualified, educated individual with extensive experience in the corporate field. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the respondent made diligent efforts to secure employment, in the over 17 months when he was unemployed, in areas for which he is qualified including advertising, marketing and banking as he has been employed for years in these areas.
[40] The Court was not provided with sufficient detailed medical evidence proving that the respondent is incapable of working in these areas and I note that the letter provided from the respondent's doctor was from April of 2012 and is not current. Additionally, the respondent's employment file from TD Bank is incomplete in that the last two years prior to separation do not appear to exist. If the respondent's stress, anxiety and depression caused him to be unable to function at work, one would have thought that there would have been an extensive employment file regarding the respondent's difficulties at work. Without this evidence and the lack of detailed medical evidence, the Court cannot conclude that the respondent is unable to work in his field of expertise. I agree with the submission of counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence before the Court to determine what caused the respondent to lose his employment at TD Bank.
[41] In addition, the letters (one unsigned) provided by the respondent's colleagues in support of his position that there are no jobs available in his former area of employment are of little assistance as they are not in the form of sworn affidavits and cannot be tested by cross-examination.
[42] There is also no evidence before me, other than a list of contacts, of the efforts made by the respondent to secure employment in his area of expertise. There is no evidence of resumes being provided, letters being sent to these prospective employers or letters from these prospective employers outlining that there are no employment opportunities for the respondent available, and as such, I am not satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made by the respondent to seek employment in his area of expertise.
(b) Is the intentional under-employment required by virtue of the respondent's reasonable educational needs, the needs of a child or reasonable health needs?
[43] As stated in Drygala, once it has been established that a spouse is intentionally under-employed, the burden shifts to that spouse to establish the reasonableness as to why the spouse is intentionally under-employed.
[44] While I accept that the respondent may have wanted a change in employment that, to him, would be less stressful, the reality is that the respondent has been a high income earner for many years and the family has depended on that income. As indicated, the respondent has provided insufficient medical evidence on which to conclude that the respondent is intentionally under-employed due to health concerns.
(c) What income should be appropriately imputed to the respondent in the circumstances?
[45] As stated in Drygala at para. 45, when imputing income a court must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. The factors to be considered are age, education, experience, skills, health of the parent, availability of job opportunities, number of hours that could be worked in light of the parent's overall obligations and the hourly rate that the parent could reasonably be expected to obtain. The Court went on to further state at para. 46, that if a parent does not provide the court with adequate information regarding types of jobs available, hourly rates and number of hours that could be worked, the court can consider the parent's previous earning history and impute an appropriate percentage thereof.
[46] The respondent earned the following line 150 income from 2008 to 2012:
2008- $112,757;
2009-$112,740;
2010-$116,346;
2011- $121,871.85; and
2012- approximately $137,000.
[47] In the normal course, the respondent's past income history is a reasonable basis upon which to impute income. However, I accept the respondent's evidence that at his age and experience level, he was most likely at the higher-end of the pay scale at his previous employment and it does not necessarily follow that any new employment in his area of expertise would yield a similar salary. There is also no evidence before me from either party as to what current jobs are available in the respondent's areas of expertise.
[48] I also acknowledge that the respondent was terminated from his employment; he did not quit his employment. Further, he deposes that others, including his supervisor, were also terminated at a later date. Although I find that the respondent has not made diligent efforts to secure employment in his field and he is under-employed, I am not satisfied that on a temporary basis, and based on the evidence before me, the respondent's past income should be imputed to him at this stage. This issue will have to be more fully canvassed and determined at trial on the basis of a full evidentiary record and viva voce evidence.
[49] However, I am also not prepared at this stage to accept that the respondent's income is only $49,000 gross per year and I find that additional income should be imputed to him based on the evidence before me. I accept the submissions of the applicant that the respondent would not have pursued a career in the high-end jewellery business were it not for his expectations that he would earn a significant income or one similar to that which he earned at TD Bank. The difficulty is, however, that he has only recently commenced this employment. The evidence I have before me consists of a number of the respondent's pay stubs from 2012 as well as current pay stubs from January 2013. I also have the respondent's offer of employment, dated August 15, 2012, which outlines that the respondent will be expected to work 40 to 44 hours per week and during key periods, such as Christmas, he may be expected to work extended hours. The offer also confirms that the respondent's wage is now (as he has been employed for over three months) $24.00 per hour.
[50] Taking an average of 42 hours per week at $24.00 per hour, the respondent's anticipated gross annual income would be approximately $52,400. As stated in the offer, it is expected that the respondent's sales will be $600,000 in the first year and therefore expected commissions would be $11,000. I accept that the respondent, now having moved to the Yorkville location, will achieve his goal for commissions as set out in the offer of employment. Adding the commissions on to the respondent's salary, the total is approximately $63,400 gross. I would also add on to this the overtime already paid to the respondent of $430 and statutory holidays already paid of $611. There is also an assumption that the respondent would be paid for further statutory holidays and that he will work additional hours at Christmas and other "key periods" as indicated in the offer of employment. I would therefore add an additional $1,500 to $1,550 to the respondent's income to impute his gross income to $66,000 for support purposes on a temporary basis. This is without prejudice to either party's right to argue at trial that the respondent's income and that of the applicant are different than the incomes of the parties determined on this motion.
[51] With respect to the issue of support for 2012, I am concerned that the respondent did not immediately advise the applicant of his new employment and the remuneration that was to be paid to him. Additionally, it is inexcusable that the terms of the respondent's severance, including details of dates when the severance was paid, was not produced to the applicant's lawyer in a timely fashion despite the respondent agreeing to the terms of the severance in October of 2011. It is incumbent upon the respondent to provide proper disclosure as he has an ongoing obligation to pay child support and spousal support. The issues of retroactive child support and spousal support from the date of separation on need to be determined at trial, including retroactive support for 2012, since Paisley J.'s order of July 10, 2012, was based on the respondent's income being $120,000 when it was approximately $137,000.
(ii) Should there be a change in child and spousal support as ordered by Paisley J. on July 10, 2012?
[52] Given that the incomes of the parties have changed since the order of Paisley J., the quantum of child and spousal support should be changed. The parties have applied a set-off when calculating the child support in the past based on the shared parenting arrangement. Under the Child Support Guidelines, the respondent's child support obligation at an income of $66,000 gross per year for two children is $981. The applicant's child support obligation at an income of $25,000 gross per year for two children is $373. Applying a set-off, the respondent shall pay child support to the applicant for the two children in the amount of $608 per month commencing January 1, 2013, and shall be given credit for any child support payments that he has made since January 1, 2013.
[53] Based on the roles assumed by the parties during the marriage, with the respondent being the primary breadearner and the applicant being primarily responsible for the care of the children, the length of the marriage and the disparity in incomes, the applicant clearly has a need for ongoing support. The ranges of spousal support using the incomes as determined for the parties and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 2008), are from a low of $321, a mid-range of $530 and a high of $739 per month. Taking into consideration the evidence of the parties, the factors and objectives set out in ss. 15.2(4) and 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp) and using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines as a tool, the respondent shall pay spousal support to the applicant in the amount of $587 per month, commencing January 1, 2013, which will equalize the parties' net disposable incomes pending a determination at trial.
Order
[54] I order the following:
(i) the respondent shall pay temporary child support to the applicant for the children, Mackenzie Alexandra Price Burgess, born October 13, 1994, and Madelaine Victoria Price Burgess, born March 10, 1997, in the amount of $608 per month commencing January 1, 2013, based on a gross annual income of $66,000 for the respondent and a gross annual income of $25,000 for the applicant and reflective of the shared parenting arrangement;
(ii) the respondent shall be given credit for any child support payments that he has made since January 1, 2013;
(iii) the respondent shall pay temporary spousal support to the applicant in the amount of $587 per month commencing January 1, 2013;
(iv) this order is made is without prejudice to either party's right to argue at trial that the parties' incomes are different than the incomes of the parties determined on this motion;
(v) the issues of retroactive child support and spousal support from the date of separation on shall be determined at trial, including retroactive child and spousal support for 2012;
(vi) each party shall provide a copy of his or her 2012 Income Tax Return to the other party by June 1, 2013, including all attachments and a copy of his or her Notice of Assessment upon receipt:
(vii) a Support Deduction Order shall issue; and
(viii) I urge the parties to agree on costs; however, if the parties are unable to agree, any party seeking costs shall do so by filing written costs submissions, not to exceed two double-spaced pages within 14 days, along with a Bill of Costs and any Offers to Settle. A party wishing to respond shall do so by filing written costs submissions, not to exceed two double-spaced pages, 10 days thereafter.
Stevenson J.
DATE: February 21, 2013