SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 07-FD-324837
DATE: 20130611

RE: AMANDA HOLDER, Applicant

AND:

JOHN COSTA, Respondent

BEFORE: Stevenson, J.

COUNSEL:
Christine Vanderschoot, for the Applicant

Peter B. Cozzi, for the Respondent

HEARD: June 4, 2013

ENDORSEMENT

Introduction

[1] The Respondent Mr. Costa has brought a motion seeking an order changing the residency schedule for the children Adrian Foster, born February 18, 2005 and Elizabeth Costa, born May 31, 2006 and an order that the children attend Vrandenberg Junior School in Toronto, or if they are unable to do so, the school district in which Mr. Costa resides commencing in September 2013. He also seeks a residency schedule during the Christmas and summer vacation periods.

[2] Additionally, Mr. Costa seeks an order terminating child support payable by him to the Applicant Ms. Holder effective April 30, 2013, and an order that Ms. Holder pay child support to him.

[3] Ms. Holder has brought a motion seeking a dismissal of Mr. Costa's motion and an order that Mr. Costa pay child support in accordance with his income and the Child Support Guidelines. She also seeks an order preserving her rights to bring a future motion seeking retroactive child support along with an order that Mr. Costa provide proof of his income for the years 2009 to 2012, including a current year to date pay stub for 2013.

Background

[4] Pursuant to Minutes of Settlement ("the Minutes") dated June 22, 2007, the parties have joint custody of the children with the primary residence of the children with Ms. Holder. The Minutes were never incorporated into a court order. In accordance with the Minutes, the children are to reside through the week with Ms. Holder and with Mr. Costa three out of every four weekends. However, since October 22, 2012, Adrian has resided at the Hincks-Dellcrest Centre ("Hincks-Dellcrest"), Weston Road Residence, due to serious ongoing behavioural difficulties experienced by him. Both parties share time with Adrian with Adrian spending three weekends per month with Mr. Costa and approximately two visits overnight per week with Ms. Holder.

[5] A letter dated June 3, 2013 from Lynn Marie MacKay, the Family Worker/Case Manager at Hincks-Dellcrest was filed at the hearing of the motion on consent of both parties attached to affidavits submitted by both parties. In the letter, Ms. MacKay states that Adrian has been attending school at Hincks-Dellcrest Day Treatment Program. She states that a Plan of Care Conference is scheduled for July 15, 2013 at which time a decision will be made regarding Adrian's discharge date from Hincks-Dellcrest which she expects to be no later than the end of August. She indicates that Adrian will need a day treatment placement for school next year. She further indicates that family therapy will continue to be offered to both parents until discharge and that a transitional follow-up period of family therapy will be offered until such time as the parties can discuss what programs are available for Adrian's ongoing outpatient support.

Issues

[6] The following are the issues to be determined:

i. Should there be a change in the residency of the children?

ii. What should be the appropriate child support arrangements?

iii. Should the Applicant’s right to claim retroactive child support in a future motion be preserved and should the disclosure as requested by the Applicant be ordered?

Issue #1

Should there be a change in the residency of the children?

Mr. Costa’s Position/Plan

[7] Mr. Costa argues that is in the best interests of the children that they reside with him from Sunday at 6 pm to Friday at 6 pm each week and every third weekend and that they reside with Ms. Holder three out of every four weekends, essentially a reversal from the residency schedule followed by the parties since the signing of the Minutes.

[8] Mr. Costa deposes that he has spoken with Debbie Johnson from Aisling Discoveries Program ("Aisling") and confirmed with her that Adrian is on the waiting list for Aisling for September 2013. He has attached a letter from Ms. Johnson who indicates that she met with Mr. Costa and his wife Cristina on May 9, 2013 to discuss Adrian's participation in the Day Treatment program. She states that the program assists children with social, emotional and behavioural problems to be successful in the School Board. She further indicates that although Adrian is on the waitlist for the program, custody needs to be determined in order for the Day Treatment assessment to begin.

[9] Ms. Johnson states that when custody is determined and Adrian is deemed appropriate for the program through the Day Treatment assessment, then he will start the program in September 2013 and attend the Day Treatment program at Vrandenburg Junior Public School ("Vrandenburg").

[10] Mr. Costa further deposes that he spoke with the secretary of Vrandenburg who informed him that Elizabeth may also attend the school if Mr. Costa resides in the school area. Mr. Costa indicates that the lease to his current apartment has expired and he can move upon providing 60 days' notice. He proposes to move to an apartment in the Warden/Sheppard area so that Elizabeth may also attend Vrandenburg as he believes that it would benefit the children to be together at the same school.

[11] He submits that Adrian has serious behavioural problems that require intensive 1:1 support and consistency. He contends that he is the parent best able to provide for Adrian and that he has changed his work schedule such that he will be working from 6 pm to 1:30 am Monday to Friday and he will be free on weekends. This will allow him to take the children to school, be available to provide 1:1 support for Adrian and be available during the school day.

[12] It is Mr. Costa's position that Ms. Holder has not provided consistency as she has changed her residence several times; she has had a number of partners; she has not properly addressed Adrian's ongoing behavioural issues; she has failed to attend many meetings and/or appointments concerning Adrian; she has two other children to look after besides Adrian and Elizabeth being 16 year old Meghan who has had emotional issues, and 11 year old Jakub who has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; and she has a chronic health condition. Mr. Costa contends that there is no evidence that these health problems will not continue.

Ms. Holder’s Position/Plan

[13] Ms. Holder submits that given the Minutes were never incorporated into an order, they are a domestic contract and Mr. Costa must show that there has been a material change in circumstances. She contends that there has not been a material change in circumstances as she knew of Adrian's behavioural problems as far back as 2007. She contends that in 2007 she sought assistance for Adrian but Mr. Costa would not provide his consent. She admits that she has been hampered by health problems recently but she is fine now. Her brain fluid was not draining properly and she needed to have inserted a drainage system through placement of shunts in her brain and other parts of her body. This caused a series of infections requiring hospitalization. However, Ms. Holder contends that even when she did not have health problems, she was met with constant opposition from Mr. Costa regarding Adrian's behavioural issues.

[14] Ms. Holder submits that there is not enough evidence before the court to properly determine the residency issue and that a trial is required. Further, she argues that there is no evidence that the children would do better in Mr. Costa's care. Additionally, Mr. Costa's relationship with his partner Cristina Costa is strained given their recent separation in December 2012 and the children's complaints of arguments at his home.

[15] Ms. Holder argues that if the court were to change the current residency arrangement, she will not have a relationship with the children given Mr. Costa's disrespect for her and his past conduct. She contends that she is the parent who will ensure that both parties continue to share time with Adrian and Elizabeth and are actively involved in their lives. She further contends that Mr. Costa has had private conversations with Ms. Nichols, the Family Services Worker from Native Child and Family Services Toronto ("NCFST") regarding Ms. Holder's care of the children which she submits is inappropriate. She states that Mr. Costa has jumped at every opportunity to take advantage of her when she was hospitalized.

[16] Ms. Holder's plan of care is to have the residency of Adrian and Elizabeth stay the same. She has adjusted her work hours from 9 pm to 5 am and has the ability to determine her own schedule given her seniority at her employer. She will be available to the children throughout the school day, for dinner and into the evening. Her aunt, who resides in the building next door, will care for her three younger children when she is at work along with Ms. Holder's 16-year-old daughter Meghan.

[17] She deposes that she will work closely with Hincks-Dellcrest once Adrian is discharged from the residential program to ensure that he continues to receive treatment and support. It is her preference that the professionals who have been actively involved in Adrian's care decide what is best for Adrian with respect to day treatment and schooling rather than have Mr. Costa and Ms. Holder complete their own independent research.

[18] Ms. Holder further deposes that she has already looked into having Adrian assessed at Park Lawn School where Elizabeth currently attends. She will also ensure that there is ongoing contact with Hincks-Dellcrest but if they are no longer able to assist the family, she has looked into alternatives by contacting the Etobicoke Children's Centre and the Child Development Institute.

Analysis

[19] I previously requested that legal counsel from NCFST attend at the hearing of the motion to advise as to whether they could be of assistance regarding Adrian's residency. Legal counsel from NCFST provided correspondence which was filed with the court indicating that they would attend with counsel and Ms. Nichols at the return of the motion. At the hearing of the motion, I allowed Ms. Nichols to be cross-examined by both parties' counsel with respect to the issues concerning Adrian and Elizabeth's residency as previously there was conflicting evidence before the court with respect to NCFST's position regarding the residency issue and it was beneficial to have Ms. Nichols' viva voce evidence.

[20] Ms. Nichols testified that the children reported positive experiences at both parents' homes, that the children love both parents and that they have fun with both parents.

[21] Her evidence was that she made the original referral to a residential treatment program for Adrian and that both parties were hesitant at first especially Mr. Costa. She felt in October 2012 that Mr. Costa's plan was not sufficient to meet Adrian's needs at the time as Adrian's behaviour was very concerning. Adrian was a danger to himself and others and was possibly going to be found as a child in need of protection. She feels that this put some pressure on Mr. Costa and he agreed to the residential treatment program.

[22] She testified that Adrian had been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder and that both parents blame each other for Adrian's behavioural problems. She indicated that Adrian was very impulsive, aggressive, violent and that some behaviours had progressed. She felt that both parties put their own needs above the children's needs. She stated that Adrian's behaviour was becoming more violent; he indicated to staff at Hincks-Dellcrest that he was plotting to kill another student; he urinated in a bag and threw it at the staff and there were other ongoing serious behavioural concerns.

[23] She stated that the program at Hincks-Dellcrest relies heavily on family alliance and that there was minimal progress with respect to Adrian due to the hostility and conflict between Adrian's parents. She indicated that both parties made a meeting held at Hincks-Dellcrest uncomfortable due to their conflict on March 4, 2013 and that Ms. Holder had to step out to calm down the situation. She did not envision the parties being able to communicate in the near future.

[24] Her evidence was that she had concerns with Ms. Holder's health, and with her inconsistency in not attending meetings. She stated that Mr. Costa was very consistent and that Adrian required a lot of stability, structure and routine. She was aware of both parties' plans of care for the children. She stated that Mr. Costa's plan would provide Adrian with the support at night which Adrian requires. She was aware that Mr. Costa and his wife had separated in December 2012 but had reconciled in January 2013. She was also aware that swearing between Mr. Costa and his wife had been reported in the past by Adrian.

[25] She had concerns with Ms. Holder's plan in that she would be working midnights and her aunt would be looking after Adrian in the evenings. She felt that Adrian required a full-time parent 24 hours a day and she had concerns that another person would not be able to handle Adrian and Ms. Costa's two other younger children at the same time.

[26] Ms. Nichols testified that Ms. Holder's medical condition appears to be ongoing and is also a concern to her as Adrian has high needs at present. She indicated that Ms. Holder could not help her medical condition but with working midnights and with her ongoing health problems, there were concerns.

[27] She also indicated that there had been concerns in the past when both Adrian and Elizabeth were residing at Ms. Holder's home. Comments had been made previously by teachers and professionals with respect to Ms. Holder's consistency and her lack of follow-through which was troubling given the children's high needs. As part of NCFST’s ongoing involvement, she has recently spoken to Elizabeth's teacher who advised Ms. Nichols that Elizabeth was receiving grades of Ds; homework was incomplete, agendas were lost, test results were poor, and information sheets sent home by the school had not been returned. The teacher advised her that Mr. Costa does ask regarding Elizabeth's homework. Ms. Nichols acknowledged that she was not aware that Elizabeth now has an Individual Education Plan.

[28] She also testified that Elizabeth had attended four different schools and Adrian had attended five different schools. She had no concerns regarding the children now switching to different schools. She did not feel it was an issue if the children attended different schools from one another.

[29] Both parties filed extensive materials including their own affidavits and those from third parties. I also had the benefit of having reports from various professionals involved in Adrian's care including Plan of Care Conference reports regarding Adrian's progress at Hincks-Dellcrest; a psychological report dated March 2012 by Dr. Brem; a psychiatric assessment by Dr. Gocker who is the staff psychiatrist at Hincks-Dellcrest which assessment appears to have been released in approximately January of 2013; a psychological assessment by Dr. Alter dated February 25, 2013 and the case notes and letters from NCFST.

[30] Dr. Gocker outlined in her assessment many of the concerns regarding Adrian's behaviour as follows:

"...long standing history of significant behavioural problems including swearing, use of sexualized language, aggressive behaviours towards adults and peers, intimidation of others, destruction of property, lying, stealing and cruelty to animals. Adrian often verbally bullies other children. Adrian's parents and school staff described Adrian's preoccupation with violent themes. Such scenes were also evident in both interviews. According to the history provided by his parents, Adrian persistently refuses to follow rules and expectations for his behaviour. At school Adrian has been disrespectful of staff, aggressive toward staff and peers and disruptive in the classroom. Adrian has a low frustration tolerance and he has outbursts of extreme anger. Adrian has struggled socially and academically. These behavioural problems and Adrian's apparent lack of concern for the feelings of others suggest he is developing childhood Onset Conduct Disorder. A diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is supported by Adrian's pattern of negativistic, hostile and defiant interactions with adults."

[31] Dr. Gocker also indicated that Adrian has symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Type. She went on to further state in the assessment: "Adrian's reported childhood experiences of abuse, witness of domestic violence, the ongoing conflict between his parents, frequent moves and changes in school likely have interfered with his development of his ability to regulate his emotions, his capacity to trust others and his ability to control his aggressive impulses.”

[32] Recommendations were made by Dr. Gocker at the time that Adrian continue in the residential treatment program, that he obtain therapy, that there be parent counselling, a family assessment and therapy and medication for Adrian. It was recommended that both parties refrain from speaking negatively about one another in front of Adrian and that there be consultation with NCFST regarding Adrian's comments that his siblings hit him and that his mother uses some physical discipline.

[33] Adrian’s behavioural problems are extremely concerning. Based on the evidence, it is apparent that it is crucial that he have consistency and structure. The children both require stability and any further delays will not be in their best interests. I do not agree with Ms. Holder’s submissions that there is not enough evidence before the court to determine the residency issue and that the matter needs to proceed to trial. There are as indicated, many professionals who have been involved with Adrian’s care, a number of whom have conducted assessments and prepared reports. There is also ongoing involvement by NCFST.

[34] It is in the best interests of the children that the court make a determination on this motion regarding their residency and schooling. The situation is urgent due to the seriousness of Adrian's behavioural problems and the difficulties in school that Elizabeth is experiencing.

[35] There is evidence that Adrian’s behaviour has intensified. In the latest Plan of Care Conference Report from Hincks-Dellcrest dated April 8, 2013, there are a number of very troubling incident reports regarding Adrian; there is talk of suicide by this very young child and ongoing aggressive behaviour including verbal abuse; threats to kill peers and an incident of Adrian urinating in a bag and throwing it at staff. He is resistant to direction and requests and despite being at Hincks-Dellcrest for six months at that point, the report states that Adrian is struggling and his behaviour is “of great concern”. The report indicates that the professionals at Hincks-Dellcrest were aware of Mr. Costa’s request for a change in residency and the ongoing court action, but recommended that “…Adrian complete his school year at the current program in order to avoid further changes around his schooling.”

[36] Counsel for Mr. Costa submits that this matter needs to be dealt with de novo given the Minutes were never incorporated into a court order. He also argues that the court has discretion to intervene even when there is a domestic contract when it is in the best interests of the children to do so. He further argues that there has been a material change in circumstances given Adrian’s escalating behaviour.

[37] Counsel for Ms. Holder submits that there has been no material change in circumstances as Adrian has had these ongoing problems since 2007. I do not find this argument compelling as when the parties signed the Minutes, the children were one and two years of age. Adrian’s problems have escalated as he has become older as he has had more interaction with peers and has attended school. The incidents and thoughts of violence, disrespect for adults and peers, and comments on suicide were not in existence in 2007. It appears that these incidents have intensified through the years and there is much concern for Adrian’s well-being. Similarly, Elizabeth struggles with her education which would not have been an issue in 2007.

[38] Even if there were not a material change in circumstances, it is in the best interests of the children that the court intervene immediately to ensure that the children are stabilized and that there is structure in their lives. The longer the determination of the residency issue is delayed the more both Adrian and Elizabeth will continue to struggle.

[39] I find that it is in the best interests of Adrian and Elizabeth that their primary residence be changed such that they reside primarily with Mr. Costa. I am concerned that Ms. Holder has not provided stability, consistency and structure to the children even prior to her recent medical difficulties. There is evidence that Ms. Holder missed or cancelled essential appointments pertaining to Adrian’s care with the Brookview Clinic in May 2012; telephone calls were not returned; Adrian's principal at his former school reported to NCFST that Ms. Holder missed appointments or did not follow-though with suggestions from the school regarding Adrian; she left Adrian in the care of her partner when she went to Newfoundland for two weeks and the school expressed concerns with Adrian's care; she cancelled or missed appointments with Hincks-Dellcrest; she missed Plan of Care Conferences (on one of these occasion she missed the important meeting as she was on vacation with a boyfriend ); and she failed to follow up with an assessment for Adrian for a significant period of time.

[40] Additionally, it does not appear that she has a solid plan in place for Adrian’s care. While I understand that it is her position that she hopes the professionals will assist the parties with direction on day treatment for Adrian and additional supports, she herself seems to have conducted a cursory investigation with respect to options. I note that her plan is to have Adrian assessed at Park Lawn School where she states that he will "likely" have an Individual Education Plan. No information is provided as to whether there is day treatment available at this school or any type of specialized program for Adrian which Vrandenburg appears to provide. She has contacted Etobicoke Children's Centre and the Child Development Institute and indicates that she is waiting to hear back from them. There are no details provided as to the services offered by them.

[41] I found Ms. Nichols' evidence to be of great assistance. She expressed concerns with Ms. Holder's ability to provide structure and stability for the children and confirmed that even prior to Ms. Holder's recent hospitalization, there were concerns with respect to her consistency and lack of follow-through.

[42] Additionally, Ms. Nichols expressed concerns with respect to Ms. Holder’s ongoing health problems. While I sympathize with Ms. Holder as she has had to contend with ongoing serious health problems that required hospitalization, there is no evidence from her health care providers that her situation has stabilized. Added to this the fact that Ms. Holder has four children ages 16, 11, 8 and 6, (three with significant needs) to care for as well as working full-time on a midnight shift through the week, it is a concern that she will be unable to provide the support that Adrian so desperately needs and that Elizabeth also requires.

[43] Ms. Nichols was quite clear in her testimony that Ms. Holder's plan that her aunt in the apartment building next door provide care for Ms. Holder's three younger children with the assistance of Ms. Holder's16-year-old daughter Meghan when Ms. Holder is working, is troubling to her. She testified that Adrian requires 1:1 care and she feels that Ms. Holder's aunt would not be able to accommodate Adrian's needs while looking after the two other children.

[44] Ms. Nichols testified that Mr. Costa is very consistent and that Adrian requires a lot of stability, structure and routine. She testified that Mr. Costa's plan would provide Adrian with the support at night that he requires. There is evidence of Adrian's difficulties at night and being able to get to sleep which often results in concerning behaviour from Adrian. Although I acknowledge that Mr. Costa will also be working late at night, his wife Cristina is prepared to care for Adrian and Elizabeth and has cared for them for years along with Mr. Costa.

[45] There are also concerns with respect to Elizabeth's present educational needs. Elizabeth is struggling in school and her teacher has reported that homework is incomplete, grades are low, agendas are lost, test results are poor and information sheets sent home by the school had not been returned. It is apparent that Elizabeth too requires structure and stability in order to allow her to be successful at school.

[46] I am concerned that with the history of changes in residence by Ms. Holder Elizabeth has not had the consistency that she requires. While I acknowledge that Mr. Costa's plan will require Elizabeth to change schools once again, Ms. Nichols testified that she had no concerns regarding the children switching to different schools. I find that it is in the best interests of the children that they attend the same school and they both reside with Mr. Costa throughout the week. Both children will have available to them the support of Mr. Costa and Cristina Costa to assist them with their schoolwork throughout the week and provide them with the structure and supports that they require and so desperately need.

[47] As requested by the professionals at Hincks-Dellcrest, Mr. Costa has explored day treatment options for Adrian and has taken the steps to ensure that Adrian will be assessed and enrolled at an appropriate day treatment program at Vrandenburg in September 2013. The program specifically assists children with social, emotional and behavioural problems to be successful. As appears from the letter from Ms. Johnson at Aisling Discoveries Program, custody (and presumably residency) needs to be determined in order for Adrian's day treatment assessment to begin. I find that Mr. Costa has provided a concrete plan for the care of both children that addresses their pressing needs.

[48] The change in residency shall not take place until after the completion of Elizabeth's current school year so as not to disrupt her present schooling. The change in residency for Adrian shall take place after his transition from Hincks-Dellcrest in accordance with the recommendations of the professionals at Hincks-Dellcrest. Mr. Costa has requested an order that the parties share time equally during the summer which I am prepared to order, so in essence the change in primary residence shall take place as of September 1, 2013.

Issue #2

What should be the appropriate child support arrangements?

[49] Mr. Costa also seeks a termination of his current child support obligation. Given he will be assuming primary residence of the children, his child support obligation for Adrian and Elizabeth shall terminate effective July 1, 2013. However, I am not prepared to order child support payable by Ms. Holder at this time as the situation with respect to the children's residency needs to stabilize and I want to ensure that the residency plan comes to fruition. The issue of child support payable by Ms. Holder to Mr. Costa, if any, shall be adjourned to October 1, 2013 at 10:00 am.

Issue #3

Should the Applicant’s right to claim retroactive child support in a future motion be preserved and should the disclosure as requested by the Applicant be ordered?

[50] There is no reason why Ms. Holder should be prohibited from bringing a future motion with respect to retroactive child support and in order for this issue to be properly determined, there needs to be proper disclosure. Ms. Holder shall be entitled to an order preserving her rights to bring a future motion seeking retroactive child support for the children. Mr. Costa shall produce proof of his income for the years 2009 to 2012 including all income tax returns and notices of assessment and shall provide a current year-to-date pay stub for 2013.

Allegations of Misleading the Court

[51] Ms. Holder's counsel contends that Mr. Costa misled the court at a previous court attendance on April 9, 2013 and in his Affidavit filed that day as Adrian was not being discharged from Hincks-Dellcrest at that time. I do not find that Mr. Costa misled the court as it appears to have been contemplated that a plan of discharge was going to be made with respect to Adrian at Hincks-Dellcrest at some point in the near future.

Order

I order the following:

1. Commencing September 1, 2013, the children Adrian Foster, born February 18, 2005 and Elizabeth Costa, born May 31, 2006 shall reside with the Respondent Mr. Costa during the school year from Sunday at 6 pm to Friday at 6 pm; and every third weekend commencing the third weekend in September of each year to and including June 30 in each year. Mr. Costa and Ms. Holder shall work co-operatively with Hincks-Dellcrest on a transition plan for Adrian to return to his parents' homes in accordance with the recommendations of Hincks-Dellcrest. To minimize conflict between the parties for the benefit of the children, all exchanges shall take place through a third party or at an access centre;

2. Commencing September 1, 2013, the children shall reside with the Applicant Ms. Holder on the remaining weekends from Friday at 6 pm to Sunday at 6 pm ( i.e. the children shall reside with Ms. Holder on all weekends with the exception of every third weekend and the Christmas and summer schedule set out below);

3. the children shall attend Vrandenburg Junior Public School in Toronto in September 2013 or, if they are unable to do so, the school district in which the Respondent Mr. Costa resides provided that arrangements are made to ensure that Adrian is registered in an appropriate school that has specialized programs to assist him with his behavioural difficulties and needs. As the parties' share joint custody, Ms. Holder shall be entitled to any and all information pertaining to Adrian and Elizabeth's schooling and to attend all meetings and school functions relating to the children;

4. the children shall share time equally with their parents during the summer school vacation period with alternating two week periods with the Respondent Mr. Costa to have first choice in odd numbered years and the Applicant Ms. Holder to have first choice in even numbered years to be exercised by May 1st of each year commencing on the first Saturday after the end of the school year and ending on the first Saturday before Labour Day;

5. the children shall share time equally with their parents during the Christmas school vacation period, alternating each year with the Applicant Ms. Holder being entitled to the first period in 2013: This schedule is as follows:

• from the end of school to 12:00 noon on the day midway through the Christmas school vacation; or

• from 12:00 noon on the day midway through the Christmas school vacation until the return to school in January.

6. the Respondent's child support obligations for Adrian and Elizabeth shall terminate effective July 1, 2013;

7. The issue of child support shall be adjourned to October 1, 2013 at 10:00 am;

8. The Applicant's right to bring a future motion seeking retroactive child support for the children is preserved;

9. The Respondent shall produce proof of his income for the years 2009 to 2012 including all income tax returns and notices of assessment and shall provide a current year-to-date pay stub for 2013 to counsel for the Applicant within 60 days;

10. Given the extremely difficult circumstances necessitating the residency motion, in particular the ongoing behavioural difficulties of the child Adrian, I do not find that this is a proper case for costs with respect to the residency issue. The determination of costs with respect to the child support issue is reserved to the Judge finally disposing of the issue.

Stevenson, J.

Date: June 11, 2013