Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-379996
DATE: 20131023
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: CAROLYNN LORRAINE YOUNGHUSBAND, Applicant
- and -
DOUGLAS GLEN YOUNGHUSBAND, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice S. M. Stevenson
COUNSEL: Louise A. Scrivener and Catherine M. Hibberd, for the Applicant
Reesa M. Heft, for the Respondent
DATE HEARD: October 3, 2013
E N D O R S E M E N T
Introduction
[1] The applicant, Carolynn Lorraine Younghusband (the "applicant"), seeks a determination of the parties' incomes for support purposes and an order for temporary child and spousal support. Counsel for the applicant advised the Court that all other issues set out in her Notice of Motion dated July 8, 2013 were dealt with on August 1, 2013 in the order of Croll J.
[2] The respondent, Douglas Glen Younghusband (the "respondent"), seeks various relief on his cross-motion. He seeks to impute an income to the applicant in the amount of $22,000 gross per year, that his child support and spousal support payments be payable on the 15th of the month, an order that his annual income be $160,107 gross for the purpose of calculating monthly support, an order that upon receipt, he pay to the applicant 50% of the funds received from his Restricted Share Award ("RSA") as spousal support, that he be reimbursed costs regarding the closing of the matrimonial home, an order that the applicant provide him with receipts for costs of schooling obtained by the applicant during the marriage so that the respondent may use the unused portion of the costs on his income tax returns, and an order transferring ownership of the 2002 Subaru Outback motor vehicle to the applicant, with the transfer to take place at the date of separation value.
Background
[3] The applicant is 49 years of age and the respondent is 53 years of age. The parties commenced cohabiting in April of 1995 and were subsequently married on August 31, 1996. They separated on April 16, 2012. There are two children of the marriage, twins, Shane Glen Younghusband and Kyle Douglas Younghusband born February 27, 2000.
[4] Both children have experienced significant mental health issues as a result of the breakdown of the marriage. At the urging of the Children's Aid Society, the parties entered into a consent order that provided for the physical separation of the parties, and a nesting arrangement with respect to the parenting of the children so that the children could continue to reside in the matrimonial home. The children were spending equal periods of time with their parents under this arrangement. In August 2013 the matrimonial home was sold. Both parties obtained new accommodations and the children continue to share equal time with their parents.
[5] The applicant is a certified Registered Massage Therapist and a certified yoga instructor. The respondent is an Investment Advisor employed at CIBC Wood Gundy. The parties disagree as to the appropriate amount of income to be used for support purposes for the respondent. They also disagree with respect to the applicant's income, with the respondent seeking to impute income to the applicant. The parties agree that the applicant’s entitlement to spousal support is not an issue. The parties have also agreed that given they are sharing time equally with the children, their net disposable incomes should be equalized.
Issues
[6] The following are the issues for determination:
i) Should income be imputed to the applicant?
ii) What is the respondent's income for support purposes?
iii) What is the quantum of child and spousal support that should be paid by the respondent to the applicant? Should support be paid on the 1st or 15th of the month?
iv) Should the respondent be reimbursed costs with respect to the closing of the matrimonial home, including reimbursement for his time?
v) Should there be a transfer of ownership of the 2002 Subaru Outback motor vehicle?
vi) Should there be an order that tax receipts for costs of schooling be provided to the respondent by the applicant?
i) Should income be imputed to the applicant?
The Applicant's Position
[7] The applicant submits that when the parties first met she was employed as a mortgage administrator where she earned approximately $40,000 gross per year. She later started a cat sitting business which she operated until approximately 2002 when the business was sold for $31,500. Since the birth of the children, the applicant has not worked full time. The pregnancy with the children was high risk and the children were born prematurely.
[8] During the marriage from 2005 to 2007, the applicant attended school in order to become a Registered Massage Therapist. She submits that she has been working part-time in massage therapy since 2007 for less than 10 hours per week as she remained the primary caregiver of the children.
[9] In 2012, the applicant's business had a loss of $12,058.93 as set out in her 2012 Income Tax Return. Her total line 150 income for 2012 was ($10,861.64). As set out in her affidavit sworn July 23, 2013, she deposes that she commenced seeking alternate employment on March 20, 2013. Counsel for the applicant submits that given that the children were in crisis shortly after the date of separation, the applicant was not able to actively search for employment until March of 2013. The applicant submits that she has applied to twenty-one different companies and that she has either submitted resumes, had interviews or has registered for automated Internet job alerts with the businesses or individuals listed in her affidavit.
[10] The applicant also deposes that she has spoken with representatives from three recruiting firms in the central Toronto area. These firms specialize in hiring banking professionals as the applicant submits that she has banking experience. She contends that it will take her some time to transition from being a full-time caregiver working part-time to full-time employment. In her affidavit sworn September 30, 2013 she deposes that she continues to be employed as a Registered Massage Therapist as well as a yoga teacher. She indicates that as of September 9, 2013, she commenced freelancing for a company known as “Yogagurl” in the capacity of corporate event sales. She is working on a commission basis which is calculated as 15% of her sales. To date she has not earned any commissions.
[11] Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no basis at this time to impute an income to the applicant. She contends that it is not reasonable to do so given the applicant's age, her education, the fact that she has been out of the workforce and been self-employed, and has had ongoing obligations to the children. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant requires support and that she is not intentionally under-employed. She further submits that the applicant's income has historically been negligible and it was a joint decision of the parties that the applicant assume the primary caregiver role with respect to the children.
The Respondent's Position
[12] The respondent submits that an income should be imputed to the applicant. He contends that the applicant is an experienced Registered Massage Therapist as she has been working in the field for six years. The respondent submits that the applicant was regularly paid in cash and has admitted to receiving cash. Further, the respondent questions the applicant's business expenses and submits that at least $10,000 in annual income has been generated by the business. Counsel for the respondent further submits that the applicant has self-employment experience having operated a cat sitting business previously that was successful.
[13] In support of his position that the applicant is intentionally under-employed, the respondent has provided information from the Internet regarding Registered Massage Therapist jobs available in the area and information outlining how much income could be earned in these jobs. Counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant has failed to provide any correspondence from potential employers and she has not provided an updated copy of her resume. She contends that the applicant's present employment freelancing is not appropriate employment given she would have to have sales of approximately $100,000 in order to earn a $15,000 commission.
[14] Counsel for the respondent contends that the applicant is healthy, she has experience and she can earn at least $80 per hour for a massage. Further, she submits that the parties share childcare responsibilities equally so that the applicant has the same availability to work as does the respondent. She contends that the parties have been separated for 18 months and for approximately one year the applicant made no attempt to seek employment.
[15] The respondent was originally seeking that an income of $30,000 be imputed to the applicant, but in submissions counsel for the respondent suggested that the applicant be allotted $8,000 for expenses such that an income of $22,000 be imputed to the applicant. Counsel contends that at $80 per hour for a massage, which the applicant is capable of earning, an income of $22,000 would amount to minimal weekly working hours for the applicant.
Analysis
[16] Given the parties share time equally with the children, the applicant’s income is relevant with respect to the determination of child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines (SOR/97-175, as amended) (the "Child Support Guidelines") and with respect to any claims for section 7 expenses under the Child Support Guidelines. The applicant’s income is also relevant for the determination of spousal support. With respect to spousal support, as stated in the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson, 2008, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law; and Dalhousie Law School) (the “SSAG”) in determining the income of the parties for spousal support, reference is made to the Child Support Guidelines’ definition of income. Additionally, the principles that apply in determining whether to impute income are the same in both child and spousal support cases. (see Smith v. Smith, 2012 ONSC 1116, [2012] O.J. No. 800 at para. 80)
[17] Section 19(1)(a) of the 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;
[18] In the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 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. 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?
[19] In Drygala at para. 28, the Court determined that "intentionally" means a voluntary act. The Court also stated that "[t]he 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.
[20] 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."
[21] Based on the evidence before me, I do not find at this stage that the applicant is intentionally under-employed and I decline to impute an income to her. The applicant's line 150 income reflects a negative income given her nominal earnings and expenses associated with self-employment. These expenses can be challenged on cross-examination at trial, but I cannot conclude on this motion that the expenses are completely inappropriate as advanced by the respondent. There is also no evidence on which to infer that the applicant is not making valiant efforts to secure additional employment and to better her financial situation such that would lead the Court to make a finding that there should be an imputation of income. While it appears that the applicant's self-employment that she has pursued since 2007 has not been lucrative and it would make financial sense for her to pursue different avenues of employment, on the evidence before me, the applicant is actively pursuing other forms of employment and drawing on her past experience to obtain employment.
[22] I cannot conclude at this stage that the applicant is choosing to earn less than she is capable of earning. The respondent was the major income earner for the family throughout the marriage and the applicant worked part-time for a significant period of time in her own business while also primarily caring for the children. It may take some time for the applicant to secure better employment but she is making efforts to do so. I accept that this has been delayed by the significant, extremely concerning mental health issues experienced by the children as a result of the separation which at one time required the hospitalization of both children.
[23] While I decline to impute an income to the applicant on this motion, this is without prejudice to the respondent's right to pursue this issue at trial. The issue of imputation of income to the applicant can be delved into further at trial where the trial Judge will be able to make a determination based on all of the evidence, fully tested by cross-examination.
ii) What is the respondent's income for support purposes?
The Respondent's Position
[24] The respondent submits that his income is commission based and that his income is $160,107 gross, which is his three years' average annual income. He submits that this is the amount that should be used for the purposes of determining child and spousal support. He contends that he should pay child support of $2,127 per month and spousal support of $2,163 per month. He submits that his income is comprised of commission and bonuses based on performance. Additionally, his line 150 income includes other non-cash income and benefits which should not be used to determine his income for support purposes. He also submits that his income is made up of items that he receives only at year-end and other items that represent funds received in 2006 and 2008.
[25] It is the respondent's position that the cash components of his income include commissions, Restricted Share Awards Dividends, which are paid quarterly, and a RSA that is paid annually in a lump sum in December. He contends that the non-cash items of his income include a portion of a forgivable loan received in 2006 and 2008. He submits that $27,000 of the total $270,000 received is added back to his income each year that he remains at CIBC Wood Gundy. Additionally, he submits that the forgivable loan is interest free and Canada Revenue Agency determines a rate of interest that would have been paid. This is also added onto the respondent's income for tax purposes. He further contends that other non-cash and taxable benefits include health and dental benefits that cover the entire family.
[26] It is the respondent's position that the forgivable loans were received in 2006 and 2008 prior to separation and were enjoyed by the entire family. He submits that the forgivable loan creates a tax liability as does the interest-free component of the loan that is added back to his income that should not be used for support purposes. Further, he deposes that he has business expenses of approximately $10,000 a year or approximately 6% of commissions generated which he submits, is well below the industry norm of 10 to 15%.
[27] The respondent deposes that the RSA is a discretionary plan set up by his employer as an incentive for investment advisors to generate more commissions. Only investment advisors who have generated more than $400,000 of gross commissions are eligible for the plan. He further deposes that CIBC Wood Gundy will purchase CIBC shares at the then current market price and hold onto the shares for the investment advisor for a period of three years at which time the shares are then sold by CIBC Wood Gundy and the funds paid to the investment advisor. He submits that the total amount of the share selling price is attributed to the investment advisor as income and there is no adjusted cost base to reflect the actual purchase price.
[28] It is the respondent's position that he has never disputed that the RSA is part of his income, but that the RSA is paid in a lump sum in December each year and not provided monthly. As such, this affects his cash flow. His concern is that the parties have agreed that the net disposable incomes of each parent should be 50% and if he is forced to pay support based on line 150 income, this will not provide each household with 50% of the net disposable income. He also submits that the Guidelines and SSAG calculations do not properly determine the tax payable by the parties. He has submitted his own calculations for the Court to consider regarding the appropriate amount of child and spousal support taking taxes into consideration. The respondent's proposal with respect to the RSA is that when the RSA comes in, it should be divided in such a way to as to ensure that each party, after taking into consideration tax consequences, receives 50% of the net disposable income.
[29] Counsel for the respondent submits that the Court needs to consider what funds the respondent has available to pay child support and spousal support. She contends that given many of these components of the respondent's line 150 income are non-cash items, it would be unfair to order the respondent to pay support on the basis of his 2012 line 150 income.
The Applicant's Position
[30] The applicant submits that for the purposes of determining child and spousal support on this motion, the respondent's line 150 income as set out in his 2012 Income Tax Return of $217,007 should be used. Counsel for the applicant contends that the respondent has provided no expert income report to substantiate his claim that certain portions of his income reflected in line 150 should not be included as income for the purposes of child and spousal support.
[31] Counsel for the applicant also submits that the respondent's income has been historically high. His line 150 income in 2009 was $279,534, in 2010 it was $293,422, and in 2011 it was $345,812. She also points to the fact that the respondent's T4 for 2012 was $220,303.
[32] Counsel for the applicant further submits that child support should be paid in accordance with section 16 of the Guidelines which states that a spouse's annual income is determined using the sources of income set out under total income in the T1 General form and adjusted in accordance with Schedule III. The applicant also relies on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Bak v. Dobell, 2007 ONCA 304, [2007] O.J. No. 1489 (C.A.) at para. 30 wherein the Court stated that "...income for support purposes is presumptively the payor's income as it appears on line 150 of his or her income tax return. This restricts the definition of presumptive "income" to income that is subject to taxation. In this way, a payor's income can be easily ascertained by reference to the payor's income tax return."
[33] The applicant submits that with respect to the respondent's RSA it would be inappropriate not to include it as income. She contends that the respondent has not listed the RSA as an asset on his sworn Financial Statement so clearly there is no property component. Counsel for the applicant contends that she requested an explanation of the breakdown of the RSA for 2009, 2010 and 2011 but no valuation was provided by the respondent; therefore the RSA should be treated as income. I note that in her submissions, the respondent's counsel acknowledged that the respondent's RSA is part of his income; however, the issue is that these funds are only paid once every year ‑ in December. The respondent's position is that this is cash flow issue rather than an income versus asset issue.
[34] With respect to the forgivable loan, counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has included the full amount of the debt outstanding on the date of separation with respect to this loan on his sworn Financial Statement. She submits that if the respondent seeks to derive a benefit on equalization by claiming this as a debt, then the income that he receives should be included as income for support purposes. She again contends that the respondent has not provided any expert evidence to support his position and as such the most reliable information before the court is his line 150 income from his 2012 Income Tax Return.
[35] The applicant relies upon the decision of B.L.S. v. J.M.S., [2010] B.C.J. No. 1862 in support of her position that a forgivable loan provided to a payor by his employer and which is reflected in the payor's line 150 income, should be included as income for the purposes of child and spousal support. Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has provided no case law in support of his position that a forgivable loan should not be treated as income. The respondent distinguishes B.L.S. v. J.M.S. from his situation in that he argues his forgivable loan was paid to him and enjoyed by the family during the marriage whereas in this case the forgivable loan was made post-separation and not enjoyed by the family as a whole.
[36] The applicant further submits that the respondent has not been cooperative with respect to disclosure. She contends that she did not receive the respondent's Income Tax Return for 2012 until July 9, 2013, having only received his T4 on June 7, 2013. She further contends that when requests for information and disclosure were made by the applicant's expert, the respondent replied that the requests were "redundant and irrelevant". Counsel for the applicant also contends that in the respondent’s Answer he indicated that he did not have a pension or stock options from his employer, but had a Retirement Transition Plan through CIBC which was based on a very specific formula. In the Answer the respondent stipulated that the full particulars of this plan would be provided to the applicant and her counsel and would be valued by an independent expert. Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent now takes the position that this specific plan is not an asset and there has been no formal valuation. Counsel for the applicant contends that these are examples of the respondent delaying the process.
[37] With respect to these claims made by the applicant, the respondent denies that he has not made disclosure. He contends that he has provided documentation, including relevant statements to the applicant's expert and that he has provided the same documentation requested on a number of occasions. Counsel for the respondent submits that some of the documentation that was requested does not exist and some questions that were asked by the applicant's expert were irrelevant. Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has produced all of the information that he has and he has provided mathematical calculations. She also submits that all of this information was available to the applicant as it was kept in the matrimonial home.
Analysis
[38] On the evidence before me, I am not prepared to determine child and spousal support on this motion on any income other than line 150 of the respondent's income as set out in section 16 of the Guidelines. As submitted by counsel for the applicant, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Bak v. Dobell, stated that income for support purposes is presumptively the payor's income as it appears on line 150 of his or her income tax return. The respondent has provided various documentation and tax calculations that he himself prepared with respect to his income and what he deems to be appropriate income for support purposes, but he has not provided any expert analysis in order to assist the Court with a determination of his income.
[39] It is very difficult at this stage of the proceedings without the benefit of expert reports and cross-examination, to properly determine this issue. The best evidence before the Court at present is the respondent's Income Tax Return from 2012 which sets out the respondent's line 150 income as $217,007. I note that in previous years the respondent's income has been significantly higher and this may be attributable to the fact that a large part of the respondent's income is derived of commission income. There was no suggestion by the applicant's counsel that any income other than the respondent's line 150 income from 2012 should be used for the purposes of this motion. There was also no evidence from the respondent of a current income earned to the date of the hearing of the motion for the Court to consider.
[40] The issue of whether the non-cash items as deemed by the respondent form part of his income for child and spousal support purposes needs to be fully canvassed at trial with the benefit of a full hearing. With the limited information before the Court untested by cross-examination, I am not in position to fully determine this issue.
[41] The respondent has raised the issue of cash flow concerning his RSA, but he does not appear to dispute that the RSA is in fact income. He submitted that the payments should be made to the applicant equalizing the parties' net disposable incomes upon receipt of the funds in December of each year. As I indicated to the parties at the hearing of the motion, the matter needs to proceed to trial as soon as possible. In the interim, there will most likely be a payment made in December to the respondent with respect to his RSA. A trial can be heard early in 2014 and as such, we are only dealing with the lump sum payment for December 2013. Pending trial, a set amount of child and spousal support should be paid by the respondent to the applicant on a monthly basis taking into consideration the respondent's line 150 income from 2012 which includes income from his RSA for 2012 that he already received. This will not significantly affect the respondent's cash flow as he will most likely receive the RSA in December and have funds available pending trial.
[42] This is without prejudice to the respondent arguing at trial that his income for support purposes should be less than $217,007 gross or the applicant arguing at trial that the respondent's income should be higher than $217,007 gross. While I recognize that the respondent's income does fluctuate, in order to put in place an appropriate amount of support pending trial, the court must rely on the best evidence before it which is the respondent's 2012 line 150 income and the presumptive income for support purposes.
iii) What is the quantum of child and spousal support that should be paid by the respondent to the applicant? Should support be paid on the 1st or 15th of the month?
[43] Taking into consideration that the parties share time equally with the children and their intention is that their net disposable incomes be equalized after the payment of child and spousal support, the respondent shall pay temporary child support to the applicant in the amount of $2,776 per month and temporary spousal support to the applicant in the amount of $3,916 per month until further order of the Court. This is based on an annual income of $217,007 gross for the respondent, an income of nil for the applicant, the Guidelines table amount and the SSAG. According to the Guidelines table amount and the SSAG calculations provided by counsel for the applicant, this will leave both parties with approximately $6,298 per month as a net disposable income.
[44] In reaching my decision with respect to temporary spousal support, I have also considered the factors and objectives set out in sections 15.2(4) and 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), including the parties' 17 year relationship, the disparity in incomes, the roles assumed during the marriage, including the applicant's primary responsibility for the care of the children.
[45] The evidence before me is that respondent has historically been paid on the 15th of the month. Support is currently being paid on the 15th of the month, but the applicant has requested that support be paid on the 1st of the month to enable her to pay her ongoing housing and other costs. Given the respondent has always been paid on the 15th of the month and the parties have had to budget accordingly, I see no reason to deviate from the payments being on the 15th of the month pending further order of the Court and a determination of the issue at trial. The child and spousal support payments shall commence as of August 15, 2013.
[46] The respondent raised an issue regarding skiing costs for the children this upcoming season as a section 7 expense under the Guidelines. The respondent's Amended Notice of Motion dated September 25, 2013 did not seek section 7 expenses. This issue needs to be properly addressed either in a separate motion or at trial.
[47] I am not prepared to order a cost-of-living adjustment as requested by the applicant with respect to the spousal support payments at this time as this issue can be addressed at trial after a full determination of the incomes of both parties has been made.
iv) Should the respondent be reimbursed costs with respect to the closing of the matrimonial home including reimbursement for his time?
[48] The respondent seeks reimbursement of the costs incurred to ready the matrimonial home for sale. Both parties accuse the other of leaving the home in disarray prior to its sale. Regardless of which party is responsible, the respondent incurred costs The applicant is agreeable to paying one-half of the $2,388.60 in costs paid by the respondent with respect to the cleaning and preparation of the home and I so order. The respondent's claim for his time or any other costs can be pursued at trial.
v) Should there be a transfer of ownership of the 2002 Subaru Outback motor vehicle?
[49] The respondent seeks an order transferring ownership of the 2012 Subaru Outback motor vehicle to the applicant, said transfer to take place at the date of separation value. It appears that the major issue is whether to attribute the value of the vehicle to the applicant or to the respondent on the date of separation. As I indicated to counsel at the hearing, this is an issue that should be determined at trial as it is one of equalization of net family property and I decline to make an order.
vi) Should there be an order that tax receipts for costs of schooling be provided to the respondent by the applicant?
[50] One of the terms of the order of Croll J. dated August 1, 2013 provided that the applicant was to provide to the respondent the tax receipts as requested in his Notice of Motion within fifteen days of the order. There appears to be an issue as to whether all receipts have been provided. The applicant contends that she has provided all receipts to the respondent. I do not have any evidence that the applicant has not complied with the Court order. If the respondent has evidence of non-compliance, this can be addressed in a further motion or at trial. The request of the Court was for an order that these receipts be provided and this was ordered previously by Croll J.
Order
[51] I order the following:
i) commencing August 15, 2013, the respondent shall pay temporary child support to the applicant in the amount of $2,776 per month for the children Shane Glen Younghusband and Kyle Douglas Younghusband, both born February 27, 2000, and temporary spousal support to the applicant in the amount of $3,916 per month until further order of the Court. This is based on a gross annual income of $217,007 for the respondent and an income of nil for the applicant. This is without prejudice to the respondent arguing at trial that his income for support purposes should be less than $217,007 gross or the applicant arguing at trial that the respondent's income is higher than $217,007 gross and without prejudice to the respondent's right to seek that an income be imputed to the applicant at trial;
ii) The applicant shall pay the sum of $1,194.30 to the respondent within 20 days with respect to the costs that he incurred for the cleaning and preparation of the matrimonial home. The respondent's claim for his time or any other costs related to the cleaning and preparation of the matrimonial home for sale shall be determined at trial;
iii) all issues concerning ownership of the Subaru Outback motor vehicle and the value of said vehicle shall be determined at trial;
iv) if not already scheduled, the parties shall schedule a Settlement Conference to be held no later than December 15, 2013;
v) any party seeking costs shall serve and file written costs submissions, no longer than two double-spaced pages along with any offers to settle and a bill of costs, within 14 days. Any reply submissions, no longer than two double-spaced pages, shall be served and file 14 days thereafter.
___________________________
Stevenson, J.
DATE: October 23, 2013