COURT FILE NO.: D-425/98

DATE: 2014/12/29

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: SYLVIA BOSANAC, Applicant

AND:

JOHN IVAN BOSANAC, Respondent

BEFORE: Turnbull, J.

COUNSEL: Ted R. Lann, Counsel, for the Applicant

James D. Higginson, Counsel, for the Respondent

HEARD: November 10, 12, 13 and 14, 2014

Judgment

[1] This trial calls the court to determine certain issues surrounding child support and spousal support.

[2] The protracted history of this sad affair must be generally outlined to put the facts and issues in context.

[3] The applicant and respondent are both 57 years old. They were married on November 12, 1983. They separated in April 1998 and shortly thereafter began litigation which has continued to this day. The parties have two children. John Jr. was born February 25, 1987 and his brother Zachary was born January 14, 1990. They are respectively 27 and 24 years of age and reside rent free with their mother, the applicant.

[4] In 2000, the parties were involved in trial before the Honourable Madame Justice Genesee Custody of the boys was granted to the applicant Ms. Bosanac. The respondent was ordered to pay child support of $1593.00 per month for the support of the two children. He was also ordered to pay the applicant spousal support of $2,000 per month. The learned judge based her decision on the respondent’s then annual income of approximately $133,000.00 (see para. 27 of her endorsement released March 21, 2001). The parties were also divorced in 2001.

[5] The respondent unsuccessfully appealed the judgment of Genesse J. to the Court of Appeal. The respondent was required to pay costs of both proceedings in excess of $200,000.

[6] At all material times, the respondent has been the owner of his own business which operates as Bosanac Heating and Electric. He also has invested in rental properties in the Hamilton area and in a home heating business called Sandwell Oil. After the judgment of Genesse J., he bought the one half interest of his brother in Sandwell which he also operates. It is the combination of imputed and actual line 150 income from all these businesses that Genesse J. determined support should be based on $133,000.

[7] Up to 2003, the respondent enjoyed a good relationship with his sons. He enjoyed regular access and explained during this trial how meaningful that had been to him. However, as the boys reached their teenage years, he explained that they would visit him less and less frequently for weekends in his Ottawa Street residence until by 2005, they barely returned his phone calls. From that time, he has had very little contact with them. In his cross examination, he agreed that he had not urged the boys to take counselling with him. He has not sent them Christmas gifts or birthday gifts, for as he explained, that is not his nature.

[8] In 2005, John Jr. began his studies at Brock University. He did not discuss his educational plans with his father nor present to him any budget of anticipated expenses. The applicant also did not do so. John lived in St. Catharines eight months each year while studying at Brock and spent the four months of summer break at home with his mother.

[9] John Jr. finished his undergraduate studies in December 2008. In January 2009, he began graduate studies which he concluded in December 2010. He did not thereafter find employment until April 30, 2012, approximately 16 months after finishing his university studies. The applicant submits that he remained as a dependent child from the time of the conclusion of his post-graduate studies to the time that he got his job. In the alternative, she argued that the court should grant a period of “grace” during which her son should receive child support while seeking employment.

[10] His brother Zachary began studies in economics at McMaster in the autumn of 2008. He lived at home while attending university and finished his academic studies in June 2012. He immediately found employment and the applicant agrees that at that point, he was no longer a child of the marriage for child support purposes.

[11] However, in 2007 John Jr. and Zachary received a significant amount of cash from the redemption of bonds left to them by their paternal grandmother. Ms. Bosanac retained counsel and her lawyer wrote to Mr. Bosanac and asserted that he had “pocketed” the money (I have no doubt he made that damaging allegation on the instructions of the applicant). In due course, the bonds were cashed and the funds forwarded to the boys. John Jr. received approximately $19,500 plus $14,000 of interest and Zach received $19,500 plus a somewhat less amount of interest for a total of approximately $30,000. Ms. Bosanac indicated that these funds were intended to defray the cost of the boys’ marriages or the purchase of their first homes. Mr. Bosanac did not agree and asserted the funds were to be used for the needs of the boys as they arose. I accept his evidence over that of Ms. Bosanac on that issue. Clearly, the family situation and financial situation changed upon separation. Two homes had to be maintained and many costs necessarily duplicated. The funds received by the boys should have been applied first and foremost to contribute to the cost of their university educations. There is little evidence before this court explaining how the boys used those funds other than John allegedly paying the costs of his post-graduate studies while Zachary having purchased a car for himself while he studied at McMaster University. I have taken into account the fact that it was much cheaper for Zachary to live in his mother’s residence and to commute to the university than living in residence or in an apartment if he had attended university in another community.

[12] Pursuant to the Order of Pazaratz J. dated July 24, 2007, child support for the children was increased to $1806.00 per month commencing retroactively on May 1, 2006. That calculation was apparently based on his annual income being $133,968.00 but the order does not indicate that. The increase was largely due to increases in the Child Support Guideline figures to reflect inflation.

[13] The applicant next brought a motion before Stayshyn J. seeking a significant contribution from the respondent towards John Jr.’s post-secondary school expenses. By order dated February 29, 2008, the respondent was ordered to pay approximately $21,000 towards John Jr.’s 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 university expenses. This was based on a division of expenses of approximately 66% payable by Mr. Bosanac and 33% payable by Ms. Bosanac.[^1] He was also ordered to pay $4,000 costs of the motion. The 2007-2008 expenses were put over to a case conference but that never took place. Despite the order of Stayshyn J. clearly indicating that he had a responsibility to contribute to the university costs of his sons, Mr. Bosanac did not do so.

[14] The respondent has continued paying full child support for his sons to the date of this trial which is more than 28 months after Zachary became employed full time.

[15] In July 2008, Mr. Bosanac brought the motion which is now before the court seeking a variation and/or termination of spousal support and a reduction of child support by virtue of the fact that John Jr. had finished his undergraduate university studies. At trial, he sought full termination of his child support obligations and retroactive credit for his overpayment of approximately $64,000.

[16] As part of this arduous process, the parties each retained experts to analyze the income of Mr. Bosanac for the support purposes. In due course, the matter was referred to arbitration and just before the arbitrator began the hearing, the parties agreed that for the purposes of calculating spousal support and child support, Mr. Bosnac’s income should be accepted as being $187,500 from 2008 to present. I so find.

[17] I have calculated the child support payable from January 1, 2008 as that is the year when the applicant brought her cross motion. In fact, she did not bring her cross motion until November 2008 (see tab 14 of Trial Record). In July 2007, Pazaratz J. signed an order based on minutes of settlement filed by the parties, fixing child support at $1806 per month commencing May 1, 2006 and monthly thereafter. Clearly the issue of the proper quantum of child support payable was dealt with by the parties and the court at that time and it is not appropriate in such circumstances, absent evidence of misrepresentation or fraud in disclosing income, to retroactively order child support or spousal support to be payable from 2006 when the court dealt with child support in 2007 and could easily have dealt with spousal support at the same time.

[18] The issue of termination of spousal support was raised in the respondent’s motion brought in 2008 (which is the motion before the court in this trial). The applicant did not bring a formal motion to increase spousal support which had been ordered by Genesee J. in 2000. Nevertheless, the trial proceeded on the understanding that child support, spousal support and section 7 expenses were in issue and to be determined by the court.

Ms. Bosnanc’s Income

[19] Ms. Bosanac is a well-educated, articulate lady. She graduated from McMaster University with a politics degree in 1979. Upon graduation, she worked for about 14 months in Toronto as a claims adjudicator with the WSIB. She left that position to work as a clerk in Hamilton with the Canada Employment and Immigration department. Upon the birth of John Jr. in 1987, she remained as a “stay at home” mother at the insistence of the respondent, who did not contest that evidence.

[20] She described interior design as being her vocational passion. During the 1980’s she began taking some interior design courses at Sheridan College in Mississauga. She did not finish her studies there but did take some certificate courses at Mohawk College. In 1997, she incorporated Canfield Interiors Inc. (Canfield) which was the company through which she planned to operate her interior design business. Because she does not have her degree in interior design, she is basically a decorator. She has operated that business since the time of separation in 1998 and it has been not been financially successful at all. The company has posted a loss on its financial statements for all but one year when it showed a modest profit of just $6,000.

[21] Mr. Higginson pointed out in his cross examination of Ms. Bosanac that Sheridan College is one of just three institutions in Canada offering a university degree in interior design. He noted that Ms. Bosanac has had sixteen years to upgrade her education in interior design which would have opened greater income earning opportunities to her. Despite that, she agreed she had not done so, asserting that the responsibility of caring for the boys and managing the ongoing litigation while trying to run her business made it virtually impossible for her to go back to school. She testified that she anticipated that Canfield’s business would improve in the next few years now that the litigation was hopefully drawing to an end and the boys were largely self-sufficient.

[22] Mr. Higginson urged the court to impute annual employment income to the applicant of $30,000 from 2008 to the end of 2014 at which point he submitted all spousal support should be terminated.. He noted that the respondent’s motion brought in 2008 should clearly have put the applicant on notice that he was seeking an order reducing or terminating spousal support. Consequently, she should have been aware that if Canfield was not profitable, she had a responsibility to find more remunerative employment from which she could support herself.

[23] He argued that if Ms. Bosanac had been employed 40 hours per week at $14.00 per hour, her income would have been $560 per week or $29,120.00 annually. If she had been employed at $20.00 per hour for a forty hour week, she would have earned $800 per week or $41,600.

[24] Counsel for the applicant urged the court to impute only $20,000 which is substantially what she receives from her investments and spousal support.

[25] I impute the sum of $30,000 to the applicant with respect to employment income from 2008 to present. I am not satisfied that the applicant has applied herself as diligently as one would expect to becoming economically self-sufficient. The losses posted annually by Canfield should have made the applicant realize that she needed to change the way she did the business or alternatively to seek alternative employment. She has largely established her client base to the Markham area where her accountant and “significant other” as she has described him, resides.

[26] The average Canadian Dividend income of Ms. Bosanac from 2010 to 2012 was $7,300 annually. Her non-eligible dividend income averaged $3300 in the same three year period while she averaged $4,600 in capital gains in that same period. The total of that income was approximately $14,000.

[27] She agreed in her cross examination, that she had not declared approximately $12,500 of dividend and interest income from her investments on her 2013 income tax return. She also agreed that she has not shown investment or dividend income on her financial statements filed as exhibits 9 and 10. According to her financial statement of January 2014 (exhibit 9) she presently has $465,000 in her RRSP which at 3 per cent per annum, would earn approximately $14,000 per year and at 3.5 per cent earns $16,275.

[28] Hence, for the purposes of calculation of spousal support and the section 7 extraordinary expenses, I find that in the years in question, Ms. Bosanac’s employment income should be imputed at $30,000 and her investment income at $14,896 for an annual imputed income of $44,896.

Assets of the Parties:

[29] The evidence indicates that the applicant owns her residence free of any mortgage debt and that the house has an approximate market value of $350,000 to $400,000. She also has approximately $465,000 invested in various interest bearing securities within an RRSP. She described herself as being someone who does all that is possible to avoid debt and that she knows “how to stretch a dollar”. Both are admirable qualities which are rarely seen in family law litigation before this court.

[30] The respondent owns the businesses identified above in paragraph 6. He has remarried and he and his wife have jointly built a home with an approximate value of $1,200,000. The house is subject to a mortgage of approximately $490,000 and Mr. Bosanac estimated that he and his wife jointly have equity of about $600,000 in the home. That was not disputed.

[31] Both parties have their own businesses and the skills and means to provide for themselves in the future.

Financial Position of the Boys

[32] As noted in paragraph 9, John Jr. finished his university undergraduate studies at the end of December 2008 and, while residing with his mother, took two further years of post-graduate work on a part time basis during 2009 and 2010. He finally got his first full time job working with a bank on April 30, 2012 at the age of 25, approximately 16 months after finishing his university studies. He has worked since that time while living rent free with his mother. During this trial, no evidence was led with respect to his efforts to find work between January 2011 and April 2012. I would have expected to see copies of job application letters or emails, copies of his C.V. sent to or delivered possible employers. The court was not provided with any rejection letters or anything indicating that he was making his very best efforts to find employment. I also expected to receive information with respect to how he spent the income he received before starting university and the percentage of his expenses he contributed to completion of his studies.

[33] His brother Zachary began university in 2008 as an economics major and lived at home while studying at McMaster University for four years. He finished his studies in the spring of 2012 and immediately began working at various odd jobs until he found full time work with a bank in August 2013, some 15 months after graduation. Both John Jr. and Zachary have continued living rent free with their mother to this date while their father, the respondent, has continued making child support payments and spousal support payments to this date which is approaching 17 years after the separation and about 28 months after both the boys became financially independent.

[34] As noted above, the income earned by the boys as shown on their tax returns, was only produced by the applicant shortly before the opening of trial. The respondent was forced to serve a subpoena on his sons because this information had not been produced by the applicant in a timely manner. Ultimately, a summary of their respective incomes was entered as exhibit 5 which avoided the necessity of them testifying. It shows the following annual income for each of the boys:

John Zachary

2004 $569 $0

2005 $4,344.55 $0

2006 $1842 $524

2007 $7140 $5601

2008 $5306 $10,814

2009 $408 $6,708

2010 $271.55 $3,799

2011 $220 $9,033

2012 $27,070.72 $21,249.00

2013 $28,151 $17,228

Analysis

Child Support:

[35] The respondent has provided the court with a chart containing a calculation of alleged overpayment of child support of $64,348 from January 1, 2008 to the end of December 2014. This is based on the respondent’s agreed annual income of $187,500. The calculation is based on the respondent having paid $1806 per month from January 1, 2008 (in accordance with the 2007 order of Pazaratz J.) with downward adjustments when each of the boys became independent. During 2013 and 2014, he simply paid $1806 pursuant to the court order until this matter finally reached trial.

[36] The applicant does not dispute the amounts paid but does dispute the amount payable and the assumption of the respondent that he did not need to pay child support:

a. for John Jr. when he was living away from home during his undergraduate university studies from September 2005 to December 2008 except for the four months of summer .

b. for either boy after each one had finished his undergraduate degree.

[37] I find that John Jr. was a dependant until he finished his post-graduate studies in December 2010. Thereafter, his mother indicated that he had difficulty finding employment but there was virtually no evidence offered of where he applied and the frequency of his applications. I note that when he was in university, three of the four years he earned significantly more income than in the two years after he finished his post graduate studies. Furthermore, he has not provided the court with any accounting of what he did with the funds he received from his grandmother and the accumulated interest. I find that the respondent’s obligation to pay child support ceased upon his completion of studies and that this is not a case in which to grant a “grace period” as was done in Wasney v Wasney 2000 CarswellOnt 1340.

[38] While John Jr. was living away from his mother’s residence during the university semester of January to April 2008, I find that child support should have been payable with respect to him on a one-half basis only. This is to reflect the ongoing expenses incurred by the applicant to maintain the residence so as to be able to provide accommodation and food to John Jr. when he came home for weekend visits and so that he would have a place to live during the summer university break. In 2008, he apparently lived at home in the autumn session and commuted back and forth to university. Hence, in 2008, the calculations of payable child support outline below are adjusted to reflect those living arrangements.

[39] I further find that during the four months that John Jr. was living with his mother during the university summer vacation period in his undergraduate studies, full child support was payable for him.

[40] I find that Zachary ceased to be a dependent child upon completion of his university studies in June 2012. Thereafter, he did odd jobs until he obtained employment with a bank in June 2013.

[41] The following calculations reflect the child support payable to the applicant by the respondent for the period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012:

2008

Child support for Zachary for 4 months x $1541 $ 6,164

Child support for John for 4 months x $449 (1/2 basis) $ 1,796

Child Support for Zachary and John Jr. for 8 months x $2439 $19,512

$27,472

2009 and 2010

Child support for Zachary and John Jr. for 24 months x $2439 $58,536

2011

Child support for Zachary for 12 months x $1541 $ 18,492

2012

Child support for Zachary for 6 months x $1541 $ 9,426

Total child Support payable for Zachary and John Jr. was $139,422

Total child support paid by the respondent to December 31, 2014 based

Based on $1806 monthly x 7 years or 84 months was $151,704

Total overpayment of table amount of child support by the respondent is $ 12,282

[42] It is ordered that the applicant be granted a credit against the section 7 extraordinary expenses payable by him of the sum of $12,282 for overpayment of child support.

Section 7 Expenses

Applicant’s s. 7 expenses.

[43] The applicant asserts that she has spent the following amounts to allow the boys to attend university and claims them as s. 7 expenses under the Child Support Guidelines.

[44] The applicant has provided a list of special expenses (found at exhibit 4, page 3) totalling $57,158.42 which she indicated she paid while the boys were in university and for which she claimed contribution from the respondent. It concerned me that even when she was on the witness stand, she agreed in cross examination that the list contained errors. The claim for $7,734 she allegedly paid for John’s post graduate work was paid by John Jr. himself (ex. 4, tab 3). She also ignored the fact that an RESP of $3,000 had been cashed and not credited against the expenses and that Mr. Bosanac had paid $3,000 directly to Zachary (see exhibit 4, tab 4). Her lawyer, in his final submissions argued that she had paid $49,442 and that she was asking the court to assist her in recouping a percentage of those expenses which could be set off against the overpayment of child support.

[45] However, on her own evidence, the amount she agreed she had paid was $18,770.03 for John Jr. and $24,654 for Zackary for a total of $43,424.39.

[46] I must say that it was disturbing to me that these figures were just produced at the outset of this trial, many years after the expenses were incurred. Similarly, the tax returns showing the amounts earned by the boys for each year that they were in university were just produced in the days before this trial. It had to be obvious to Ms. Bosanac that any hope of resolving issues around child support and section 7 expenses required all this information to be produced in a timely manner.

[47] In my view, the boys had an obligation to contribute some funds to defray the costs of their own university education. They both had received a significant amount of money from the bonds and accumulated interest. Each held summer jobs while in university.

[48] Ms. Bosanac asserted in ex. 4, tab 3 that from January 2009 to the end of his post graduate courses, John contributed $13,662.00. Zachary apparently contributed little or nothing to the cost of tuition and books, though he did purchase a vehicle to permit him to commute to McMaster for classes while saving the cost of accommodation and food if he had chosen to go out of town for university.

[49] The court notes that neither boy prepared a budget of anticipated expenses to be given to their parents. They had to be subpoenaed to court to obtain their tax returns and these were just produced at the last moment before trial. When Justice Stayshyn made his order with respect to John Jr’s extraordinary expenses for 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, it was prior to the boys receiving funds from their grandmother. The disposition of those funds was never properly and clearly provided to this court.

[50] Section 17(7) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines provides that the guiding principle in determining the amount of extraordinary expenses is that the spouses shall share such expenses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense the contribution, if any, from the child.

[51] I find that the boys had the means and should have paid some of those expenses. I find that each was able to have paid $10,000 as a contribution against his university expenses from the funds received from his grandmother and from the money they earned or could have earned from summer employment while in university. Mr. Bosanac, based on his income of $187,500 and Ms. Bosanac’s imputed income of approximately $45,000, should pay 75 per cent of the remaining $23,424 which is $17,568. Ms. Bosanac is responsible for the remaining 25 per cent.

[52] Thus, the respondent shall pay to the applicant for section 7 extraordinary expenses and child support the sum of $5,286. (being the difference between the overpayment of child support and the amount owing towards section 7 extraordinary expenses).

Spousal Support

[53] I find that there has been a material change in means, needs and circumstances of the parties (which in their totality constitute a material change in circumstances) which warrant a variation of the original spousal support order. First, the respondent’s income is $187,000. Secondly, I am imputing employment income to the applicant of $30,000. Third, child support is being terminated with the issuance of this order which then affects the ability of the respondent to pay spousal support.

[54] Section 17(7) of The Divorce Act provides the objectives of an order varying spousal support. In this case, the paramount objectives should be to relieve any economic hardship arising from the breakdown of the marriage and to promote the economic self-sufficiency of each former spouse within a reasonable time.

[55] In considering the quantum and duration of spousal support, I have utilized as a general guide the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG). While they are neither legislated nor binding on this court, I find they are helpful in such an analysis and that they are applicable to a variation of spousal support. Gray v Gray, 2014 ONCA 659.

[56] The parties were married 141/2 years. The respondent has paid spousal support since the time of separation which is almost 17 years. The SSAG recommend that for a marriage of that duration, spousal support should be paid from 7.5 to 14.5 years from the date of separation.

[57] Pursuant to the earlier order of the court, the respondent has been paying spousal support of $2,000 per month or $24,000 per year. The spousal support paid from 2008 to the end of 2014 is $144,000.

[58] Mr. Higginson provided the court with a series SSAG print outs for the years 2008 to the end of 2011 which through oversight were not entered as exhibits. On my own volition, I have entered them in the record as exhibit 17. In each year, the respondent’s income is shown as $187,000 and the applicant’s imputed employment income as $30,000 plus dividend and capital gains income for a total of $44,896. As noted above, I find that these represent reasonable estimations of the respective incomes of the parties for the purposes of calculating spousal support.

[59] In my view, during the period 2008 to 2014, the applicant was not applying herself fully to improving the revenues of her business or seeking a better paying alternative job and hence, a lower than “mid-point” suggested SSAG spousal support figure should be used.

[60] Hence, while paying full child support for the boys (except for the first four months of 2008 when John Jr. was living at university) in 2008, 2009 and 2010, the respondent should have paid $2439 per month child support. I find that spousal support in those three years should be fixed at $2300 per month.

[61] In 2011, when John Jr. was no longer a dependent child, the respondent should have paid $1541 per month child support and monthly spousal support of $2600.

[62] In 2012, when John Jr. was a dependent child to June 30, 2012, the respondent should have paid child support of $1541 for 6 months and spousal support of $2600 monthly.

[63] For the last six months of 2012, when neither of the boys were dependants, the respondent should have paid spousal support of $3,000 per month. Those payments ought to have also been made in 2013 and 2014.

[64] Hence, the respondent has paid $168,000 of spousal support from January 2008 to December 31, 2014. He ought to have paid $201,610. The amount owing for spousal support is $33,000 as of December 31, 2014.

Spousal Support post December 31, 2014

[65] In the circumstance, I do not feel that spousal support should terminate at this stage nor do I feel that it should continue indefinitely. Ms. Bosanac has had the principal responsibility of raising and caring for the children since separation. Those responsibilities increased incrementally after 2005 when the relationship between the boys and their father significantly deteriorated and their time together became negligible. I accept that the ability of the applicant to become self-sufficient was somewhat constrained by those additional parental responsibilities. In other words, the compensatory component of the spousal support order is not adequately reflected in the SSAG.

[66] I also note that, the living expenses of Ms. Bosanac shown in her financial statement at exhibit 9 are approximately $6,000 per month, excluding her legal and appraisal fees. I feel the expenses listed are generally reasonable and not overstated. It is clear to me that she still has need of financial support from her former husband at this time but part of that is due to her economic disadvantage arising from the breakdown of the marriage. She simply was not able to devote the time necessary to build her business on a full time basis while she had the concerns of raising the boys and encouraging them to complete their university educations. Having said that, I am not convinced that she has put her best and wisest efforts into building the business or carving out an alternative better paying career.

[67] I do not however feel that spousal support should immediately be terminated as such an order would cause some hardship to the applicant. Baker v Baker,[2005] O.J. No. 5259 (S.C.J.). I feel that a “sunset clause” is appropriate in this case as the litigation between the parties has been excessively lengthy and expensive. Each must get on with her/his life independent of the other. Fortunately, Ms. Bosanac is in good health and as noted above is well educated and clearly articulate and intelligent.

[68] It is ordered that the applicant shall pay spousal support to the respondent in the amount of $3000.00 per month commencing January 1, 2015 and terminating December 31, 2015.

[69] It is ordered that the applicant shall pay spousal support to the respondent in the amount of $1500.00 per month commencing January 1, 2016 and terminating December 31, 2016.

[70] It is ordered that the obligation of the respondent to pay spousal support shall terminate on December 31, 2017.

[71] I am satisfied that this will give the applicant adequate time to become self-sufficient economically and to provide for her needs in the meantime.

Conclusion:

[72] It is ordered that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $5,286 for arrears of child support and section 7 extraordinary expenses.

[73] It is ordered that the respondent to the applicant the sum of $33,000 for arrears of spousal support to and including December 31, 2014.

[74] It is ordered that the respondent pay to the applicant spousal support in the amount of $3,000 per month on the first day of each month from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.

[75] It is ordered that the respondent pay to the applicant spousal support in the amount of $1,500 per month on the first day of each month from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016.

[76] It is ordered that the right of the applicant to receive spousal support from the respondent terminate December 31, 2016.

[77] It is ordered that this judgment shall bear post judgment interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum.

Costs

[78] If counsel cannot agree on costs, it is ordered that counsel submit brief written submissions on costs on or before January 15, 2015. Counsel are requested to include relevant offers to settle, a costs summary and supporting documents and any other relevant documentation. If either party wishes to serve and file a reply to the submissions of the other party, those submissions should be served and filed in writing on or before January 25, 2015.

Turnbull, J.

Date: December 29, 2014

[^1]: Tab 15 of Trial Record, Affidavit of Sylvia Anne Bosanac sworn November 27, 2008.