Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-11-003-2 Date: 2017/06/07 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Sophie Deslauriers, Applicant And: Eric Pommainville, Respondent

Before: Justice A. Doyle

Counsel: Self-represented, for the Applicant Christian Pilon, Counsel for the Respondent

Heard: May 11, 2017

Endorsement

[1] The Applicant (mother), Sophie Deslauriers is requesting a retroactive adjustment of child support pursuant to the Divorce Order of Justice Parfett dated January 8, 2013 (“Divorce Order”) from June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017.

[2] The Respondent (father), Eric Pommainville is requesting that the Court cap his income at $150,000 per annum for the purposes of determining his child support payment in accordance with s. 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175, as amended (“Guidelines”).

[3] The Court will also determine s. 7 expenses, the mother’s request to change the face amount of life insurance as security for child support and the parties’ respective contributions to the jointly held RESP.

Facts

[4] The parties were married on September 28, 2007 and have one child, Micah, who is almost 9 years old. The parties separated on October 1, 2010.

[5] The Divorce Order provided for the following:

• joint custody of the child;

• as of June 2013, the child would have two residences and the child would spend alternate weeks with each parent;

• the parties agreed that the father would pay child support based on the set off amount under the Guidelines;

• for the purposes of determining child support, the mother’s annual income was $62,128.94 and the father’s annual income was $87,000;

• based on these incomes, the father would pay the set off amount of $211 per month (father’s table amount obligation of $777 per month minus the mother’s table amount obligation of $566 per month);

• para. 42 provides for annual adjustment of child support as follows:

  To ensure that child support payments remain commensurate with the Guidelines, the child support payments shall be subject to an annual review and adjustment, if necessary, on June 1st of each year commencing June 1st 2013. To facilitate this review, the parties shall provide each other with such reasonable evidence as may be requested and required by the Guidelines. Upon receipt of this information, the child support payments shall be adjusted by June 1st of each year in accordance with the Applicant’s and the Respondent’s income, the parenting schedule and the applicable sections of the Federal Child Support Guidelines as they may be amended from time to time. The parties acknowledge that expenses deducted by the Respondent which are accepted by Revenue Canada may not be accepted for child support purposes and may be added back to the Respondent’s income.

• para. 56 provides that each party must maintain a life insurance policy naming the other party as irrevocable beneficiary in trust for the child in an amount to secure their respective child support obligations equal to twice their salary. The mother’s obligation was $126,000 and the father’s obligation was $174,000;

• para. 58 provides that either party may request, not more than once annually, that the policy amount be reduced taking into account the following: support owed, estimated remaining period of the obligation, any increase in premium or change in policy and any other change in circumstance since the policy amount was set; and

• The parties would contribute to the jointly owned RESP in proportion to their respective incomes and share the portion of the medical and dental premiums attributable to the child.

[6] The mother is a nurse employed by the City of Ottawa and her 2014 annual income was $79,087 and her 2015 income was $87,096.

[7] The father is a dentist operating a sole proprietorship and his 2014 annual income was $206,463 and his 2015 income was $322,294.

[8] Pursuant to the Divorce Order, the parties have agreed on the adjusted child support up to May 31, 2015.

[9] The parties have exchanged 2014 and 2015 tax returns but are unable to agree on the adjustments from June 1, 2015. The child support adjustment commencing on June 1, 2015 is based on the parties’ 2014 incomes, while child support commencing on June 1, 2016 is based on the parties’ 2015 incomes.

[10] The father is currently paying $211 per month as child support pursuant to the Divorce Order which is required if the parties cannot agree on the adjusted amount of child support payable.

Mother’s Position

[11] The mother is seeking the set-off amount based on the parties’ respective incomes. Commencing June 1, 2015, based on the parties’ respective incomes, the set-off amount payable by the father should have been $963 per month (the table amount of $1,681 per month the father would have paid if the child lived with the mother minus the table amount of $718 per month the mother would have paid had the child lived with the father) and the father would have been responsible for 72% of the s. 7 expenses.

[12] Commencing June 1, 2016, based on the parties’ respective incomes, the set-off amount payable by the father should have been $1,765 per month (the table amount of $2,543 per month the father would have paid if the mother had the child minus the table amount of $778 per month the mother would have paid had the father had the child) and the father would be responsible for 79% of the s. 7 expenses.

[13] The accumulated arrears from June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016 are $9,024 and the arrears from June 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 are $15,540 for a total amount of arrears of $24,564.

[14] She indicates that she is not obliged to prepare a child expense budget. She requires child support to meet Micah’s basic needs and for discretionary spending.

[15] The father’s lifestyle and spending is much higher than hers and she does not have an opportunity to offer Micah the same activities and items. He recently bought a car valued at over $100,000 and a boat valued at approximately $20,000.

[16] The mother is claiming that the father pay for his proportionate share of the following extraordinary expenses:

• soccer at $723.75; and
• medical and dental premiums in the amount of $192 per year from 2013 to 2016 in the amount of $768.

[17] The father should also continue to pay for his proportionate share of the RESP pursuant to the Divorce Order. The mother is also requesting an increase of the face amount of the life insurance policy.

[18] The father currently pays the daycare costs and the mother last paid her share in February 2015. She accepts that she is responsible for her proportionate share which will be determined once this Court has established the father’s income for the purposes of determining support.

Father’s Position

[19] The father submits that the Court should use the cap of $150,000 per year for his annual income in determining the child support payable by him because:

• the parents had a modest lifestyle when they were cohabiting;
• despite the father’s increase of income after separation, the child’s lifestyle and needs have not changed after separation;
• he does not want Micah to be spoiled with possessions;
• despite numerous requests, the mother has not produced a child budget with proposed expenses;
• the payment of the set-off amount based on his actual income would result in a wealth transfer to the mother; and
• the mother has not been successful in her previous actions as the Court ruled the continuation of joint custody and that the child continue attending École Ste-Trinité in Rockland. In those proceedings, she hired experienced family law lawyers and spent thousands of dollars without succeeding in obtaining a change. She cannot now say that she struggles to meet the child’s financial needs.

[20] The father disputes the mother’s allegation that he has a more extravagant lifestyle. He owns an electric-powered car along with a small fishing boat (valued at approximately $20,000 for activities with his son). His car will last up to 1.5 million kilometers and costs him 6.4% of his monthly revenue whereas the mother spends 12.2% of her monthly income on her car.

[21] He does not agree to contribute to the mother’s soccer expenses incurred in Orleans as he believes Micah’s activities should be half way between the parties’ residences: i.e. Clarence-Rockland.

[22] In addition to the contribution he makes to the RESP jointly owned by the parties, the father is contributing to a RESP in his own name. Micah has been enjoying private piano lessons since separation paid solely by the father without contribution from the mother.

[23] Regarding daycare expenses, since February 2015, the father has paid at $350 per month or $4,200 per year and the mother has not paid her share. He is prepared to pay his proportionate share of the medical and dental premiums attributable to the child.

The Law

[24] The Court is authorized to change the Divorce Order pursuant to the Divorce Act which reads as follows:

17 (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may make an order varying, rescinding or suspending, prospectively or retroactively,

(a) a support order or any provision thereof on application by either or both former spouses; or

(4) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a child support order, the court shall satisfy itself that a change of circumstances as provided for in the applicable guidelines has occurred since the making of the child support order or the last variation order made in respect of that order

(4.1) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a spousal support order, the court shall satisfy itself that a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse has occurred since the making of the spousal support order or the last variation order made in respect of that order, and, in making the variation order, the court shall take that change into consideration.

(6.1) A court making a variation order in respect of a child support order shall do so in accordance with the applicable guidelines.

[25] Section 26.1 (2) of the Divorce Act states:

The guidelines shall be based on the principle that spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain the children of the marriage in accordance with their relative abilities to contribute to the performance of that obligation.

[26] The Divorce Order provides, after an annual exchange of the parties’ tax documents, an adjustment of child support taking into account their respective incomes, the parenting schedule and the applicable sections of the Guidelines. By virtue of the terms of the parties’ Minutes of Settlement which were incorporated into the Divorce Order, the parties had agreed to adjust child support using the set-off amount rather than adjusting pursuant to s. 9 provisions of the Guidelines.

[27] Section 1 of the Guidelines sets out the objectives of fairness, predictability, objectivity, efficiency and consistency. The objectives of the Guidelines are as follows:

(a) to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation;

(b) to reduce conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of child support orders more objective;

(c) to improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the levels of child support orders and encouraging settlement; and

(d) to ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances.

[28] The Guidelines provide a presumption that child support will be payable in accordance with the tables. See below.

3. (1) Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, the amount of a child support order for children under the age of majority is

(a) the amount set out in the applicable table, according to the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates and the income of the spouse against whom the order is sought; and

[29] Section 4 of the Guidelines provides for an exception to this presumption:

Where the income of the spouse against whom a child support order is sought is over $150,000, the amount of a child support order is

(a) the amount determined under section 3; or

(b) if the court considers that amount to be inappropriate,

(i) in respect of the first $150,000 of the spouse’s income, the amount set out in the applicable table for the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates;

(ii) in respect of the balance of the spouse’s income, the amount that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children who are entitled to support and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the children; and

(iii) the amount, if any, determined under section 7.

[30] The father bears the onus of satisfying the Court that ordering the table amount based on his total income would be inappropriate.

[31] In Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 SCR 25, Mr. Baker earned $945,538 per year at the date of trial and his net worth was estimated at $78,000,000. According to the trial judge, the appellant “lives the lifestyle of the multi-millionaire….”

[32] The trial judge exercised her jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to award the Respondent the Table amount of child support applicable to the Applicant’s income, i.e. the amount of $10,034 per month for both children. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the payor’s appeals.

[33] The Supreme Court stated the following at para. 40:

A proper construction of s. 4 requires that the objectives of predictability, consistency and efficiency on the one hand, be balanced with those of fairness, flexibility and recognition of the actual “condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children” on the other. Furthermore, this balancing must take into account the ordinary meaning of the word “inappropriate”, as well as its use elsewhere in the statute. In my opinion, the plain language of s. 4 is consistent with such an interpretation. Accordingly, the word “inappropriate” in this section must be broadly defined to mean “unsuitable” rather than merely “inadequate”…

[34] Further, the Court stated that, in some circumstances, custodial parents may need to provide child expense budgets, although pursuant to s. 21(4), this is not mandatory. There is no expectation that judges are required to adjust child support orders in line with submitted budgets.

[35] In R. v. R., [2002] O.J. 24, Mr. R’s annual income was $4.1 million. In 1998, at the time of separation, his income was $2.3 million per annum.

[36] The parties had four children. The table amount was $65,000/month but the trial Judge ordered $16,000 per month relying on the family’s accustomed lifestyle and modest spending pattern. Mrs. R appealed arguing that the court focused on the pre-separation lifestyle and ignored the increase in R’s income. The wife had prepared budgets which included $6000 per month for vacation.

[37] The Ontario Court of Appeal found that it was an error of the trial judge to base his order only on the parties’ lifestyle and pattern of expenditure while they were living together. The trial Judge had failed to take into account the large increase in his income after separation. At para. 39, Justice Laskin stated:

Francis v. Baker established the following general principles:

• Trial judges have discretion either to increase or decrease the table amount if they consider that amount inappropriate and instead to order an amount that they consider appropriate.
• The table amount, however, is presumed to be the appropriate amount. A parent seeking an order different from the table amount bears the onus of rebutting the presumption in s. 3 of the Guidelines and must do so by "clear and compelling evidence". The sheer size of the table amount is not by itself an "articulable reason" for departing from it.
• Although the considerations relevant to an appropriate child support order will differ from case to case, the courts must at least have regard to the objectives of the Divorce Act and the Guidelines, and to the factors expressly listed in s. 4 (b)(ii) of the Guidelines. The legislative objectives are intended to ensure "that a divorce will affect the children as little as possible" and the factors in s. 4 (b)(ii) further that intent by emphasizing "the centrality of the actual situation of the children".
• Child support should meet a child's reasonable needs. For children of wealthy parents, reasonable needs include reasonable discretionary expenses. A paying parent who claims the table amount is inappropriate must, therefore, demonstrate that budgeted child expenses are so high that they "exceed the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible", in short that the budgeted expenses are unreasonable. Table amounts that so far exceed a child's reasonable needs that they become a transfer of wealth between the parents or spousal support under the guise of child support will be inappropriate.

[38] The Court found that the family’s lifestyle and pattern of expenditure were relevant but the court should also take into account the increase of the payor’s income and considered the recipient’s budget in light of that increase. The Court also remarked that to give effect to s. 1 (d) of the Guidelines, the Court must apply some common sense and permit reasonable, even generous discretionary expenses as income rises.

[39] The court found that a child support amount of $65,000 per month would support a lifestyle grossly in excess of the established lifestyle. However, the trial judge should have considered the father’s increase in income and the proposed discretionary expenses of the mother. The Court of Appeal agreed that the family lifestyle evidence constituted “clear and compelling evidence” of the inappropriateness of the table amount. Hence, the court found appropriate the amount of $20,000 per month in discretionary expenses plus $12,000 per month for basic needs for a total of $32,000 per month.

[40] In Simon v. Simon [1999] 119, at the time of the separation in 1994, Mr. Simon, a professional hockey player, was earning $180,000 US requiring a payment of $2,200 per month as child support. His income jumped to $1M per annum when he joined the National Hockey League.

[41] The trial Judge increased child support to $5,000 per month instead of applying the table amount of $9,215 per month. The trial Judge was critical of the mother not providing a reasonable and credible child support budget. He also singled out certain items and was critical of her proposals.

[42] The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred when imposing a heavy burden on Ms. Simon to justify her childcare budget as this was inconsistent with Francis v. Baker. A proper balance needed to be struck by requiring paying parents to demonstrate the budgeted child expenses are so high to exceed what is reasonable.

[43] The Court can require the custodial parent to produce a child expense budget and along with other factors, the budget can provide the financial reasonable needs of the child. The recipient need not prove every line item.

[44] The trial judge in Simon also failed to consider the factor set out in s. 4 (b) (ii) of the Guidelines namely “the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the child”. He was sidetracked into irrelevant factors such as the increase in Mr. Simon’s salary and the possible uncertainly of its continuation because of the precariousness of a professional hockey career.

[45] In Jung v. Johnson, [2015] ONSC 6734, Mr. Johnson’s income was $15,713,280 per year. On an interim motion, the mother was requesting child support of $50,000 per month for one child even though the guideline amount was $116,000 per month. The couple never lived together and therefore there was no pattern of spending during the relationship.

[46] The parties had different views as to the standard of living for their daughter. The issue of the savings component of the budget for the child was put over to trial. On an interim basis the court ordered $28,000 per month and the father would continue paying the child’s Montessori school fees.

[47] In Ewing v. Ewing, [2009] ABCA 227, the Alberta Court of Appeal followed Francis v. Baker and reiterated the principle in para. 46 that

Children can expect the Table amount on the first $150,000 and a fair additional amount for that portion that exceeds $150,000. The closer the amount is to $150,000, the more likely it is that the Table amount will be awarded. (para. 41 in Francis v. Baker).

[48] The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the chambers Judge failed to apply the test by obliging the father to present “clear and compelling evidence that the Table amount was “inappropriate” and then went on to describe this onus as “formidable” which the Court found to be too high an evidentiary bar. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Francis that while the evidence must be clear and compelling, the entirety of the evidence need only be sufficient to “raise a concern” about whether the applicable Table amount is “inappropriate”. It referred to Tauber v. Tauber (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 577, 187 D.L.R. (4th) 1, where there the Court stated that a prima facie case may be sufficient to rebut the presumption. Once this threshold is met, the payee’s failure to adduce evidence on the subject might well result in an unfavorable finding.

[49] In addition, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge failed to examine the actual means, needs and circumstances of the children. There is no assumption that children are automatically entitled to share in the entirety of the payor parent’s wealth. In addition, the Chambers Judge, in determining whether the support claimed would amount to a wealth transfer, considered irrelevant factors such as the support payment would not place an unreasonable burden on him and would not prejudice his ability to make ongoing support payments as they become due.

[50] In Watson v. Watson, 2017 ONCJ 24, [2017] O.J. No. 686, Justice Sherr found that the father had not met his onus to show that the amount of support determined under section 3 of the Guidelines was inappropriate. He found that the father enjoyed a much better lifestyle than the mother and awarded the table amount to provide the children with a more comparable standard of living with the children when with the mother.

[51] In Mayer v. Mayer, [2013] ONSC 7099, the Court found that the table amount for the payer of income of $201,537 was not inappropriate and did not represent a transfer of wealth to the mother recipient. The Court found that it is only in those cases where the table amount would be so in excess of the children’s needs that the table amount could be seen as a transfer of wealth.

Decision

General Findings

[52] The court finds that the father has not met the onus of proving that the table amounts based on his total 2014 and 2015 incomes are inappropriate.

[53] In D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231, at para. 46, Bastarache J. reiterated the position he set out in Francis:

As I wrote in Francis, presumptively applicable Table amounts listed for payor parents earning over $150,000 may be altered when they “are so in excess of the children’s reasonable needs so as no longer to qualify as child support”.

[54] The Court finds that the set off amounts claimed by the mother are not excessive. Child support is designed to meet a child’s reasonable needs. For children of wealthy parents, reasonable needs include discretionary expenses.

[55] The Court finds that the table amounts will not exceed the child’s reasonable needs and hence will not that become a transfer of wealth between the parties under the guise of child support.

[56] Budgets are not required according to Francis v. Baker but judges must decide on a case by case basis whether budgets are required. Custodial parents need not justify each and every budgeted expense. The mother did not prepare a budget, nor was she required to do so. She did indicate that she was struggling financially to make ends meet and proposed certain discretionary items for Micah including activities and items.

[57] In addition, in a shared parenting arrangement, Micah’s lifestyle should not be remarkably different in each household.

[58] The Court finds that:

• the father has the ability to pay as his financial statement shows a monthly surplus;
• the family’s accustomed lifestyle during cohabitation was modest and not extravagant but that there has been a substantial increase in the father’ since separation;
• the father has continued to pay for the child’s private piano lessons since the date of separation;
• the father has permitted Micah to enjoy other activities since separation including horseback riding, boating, and private ski lessons;
• the mother’s expenses have been provided in her financial statement but she has not provided a detailed child care budget;
• the reasonable amount of discretionary expenses from the mother should include activities, camps and ability to purchase items for the child similar to what is in the father’s home; and
• the mother spends 34.3% of her monthly income on her house in Orleans and he spends 10.6% on his home.

[59] The mother has expressed her desire to register the child in hockey and camps and is not able to do so. The mother wishes to incur discretionary expenses similar to the father who has provided the child with private horseback riding lessons and ski lessons. In accordance with R. v. R., it is reasonable for the mother to consider other discretionary expenses in light of the increase of the father’s income.

[60] A review of the parties’ financial statements will shed light on the factors set out in s. 4 (b)(ii) of the Guidelines. The court will need to consider the appropriate amount for the balance of the spouse’s income above the cap of $150,000 “having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children who are entitled to support and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the children.”

[61] A review of her financial statement shows that the mother runs a monthly deficit in meeting ongoing living expenses and has limited means for discretionary items.

[62] She shares the carrying costs with her partner and shows modest expenses for gifts and entertainment.

[63] The mother has high transportation costs as she had to lease a SUV to transport Micah and another child from her current relationship. She was not in a position to buy a vehicle and hence she leased her vehicle.

[64] Her schedule setting out her s. 7 expenses include very modest annual costs of $180 for soccer and $200 for swimming.

[65] In addition, the mother has a $25,000 debt to her boyfriend’s father for previous legal fees. The previous court decision imposed costs of $10,500 against her but did not find that she was motivated by bad faith when bringing a challenge to Micah’s school and asking for a change. The Court found that the mother was motivated by the child’s best interests when she contested the child’s school and was concerned regarding the support resources for Micah, who has special needs. Both parties had legal expenses relating to the previous legal proceedings and those costs have been already dealt with in the court decisions.

[66] She has a net worth of $12,250.

[67] On the other hand, the father has a monthly surplus of $5,000 per month and contributes $3,000 per month towards RRSP (whereas the mother’s pension deduction from source is $800 per month).

[68] Clearly the father is in a better financial position to buy big-ticket items and provide the child with some extra perks as he sees fit. Even though he does not want the child to become materialistic and live an extravagant lifestyle, he has been able to maintain a waterfront property (the previous matrimonial home), drive an expensive vehicle, use a boat for leisure, continue with private piano lessons and expose Micah to private skiing lessons and horseback riding lessons. These are not the activities of a family with modest means.

[69] His s. 7 expenses are as follows:

• piano $600 per year;
• ski $200 per year;
• $475 horse backing per year;
• RESP $1,860 per year (sole owner)
• $3,900 for daycare for year (mother pays her proportionate share).

[70] His assets/debts include:

• house $525,000 with mortgage of $223,000;
• car $110,000 value with loan of $110,000;
• boat of $20,000;
• RRSP $94,000;
• $43,000 in bank account;
• dental practice valued at $1,282,000
• credit card debts of $14,000.

His net worth is $1.7M.

Child Support for the period from June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016

[71] The objectives of the Guidelines and the Divorce Act mandate establishing a fair standard of support for Micah that ensures that he continues to benefit from the financial means of both parents after separation.

[72] The Court finds that it is reasonable for the mother to be able to spend funds on discretionary items given the increase of the father’s income and his ability to do so himself. In addition, her financial statement depicts a more strained budget given the difference in incomes and her housing costs in the city.

[73] The set-off amount for 2015 would have been $963 per month based on the mother’s 2014 income of $79,087 and the father’s 2014 income of $206,463.

[74] If the father’s income were capped at $150,000 per year, then he would have to pay $545 per month.

[75] By using his actual income, the amount is increased by $418 per month.

[76] The Court finds that ordering the table amount of $963 per month will allow the mother to meet the basic needs of the child while allowing her to register him in activities and purchase the equipment and accessories needed for Micah to participate.

[77] The court notes that Justice Bastarache stated in Francis that courts should not be too quick to find that Guidelines Table amounts enter the realm of wealth transfer or spousal support. He stated that the closer the paying parent’s income is to the $150,000 threshold, the more likely it is that the table amount will be awarded.

[78] Based on the above findings, the Court finds that the father has not rebutted the onus to show that this amount of $963 per month is inappropriate.

Child Support for June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017

[79] In 2015, the father’s income increased to $322,924 which would bring his child support payment to $1,765 per month. The mother has had a marginal increase in salary.

[80] Based on the evidence before this Court regarding Micah’s financial needs and discretionary needs, the father has not discharged the onus of showing that the amount of $1,765 per month as child support would be inappropriate.

[81] For the reasons set out above, the court finds that this table amount is not inappropriate as child support. In summary, the Court finds:

• the mother has a more strained budget;
• the father’s lifestyle is higher than the mother’s;
• in a shared parenting arrangement, there should not be a stark contrast between the two households;
• the mother is running a monthly deficit and is finding it challenging to meet ongoing expenses whereas the father has a monthly surplus; and
• the mother has no resources for discretionary spending.

[82] The Court finds that this amount of child support would not amount to a wealth transfer. Child support is for the benefit of the child and the amount of $1,765 per month payable on an income of $322,000 is not inappropriate. The child should benefit from the increase of his father’s income and both households should benefit for the sake of the child to ensure his needs are met and that discretionary items can be purchased.

Section 7 expenses

[83] The parties will share the proportionate share of the net daycare costs for 2015 and 2016.

[84] The parties have joint custody and should agree on issues including activities. Therefore the father is not responsible for his share of Micah’s soccer taking place in Orleans which is not in his jurisdiction nor a half-way point between the parties’ residences.

[85] The parties will share in proportion to their respective incomes the portion of the medical and dental premiums attributable to the child.

[86] The mother will pay her proportionate share of daycare expenses which have been incurred since February 2015.

[87] The parties will continue to contribute to the child’s jointly held RESP jointly in proportion to their respective income in accordance with the Divorce Order.

Life Insurance

[88] Regarding the request to change the face amount of life insurance, the Court finds that there has been a change in circumstances since the Divorce Order as the amount of child support payable has increased and the child’s aging can impact the amount of security necessary for child support.

[89] However, the Court declines to change the face amount for the following reasons:

• there is no evidence led for the basis of the increase of the face amount; and
• the Divorce Order provides for a decrease not an increase of the face amount.

[90] Therefore, this request is dismissed.

Summary

[91] The Divorce Order is varied as follows:

• commencing June 1, 2015, the father will pay child support in the amount of $963 per month;
• commencing June 1, 2016, the father will pay child support in the amount of $1,765 per month; and
• the parties will share s. 7 expenses in proportion to their respective incomes for the following: daycare expenses and health/dental premiums and RESP.

[92] All the other terms of the Divorce Order remain in full force and effect.

[93] If the parties cannot agree on costs, the mother may provide her two-page written submissions, offers to settle and bill of costs by June 23, 2017 and the father may provide his two-page written submissions, offers to settle and bill of costs by June 30, 2017.

Madam Justice A. Doyle Date: 2017/06/07