Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FC-08-980-2 DATE: 2017/05/30 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Thomas Hicks Applicant – and – Suzy Sbardella Respondent
Counsel: Self-represented (for the Applicant) Audra Bennett, for the Respondent
HEARD: March 16, 2017
Endorsement
Overview
[1] The Applicant (“father”) and the Respondent (“mother”) are the parents of one child, Marina Sbardella-Hicks born May 26, 2002. The parties separated on March 16, 2008.
[2] The child’s residential arrangements have changed since the separation. This matter has been a high conflict matter with numerous temporary orders commencing on May 12, 2008 culminating in the final decision of Justice McLean on May 23, 2014.
[3] Pursuant to that order, the father was granted custody of the child and the mother was granted access on alternating Thursday overnights from school\daycare to Friday mornings and commencing June 6, 2014 alternating weeks from Thursday after school\daycare\camp until Monday morning. The order set out specific times for the sharing of the child on March break, Christmas break, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, Easter and Thanksgiving weekend, the child’s birthdays, holiday and PD days, and summer holidays. Further, the court ordered the mother to pay retroactive and ongoing child support for both cable and section 7 expenses. Commencing December 1, 2014 the court ordered the mother to pay to the father table child support of $559 per month in accordance with her income of $61,452 and additional $46 per month representing her proportional share of the net daycare expenses. In addition, the court order dealt with communication, Marina’s documentation, travel and ancillary orders.
[4] Since July 2015, Marina has resided with her mother. This motion dealt with the financial and custodial repercussions of that change.
Current Legal proceedings
[5] On November 18, 2015, the mother commenced a Motion to Change the Final Order of Justice McLean dated May 23, 2014. On March 21, 2016, the mother amended her Motion to Change seeking sole custody of the child, the return of all support paid by the mother to the father from July 2015 and payment of child support by the father commencing July 2015.
[6] The mother seeks to change legal custody of the child, vary the residential arrangements and holidays, an order there is no spousal support paid by the parents, child support including section 7 expenses, delineate the communication between the parties, determine which parent will be responsible for the child’s legal documentation, determine travel for the child and ancillary orders.
[7] On May 4, 2016, the father filed a Response to Motion to Change where he set out various claims for relief including sole custody of the child or in the alternative joint custody, proposed a method of communication between the parties, an order that the summer holidays would be shared equally, child support based on shared parenting and the set off calculation pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Child support guidelines, an order that the sum of $4840 paid by the mother to the father for child support from August 2015 to March 2016 be held in trust be put towards the child’s postsecondary educational expenses, a retroactive adjustment of section 7 expenses effective May 23, 2014, an order that the mother pay the father’s costs of $4000 pertaining to a motion heard before Justice Doyle on August 13, 2015 and costs.
[8] On March 16, 2017, the parties appeared before me and filed a Partial Consent to certain issues set out as follows:
(a) this order subsumes the orders of Master Beaudoin (as he then was) dated July 20, 2009, Justice McMunagle, dated March 5, 2012, Justice Aitken, dated December 13, 2012 and Justice MacKinnon dated September 4, 2013; (b) the parents shall not suggest alternative activities to Marina on the days and Marina is supposed to be spending time with the other parent; (c) if Marina makes a request to one parent to do activities on the other parent’s time, that parent shall first communicate the request to the other parent and that parent who Marina will be with shall respond directly to Marina; (d) neither parent shall schedule any extracurricular activities during the other parent schedule parenting time without the written consent of the other parent; (e) there shall be no spousal support payable by either parent to the other now or ever; (f) commencing April 1, 2017, the father will pay to the mother the sum of $674 per month payable and on the first and 15 th in the amount of $337 per month based on an annual income of $74,112; (g) commencing April 1, 2017, the parties shall share in Marina’s section 7 expenses and extraordinary expenses with the father share being 53% and the mother’s share being 47%; (h) both parties shall provide reasonable evidence, including but not limited to receipts, amounts of insurance coverage, and other evidence in writing, of the amounts the incurred for Marina’s section 7 or extraordinary expenses. A party who has not contributed his or her share of the section 7 or extraordinary expenses shall fully reimburse the other within 15 days of obtaining the evidence of expenses incurred with the expense confirmed as paid on the receipt; (i) the mother shall provide to the father the name of Marina’s doctors; (j) the parents shall communicate about Marina only by email. The parent shall not use their email addresses that are associated with their place of employment; (k) neither parent shall provide the emails to Marina; (l) the parents shall exchange information regarding Marina’s care, schedule activities and appointments, medical or otherwise and any request for changes in the parenting schedule; (m) all email shall be brief, factual, respectful and related solely to Marina with no reference to either of the parents or their activities or other editorial comments; (n) if one parent requests information or a temporary change by email, the other parent shall respond within 48 hours. Requests made giving less than 48 hour notice shall be responded to as soon as possible. In the event of an emergency or truly time sensitive matter, the parents shall call each other; (o) the parents shall generally limit the number of emails sent to each other to one email a week outlining the questions and issues that need to be addressed by remaining child focus and using the template provided to the parents in keeping all personal comments out of the text; (p) commencing May 29, 2014, Marina shall carry her health card with her; (q) the mother shall be permitted to change the child’s name from “Hicks” to “Sbardella-Hicks”. However, there shall be no further changes to the child’s name by either parent thereafter; (r) if either parent plans a vacation without Marina, that parent will give the other a telephone number where he or she can be reached in case of emergency or if Marina wishes to contact that parent; and, (s) neither parent shall in the future contract debt in the name of the other.
FACTS
[9] The parties began cohabitating in May 2001. They separated on March 16, 2008 as a result of domestic violence occurring in the relationship. The father pled guilty to assault, uttering death threats and criminal harassment.
[10] The father is employed with the Federal Government. The mother is employed with the City of Ottawa.
[11] The child remained in the care of the father until July 2015. On July 2, 2015, the child while on vacation with the mother, had an incident that required her to be taken to the hospital. While at the hospital, she made a disclosure to a nurse that required the involvement of the Children’s Aid Society. The child refused to return to the father’s care. The mother retained the child beyond her vacation and the father brought an urgent motion on August 6, 2015, seeking the immediate return of the child.
[12] On August 6, 2015, Justice James ordered the child return to the father’s care. The child refused to return to the father’s care but the mother complied with the order. After being dropped off, the child left the father’s home and went to a friend’s home after a verbal argument with her father. The child stayed at the home of her friend and returned to the mother’s home on August 7, 2015.
[13] On August 13, 2015, the father brought a motion before the Justice Doyle who, on August 18, 2015, ordered the child returned, ordered the child to commence counselling as soon as possible, granted the mother access, reappointed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and ordered the release of the records regarding the family by the Children’s Aid Society and any police reports from the Ottawa Police Services.
[14] The child still did not wish to return to with the father and wanted to meet with him publicly to discuss her wishes and concerns. With the assistance of the Children’s Aid Society, the child agreed to meet with the father with a child protection worker present. After the meeting, the child called the mother asking her to be picked up and wanted to come home. The mother attended and retrieved the child.
[15] On September 2, 2015, the father attended the mother’s home to force the child to return home. The child was present and refused to return home. The Ottawa Police Services attended at the home, spoke to the child and she refused to return to the father. At this point the father left the home. The child remains in the care of the mother.
[16] The mother commenced her proceedings on November 19, 2015. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer appointed a lawyer and a social worker to assist the child. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer recommendation was that the child remains with the mother and consequently she amended her pleading on March 21, 2016 to seek sole custody of the child.
ISSUES
[17] This litigation raises the following issues to be adjudicated:
(a) which parent should have legal custody? (b) what residential arrangements are in the best interests of the child; (c) what orders are necessary to delineate each parent’s responsibility, obligation and rights including but not limited to communication, the child’s documentation, travel, with respect to this child? (d) should the table child support be varied as of July 2015? (e) should the sharing of the section 7 expenses be varied as of July 2015 and in what amount? (f) should the mother reimburse the father $4,487.96 related to the legal fees incurred for the urgent motion before justice Doyle on August 13, 2015; (g) should the father be permitted to keep $900 saved by the child from her paper route, birthday money that he is placed into a current interest-bearing term deposit that he wishes to retain for her until she turns 18 years of age? (h) should the father be permitted to retain the sum of $5445 representing child support paid by the mother to the father from July 2015 to March 2016 that he is placed into an RESP for the child? (i) should the father be permitted to retain the sum of $7414 that he is put into an RESP for Marina representing child support claim by the mother from the father for the period of July 2015 to May 2016? (j) Costs.
CUSTODIAL ISSUES
Father’s position
[18] The father’s position is that the mother has embarked upon a course of conduct to alienate the father from the child’s life. The father’s affidavit material indicates that the mother has not been supportive of the child’s relationship with the father, that she has made false allegations to the police and the Children’s Aid Society about the father and that the parties have had to go to court on multiple occasions to establish a parenting regime. The father relies on a report of Dr. David McLean, dated June 2011, which recommended supervised and semi-supervised access to the mother until such time as she can show she would not undermine the child’s placement with her father.
[19] By final order dated December 13, 2012, Justice Aitken granted the father legal custody and provided the mother with access and ordered the mother to pay child support. In November 2013, the mother issued a Motion to Change seeking to vary the custody and access and child support. The matter was settled with a variation of the access to include all the Thursday nights which resulted in the final order of Justice McLean.
[20] The child was in the father’s care from December 2010 until July 2015. The father’s evidence is that the child and the father had a very positive relationship and that she thrived in his care.
[21] The father states that he wishes to maintain a strong a defined presence in the child’s life and that it is inappropriate for a 13 year old to have the authority to determine her own living arrangements particularly when the father states the mother is a negative influence on the child.
[22] The father seeks an order for shared parenting of the child but that he maintain sole custody for decision-making and in the alternative that there be a joint custody arrangement with strict parameters regarding the party’s communication.
[23] The father acknowledges that if the child wishes to spend more time with her mother as she enters her teen years, he is prepared to facilitate this change but would prefer if the child remained in his care to avoid the mother’s influence and alienation tactics. He indicates he is prepared to work with his daughter to facilitate the transition to a gradual increase of parenting time leading to shared custody.
[24] The father does not agree that the mother have sole custody based on his fear that she will malign his status as a parent. He is prepared to communicate with the mother by the computer program named “My2Houses”.
[25] The father admitted that the parties have no ability to communicate and that they have a toxic relationship and that he was frustrated when he attended at the home on September 2015 to pick the child up. He indicates that the child is welcome to come home to talk to him or pick up her belongings at any time.
Mother’s position
[26] The mother’s position is that the child’s wishes should be respected, that the child should remain with the mother, and that the mother should have sole decision-making power regarding the child.
[27] The mother indicates that it was her intention to vacation with the child in July 2015 but as a result of the disclosures made by the child and the child’s desire not to return to live with her father, she felt compelled to keep the child. When Justice James and Justice Doyle ordered the child return to the mother’s care, the mother complied with the order but the child returned to the mother’s home and refused to live with the father.
[28] The mother sought the assistance of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to verify the child’s wishes and to advocate as to her best interests. The mother denies that she has embarked upon a course of conduct to alienate the father but as a result of the circumstances in July 2015 and more importantly what is happen since, it is not the child’s best interest to be compelled to return to live with the father.
[29] Further because of the high conflict in this matter, it is impossible for the parties to have a joint decision-making arrangement or even a parallel parenting arrangement. Since September 2015 when the father attended at the mother’s home, he has seen the child one time in June 2016.
[30] The mother’s affidavit sets out the efforts she has made to have the child reach out to speak to her father. She indicated that the child tried to see her father on her birthday and on the father’s birthday but in both occasions he indicated that he was not available.
[31] The mother recounts efforts made by the child to speak to her father who has responded that the child must attend the residence and clean up her room in the basement of the house. The father refused to return the child’s personal items as well as $900 saved by the child through her own personal efforts related to her paper route. The father continues to say that the child must become responsible for her noncompliance with a court order.
[32] The mother also indicates that counselling was an integral to manage parental conflict but while in the father’s care the counselling was sporadic and inconsistent. When the child returned to school in September 2015, while in the mother’s care, the child met with the social worker weekly and since June 2016 began counselling with a psychologist in the hopes of managing her relationships and stressors.
[33] The mother denies that she wilfully breached any court orders and that she did whatever she could to comply.
[34] The mother provides evidence that the child’s grades have remained consistent since moving to her home and that her attendance has improved at school.
[35] The mother requests sole custody as being the only reasonable option moving forward because her relationship with her father has deteriorated, her father has demonstrated a lack of respect for the child and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer has confirmed the child wishes to remain in her care and that the parental conflict is a significant factor.
[36] The mother submits the joint custody is not possible and that placing the child in her care to ensure she receives proper services, provider would stability and allow her to attend her events as a teenager is in the best interests of her child.
[37] With respect to access, the mother believes the father and the child should have access. The child psychologist, Dr. Smyth, should provide a recommendation to allow the reintegration of the access between the father and the child taking into consideration the child’s mental health and her best interest.
[38] Further, the father has refused to consent for the child to travel for skiing or birthday shopping holiday days the United States. In these circumstances, the mother should have the right to travel without the father’s consent which he has unilaterally refused to provide contrary to the child’s best interest.
Position of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
[39] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer supports the position that the child shall remain in the care of the mother. A clinical investigator, Ms. Susan Woollam prepared an affidavit dated March 10, 2017 outlining her involvement where she conducted a number of joint interviews with the father, the mother, the child’s school principal and met with the child seven times between December 12, 2015 and March 3, 2070.
[40] Ms. Woollam report provides the following information:
(a) she met with the father on November 2, 2015. The father refused to agree to weekend visits with his daughter and stated “I am not a weekend warrior” and that Marina has to be held accountable for her actions. Further, he stated that Marina belongs to him and that she should not be with her mother. He indicated it may be time to move on it if the child was not moving back, he mentioned selling his house and going to Mexico and Florida with the view of finding a wife. (b) she met with the mother on November 13, 2015 who described the previous legal proceedings, the requirement to obtain a court order to allow Marina to travel to a wedding in Italy because the father refused and described conversations she had with her daughter. (c) she met with the school principal on five occasions and indicated that in December 2015 the child wanted to join this ski club. The mother consented and the father refused but since the father still had custody of the child his consent was required. The father never consented. The principal went on to indicate she is making satisfactory progress in school. By March 2016, he indicated she was doing well in school. (d) the worker met the child on seven occasions starting in December 2015 and ending on March 3 2017. Over the course of these meetings, the child was able to indicate her degree of conflict with the father, that her father kept her personal property in approximately $900 in her bank account and that she wanted to participate in the ski club as she had done in the previous year. She also wanted to go on a ski vacation with her mother to Malone New York during the Christmas break. The child was not able to go on the break because the father did not provide his consent and that he refused to provide her winter boots and jacket unless she returned to clean up her room in the basement. Further throughout the course of the interviews, the child indicated she was happy at her mother’s home but that she wanted to see her father. She was prepared to go for a breakfast or lunch brunch but her father had not contacted her. In June 2016, the child and her father had dinner at a local restaurant accompanied by one of her cousins. The child indicated the dinner did not go well because the father made comments to her about “what you did” and criticized her mother. In the final meeting on March 3, 2017, the child indicated that she has had no contact with her father since Christmas.
[41] Ms. Woollam concludes that over the seven interviews with the child, she has been consistent. She wishes to remain her mother’s care and any contact with her father and his side of the family would have to be in accordance with her own wishes. Since she moved to her mother’s home, she only had one visit with her father in June 2016 and that visit did not go well.
Analysis
[42] I find that it is in the child’s best interest that custody of the child should be granted to the mother and that access to the child should be with the consent of the child.
[43] I have considered the evidence of the parties, the evidence from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and the jurisprudence on the issue of custody. In determining the best interests of the child, I have considered the fact that the child was in the father’s care for five years but that in July 2015, circumstances changed. I also find that the mother complied with the order of Justice James and Justice Doyle but that the child decided not to comply with the court order.
[44] The father believes that the mother intentionally orchestrated the events of July 2015 to change the custody of the child and reverse the obligation to pay table child support. I reject that submission based on my review of what transpired in July 2015 and the events subsequent to that date which corroborate the child’s independent views that she no longer wanted to live with her father.
[45] While I agree with the father that a 13-year-old child should not be granted the right to unilaterally decide where she lives, I am also cognizant of the fact that the child’s views and preferences are to be taken into consideration based on her age and level of maturity. Upon a review of the report of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the evidence is that the child is mature and has been consistent in her views that she not live with her father.
[46] I find it regrettable that the father has acted imprudently by such acts as retaining her personal belongings, refusing to provide her with her paper route money, insisting that she return home to clean up her bedroom and basement, indicating that she must be held accountable for her actions and rebuffing her requests to meet such as in April 2016 for both his and her birthday. I find that none of these acts or inaction by the father contributed to a reconciliation with his child.
[47] While I can understand the degree of frustration experienced by the father in the circumstances especially after having the child in his care for almost 5 years, I find he has failed to recognize that things have changed and that he must meet his daughter on her terms if there is to be a reconnection of his relationship with her.
[48] In the circumstances, I conclude that it is in the child’s best interests that sole custody be granted to the mother and that access to the father be at the child’s wishes. I also make the following ancillary orders which I believe are necessary in the facts of this case:
(a) the child shall continue counselling sessions with Dr. Smyth or another counsellor agreed to by Dr. Smyth and the child. The parents are free to contact Dr. Smyth or the counsellor to obtain further information about the type of counselling, the frequency and to provide some background information about the child. There shall be no ability of the parents to obtain information related directly to discussions between the child and the psychologist or the counsellor; (b) if a parent has to take the child to the hospital, that parent will contact the other as soon as reasonably possible to enable the other parent to join the child at the hospital. While at the hospital, the parents shall remain civil in the presence of the child; (c) when the child’s legal documentation expires and needs to be renewed, it shall be renewed in the surname of “Sbardella-Hicks” and the cost shall be shared equally. The mother will have the ability to unilaterally apply for and receive the documents without the consent of the father but on notice to him by email; (d) the mother may travel with the child outside of Canada on notice to the father, but without the need for a signed travel consent. (e) if either parent plans a vacation with the child, that parent will give the other a detailed itinerary at least 30 days before it begins, including the names of any flight carrier and flight times, accommodations, including address and telephone numbers, and details as how to contact the child during the trip. The necessary travel consent letter will be provided at least 14 days before the departure date; (f) with the exception of subparagraph D herein, if either parent plans a vacation outside of Canada with the child, a travelling parent will provide to the other parent a consent letter for children travelling abroad, available electronically of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, for the other parent to execute. This document shall be provided to the non-travelling parent no less than 28 days prior to travel and return to the travelling parent no later than 14 days prior to travel. Consent for travel will not be unreasonably withheld. The said former letter is to be attached to a copy of the order as such and to be completed by the non-travelling parent in accordance with its requirements; (g) should the father not comply with subparagraph F herein, the mother shall be permitted to travel with the child without the completed Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade document so long as she is complied with paragraph F herein; (h) the mother shall keep the child’s passport and shall provide it to the father no later than 10 a.m. five business days prior to any trip commencing provided the father’s complied with paragraph E herein; and, (i) the travelling parent shall ensure that the child has access to a telephone and has open access to contact the other parent as she wishes. Each parent shall ensure operating telephone numbers are known to the other parent at all times.
CHILD SUPPORT ISSUES
Table Child Support
[49] By final order dated May 23, 2014, Justice Maclean ordered that commencing December 1, 2014 the court ordered the mother to pay to the father table child support of $559 per month in accordance with her income of $61,452 an additional $46 per month representing her proportional share of the net daycare expenses.
[50] The father’s evidence is that he placed the child support paid by the mother into a Registered Educational Education Plan (“RESP”) for the child.
[51] On consent, on May 30 th , 2016, Master Champagne ordered that the father pay to the mother table child support of $674 per month for one child based on an annual income of $74,112.
[52] On consent, commencing April 1, 2017, the parties agreed that the father will pay to the mother the sum of $674 per month payable and on the first and 15 th in the amount of $337 per month based on an annual income of $74,112.
[53] The mother seeks the reimbursement of the table child support she paid from July 2015 to March 2016 in the amount of $5,445. The father placed those sums in a Registered Educational Education Plan (“RESP”) for the child and he refuses to repay the mother and proposes that the funds remain in the RESP because the mother was in breach of a series of court orders to return the child.
[54] The mother seeks table child support of $7,414 being $674 per month for 11 months when the child changed residences. The father has placed these sums in an RESP for the child and refuses to pay the support and also proposes that the funds remain in an RESP.
[55] The father seeks an order that the two sums being $5,445 and $7,414 should remain in the RESP for three reasons. Firstly, there are income tax considerations that would apply if the RESP was collapsed. Secondly, the funds are to benefit the child’s education. Thirdly, the payment to the mother would be a windfall based on her blameworthy conduct for breaching court orders and failing to support the father’s relationship with the child.
Analysis
[56] I make the following findings of fact:
(a) In July 2015, the child changed residences; (b) On two occasions, the child was ordered to return to the father; (c) On both occasions, the child was returned but immediately left and returned to the mother; (d) In September 2015, the mother gave notice that the support obligations had to change based on the child’s residence. The father refused arguing that the mother and the child must be accountable for their actions; (e) On November 12, 2015, the mother commenced her Motion to Change which included a variation of retroactive to July 2015 and ongoing child support; (f) The father did not pay any child support to the mother from July 2015 to May, 2016; and, (g) The mother paid the father child support from July 2015 to March 2016;
[57] Child support is payable based on a parent’s income to provide for the child’s day to day care. In this case until September 2015, the child’s residence was in a state of flux. The mother did not seek a variation of the support until she notified the father in September 2015.
[58] I find that the father should have paid child support as of September 2015 when he was advised that the mother sought to vary the support which was confirmed by the pleadings issued in November 2015 and the child did not want to live with the father. The father’s decision to place the support that he received into an RESP was his decision alone. The mother was unaware and did not consent. The father’s reasons do not justify his actions. While it was his right to place the table support paid by the mother up to August 2015 in any vehicle he wished be it his savings or chequing account or an RESP, he had an obligation to pay table support and return the table support paid by the mother by September 2015.
[59] While there were two orders compelling the child to return, the child refused. Irrespective of how and why the child refused, the fact is that she resided with the mother who provided her day to day care. I find that the father should have paid $674 per month from September 2015 to May 2016 totalling $6,600.
[60] I also find that the father should have agreed to suspend the mother’s obligation to pay support as of September 2015 to March 2016 in the amount of $559 per month totalling $3,913.
[61] While there will be income tax considerations if the father cashes out the RESP to pay this amount, there is no requirement for the father to use these funds to make the repayment. In addition, he created these potential tax problems by placing the money in an RESP.
[62] I order the father to pay to the mother, the sum of $10,513 by June 30, 2017.
Section 7 expenses
[63] On consent, commencing April 1, 2017 the parties shall share in Marina section 7 expenses and extraordinary expenses with the father share being 53% in the mother’s share being 47%.
[64] On consent, both parties shall provide reasonable evidence, including but not limited to receipts, amounts of insurance coverage, and other evidence in writing, of the amounts the incurred for Marina’s Section 7 or extraordinary expenses. A party who has not contributed his or her share of the Section 7 or extraordinary expenses shall fully reimburse the other within 15 days of obtaining the evidence of expenses incurred with the expense confirmed as paid on the receipt.
[65] The final order of Justice Maclean sets out a procedure to be followed on the issue of Section 7 expenses including a requirement that the father seek the mother’s written consent to contribute to a new expense. The provision of Section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines requires that for an expense to qualify, the expense must be necessary, reasonable and affordable.
[66] The mother has provided a chart of expenses starting July 10, 2015 to February 23, 2017 which includes items that are clearly not Section 7 expenses such as dietician, Manotick Mass, parking, CHEO, a volleyball team expenses, OC transpo bus pass and a ski club to name a few. The value of the expenses vary from $3.25 to $405. The parties have sought reimbursement for many other expenses including the cost of police reports, the cost of a child’s ski pass for the 2015/2016; Calypsos Water park admission, a summer cottage rental and Bluesfest tickets. I do not find that these expenses qualify as Section 7 expenses.
[67] There is no evidence of consent being requested from the father. There is little if any communication between these parties. I find that the father would receive the reimbursement of an insured expense incurred by the mother and that he did not reimburse the mother.
[68] The mother incurred a total of $8,369.22 of which the father has paid $1,463.26. Taking into consideration a claw back of $1590 from the Family Responsibility Office, the mother seeks $5,273.97 from the father as his share. I find the following expenses qualify as section 7 expenses being:
(a) dental expenses $294; (b) September 28, 2015, eyeglasses $119; (c) Physiotherapy from February 1, 2016 to May 31,2016 in the amount of $348; (d) April 18, May 9 and June 6, 2016, Manotick Massage 4,228.30; (e) Dentist $604.17; and, (f) May 16, 2016 to February 7, 2017, counselling with Dr. Symth in the amount of $1,845 for 9 appointments.
[69] However, I find that competitive Volleyball team fees in the amount of $1,032 from October 12, 2016 to February 10, 2017 to be a valid Section 7 expense.
[70] The father owes the mother $4,470.47 less the sum of $1,205.98 paid by the father on March 14, 2017 towards Section 7 expenses. The balance owing by the father is $3,264.49 which is to be paid by June 30, 2017.
Life Insurance
[71] The mother seeks an order that the father maintain $100,000 of life insurance as security for support. There is no evidence that the father has life insurance. This issue was not addressed in the affidavit material, in the facta or during oral argument. In the circumstances, I will not consider such relief.
Return of the child’s funds, clothing and personal belongings
[72] The father has retained the child’s employment money and birthday gifts in the amount of $900 which he has placed into an RESP for her education. The mother has asked for the return of said funds. So as the child. I order the father to pay to the child the sum of $900 by June 30, 2017.
[73] The father has also retained the child’s personal clothing and belonging. I order the father to return those items to the child by June 30, 2017.
Costs before Justice Doyle and Master Champagne
[74] Both Justice Doyle and Master Champagne reserved the costs of their involvement to the final hearing. I have received the parties’ positions on the costs before Justice Doyle but not before Master Champagne. In the parties costs submissions set out below, the parties shall also address liability for costs and quantum of costs before Master Champagne. My cost decision will address the costs before Justice Doyle and Master Champagne.
Costs
[75] If the parties are not able to resolve the issue of costs by June 2, 2017, the mother shall provide her Costs Submissions not to exceed two pages plus Bill of Costs and any Offers to Settle by June 9, 2017 and the Respondent father shall provide his Cost Submissions, not to exceed two pages plus a Bill of Costs and any Offers to Settle by June 16, 2017.