Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 16-380 DATE: 20171212 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Darlene T. D’Silva Applicant – and – James King Respondent

Counsel: Self-Represented (for the Applicant) S. Farag, Duty Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: February 6, 2017, April 11, 2017, October 16, 2017 and November 29, 2017

Ruling on motion to change (Interjurisdictional support orders Act, 2002)

Laliberté, j.

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Darlene D’Silva, who resides in the province of Alberta, has brought an application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, against the Respondent, James King, who resides in the City of Cornwall, Ontario.

[2] She is seeking to change the final order of Justice Scott dated July 25th, 2011, as it relates to child support. Her claims are for retroactive and prospective increases and section 7 special and/or extraordinary expenses. Furthermore, she is asking the Court to impute income to the Respondent in setting the amounts to be paid by him.

[3] The Respondent resists the claims made by the Applicant. His position is based, in part, on the fact that the Applicant has frustrated his access to the children. He also argues that there is no basis to inflate his actual income through imputation.

[4] So that properly articulated, the issue for the Court is whether the Applicant should be granted the retroactive and prospective child support and section 7 expenses sought by her.

Facts

[5] The facts reveal that the parties were married on March 5th, 1998 and lived in Ontario. They separated in January 2009. There are 2 children of the union:

• Nathan D’Silva-King, born May 12th, 2002
• Kendra D’Silva-King, born May 12th, 2002

[6] The final order of Justice Scott was issued in Belleville, Ontario on July 25th, 2011. This order was based on a consent of the parties.

[7] The provisions of the said order which are relevant to the present application are as follows:

• The Applicant mother was granted sole custody of the children and leave to permanently relocate with them to the province of Alberta
• The Respondent father’s access to the children is described as:
  • 3 consecutive weeks during July and/or August of each year
  • March breaks of each year, at his election
  • One week during Christmas, at his election
  • He shall accompany the children on their flight from and to Alberta
  • Weekly access via email, telephone and/or Skype
  • The Respondent father shall make all arrangements and pay all costs associated with the children’s travel arrangements
• The child support payable by the Respondent father is articulated as follows:
  • “9. For so long as the Applicant father pays for all costs associated with the children’s travel from Alberta and back to Alberta he shall neither be obligated to pay the Guideline amount of child support or s.7 expenses for the children and the Applicant father shall not be obligated to provide financial disclosure. The Applicant father shall pay to the Respondent mother child support for both children combined the sum of $ 300.00 inclusive of s.7 expenses commencing the 1st day of August 2011 and on the 1st of every month thereafter until the children are 18 years of age and commencing post-secondary education…”
  • “15. For as long as child support is paid, the payor… must provide updated income disclosure to the other party each year, within thirty (30) days of the anniversary of this order, in accordance with section 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.”

[8] In her pleadings, the Applicant identifies the following changes in support of a variation:

“1. Mr. King has not provided income disclosure since 2011.” “2. There has been a change in the circumstances of the children: school fees have increased – orthodontal braces are needed for son.” “3. Mr. King has not provided income disclosure since 2011. The artificial amount of $300.00 was set as long as Mr. King paid for flights. He has not paid flights since 2011. Therefore, I want retroactive support to January 1, 2012.”

[9] In support of her position, the Applicant mother has filed the following materials which the Court has reviewed and considered:

1. Special Expense Claim (Form H) in the amount of $13,817.00 for both children from 2013 to 2016; includes medical expenses, extraordinary expenses for education, post-secondary education (college or university) and extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.
2. She has included receipts from school, Educational, tour Soccer Association, Central Learning Services, orthodontist, banking records (credit card, mortgage, line of credit) utility invoices, cell phone invoices)
3. Claim for imputation of income (Form F)
   • She is asking the Court to impute the Respondent’s income at $90,000.00 per year
   • She indicates that he is capable of earning $90,000.00 per year as a trans-border trucker; she notes having gathered information on the Internet
   • She claims the following yearly special and/or extraordinary expenses:
     • Nathan- dental: $6,500.00
     • Kendra- school fees: $1,444.00
     • Nathan: school fees: $1,940.00
     • Kendra: school trip: $2,869.00
     • Nathan: glasses: $269.40
4. She has included a few 2015 and 2016 text messages reported to be exchanges with the Respondent father
5. Copies of correspondence dated between February 27th, 2015 and August 25th, 2015, between the Designated Authority Administration in Alberta and the Ministry of Justice in Quebec, asking for service in Quebec on the Respondent of the support variation application issued under ISO; the end result was that the Quebec authorities advised Alberta that the Respondent father was residing in Ontario
6. Her affidavit sworn July 6th, 2016 wherein she states:
   • The last access costs paid by the Respondent was in August 2011; he stopped communicating with her regarding access in the summer of 2011; he last came to Alberta to see the children in 2012
   • She was told by his lawyer not to communicate with him as he was in a deep depression associated to her leaving him in 2009
   • He did not answer her calls or text messages; he contacts the children on their cellphones from time to time
   • She has tried to communicate with him multiple times (at least 20 times) since August 2011 regarding access and child support but he never responded to her messages; she has not kept copies of these messages other than the February 2016 text messages
   • She didn‘t know where he was living; the only communication with him were the $300 monthly child support payments which he has consistently paid by email money transfer
   • He is a long haul truck driver which makes contact even more difficult
   • She telephoned the trucking company in 2012 and 2014 he worked for in Belleville but they refused to provide her with his contact information on the basis of confidentiality
   • He had sent 2 Purolator packages at Christmas 2014 disclosing an address in Chateauguay, Quebec; she started an ISO Application from Alberta using this Quebec address; it was later revealed that he did not reside in Quebec and that the Chateauguay address was his parents’ residence
   • And agent from the Quebec Ministry of Justice stated the following in a July 16th, 2015 email sent to the Alberta authorities: “We were proceeding normally with this provisional order until Mr. King said in Court that he lives in his truck… He has a health insurance card from Ontario, his employer is there too and he has a P.O Box there as well. He also files his tax reports in Ontario. All of this led us to think this case should probably be between Ontario and your province.”
   • She believes he may own a truck and writing off expenses from same; she suggests that he makes significantly more than $19,600.00 per year on which $300.00 monthly child support would be based
   • She thinks it is reasonable for her to ask for section 3 and 7 expenses retroactive to January 1st, 2012 since he has not paid for any access costs after August, 2011; at a minimum, he should pay more as of May 2015 when he was likely served with the initial ISO Application in Quebec
   • She is also requesting that he pays his proportionate share of ongoing s.7 expenses; he should also cover his share of future post-secondary expenses

[10] The Notices of Assessment filed by the Applicant reveal the following history of yearly incomes since 2011:

• 2011 : $41,046
• 2012 : $26,806
• 2013 : $39,748
• 2014 : $24,987
• 2015 : $47,285

[11] She estimates that her 2016 total annual income will be $42,000 in her July 6th, 2016 Financial Statement (Form K) filed with her ISO Application.

[12] In response to the Application, the Respondent requested an oral hearing.

[13] He testified on April 11th, 2017 and filed materials in support of his position, which included an affidavit sworn on April 7th, 2017.

[14] The Respondent’s evidence can be summarized as follows:

Access to the children

• He has managed to visit with the children on only 2 occasions since they moved to Alberta
• He has tried to arrange visits with them but he has not had success in doing so; the Applicant mother has not gotten back to him in response to his requests
• She has refused that the children travel with stewardess access; she insists that he travel with them which increases the costs; she had agreed that the children could travel without him when the final order was discussed
• His position is that she has frustrated his access to the children; he does not have regular contacts with them; on one occasion, she broke Nathan’s cellphone; he tries to contact them through her phone but she doesn’t respond
• He has provided text messages wherein he asks for access to the children; she responds that she will get back to him, the kids have booked vacation, Nathan is in soccer, Kendra might join, she would let him know their schedules; she says no and to take her to Court when he states wanting to see them for Christmas; she states that he hasn’t seen the children in 4 years, he is a stranger to them; he doesn’t have a fixed address and no place to bring them; she concludes by saying “They are not leaving Sherwood Parks”
• He refers to the fact that she had let the children fly and travel alone and leave the country to Manhattan on a field trip; she had never talked to him about this trip

Applicant’s ability to contact him

• He states having maintained the same cellphone number and email address since 1996; the Applicant is aware of these
• He was residing in Trenton when the children moved to Alberta; he has remained there up to a year and half ago when he was living mostly in his truck and at his parents in Chateauguay, Quebec; he had told his children to use the address in Quebec; he kept a P.O. address in Ontario
• He now lives in Cornwall with his elderly and ill parents; he is their primary caregiver as evidenced by a letter from a doctor and his sister
• The Applicant was always aware of his whereabouts through their daughter
• She has never claimed an increase in support for the children prior to the ISO application

His financial circumstances/child support

• He has a high school education and has been a truck driver for 35 years

• From 2012 to March 2014, he was an “owner operator” with ITS Transport; he then decided to return with ITS as a company truck driver due to the maintenance expenses as an owner operator becoming too high

• He has provided Income Statements from 2012 to 2014 prepared by Transport Financial Services Limited; these provide the income, total expenses and net income for his business as an “owner operator”; the numbers are as follows:

  • 2012:
    • Total income: $94,584.51
    • Total expenses: $67,610.32
    • Net income: $26,974.19
  • 2013:
    • Total income: $87,035.75
    • Total Expenses: $60,891.07
    • Net Income: $26,144.68
  • 2014:
    • Total Income: $22,102.45
    • Total Expenses: $15,732.96
    • Net Income: $7,030.49

• He earned $25,273.27 employment income in 2014 as a truck driver with ITS; his total income in 2014 was $33,602.32

• In 2015, his employment income was $36,863.87, again as a truck driver with ITS

• In 2016, his employment income with ITS (as a driver) was $22,204.27; he expects a similar income in 2017; he explains the reduction in income as follows:

  • He has become the primary caregiver to his elderly and ill parents; his father is 85 and his mother 83; his father has Parkinson’s and heart problems
  • He has been very active in assisting his parents with their activities of daily living including bringing them to various medical appointments
  • His employer has permitted him to work from Thursday afternoon to Monday so that he can care for his parents during the week; his sisters care for them on weekends;
  • His wages have gone down accordingly
  • He has always maintained drug and dental coverage for the children since separation through his insurance benefit plan at work
  • He has never received any receipts for additional expenses such as school trips or extra-curricular activities for the children; he would have paid his share had he been provided with same; he states that he will pay his share of such expenses if she sends him receipts

The Law

[15] In deciding this matter, the Court is guided by the following relevant principles:

Material change in circumstances

• s.37 (2.1) Family Law Act

  s.37 (2.1) In the case of an order for support of a child, if the Court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances within the meaning of the child support guidelines or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the Court may, (a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order prospectively or retroactively (c) make any other order for the support of a child that the Court could make on an application under s.33

• s. 14 Child Support Guidelines

  s.14 for the purposes of subsection 37 (2.2) … any one of the following constitutes a change of circumstances that gives rise to the making of a variation order:

  1. …
  2. In the case where the amount of child support does not include a determination made in accordance with a table, any change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either parent or spouse or of any child who is entitled to support

Retroactive child support

• In considering a claim for retroactive child support, the Court should strive for a holistic view of the matter and decide each case on the basis of its particular factual matrix; the Court should consider the following factors: i) Reasonable excuse for why support was not sought earlier ii) Whether the payor parent has engaged in blameworthy conduct iii) The past and present circumstances of the child iv) The hardship occasioned by a retroactive award

  Reference - D.B.S. v. S.R.G 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231

• Once the Court finds that a retroactive award is due, the date to which the award should be retroactive is the date when effective notice was given to the payor parent; effective notice does not require the recipient parent to take any legal action; all that is required is that the topic be broached; it will usually be inappropriate to make a support award retroactive to a date more than three years before formal notice was given to the payor parent

  Reference: D.B.S v. S.R.G. op cit.

Imputation of Income

• s.19 (1) Child Support Guidelines

  s.19 (1) The Court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include: (a) the parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse (f) the parent or spouse has failed to provide information when under a legal obligation to do so (g) the parent or spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income

• the following considerations apply to the concept of “intentional under-employment or unemployment”: i) there is no need to find a specific intent to evade, child support obligations before income can be imputed ii) “intentionally” means a voluntary act; it is to choose to earn less than is capable of earning iii) It does not apply to situations in which, through no fault or act of their own, the payor is laid off, terminated or given reduced hours of work iv) There is no requirement of bad faith v) Imputing income is one method by which the Court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children in order to meet this legal obligation, a parent must earn what he or she is capable of earning vi) Section 19 of the Guidelines is not an invitation to the Court to arbitrarily select an amount as imputed income; there must be a rational basis underlying the selection of any such figure; the amount selected as an exercise of the Court’s discretion must be grounded on the evidence

  Reference: Drygala v. Pauli, [2002] O.J. no 3731

Discussion

[16] The Court finds that the evidence establishes a material change in circumstances in regards to the child support provisions set out in Justice Scott’s final order of July 25th, 2011. This change warrants a retroactive and prospective review of the Respondent father’s financial obligations to his 2 children.

[17] There is no dispute that the monthly “$300.00 inclusive of s.7 expenses” payable by the Respondent father was conditional on him paying all costs associated to the children travelling from and to Alberta. He was relieved from the actual Guideline amount and s.7 expenses by reason of these travelling expenses and more specifically…” for as long as he paid… for all these costs.”

[18] The uncontested evidence is that the Respondent father has not paid any such access travel expenses for the children since 2011.

[19] The inevitable result is that this amounts to a material change in circumstances which goes to the essence of his financial obligations under paragraph 9 of Justice Scott’s said order. The only logical and reasonable inference is that he would have paid the Guideline amount had it not been for the costs generated by the Applicant mother’s move to Alberta and ensuring his access to the children.

[20] The Respondent father’s argument is that the Applicant mother has frustrated his access to the children and therefore is not entitled to any increase in child support. On April 11th, 2017, he stated the following during his testimony:

“Because she won’t allow them- I’ve tried every year to bring my kids home and she won’t allow them to come. Now, she is the one that is not abiding by it so why should I have to pay her extra if she is the one that’s not going by what she should be doing?”

[21] While the evidence suggests that the Applicant mother has not acted so as to facilitate the children’s access to their father and that the Court understands the Respondent’s frustration, in the end the law is such that there is no link between child support obligations and access. Conduct respecting access is not relevant to child support.

[22] In Carwick v. Carwick, [1972] O.J. no. 355, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated the following at paragraph 3:

“However improper the conduct of the wife in refusing access, such conduct did not justify non-payment of maintenance for the children, or a defence to the action for arrears of those payments.”

[23] Reference is also made to Justice Jenkins’ analysis in Welstead v. Welstead, [1995] O.J. no. 93:

“15. I am satisfied that the conduct of the custodial parent respecting access is not relevant to the determination of child support…”

[24] While a retroactive and prospective review of child support is warranted on the basis of the above noted change in circumstances, the Court finds that the amount claimed by the Applicant is excessive. Her claim based on retroactive support starting January 1st, 2012 and imputed income on the Respondent of $90,000.00 is rejected by the Court.

[25] The “holistic view” and factors articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada do not favor the significant retroactive review sought by the Applicant. This conclusion is based on the following considerations:

i) The evidentiary record does not disclose a reasonable excuse for why increase support was not sought earlier

• The Applicant has provided very little evidence of having raised this subject-matter with the Respondent
• This issue is not raised in the text messages filed with the Court; her response to his request for access is that he should bring her to Court; she doesn’t raise support
• There is no basis to reject the Respondent’s evidence that she never broached the subject with him prior to the ISO application
• Nor can the Court reject his evidence that she had the means of communicating with him since 2011

ii) The Respondent father did not engage in blameworthy conduct

• There is no evidence which makes it more probable that he acted so as to frustrate a claim for increased child support
• The non-disclosure of his yearly income is not seen as significant
  • His yearly income is not the basis for the claim of a material change in circumstances warranting a review
  • It was known at the time of the final order that he was paying less than the Guideline amount
• The Applicant mother’s failure to facilitate access as per the final order, has been a significant factor in the issues regarding child support
• The Respondent has continued to pay the monthly child support prescribed in the order; he has also maintained the children on his work medical plan

iii) The past and present circumstances of the children

• There is no indication in the evidence that the children have been impacted negatively by the Respondent paying less than the Guideline amount since 2012
• The evidence establishes that the children are properly cared for; they are involved in a number of activities including school trips
• As already noted, the Respondent has always paid monthly support and maintained medical coverage for them through his work

iv) The hardship occasioned by a retroactive award

• Using the present Guideline amount for 2 children based on a $90,000.00 yearly income, a retroactive award from January, 2012 to December 31, 2017 would translate in a lump sum payable by the Respondent in the range of $71,496.00, calculated as follows:
  • Amount actually paid by Respondent
    • 2012 to 2017 (based on $300.00 per month)
    • $300.00 x 12 = $3,600.00 per year
    • $3,600.00 x 6 years = $21,600.00
  • Amount claimed by Applicant
    • 2012 to 2017 (based on $90,000.00)
    • 2 children: $1,293.00 per month = $15,516.00 per year
    • 6 years x $15,516.00 = $93,096.00
  • Difference
    • $93,096.00 - $21,600.00 = $71,496.00
• Looking at the Respondent’s financial statement sworn on January 6th, 2017 and his historical income as shown by the Canada Revenue documents, the lump sum award sought by the Applicant would cause significant hardship to the Respondent

[26] The Court is of the view that the appropriate date of retroactivity is May 2015 when the Respondent was likely notified through the ISO application in Quebec of the Applicant’s intent to seek a variation of child support. The July 16th, 2015 email from the Quebec authorities confirm that by then, the Respondent had appeared in Court and stated that he lived in his truck and was connected to the province of Ontario (i.e. health insurance, employer, P.O. Box, tax reports).

[27] The reasonable inference is that at that point, he knew that the current amount of child support needed to be re-negotiated. As explained by the Supreme Court in D.B.S., op.cit:

“… Once that has occurred, the payor parent can no longer assume that the status quo is fair, and his/her interest in certainty becomes less compelling”.

[28] The end result is that the retroactive child support payable by the Respondent father is set from June 1, 2015 to December 1, 2017.

[29] The next question for the Court is the income to be used to measure this retroactive support.

[30] As already noted, the Applicant submits that the Respondent should be imputed with a $90,000.00 yearly income. She has provided Internet print-outs in support of her position.

[31] For the following reasons, the Court will not exercise its discretion and impute the amount sought by the Applicant:

• The materials filed reveal that the Respondent has never earned such an income
• There is no rational basis in the evidence to support a $90,000.00 income
• The Court cannot rely on information disclosed through the internet; very little, if any, weight can be given to such evidence; its reliability cannot be assessed
• In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Income Statements from 2012 to 2014 prepared by Transport Financial Services Limited and the Revenue Canada documents do not support the Applicant’s claim

[32] What then is the proper income measure for the Respondent’s retroactive and prospective child support obligations?

[33] The evidence shows that he is capable of earning at least $37,000.00 as a company truck driver with his present employer, ITS Transport. In 2015, his income was $36,863.87.

[34] The Respondent’s evidence is that his income for 2016 and 2017 is in the $22,000.00 range. As already noted, he has reduced his work hours in order to take care of his elderly and ill parents. He now works weekends and cares for his parents during the week.

[35] The issue becomes whether the law allows for a payor parent to become under-employed in order to care for his or her parents resulting in reduced income for child support.

[36] Clearly, s.19 (1)(a) of the Guidelines does not identify the needs of a payor’s parents as a justification for self-induced under-employment. However, imputation of income by the Court on a payor is discretionary and such discretion is to be exercised when it is considered “appropriate in the circumstances.”

[37] In exercising its discretion, the Court must be mindful of a child’s entitlement to financial support from the payor parent in accordance with the income the parent is capable of earning. This notion is reinforced though s.31 of the Family Law Act which provides that every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her child “…to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.”

[38] The Respondent father’s present circumstances with his parents make it such that he is unable to fulfill his financial obligations to his children.

[39] One obvious option is for the Court to retroactively (as of 2015) and prospectively impute income in the $37,000.00 range, being the amount he has shown to be capable of earning with his present employer while working regular hours. Such an order would compel him to resume his regular 2015 work hours. It would also impact on his ability to care for his parents.

[40] The Court’s concern with such a result is that the evidence establishes that the Respondent’s obligations towards his parents are now beyond what could be described as a child’s moral obligation towards his parents.

[41] The undisputed evidence reveals that his parents have been under his charge since 2016. Specifically:

• They have moved from Chateauguay, Quebec to reside with him in Cornwall
• His mother is 83 years old and has health issues (diabetic, blepharitis)
• His father is 85 years old and has significant health issues (Parkinson’s, atrial fibrillation, arthritis, nerve damage in his left hand; he requires assistance to eat, get dressed, move around)
• His mother is unable to care for his father on her own
• He has become their primary caregiver
  • He is very active in assisting them with their daily living activities which include dressing up and showering his father, provide their medicine, taking care of the home
  • He takes them to all of their doctor’s appointments
  • His siblings are unable to care for the parents during the week

[42] The Court is of the view that these circumstances likely trigger the operation of s. 215 of the Criminal Code such that, the Respondent is under a legal duty of care to his parents. This section provides as follows:

s.215 (1) Everyone is under a legal duty… (c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person (i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw from that charge, and (ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life

[43] As explained by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Peterson, [2005] O.J. no 4450:

“42. Used in these contexts the word “charge” connotes among other things the duty or responsibility of taking care of a person or thing. Similarly, one of the definitions of charge in Black’s Law Dictionary… is “to entrust with responsibility or duties e.g. to charge the guardian with the ward’s care.” What the definitions have in common is to exercise of an element of control by one person and a dependency on the part of the other.”

[44] At paragraph 44:

“44. A further consideration in determining whether a person is in the charge of another is whether one person has explicitly assumed responsibility for the other… by publicly acknowledging to others in the community by words or conduct an assumption of responsibility.”

[45] In the end, the Court finds that it cannot ignore the fact that the Respondent has assumed the responsibility of caring for his parents and that they are significantly dependent on him, in exercising its discretion on the issue of imputation of income.

[46] However, the Respondent’s legal duty of care to his parents cannot serve to indefinitely suspend the children’s entitlement to financial support consistent with his full earning capability. Therefore, the Respondent will be provided with a reasonable period of time to set up an alternate means of care for his parents, following which, the expectation, is that he will resume his regular work hours.

[47] The Applicant’s position is that the Respondent should be compelled to immediately pay child support based on him working full time.

[48] Having considered all of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Respondent should be provided a period of 6 months to set up an alternate means of care for his parents. Therefore, his sections 3 and 7 financial obligations to his children will be based on an annual gross income of $37,000.00 starting June 1, 2018.

Conclusion

[49] The Court makes the following final order:

1. The final of Justice Scott dated July 25, 2011 is varied as follows: i) Starting June 1, 2018 and on the first day of each month thereafter, the Respondent James King shall pay the Applicant Darlene T. D’Silva, child support in the amount of $534.00 for the children Nathan D’Silva-King and Kendra D’Silva-King both born on May 12, 2002. ii) This amount is based on the Respondent’s gross income of $37,000.00 and the Child Support Guidelines (Ontario). iii) Each parent will be responsible for paying special or extraordinary expenses for the said children in proportion to their respective income, which shares are set as follows: * Applicant: 53% based on $42,000.00 * Respondent: 47% based on $37,000.00 iv) Special or extraordinary expenses shall be managed as follows: * The Applicant shall advise the Respondent in writing prior to incurring any such expenses and shall obtain his approval prior to incurring the expenses; the Respondent shall not unreasonably withhold his consent * The Applicant shall provide the Respondent with a copy of a written confirmation issued by the proposed recipient of such costs setting out amount and purpose * The Respondent may communicate directly with proposed recipient if he so wishes * The Respondent may pay his proportionate share to the proposed recipient directly if he so wishes * Each party shall provide the other with proof of payment v) The Respondent shall continue to pay to the Applicant child support for both children combined the sum of $300.00 per month inclusive of s.7 expenses until June 1, 2018 as set out in Justice Scott’s said final order. vi) The Respondent shall not pay any retroactive child support. vii) All costs associated with the children’s travel from Alberta and back to Alberta to visit the Respondent in Cornwall shall be paid as per the proportionate share of special or extraordinary expenses, namely 53% for the Applicant and 47% for the Respondent. viii) Starting June 1, 2018, each party shall disclose to the other a copy of their Notice of Assessment issued by Revenue Canada to confirm their respective income.

Justice Ronald M. Laliberté Released: December 12, 2017