Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-1342

DATE: 2018/05/24

BETWEEN:

DALLAS GILES Applicant

– and –

PIERRE BOURGET Respondent

COUNSEL: Self-Represented Self-Represented

HEARD: September 19, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SUMMERS J.

[1] This is an application under the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”) and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”).

Introduction

[2] The applicant (“Ms. Giles”) and respondent (“Mr. Bourget”) lived together from May, 2010 to October, 2011. They did not marry. On September 11, 2010, Urbain Halley Bourget was born. He is their only child and the focus of these proceedings.

[3] After separation, the parties were able to set aside their personal differences and parent together in Urbain’s best interests. The child continued to live with his mother. The proximity between the parties’ homes allowed Mr. Bourget to spend frequent time with the child during the week. The weekend parenting time was shared, as agreed from time to time. Mr. Bourget did not pay regular child support in a fixed amount but he did provide some financial assistance including contributions toward the cost of Urbain’s daycare. Over time, the parties’ unwritten parenting and support arrangements deteriorated.

[4] This application was commenced on June 23, 2015. Not long after Mr. Bourget filed his answer and claim, he moved to Alfred, Ontario – a decision that fueled the animosity that was already developing between the parties. Under normal circumstances, the drive between Alfred and the mother’s residence takes approximately one hour. This distance further complicated the logistics of parenting their five year old son. As an interim measure, it was agreed that Urbain would spend every weekend with his father.

[5] The issues in this case include which parent should provide the child’s primary residence, which parent should have final decision-making authority, what the parenting schedule should be, what is Mr. Bourget’s income and how much child support is to be paid, payment of special and extraordinary expenses, retroactive child support and repayment of a debt between the parties.

[6] The parties were self-represented throughout the proceeding.

Decision-Making and Primary Residence

[7] Ms. Giles’ application sought sole legal and physical custody of Urbain subject to access by Mr. Bourget. However, at trial, she stated that it was her wish to have an order for joint custody with final decision making authority reserved to her in the event of disagreement. I allowed a pleading amendment to reflect this change.

[8] Mr. Bourget asks for joint custody of the child and an order that Urbain live with him, in Alfred.

The Law

[9] A claim for custody of or access to a child must always be decided in accordance with the best interests of the child. Here the application is made under s. 24(2) of the CLRA which requires the court to consider all of the child’s needs and circumstances when assessing his or her best interests and sets out the following non-exhaustive list factors to be taken into account. They are:

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person, including a parent or grandparent, entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) any familial relationship between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

Discussion

[10] Neither party challenged the other’s love and affection for the child nor his strong love for and bond with each of them. The parenting challenge faced by the parties is that their son may well be the only thing they have in common. As the trial unfolded, it became clear that Ms. Giles and Mr. Bourget each see and communicate about the world around them in fundamentally different ways. These differences, in turn, affect how each of them views Urbain’s best interests.

[11] Urbain has always lived with his mother. At first they lived together in the home of the maternal grandparents and next in the home that Ms. Giles was able to purchase in 2014. It is in her neighbourhood that Urbain attends school and participates in his activities. It is where his friends are and where he is close to his doctors, dentists and other care providers.

[12] The only indication that Urbain is not doing well in his present environment comes from his school which reports physical aggression and lack of respect toward other students and his teachers. Over the last few years there have been multiple incidents including face slapping, kicking, punching, and his use of profane language. Urbain’s teachers describe him as having trouble controlling his emotions.

[13] Mr. Bourget attributes Urbain’s behaviour to the influence of Ms. Giles and her family. He says that unlike anyone in his family, she is confrontational. His primary complaint in this regard focused on the way she expresses herself. He gave examples during the trial about which more will be said below. Mr. Bourget says that when Urbain is with him, he does not misbehave in the ways described. His position is that it would be in Urbain’s best interests to “change scenes” and live with him.

[14] Ms. Giles argues that many, if not all, of the child’s outbursts and misbehaviours can be traced back to their various court appearances and in general, the incidents of conflict between the parents.

[15] Not surprisingly, counselling for Urbain was recommended. Ms. Giles agreed but was unable to get Mr. Bourget to respond to her email and confirm his consent. This was one of many examples she provided to support her position that it is impossible to make effective and timely parenting decisions with Mr. Bourget when often her communications are either set aside or ignored entirely.

[16] Mr. Bourget’s response is that initially, he did not think that counselling for Urbain was necessary. He was confident that he could help their son as he says he has helped many others over the years. Mr. Bourget says his ability to help others is just part of his character, although he does not have any particular training or expertise in a helping profession. Eventually, Mr. Bourget realized that he could not help Urbain. Mr. Bourget also focused on Ms. Giles’ use of email to communicate. He said many times that he disliked email and that it is not a good way to communicate. He believes in the importance of face to face communication.

[17] Indeed, communication was at the heart of many issues between the parties. In my view, the emails sent by Ms. Giles to Mr. Bourget regarding Urbain were largely informative, respectful and to the point. He, however, claims to react negatively to the way she writes and what he refers to as her use of “subjective words”. He states that she makes him feel abused and “put down” and complains that she has referred to him on more than one occasion as irresponsible. He says that Urbain is like him and he worries that her words will hurt the boy as they hurt him.

[18] As an example, Mr. Bourget described his dissatisfaction with the way Ms. Giles presented the issue of the debt that he still owes to her. Ms. Giles characterized the post-separation transaction in 2013 as Mr. Bourget asking her for a loan so he could buy a car. He was offended by this description and said that he did not ask to borrow money. Instead, he insisted on the distinction that Ms. Giles knew he needed money for a car and offered him a loan that he accepted. In his mind, he did not ask. It was a case of her offer and his acceptance. Mr. Bourget thought it further important to clarify that the money borrowed was not for a car per se. Rather it was to pay off a Visa debt that was interfering with his credit rating and thus his ability to buy a car. He did not, however, dispute that the money was received and he had yet to pay back the full amount owed.

[19] A further example of how Mr. Bourget was offended by Ms. Giles focused on the allegation in her pleading that at a certain point after their separation, he began to behave in an uncharacteristic manner. On one hand, Mr. Bourget said that he sort of liked the fact that she recognized his behaviour to be out of the ordinary but nevertheless he was upset that she failed to go further and explain why or how it was that his behaviour was different. This example, he said, demonstrated how she used the court documents to put him down.

[20] In my view, the evidence demonstrates reasonable efforts made by Ms. Giles to communicate and consult with Mr. Bourget via email on issues relating to Urbain. Mr. Bourget’s failure to respond in a way that was timely and fulsome was unwarranted and resulted in unnecessary frustration for Ms. Giles as well as additional time and effort to send follow up emails in order to make a decision for their son. Circumstances such as these led Ms. Giles to see Mr. Bourget as irresponsible and now inform her position that it is not possible to make joint decisions with him in a way that is timely and responsive to Urbain’s needs.

[21] Ms. Giles described herself as practical, pragmatic and principled but not without emotion. Nothing in her demeanor or the evidence led me to conclude otherwise in relation to her ability to act in Urbain’s best interests and place his needs above her own. She repeatedly stated that she places a premium on good faith behaviour and admitted that she sometimes does so to the point of naiveté. It is this good faith that she wants but feels she does not get from Mr. Bourget. Her wish is for their son to grow up in the absence of conflict. She wanted to be an example of how separated parents can raise their child together in a cooperative and respectful manner. When this began to prove impossible, she commenced this proceeding.

[22] Invariably, Mr. Bourget placed more emphasis on the mode and style of Ms. Giles’ communication than on content and the importance of providing a timely response. He took offense to her communications and actions where I am satisfied that none was intended. He created unnecessary conflict by ignoring his responsibility to provide a timely and substantive response. Mr. Bourget states he does not like email but it is a fact of today’s world. When used properly, it is my view that there is nothing inappropriate about email as a method of communication between separated parents. It is timely and provides a record of what was said and not said.

[23] Mr. Bourget may not see it as his obligation to be responsive to Ms. Giles’ communication but a responsibility it is. She is Urbain’s primary caregiver and if he wants to participate in the decisions that affect the child, he is obliged to make his views known promptly. Otherwise, the child’s needs cannot be addressed, as and when they arise. To put it another way, Mr. Bourget ignores his obligation to Urbain when he ignores Ms. Giles’ communications as they relate to the child’s interests.

[24] Mr. Bourget repeatedly described himself as a peacemaker, as a moderator and mediator of sorts, as someone who has helped others through difficult and stressful times. He also believes that he tried to help Ms. Giles, without success. It was never clear why it was he thought she needed help. My overall impression of Mr. Bourget’s evidence was that he sees himself as having a much higher emotional quotient than Ms. Giles and that somehow that makes him the better parent to have primary care of Urbain. I do not agree. Ms. Giles is a fit and loving parent. I find it more important that Mr. Bourget admits the trust he has in her judgment as a parent.

[25] The parties each seek an order for joint custody. The difference is that Ms. Giles seeks the authority to make the final decision if she and Mr. Bourget cannot agree. In light of their past difficulties reaching decisions together and the explanations provided, I find Ms. Giles’ proposed compromise to be in Urbain’s best interest. Ms. Giles’ evidence demonstrates her commitment to making reasonable efforts to reach joint decisions with Mr. Bourget. On the other hand, he demonstrates a propensity for addressing his parental responsibilities as and when he is ready and that includes his willingness to communicate with Ms. Giles. Not only is it disrespectful for Mr. Bourget not to provide a response within a reasonable period, it ignores the fact that certain decisions for Urbain may be time sensitive. As a result, if the need for a decision arises and the parties cannot reach agreement within a reasonable period in the circumstances, the right to make the final decision will rest with Ms. Giles. She shall then promptly advise Mr. Bourget of the action taken.

[26] I further find that it is in Urbain’s best interest to remain in the primary care of his mother. No evidence was led to justify uprooting him from his home, his community and his school. Once this litigation ends, I am hopeful that Urbain’s behavioural difficulties will resolve. If that is not the case, the decision making structure now in place should facilitate thoughtful and timely decisions to ensure his best interests are met.

Parenting Schedule

[27] Ms. Giles seeks an order that Urbain spend alternate weekends and one evening mid-week with his father. She agrees that the mid-week visit can be overnight if that is Mr. Bourget’s wish. Ms. Giles proposes this schedule as one that will allow Urbain to spend leisure time with both of his parents as well as time together during the school week. Under the current schedule, Urbain spends every weekend with his father leaving him little leisure time with his mother each week. Although this schedule has been in place for some time, Ms. Giles says it was intended as an interim measure only to facilitate access after Mr. Bourget moved to Alfred. Never did she see it as a permanent arrangement or that it would continue for as long as it did as they waited for trial.

[28] Arranging the holiday schedule has also been problematic for the same reasons that arise when she tries to make decisions together with Mr. Bourget. He does not provide a timely reply to her communications. She states that a fixed holiday schedule will not work for them and wants to remain flexible and accommodating but cannot guess at what he wants. Mr. Bourget did not address the holiday schedule in his evidence or argument.

[29] If Urbain was to live with him in Alfred, Mr. Bourget said that the child should spend two out of every three weekends with his mother but if his primary residence continues to be with Ms. Giles, he says that alternate weekends is not sufficient time and not in Urbain’s best interests. He says they have a very special relationship that must be maintained and nurtured through generous time together. Mr. Bourget says that if he cannot continue to have Urbain with him every weekend, he should have him at least two out of every three weekends.

[30] According to Mr. Bourget, the travel time from his home to Ms. Giles’ residence makes a mid-week overnight contrary to Urbain’s best interest as he would have to wake up too early in the morning to be back for school.

[31] Considering that Urbain is accustomed to spending every weekend with his father and the difficulty around regular mid-week overnights given the distance between the parties homes, I agree that Urbain should spend two out of every three weekends with his father and I make that order. Since Mr. Bourget resists the mid-week overnight suggested by Ms. Giles, it will not be ordered but I encourage the parties to facilitate mid-week access, if and when possible.

[32] On the issue of holiday access, I order only that Mr. Bourget respond to Ms. Giles’ scheduling communications within 48 hours. If he does not, she is entitled to her choice of holiday time with Urbain.

Child Support

[33] The jurisdiction to order child support in this case is found in s. 31 of the FLA, as amended. This provision states that every parent has an obligation to pay child support for an unmarried child who is a minor, is enrolled in a full-time program of education, or is unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from the parents’ charge. The FLA further states in s. 33(7) that a child support order should recognize that both parents have an obligation to support the child and apportion it between them according to the Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175, as amended (“Guidelines”).

[34] On June 24, 2016, Master Champagne ordered Mr. Bourget to commence paying child support of $219.00 per month effective July 1, 2016, based on his declared income of $27,000.00 per annum. The order was granted on an interim basis without prejudice to either party’s right to argue the issue retroactively. Mr. Bourget paid the amount ordered in July, August and September. No further child support was paid until April, 2017 when he made a payment of $1,500.00 that brought him up to date. The case was scheduled for trial in May, 2017 but was not reached. Mr. Bourget did not pay any child support after that.

[35] Ms. Giles takes the position that Mr. Bourget earned annual income of $27,300.00 in 2017. Her calculation is based on his disclosure that he earns $14.00 per hour and works 37.5 hours each week. She then multiplied that number by 52. Mr. Bourget confirmed his rate of pay at trial as well as his hours but he also testified that he does not get paid if he does not work. I do not find it reasonable to assume that he can work 52 weeks a year, therefore, I adjust the calculation to reflect 48 weeks. This allows for two weeks of unpaid vacation and additional time off for illness or appointments. I find Mr. Bourget’s 2017 income for purposes of child support to be $25,200.00 based on weekly pay of $525.00 and order that he pay Ms. Giles $202.00 per month commencing January 1, 2017 until November 30, 2017, under the 2011 CSG. Effective December 1, 2017 and in accordance with the updated tables that came into force in November, 2017, the amount to be paid is $201.00 per month. The total table amount payable for 2017 was, therefore, $2,423.00. Mr. Bourget is to be credited with the sum of $1,500.00 paid in April, 2017.

Retroactive Child Support

[36] Ms. Giles also seeks retroactive child support to January 1, 2013. Section 34(1)(f) of the FLA provides the court with jurisdiction to order that child support be paid for any period prior to the date of the order. In the case known as D.B.S., the Supreme Court of Canada set out the factors to be considered when the court is determining whether to award retroactive support and if so, for how many years. See: D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v.Hiemstra, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231, 2006 SCC 37. Although none of the factors are decisive, those to be taken into account are: has the applicant provided a reasonable excuse why support was not sought earlier; the conduct of the payor parent; the circumstances of the child; and any hardship occasioned by a retroactive award.

[37] I am satisfied that Ms. Giles did not delay her application for child support unnecessarily. For the first two years after separation, the parties’ verbal, ad hoc arrangements worked well for them. Moreover, even as their situation began to deteriorate, I am satisfied that there was a period of time where Ms. Giles genuinely believed Mr. Bourget would sooner or later own his obligation and pay child support in accordance with the CSG. When that hope diminished, she commenced her application in 2015 and claimed retroactive support back to January 1, 2013.

[38] I am also satisfied on the evidence that Mr. Bourget was aware in January, 2013, if not earlier, that Ms. Giles needed and expected to receive child support for Urbain. It was in 2013 that Ms. Giles loaned him money and advised that all subsequent payments would be considered as repayment, not child support, and that he would be expected to catch up on missed support.

[39] The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Giles made a number of requests for child support. She tried to impress upon Mr. Bourget that it was Urbain’s right to be supported by both of his parents and that it was unfair of him to expect her to absorb all costs. It was not uncommon for Mr. Bourget to reply with an accusation that she only cared about money and did not appreciate the great relationship he had with his son and the value of his influence on the child. Alternatively, he would point out how much of the $5,500.00 loan he had paid back since 2013, arguing that it was her choice to consider his payments as debt payments instead of child support. She also requested financial disclosure from him. She obtained more than one court order for disclosure. All were ignored until it was ultimately ordered that his pleadings would be struck if he did not provide the disclosure ordered. I find that Mr. Bourget’s conduct favoured his own financial interests over the right of his son to be supported by his father in accordance with the CSG.

[40] Mr. Bourget did not provide evidence of hardship if ordered to pay the full amount of retroactive child support sought by Ms. Giles. In fact, he said “I made my bed, I will lie in it”.

[41] There was scant evidence provided of Mr. Bourget’s income for the years in question despite it having been provided to Ms. Giles, his admission that he had his tax returns at home and my specific request that he bring them to court the next day which he did not do. Both parties stated their belief that the court already had the necessary income information because it had been made available to the court at earlier steps in the proceeding.

[42] As a result, the only evidence of Mr. Bourget’s income was his testimony that before his rate of pay increased to $14.00 per hour, he earned $13.00 per hour and before that he was paid $12.25 an hour but in those years, he was required to work more hours. Ms. Giles did not challenge this evidence and acknowledged that she had received income disclosure for each of these years. Based on the approach taken above to determine Mr. Bourget’s 2017 income, I find that Mr. Bourget’s income in each of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 was $25,000.00 for purposes of child support. The corresponding payment under the CSG and the 2011 tables is $200.00 per month, therefore, I order that $2,400.00 is owed for each of those 4 years. In making this finding, I am mindful that income of $27,000.00 was declared for 2016 for purposes of Master Champagne’s interim order, however, it was made without prejudice to any retroactive calculation.

Section 7 Expense

[43] Ms. Giles seeks an order requiring Mr. Bourget to contribute to Urbain’s ongoing daycare costs and an order that she be awarded retroactive support for those expenses commencing in 2013. For 2017, it was Ms. Giles’ evidence that she paid $336.00 per month over the school year for before and after school care. Over the summer months when Urbain split his time between his parents, each was responsible for their own day care costs and they agreed that was a fair arrangement. The court requested a calculation of the net after tax cost of the daycare expenses actually incurred by Ms. Giles, however, it was not provided.

[44] Ms. Giles is employed by the Federal Government. As of May 1, 2017, her annual pay increased to $68,044.00. Before May 1^st, her annual rate of pay for 2017 was $60,382.00. Based on my finding that Mr. Bourget’s 2017 income was $25,200.00, he is responsible to pay 29% of the net after tax amount of Urbain’s before and after school care costs for the first four months of 2017 and 27% thereafter.

Retroactive Child Support & Section 7 Expenses

[45] Ms. Giles led evidence confirming her income and day care costs from 2013 to 2016. Based on Mr. Bourget’s income determination above, I find that he should pay his proportionate share of prior years’ day care costs based on the percentages calculated below. However, before the total amount owing to Ms. Giles can be calculated, the court must have reliable evidence of her actual out of pocket costs after applying the available income tax deductions. Ms. Giles is to provide this evidence within 30 days of the release of these reasons and I will determine the total amount owing by Mr. Bourget:

Year	Gross Day Care Cost	Ms. Giles’ Income	Mr. Bourget’s Income	His % Share
2013	$9,210.00	$57,126.00	$25,000.00	30%
2014	$6,043.00	$55,391.00	$25,000.00	31%
2015	$5,155.00	$57,926.00	$25,000.00	30%
2016	$4,221.00	$64,163.00	$25,000.00	28%

Child Tax Benefit

[46] Both parties appeared to misunderstand that the amount of child support owing under the CSG is unrelated to the child tax benefits payable and that the entitlement to child tax benefits belongs to the parent with whom the child resides and who is primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of the child while under the age of 18. This became apparent when Ms. Giles expressed the different monthly child support payments that she expected from Mr. Bourget depending on whether she was sharing some portion of the child tax benefit with him. The relevant benefit is now known as the Canada Child Benefit. Ms. Giles is entitled to receive these monies under the Income Tax Act and the court cannot order otherwise.

The Loan

[47] Ms. Giles seeks the sum of $1,150.00 from Mr. Bourget as the balance owing on what began as a loan of $5,500.00. Before the loan funds were advanced to Mr. Bourget in 2013, he had been making ad hoc child support payments, however, according to Ms. Giles, she told him that any monies he paid to her thereafter would be seen by her as loan payments. Once the debt was paid in full, he would be expected to catch up on his child support obligations. Mr. Bourget stated that he initially thought he could make both payments. When he realized he could not, he wanted Ms. Giles to treat his payments as child support. He regarded that obligation as more important and wanted his payments to be seen as child support. Ms. Giles refused. She had used her line of credit to advance the money to Mr. Bourget and was incurring interest. She wanted that debt paid first.

[48] Regardless of the name given to the payments, Mr. Bourget had two legal obligations to meet: child support and the debt repayment. He made only one payment and it was not large enough to satisfy both. I accept Ms. Giles’ evidence that they had agreed that Mr. Bourget’s payments would be applied to the loan first.

[49] Mr. Bourget does not dispute the amount owing and he ultimately acknowledged that the result was the same regardless of the name given to his payments. Either he owed less as retroactive child support or more on the loan. Ms. Giles also confirmed that at some point, she decided to forego her claim to recover interest, therefore, I order Mr. Bourget to pay $1,150.00 to Ms. Giles in satisfaction of the loan balance. This sum is to be paid within 30 days.

[50] Several times throughout the trial, Mr. Bourget said he was a poor money manager, poor record keeper and had poor organizational skills. He offered this explanation virtually every time he was faced with a financial claim from Ms. Giles and admitted that he was unable to dispute her calculations. He said he would accept whatever was decided and repeated that he was prepared to “lie in the bed that he made for himself”. However, considering the number of years that Mr. Bourget has ignored his financial obligations to Ms. Giles and his son, it is difficult to accept as sincere his statements that he will accept what the court decides or to believe that he is now likely to make his payments voluntarily.

Summary

[51] For the reasons given, I make the following order:

1. Ms. Giles and Mr. Bourget shall have joint custody of Urbain Halley Bourget, born September 11, 2010, subject to Ms. Giles’ right to make final decisions in the event the parties are unable to agree or she is unable to obtain a timely response from Mr. Bourget on the issue to be decided. The parties shall communicate by email unless they agree otherwise.

2. Urbain shall continue to have his primary residence with his mother, Ms. Giles.

3. Urbain shall reside with his father, Mr. Bourget, on two out of every three weekends from Friday after school until Sunday evening at 6:30 pm. In the event that the Friday preceding Mr. Bourget’s weekend is a school holiday, the weekend will commence Thursday after school. If the Monday following his weekend is a school holiday, the weekend will continue until Monday at 6:30 pm, with the exception of Labour Day weekend when Urbain shall be returned to his mother’s care Sunday evening at 6:30 pm to prepare for school on Tuesday. Subject to the holiday schedule below, Urbain shall be in his mother’s care at all other times.

4. Mr. Bourget shall be responsible for picking up Urbain at the beginning of their access time together and for returning him to Ms. Giles when it is over.

5. Urbain’s extended school holidays such as the summer vacation, the Christmas Break and March Break shall be shared equally between his parents. Unless the parties agree otherwise:

(i) Urbain shall be with his mother for the first week of the school Christmas Break and with his father for the second week in even numbered years. In odd numbered years, Urbain will be with his father for the first week of the Christmas Break and with his mother for the second week. The first week shall always include Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. The second week will always include New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day;

(ii) Urbain shall be with his father for March Break in odd numbered years and with his mother in even numbered years. March Break is defined as Monday to Friday; and

(iii) Urbain shall spend alternate weeks with each parent during the school summer break subject to each party’s right to have an uninterrupted two week vacation with him. The mother shall have first choice of her vacation weeks in odd numbered years and the father shall have first choice in even numbered years. The parent with first choice shall advise the other in writing of his or her vacation weeks before May 15 in each year failing which the other parents’ choice takes priority.

6. Effective January 1, 2017 and on the first day of each subsequent month prior to November 30, 2017, Mr. Bourget shall pay to Ms. Giles support for the child, Urbain Halley Bourget, born September 11, 2010 in the amount of $202.00. Effective December 1, 2017, the amount of support payable shall be $201.00 each month until varied or terminated. These are the amounts payable under the CSG’s and the 2011 and 2017 Ontario tables for one child based on a payor’s annual income of $25,200.00.

7. Effective January 1, 2018, Mr. Bourget shall pay to Ms. Giles 27% of her after tax child care costs each month with the exception of July and August when each party should pay their own child care costs.

8. Mr. Bourget shall pay Ms. Giles retroactive child support for Urbain in the amount of $200.00 per month from January 1, 2013 until December 31, 2016 for a total annual amount owing of $2,400.00 based on annual income of $25,000.00 and the 2011 tables under the CSG. Mr. Bourget shall pay $100.00 each month to Ms. Giles toward this retroactive obligation for so long as Ms. Giles continues to incur daycare costs for Urbain. At such time as this expense is no longer required, Mr. Bourget’s payment toward the retroactive amount owing will increase to $200.00 and continue until it is paid in full.

9. The total amount owing by Mr. Bourget for retroactive daycare costs for 2013 to December, 2017, shall be determined upon receipt of evidence from Ms. Giles to establish her actual net of tax, out of pocket costs, to be delivered to me within 30 days hereof.

10. Mr. Bourget shall pay the sum of $1,150.00 to Ms. Giles to satisfy the balance owing on the loan advanced in 2013, within 30 days hereof.

11. Commencing in 2018 and in each subsequent year, the parties shall exchange a copy of their personal income tax return as filed with CRA for the most recent taxation year including any materials filed with the return and this shall be done no later than May 30. In addition, each shall provide the other with a copy of their Notice of Assessment and Re-Assessment, if any, for the most recent taxation year within 7 days of receipt from CRA.

Costs

[52] If the parties are unable to resolve the issue of costs between them, Ms. Giles shall provide her written submissions within 14 days. Mr. Bourget shall provide his submissions within 14 days thereafter and Ms. Giles shall have a further 7 day right of reply. Each party’s submissions shall not exceed 2 pages in length plus a Bill of Costs and any Offers to Settle.

Madam Justice D. Summers

Released: May 24, 2018