Court File and Parties
Court File No.: 18/D-160 Date: 2018/12/27 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Re: Brian Frederick Granter, Applicant And: Natalie Elizabeth Tricco, Respondent
Before: Corthorn J.
Counsel: Self-Represented, for the Applicant Self-Represented, for the Respondent
Heard: November 15, 2018 (Pembroke)
Reasons for Judgment
Introduction
[1] The parties were married in 2003. They have two children: Kalee Elizabeth Granter (D.O.B. – February 18, 2004) and Madison Joyce Granter (D.O.B. – October 17, 2006). The parties separated in 2012. They entered into a separation agreement in May 2015 (“the Agreement”).
[2] The applicant father seeks a divorce order. In her Answer, the respondent mother seeks relief with respect to arrears of child support. Although not raised in her Answer, the respondent also seeks relief with respect to s. 7 expenses.
[3] The parties are in agreement as to the amounts for their respective gross income for the years 2014 through 2017. The only issues with respect to the amount of child support payable in those years are:
Is the severance pay received by the applicant in 2014 to be excluded from his total income for the purpose of calculating child support payable?
Are the amounts withdrawn by the applicant from his Registered Retirement Savings Plan (“RRSP”) in each of the years 2014, 2015, and 2016 to be excluded from his total income for the purpose of calculating child support payable?
[4] At trial, the applicant raised a third issue with respect to the income upon which his child support obligations are to be calculated. He requests that the adjustment to child support effective as of June 1, 2018, be based on his actual 2018 income instead of his Line 150, Total Income from his 2017 tax return.
[5] Once a determination is made as to the applicant’s income for the purpose of paying child support, the arrears of child support can be calculated.
[6] The respondent requests an order that the applicant pay $905.28 for s. 7 expenses. That amount is said by the respondent to represent the applicant’s 60 per cent share of expenses incurred for hockey tournament fees, school supplies, and school travel expenses for one or both of the girls.
Child Support
[7] From the date of separation until May 1, 2018, the parties had joint custody of the girls. Since May 1, 2018, Kalee has been residing on a full-time basis with the respondent.
[8] Both parties were earning an income as of the date of separation. They have each continued to do so since that date.
[9] Section 14 of the Agreement addresses the calculation of child support payable. It provides that child support is to be calculated on a set-off basis:
Brian Frederick Granter will pay child support in the amount of $357.00 monthly to Natalie Elizabeth Granter. Support is calculated on a set-off basis. Child support payments commenced on November 30, 2012 and will be paid on the last day of each and every month. Support is paid directly to Natalie and not to the Family Responsibility Office (FRO). Should payments not be submitted within 15 days payment arrangements will be made through the Family Responsibility Office.
[10] The Agreement also addresses the adjustment of child support on an annual basis. Section 18 of the Agreement says:
The parties agree that each will provide the other a copy of their income tax return and any notices of assessment and re-assessment issued, on an annual basis. This is to be done no later than 1 May, with adjustment to be done to child support payment by 1 June.
[11] The respondent’s evidence is that over the years she did not receive timely or fulsome disclosure of the applicant’s income tax returns and notices of assessment. The respondent testified that the requisite disclosure was not made until 2018, when the applicant filed for divorce. With full disclosure having been made, and relying on the applicant’s Line 150, Total Income, the respondent calculates the arrears of child support from August 21, 2015 to October 31, 2018 to be $6,741.
[12] The applicant calculates the arrears to be $392.19. He arrives at that figure based on annual income figures that exclude the one-time severance payment and the three withdrawals from his RRSP.
[13] The parties each rely on a simple set-off calculation in support of their respective figures for the child support payable from August 1, 2015 to April 30, 2018.
[14] With respect to his request that his actual 2018 income be used in calculating child support payable from June 1, 2018 forward, the applicant relies on ss. 16 and 17 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 (“Guidelines”). He submits that it would be “fair and reasonable” (i.e., the language of s. 17 of the Guidelines) to use his 2018 actual income for that period.
[15] I turn first to the determination of the applicant’s income, in the years 2014, 2015, and 2016, for the purpose of child support payments.
Issue No. 1 - Severance Pay (2014)
a) Positions of the Parties
[16] In 2014, the applicant received a one-time severance payment, in the amount of $20,069.38, from the Department of National Defence (“DND”). The applicant testified that he had the option of receiving the severance pay as “cash” or to receive it in a lump sum, the latter to be immediately rolled into his RRSP. The applicant chose the lump sum and RRSP option.
[17] The applicant’s Line 150, Total Income for 2014 is $110,619.00. He requests that the severance pay be deducted from that amount to reduce his income to $90,549.62 for the purpose of calculating child support. The applicant’s request for a further reduction, on the basis of an RRSP withdrawal, is dealt with below under Issue No. 2.
[18] The respondent’s position is that the severance pay should not be excluded from the applicant’s Line 150, Total Income.
b) The Guidelines
[19] Sections 16 and 17 of the Guidelines address calculation of annual income and patterns of income, respectively. Section 16 provides:
Subject to sections 17 to 20, a parent’s or spouse’s annual income is determined using the sources of income set out under the heading “Total income” in the T1 General form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency and is adjusted in accordance with Schedule III.
[20] Section 17 gives the court discretion to rely on an annual income other than that referred to in s. 16 of the Guidelines:
If the court is of the opinion that the determination of a parent’s or spouse’s annual income under section 16 would not be the fairest determination of that income, the court may have regard to the parent’s or spouse’s income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years.
[21] The applicant’s position is that the severance pay he received in 2014 was a non-recurring payment within the meaning of s. 17 of the Guidelines.
c) Analysis
[22] The exercise of the court’s discretion, under s. 17 of the Guidelines, is context specific. In his decision in Walsh v. Walsh, at para. 28, Corbett J. distinguishes between predicting future income from past experience and establishing actual income for the purpose of calculating child support obligations ((2008), 55 R.F.L. (6th) 86 (Ont. S.C.)). Corbett J. highlights that the parties in Walsh had a settled routine of determining child support annually and of doing so based on actual income in the previous year.
[23] The same may be said for the parties before me. They have, since 2015, been operating on the basis of ss. 14 and 18 of the Agreement to calculate child support on an annual basis—they have a “settled routine”.
[24] The efficiency with which the parties have been able to apply ss. 14 and 18 of the Agreement may have been negatively affected because of the applicant’s lack of timely disclosure of the requisite financial information. The applicant’s failure to stick to the letter of the Agreement in that regard does not, however, entitle him to continue to disregard the terms of the Agreement.
[25] For the applicant to succeed on the severance pay issue, he must demonstrate that determination of income under s. 16 of the Guidelines would not, as it relates to the severance pay, be the fairest determination of the applicant’s income. I find that the applicant failed to meet that evidentiary burden.
[26] The applicant’s evidence is that the $20,069.38 is severance pay to which he was entitled from DND based on 20 years of service with the military.
[27] The fact that the applicant had options available to him as to how he would treat the severance pay (i.e., as cash or as an RRSP contribution) does not change the character of the income when paid to the applicant. To find otherwise would lead to the result that any RRSP contribution made in a year, regardless of the source of the income from which the contribution was made, could be deducted for the purpose of calculating income upon which to base child support payments. The respondent, for example, did not deduct from her income the RRSP contributions she made in any given year.
[28] I find that the applicant is not entitled to deduct severance pay from his Line 150, Total Income for the year 2014.
Issue No. 2 - RRSP Withdrawals (2014, 2015, and 2016)
a) Positions of the Parties
[29] The applicant requests that monies withdrawn from his RRSP in 2014, 2015, and 2016 be excluded from his income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation. The amounts involved are $8,900, $3,500, and $1,600, respectively.
[30] The respondent’s position is that there is no basis for the RRSP withdrawals to be excluded from the applicant’s income for the purpose of calculating the latter’s child support obligations.
b) Analysis
[31] The applicant testified that the funds withdrawn from his RRSP were not used to enhance his lifestyle; the funds were used to pay down debt that arose as a consequence of separation.
[32] The applicant relies on a June 2015 document from the Bank of Montreal titled “Customer Snapshot”. From that document, the applicant identified three debts he was servicing at that time:
- A personal line of credit with a balance of $8,406.71;
- A personal loan plan with a balance of $15,790.06; and
- A mortgage on the matrimonial home with a balance of $222,976.99. The applicant’s evidence is that the amount owing on the mortgage was in fact approximately $245,000.
[33] The applicant testified that he was also servicing a debt of approximately $15,000 on a loan with respect to a camper-trailer. In cross-examination the applicant acknowledged that the respondent also paid money towards the balance owing on that loan. I note that the final page of the Agreement is an amendment in which reference is made to the respondent’s payment of $4,380.81 towards the outstanding balance on the “trailer loan”. That sum was deducted from the respondent’s share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.
[34] The applicant provided no documents such as bank, RRSP, loan, or mortgage statements as evidence of the use made of the RRSP funds withdrawn in each of the three years. There is no documentation in support of the applicant’s evidence that the funds withdrawn were in fact applied to reduce the various forms of indebtedness identified.
[35] In addition, the applicant did not testify as to the type of expenses incurred to generate the balances owing on the personal line of credit and the personal loan plan. In the absence of evidence of that kind, the applicant has failed to establish that the exclusion of the RRSP funds from his Line 150, Total Income would be the fairest determination of his income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligations.
c) Summary
[36] I find that the applicant’s income for the purpose of determining the applicant’s child support obligations based on his 2014, 2015, and 2016 income shall be his Line 150, Total Income for those years.
Issue No. 3 - Actual Income (May 1, 2018)
a) Positions of the Parties
[37] The applicant’s Line 150, Total Income for 2017 is $91,260. The applicant relies on a September 13, 2018 letter from his employer (DND), as evidence that his gross pay, as of the date of that letter is $71,280. There is a $20,000 difference between the applicant’s Line 150, Total Income in his 2017 tax return and his actual employment income for 2018. For that reason, the applicant requests that his actual income in 2018 be used to calculate his child support obligation from June 1, 2018 forward.
[38] The respondent’s position is that there is no reason to deviate from the terms of the Agreement; the applicant’s Line 150, Total Income for 2017 is to be used in calculating the applicant’s child support obligations from June 1, 2018 forward.
b) Preliminary Issue
[39] The only relief requested by the applicant in his pleading is a divorce. He did not seek any relief related to the terms of the Agreement. He did not formally seek leave of the court to amend his pleading to seek relief of that kind. The respondent did not object to this issue being addressed at trial.
[40] In the circumstances, the applicant is granted leave to amend his Application to include a request for the child support payable effective June 1, 2018 to be based on his actual 2018 income (instead of his actual 2017 income).
c) Analysis
[41] The applicant relies on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Vanos v. Vanos, 2010 ONCA 876, 271 O.A.C. 222. In Vanos, the Court of Appeal was critical of the trial judge for using the prior year’s income to determine the support payor’s child support obligation for the year in which the trial was conducted. The support payor’s actual income as of the date of trial was known.
[42] At paras. 13 to 15 of their decision, the Court of Appeal said:
[13] In our view, where the amount of child support that should have been paid in a prior year is under consideration, the payor’s actual income for that year is the amount that should be used to calculate support for the prior period, so long as the payor’s actual income for the prior period is known.
[14] When calculating prospective child support, income from the previous year is used to calculate future support, essentially as a matter of convenience, because actual income for the upcoming year is incapable of exact determination. However, where, as here, the actual amount of income earned in a prior year is known, it is that amount that should determine the quantum of support that should have been paid.
[15] Our conclusion in this regard is rooted in common sense – but also in s.2(3) of the Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, which states, “[w]here, for the purposes of these Guidelines, any amount is determined on the basis of specified information, the most current information must be used.”
[43] Paragraph 15 of the decision in Vanos is reflective of the legislative intent, with respect to the Guidelines: that child support paid in a given year be in step with the parties’ respective income for that year. It is not, however, mandatory for parties to abide by that intent in the terms of a separation agreement.
[44] The parties in the matter before me chose not to abide by that intent. Instead, they adopted a different method by which to adjust child support on an annual basis. The applicant overlooks that choice. He overlooks the parties’ deliberate decision that the annual adjustment is effective as of June 1 and applies prospectively; there is no retroactive adjustment to child support.
[45] To grant the applicant’s request would be neither reasonable nor fair—at no point would he have paid or be required to pay child support based on his actual income for 2017.
[46] Separation agreements frequently include terms that require adjustment of child support retroactively once the parties’ respective annual incomes are known. The retroactive adjustment results in the child support paid for a particular year being based on the parties’ respective annual incomes for that year. On a practical basis, however, that only happens because of adjustments made in each following year:
- If there is an overpayment, either the overpayment is repaid by the recipient in a lump sum or ongoing child support is reduced until the overpayment is addressed; and
- If there has been an underpayment, the shortfall is either paid in a lump sum or by way of increased monthly payments until the shortfall is addressed.
[47] Neither party gave any evidence as to why they chose the particular method of adjustment set out in s. 18 of the Agreement. The method chosen has the benefit to the parties of not requiring adjustments on an annual basis for overpayments or underpayments. That method does, however, require the parties to consider (a) their respective actual incomes in any given year and (b) the impact those incomes will have on child support obligations from 6 to 18 months after the end of each calendar year.
[48] The applicant has historically earned a larger annual income than has the respondent. As long as that remains the case, it is incumbent upon the applicant to manage his finances in such a way that he is in a position to meet his child support obligations over time. In summary, the applicant must plan ahead.
d) Summary
[49] The annual adjustment effective June 1, 2018 shall be made based on the applicant’s Line 150, Total income for 2017.
Issue No. 4 - Special Expenses
a) Positions of the Parties
[50] The respondent seeks $905.28 from the applicant as the latter’s 60 per cent share of special expenses for hockey tournament fees, school supplies, and school travel expenses for one or both of the girls.
[51] The respondent admits that she did not follow, to the letter, the terms of the Agreement with respect to special expenses. She did not seek the applicant’s consent prior to incurring the expenses, nor did she provide the applicant with copies of the receipt for the various expenses once they were incurred (s. 16 of the Agreement).
[52] The respondent’s evidence is that she handled the subject expenses in the same manner that she did in previous years. In those years, the applicant reimbursed the respondent for expenses of the same type, even though the applicant did not seek prior consent and did not provide copies of receipts. The respondent assumed that the parties would handle such expenses in 2018 just as they had in prior years.
[53] The respondent has minimal evidence to support the expenses for which she claims reimbursement. By my calculation, if $905.28 represents 60 per cent of the expenses, then the expenses total $1,508.80 ($905.28/0.6).
[54] The applicant is prepared to pay for certain expenses incurred, upon receiving from the respondent copies of the receipts or invoices for those expenses. The expenses which the applicant is conditionally prepared to pay are:
Hockey pants $ 40.67 Hockey Tournament fees $ 89.40 School online fees $ 123.00 School online fees $ 96.00 Total $ 349.07
b) Preliminary Issue
[55] The respondent did not identify in her Answer that she would be seeking relief with respect to s. 7 expenses. The applicant did not object to this issue being addressed at trial. The document brief that he filed (made a lettered exhibit at trial) includes documents dealing with s. 7 expenses. I am satisfied that the applicant is not prejudiced in any way by considering the issue of s. 7 expenses.
[56] Leave is granted to the respondent to amend her Answer to include relief related to s. 7 expenses.
c) Analysis
[57] The applicant’s share of expenses in dispute is $556.21 ($905.28 - $349.07). The respondent did provide any invoices or other documents in support of that portion of the expenses. In the absence of such evidence and in light of the respondent’s lack of compliance with the terms of the Agreement, as they relate to s. 7 expenses, the respondent is not entitled to $556.21. She may, however, be entitled to a portion of that amount.
[58] The respondent’s position with respect to arrears of child support is said by her to be based on adherence to the precise terms of the Agreement with respect to (a) the annual calculation and, if required, (b) adjustment of child support. The respondent chose, however, not to follow the terms of the Agreement with respect to s. 7 expenses. She made that choice at her peril.
[59] The applicant does not deny that expenses were, until recently, addressed without adherence to the precise terms of the Agreement. It appears that once the applicant was faced with the claim for retroactive child support, he decided that adherence to the Agreement was required. There is no evidence from the applicant that he ever gave the respondent notice that he would, from a specific date forward, rely on the precise terms of the Agreement with respect to s. 7 expenses.
[60] I find that the respondent was lulled into a false sense of security about s. 7 expenses because the applicant did not hold the respondent to the precise terms of the Agreement in that regard. Given that neither of the parties has, to date, adhered strictly to the terms of the Agreement with respect to s. 7 expenses, I find that it is reasonable for the applicant to reimburse the respondent an additional $300 (out of the $556.21) without the necessity of the respondent providing invoices or receipts.
[61] In summary, the applicant shall reimburse the respondent for s. 7 expenses on the following terms:
a) Within ten days of receiving the relevant invoice or receipt, the applicant shall reimburse the respondent for:
Hockey pants $ 40.67 Hockey Tournament fees $ 89.40 School online fees $ 123.00 School online fees $ 96.00 Total $ 349.07
b) Within ten days of the date on which these reasons are released, the applicant shall pay the respondent $300; and
c) The amounts paid pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b), above shall fully satisfy the applicant’s obligations with respect to the s. 7 expenses claimed by the respondent at trial.
[62] Neither party required strict adherence to the Agreement until the Application was commenced. If the parties find that following the Agreement to the letter with respect to s. 7 expenses is unworkable, then they may wish to consider negotiating an amendment to the relevant section(s) of the Agreement. If they are able to agree upon such an amendment, it might alleviate some of the stress in their respective lives and allow them to better plan ahead financially. I am confident that both parties recognize that a negotiated resolution is preferable to additional litigation.
Calculation of Arrears of Child Support
a) Arrears Generally
[63] The parties admitted each other’s respective Line 150, Total Income for the years 2014 through 2017. They agree on (a) the amount of child support paid by the applicant from August 2015 to October 31, 2018, and (b) the attribution of $80.00 per month towards arrears from the $450 per month paid by the applicant from May 1 to October 31, 2018.
[64] On the basis of the findings made herein and the admissions, child support payable is calculated based on the following incomes for the parties:
| Year | Applicant | Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 | $ 110,619 | $ 58,120 |
| 2015 | $ 84,177 | $ 52,220 |
| 2016 | $ 84,230 | $ 57,360 |
| 2017 | $ 91,260 | $ 54,009 |
[65] The child support payable in the years 2015 through 2018 is set out in Appendix ‘A’. The appendix also includes the calculation of the arrears of child support from August 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018.
b) August 1, 2015 to April 30, 2018
[66] During this period, the parties shared equal custody of Kalee and Madison. For this period, and pursuant to s. 14 of the Agreement, child support is calculated on a simple set-off basis. The set-off amounts are determined on the basis of the Divorcemate software for the particular years in which child support is payable. The set-off amounts are listed in Appendix ‘A’.
[67] In summary, the child support payable by the applicant to the respondent during this period is:
Aug. 1/15 to May 31/16 $ 681 Jun. 1/16 to May 31/17 $ 446 Jun. 1/17 to Apr. 30/18 $ 371
[68] The child support payable for the month of May 2018 (based on 2016 incomes) and from June 1, 2018 forward (based on 2017 incomes) remains to be determined.
c) May 1, 2018 Forward
▪ The Guidelines
[69] The Guidelines address child support payable when one parent has sole custody and when the parents have shared custody. Section 9 of the Guidelines prescribes a set-off calculation and allows for adjustment if appropriate:
Where a parent or spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of year, the amount of the order for child support of a child must be determined by taking into account,
(a) The amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the parents or spouses;
(b) The increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and
(c) The condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent or spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.
[70] Nowhere in the Guidelines is a hybrid scenario, such as the one the parties now have, addressed. By “hybrid”, I mean one party having full custody of at least one child and the parties sharing equal custody of the other child or children.
[71] The three clauses of s. 9 of the Guidelines must be considered to arrive at a reasonable amount for child support when custody is shared (Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217). Starting with s. 9 (a), a simple set-off calculation is made.
[72] Pursuant to s. 9 (b), consideration is to be given to the overall increased costs that can arise in a shared custody situation. For that sub-section to be a factor, there must be evidence of the “overall increased costs”. That evidence is typically presented in the form of budgets and actual expenses from the parties. Neither party in the matter before me presented any evidence with respect to increased costs at any time—in particular since May 1, 2018. As a result, there is no evidence upon which to consider the factors set out in s. 9 (b) when determining child support payable in this matter.
[73] Section 9(c) gives the court a broad discretion to carry out an analysis of the needs and resources of both parents and of the children. Once again, evidence is required and neither party presented any evidence in that regard. Therefore, there is no evidence upon which to consider the factors set out in s. 9 (c) when determining child support payable in this matter.
[74] The court is therefore left with the task of determining the appropriate set-off calculation for this hybrid custody arrangement.
▪ The Case Law
[75] Two lines of cases have evolved with respect to child support payable in hybrid custody settings. The first line of cases supports an approach based on economies of scale. That line of cases includes the decision of Vogelsang J. in Burns v. Burns, 40 R.F.L. (4th) 32 (Ont. Gen. Div.). The Divorcemate software is based on the economies of scale approach.
[76] Applying the economies of scale approach from Burns, the applicant is deemed to have Madison in his care 50 per cent of the time and the respondent is deemed to have Kalee on a full-time basis and Madison in her care 50 per cent of the time. The monthly child support is calculated using the following formula:
The applicant father is to pay child support for Kalee on the basis of the Child Support Guidelines for one child;
The child support payable with respect to Madison is determined using the following set-off calculation:
a) The applicant’s contribution to child support for Madison is 50 per cent of the difference between child support for two children on a full-time basis and that for one child on a full-time basis;
b) The respondent’s contribution to child support for Madison is 50 per cent of the child support payable for one child on a full-time basis; and
c) The set-off amount, payable by the applicant, is (a) – (b) above. For those periods in which the set-off amount is payable by the respondent, that amount is based on (b) – (a) above.
[77] The second approach is a two-stage approach. It stems from the Saskatchewan decision in Wouters v. Wouters, 2001 SKQB 205, 205 Sask. R. 215. The first step is to calculate child support payable with respect to the child or children for whom custody is not shared (i.e., based on s. 3 of the Guidelines). Section 9 of the Guidelines is then applied, as the second step, to determine child support payable on a set-off basis for the child or children for whom custody is shared. The results from steps one and two are combined to determine the child support payable.
[78] In determining the child support payable in the matter before me, I have applied the economies of scale approach and, in doing so, have relied on the Divorcemate software. The figures set out in Appendix ‘A’ for May 2018 and for the months of June through October 2018 are based on that approach. In summary, those figures are:
May 2018 $ 743 Jun. to Oct., 2018 $ 867
[79] I pause to note that the child support payable from May 1, 2018 forward would, if based on the two-stage approach, be approximately $250 more than the support payable based on the economies of scale approach.
d) Arrears Paid to Date
[80] At a case conference held in May 2018, an order was made on the consent of the parties pursuant to which the applicant was required to pay a total of $451 per month in child support to the respondent, with $80 of that amount applied towards arrears of child support. Those payments are taken into consideration in calculating arrears of child support.
e) Summary
[81] In summary, the arrears of child support from August 2, 2015 to October 31, 2018, are $6,893.00.
[82] The applicant is currently required to pay $867 per month in child support. In addition to paying that amount, he is required to pay the arrears of child support. Arrears of child support have built up over a 3.5-year period. It is important for everyone concerned, the girls most of all, that child support be brought up to date in a timely manner and that the applicant remain current with his child support obligations.
[83] Based on the applicant’s level of income, I draw an inference and find that he is in a position to pay the arrears of child support in full by March 31, 2019. Either the applicant is able to pay the full amount owing from his personal savings or, if not, he is in a position to finance the payment through a personal loan or other form of credit.
Divorce
[84] The marriage certificate and a clearance certificate are in the court file. Neither of the parties presented any evidence at trial to deal with the applicant’s request for a divorce. The most efficient and cost-effective way to deal with that aspect of the relief sought is to require that the applicant proceed in writing with the request for a divorce. That aspect of the relief shall be dealt with by way of a basket motion.
[85] The relevant materials shall be filed by the applicant with the court to my attention. To be certain that this litigation is brought to a timely conclusion, the applicant shall file the requisite materials no later than January 31, 2019.
Summary
[86] I order as follows:
The applicant is granted leave to amend his Application and to seek, at trial, an order that the child support payable for the period from June 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019 be based on his actual income for 2018.
The applicant shall pay to the respondent arrears of child support for the period August 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018, in the amount of $6,893.00.
The arrears of child support in the amount of $6,893.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the respondent no later than March 31, 2019.
For the period November 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019, the applicant shall pay to the respondent child support in the amount of $867.00 per month.
The respondent is granted leave to amend her Answer to include a request for payment of s. 7 expenses totalling $905.28 and to seek, at trial, an order requiring the applicant to reimburse the respondent in that amount.
With respect to s. 7 expenses:
a) Within ten days of receiving the relevant invoice or receipt, the applicant shall reimburse the respondent for one or more of the following:
Hockey pants $ 40.67 Hockey Tournament fees $ 89.40 School online fees $ 123.00 School online fees $ 96.00 Total $ 349.07
b) Within ten days of the date on which these reasons are released, the applicant shall pay the respondent $300; and
c) The amounts paid pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b), above shall fully satisfy the applicant’s obligations with respect to the s. 7 expenses claimed by the respondent at trial.
The applicant shall proceed with the Application for divorce by way of basket motion and shall be responsible for filing the relevant documents with the court.
The applicant shall, no later than January 31, 2019, file with the court the documents in support of the request for a divorce.
Costs
[87] The parties were both self-represented at trial. I understand that one or both of them may have been represented at or, at a minimum, received assistance from counsel in preparation for various stages of the litigation. There is no obvious basis for an award of costs of the trial or of any prior stage of the litigation. In filing the materials on the basket motion, the applicant will not incur costs payable by the respondent.
[88] As a result, unless either of the parties delivers written submissions with respect to costs by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, February 1, 2019, there shall be no costs payable in the matter.
[89] In the event either party delivers written costs submissions they shall comply with the following requirements:
a) The submissions shall be limited to a maximum of four pages, exclusive of a bill of costs;
b) Written submissions shall comply with Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194;
c) Hard copies of any case law or other authorities relied on shall be provided with the submissions and shall comply with Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to font size;
d) The submissions, the documents referred to therein, and case law and other authorities shall be on single-sided pages; and
e) In the event the opposing party wishes to deliver a reply to the costs submissions of the opposing party, the reply submissions shall be delivered by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 12, 2019. Reply submissions shall comply with paragraphs (a) to (d) above.
Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn Released: December 27, 2018
Appendix 'A'
Granter v. Tricco Arrears of Child Support
August 2015 to May 2016
| Payment | Received | Arrears | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicant's income of $110,619; child support payment - $1,545 | |||
| Respondent's income of $58,120; child support payment - $864 | |||
| Set-off amount | $ 681 | ||
| August | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| September | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| October | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| November | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| December | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| January | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| February | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| March | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| April | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| May | $ 681 | $ 448 | $ 233 |
| Total | $ 2,330 |
June 2016 to May 2017
| Payment | Received | Arrears | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicant's income of $84,177; child support payment - $1,222 | |||
| Respondent's income of $52,220; child support payment - $776 | |||
| Set-off amount | $ 446 | ||
| June | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| July | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| August | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| September | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| October | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| November | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| December | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| January | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| February | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| March | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| April | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| May | $ 446 | $ 337 | $ 109 |
| Total | $ 1,308 |
June 2017 to May 2018
| Payment | Received | Arrears | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicant's income of $84,230; child support payment - $1,223 | |||
| Respondent's income of $57,360; child support payment - $852 | |||
| Set-off amount | $ 371 | ||
| Economies of scale amount | $ 743 | ||
| June | $ 371 | $ 337 | $ 34 |
| July | $ 371 | $ 337 | $ 34 |
| August | $ 371 | $ 337 | $ 34 |
| September | $ 371 | $ 337 | $ 34 |
| October | $ 371 | $ 337 | $ 34 |
| November | $ 371 | $ 337 | $ 34 |
| December | $ 371 | $ 192 | $ 179 |
| January | $ 371 | $ 192 | $ 179 |
| February | $ 371 | $ 192 | $ 179 |
| March | $ 371 | $ 340 | $ 31 |
| April | $ 371 | $ 266 | $ 105 |
| May ** | $ 743 | $ 370 | $ 373 |
| Total | $ 1,250 |
June 1 to October 31, 2018
| Payment | Received | Arrears | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economies of scale amount | $ 867 | ||
| June | $ 867 | $ 370 | $ 497 |
| July | $ 867 | $ 370 | $ 497 |
| August | $ 867 | $ 370 | $ 497 |
| September | $ 867 | $ 370 | $ 497 |
| October | $ 867 | $ 370 | $ 497 |
| Total | $ 2,485 |
** Figures for May to October 2018 are based on economies of scale
| Overall Total of Arrears | $ 7,373 |
| Less arrears paid ($80 / mo. - May through October, 2018) | $ 480 |
| Arrears as of October 2018 | $ 6,893 |