COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-21888

DATE: 20190130

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

S. P.

Applicant

– and –

C.C.

Respondent

Emma Katz and Marisa Vekios, for the Applicant

C.C., acting in person

HEARD at Toronto: January 21, 2019

Reasons for judgment

C. HORKINS J.

introduction

[1] The applicant S.P. (“mother”) and the respondent C.C. (“father”) are the parents of an eight year old child, W.P.C. born on November 5, 2010. The parties dated periodically from 2006 to 2013. They are not married and have never lived together.

[2] The matter proceeded to trial. The mother seeks sole custody of the child, imputation of income to the father, child support, s. 7 expenses and other miscellaneous relief. The father seeks custody, access and child support.

procedural background

[3] The father’s participation throughout this application has been minimal. He has refused to comply with the Family Law Rules.

[4] The application was issued on November 22, 2017. Instead of accepting service of the mother’s documents, the father served the mother with signed notarized documents in which he claims to be a “sovereign”. He states that the court has no jurisdiction over him and that the laws do not apply to him. As a result of the father’s actions, the mother had to incur the expense of a motion to obtain an order that approved service of her documents on the father.

[5] The father did not serve and file an Answer, a sworn Financial Statement or any the financial disclosure, as required by the Family Law Rules.

[6] A case conference was held before Justice Stewart on March 5, 2018. The father did not attend or file a case conference brief. Justice Stewart ordered the father to produce various documentation and serve and file an Answer and Financial Statement within 60 days. The father did not comply.

[7] On June 5, 2018, the father sent mother’s counsel a six-page letter once again claiming that he is a sovereign and that the laws do not apply to him.

[8] A settlement conference was held on October 26, 2018, before Justice Akbarali. The father attended without counsel. Justice Akbarali’s endorsement records the following. The mother requested an undefended trial. The father told the Court that he identifies as a sovereign and disputes the Court’s jurisdiction. He requested that the parties attend a mediation outside of Court. Justice Akbarali noted that reaching an agreement was unlikely and ordered that the matter proceed to an uncontested trial for one day on January 14, 2019.

[9] Justice Akbarali ordered that if by November 30, 2018, the father filed his Answer, Financial Statement, and a Form 35.1 affidavit in support of custody and access with the Court, he would be entitled to request a Trial Management Conference “with a view to his meaningful and orderly participation in the trial”.

[10] On November 30, 2018, the father served and filed an incomplete Answer and Financial Statement with no supporting disclosure. He also served a Form 35.1 affidavit in support of his claim for custody and access. The Answer does not include any particulars to support his own claim for custody, access and child support or his dispute of the mother’s claims. In his Financial Statement, he marked his income as "N/A" and did not list any of his assets. He did list debts. His materials were not sworn or commissioned.

[11] On November 30, 2018, the father also served and filed an Affidavit in which he once again stated that he is a sovereign and that he "will not consent to being enslaved” or placed in “involuntary servitude".

[12] On December 17, 2018, the father served mother’s counsel with a Trial Management Brief for a trial management conference scheduled for January 2, 2019. The father unilaterally scheduled this date. He never contacted the mother’s counsel to see when they would be available. The mother’s counsel rearranged her schedule to attend.

[13] The father’s Trial Management Brief was not properly completed. It contained no information to support any of the issues in this case. The only information that the father included in the brief was the following: “Denial of consent enforce. There has been no agreement provided in evidence, or; the agreement disclosure has been withheld”.

[14] Despite having booked the Trial Management Conference, the father did not attend at the conference. Instead, he sent a friend to request an adjournment of the trial scheduled for January 14, 2019. The friend told the Court that the father has been too busy working 24 hours a day and has been unable to prepare for trial. The friend had no information about where the father was working and what he was doing at work. On consent, the trial was adjourned to January 21, 2019, peremptory to the father.

[15] The trial proceeded on January 21, 2019 and the father attended. At trial, the father stated that he is a sovereign and that the Court has no jurisdiction over him. The father chose to limit his participation in the trial. He made an opening (and closing) statement that focused on his role as a sovereign and did not address the issues in the case. He cross-examined the mother and asked mostly irrelevant questions. The father then advised the court that he would not testify or introduce any evidence. This was the father’s choice. It was made clear to him that if he wanted the Court to consider his evidence, he had to testify under oath. He refused to do so.

The issues

[16] The following issues must be decided:

(i) Custody of the child

(ii) Access for the non-custodial parent

(iii) Child Support and s. 7 expenses

[17] I accept the mother’s evidence as fact. Her testimony was clear and convincing and supported by documentary evidence that she filed. In contrast, the father refused to testify and as a result there is no evidence to challenge the mother’s testimony.

Custody of the child/Access

Position of the Parties

[18] The mother seeks sole custody of the child. Since the child’s birth, she has been the sole caregiver and has made all of the decisions relating to the child’s care and upbringing. Given the father’s behaviour and his lack of contact with the child, she says that joint custody is not in the child’s best interests. Access, if requested, must follow a fixed schedule and be supervised at the father’s expense.

[19] In the father’s Answer he checked the box to claim custody, access and child support, but offered no details. Based on the information in his Form 35.1 affidavit, it seems that the father is asking for joint custody and that he wants the child to reside with him.

Legal Framework

[20] Since the father repeatedly claimed that the Court does not have jurisdiction, I will address this issue. This Court has jurisdiction to make an order for custody of, or access to, a child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”). In this case, jurisdiction is grounded in s. 22(1)(a) of the CLRA because the child was born in Ontario and has lived here all of his life. Therefore he was “habitually resident” in Ontario at the time the application was commenced and continues to hold this status. Further, the Court has the power to make a child support order and impute income to the payor for the purpose of fixing the support (s. 33 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3; s. 19 of the O. Reg. 391/97: CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES.

[21] Section 24(1) of the CLRA provides that an application for custody or access “shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4)” as follows:

24(2) The court shall consider all of the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

(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

(3) A person’s past conduct shall be considered only,

(a) in accordance with subsection (4); or

(b) if the court is satisfied that the conduct is otherwise relevant to the person’s ability to act as a parent.

(4) In assessing a person’s ability to act as a parent, the court shall consider whether the person has at any time committed violence or abuse against,

(a) his or her spouse;

(b) a parent of the child to whom the application relates;

(c) a member of the person’s household; or

(d) any child.

Analysis

Sole Custody

[22] I have considered the needs and circumstances of the child. For the following reasons, I find that an order granting the mother sole custody, is in the best interests of the child.

[23] Sadly, this is a case where the father has refused to play a meaningful role in the child’s life and there is no reason to believe that this will change. There is no evidence to show that there is love, affection and an emotional tie between the father and child.

[24] The mother has been the child’s sole caregiver since birth and has made all decisions concerning his health, religion, extracurricular activities, education, and everyday decisions such as his attendance at school, his clothing, what he eats, when he goes to bed etc. The mother has cared for him with the assistance of her parents and her partner. She has provided a stable and permanent home for her son.

[25] After the child’s birth the parties had an on and off relationship until July 2013. During that time, they did not live together and the father saw the child sporadically. When their relationship ended, the father’s contact with the child dramatically decreased. The father would go for months at a time and not see the child. In his text messages to the mother, he was verbally abusive.

[26] In September 2010, the mother decided to become a midwife and started her education. In January 2013, when she began on-call placements, she and the child moved home to live with her mother and step-father on a full-time basis, so they could assist with the child’s care.

[27] The mother has completed her training and now works as a midwife. She has a new partner and, as of last May, she and the child live with this partner.

[28] The child attends the neighbourhood school where there is before and after school care. The mother describes the child as a wonderful, sweet and energetic boy that requires a lot of attention due to behavioural and learning issues. The mother continues to rely on her own mother to help with the child during the weeks when she is on call as a midwife. The mother has never been able to rely on the father to help with the child’s needs. The father has never attended any of the child’s appointments or activities.

[29] The child’s aggressive behaviour is largely triggered by change in his routine. The father’s refusal to abide by an access schedule is a trigger. When the mother and child started to live with her new partner, this was a trigger. However, the child is now used to the routine with his mother and her partner and his behaviour has started to settle down.

[30] The child is on a waiting list to attend a program at CAMH to help manage the behavioural problems.

[31] The father has only exercised access on a sporadic basis. He has often declined the mother’s suggestions or invitations to see the child and has cancelled after access plans have been made.

[32] The father will disappear from the child’s life for several weeks or months at a time. Even so the mother has made every effort to accommodate his last-minute requests to see the child, in an attempt to facilitate access. The father’s access visits have typically lasted one to four hours.

[33] The father did not visit the child at all from late September 2015 to late December 2015. In 2015, he did not attend the child’s birthday party even though he was invited.

[34] In 2016, when the child was five years-old, the father exercised approximately two evening visits that were spontaneously converted to overnights, due to the father’s last minute requests. In total the father has only had the child overnight three times.

[35] In 2016, the father chose not to have any contact or visits with the child during the following time periods: April 13 to May 4th, 2016; May 31 to June 5, 2016; July 30 to August 12, 2016.

[36] In 2016, the father planned to visit the child on Father's day. The child made him a card and called to ask him to come over, but he did not show up. The father did not see his son during Christmas, 2016.

[37] In February 2017, the father broke off communications with the mother. He told her not to contact him again. From February to late October 2017 (9 months), the father did not communicate the mother. He did not reach out and ask about the child nor did he ask to see or speak to him.

[38] In October 2017, the father sent the mother a message and asked about seeing the child. The mother suggested an arrangement for the father to see his son on a regular basis. She suggested a two hour visit every other week. The mother explained that it is very difficult for the child when his father disappears from and then reappears in the child’s life. She asked that the arrangement be regular and predictable. The father never replied. He has not seen or spoken to the child since late 2016.

[39] The child has had ongoing behavioural and psychological issues since he was a toddler, including emotional regulation and anger, as well as learning deficits. He has outbursts that progress to hitting, biting, spitting and screaming. This worsens whenever the father sporadically and without consistency disappears from or reappears in the child’s life. The mother has actively pursued treatment and testing for her son.

[40] The child underwent a socio-emotional assessment at SickKids Centre for Community Mental Health (CCMH, formerly Hincks-Dellcrest Centre) and a behavioural assessment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), where he was diagnosed with Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD).

[41] The child also had a psycho-educational assessment at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). The assessment diagnosed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and found that the child has several challenges: heightened levels of inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, learning problems, executive functioning (difficulty planning, prioritizing and organizing), defiance/aggression (poor control of anger/aggression), and peer relations (difficulty with friendships); weakness in graphomotor skills (writing, forming letters and numbers) and low-average psychomotor speed; weakness in reading (word reading and decoding).

[42] The psycho-educational report emphasizes the child’s need for scheduling, structure and routine. It recommends that when changes to routines are made, the child should be given advance warning, to the extent possible. The child needs a regular schedule for study periods and breaks. He also needs external structure, help with making lists, and frequent reminders.

[43] Since the father did not testify, there is no evidence to explain his behaviour and disinterest in the child. There is no evidence to show that he appreciates the child’s special needs and the care and attention that is required to help the child.

[44] The minimal evidence that he provided in the From 35.1 affidavit shows that he does not have a plan of care that is in the child’s best interests. His proposed plan of care for the child is sparse and raises serious concerns about the safety and well-being of the child if left in his father’s care.

[45] In the Form 35.1 affidavit, the father states that he and the child will live at “202 Spadina Ave Tor”. No people are identified as living with him. 202 Spadina is a house that the father bought in November 2010 and sold to his lawyer in September 2016. When the parties dated, the mother often went to this house. She described the inside to include an apartment where the father lives and an after-hours night club and gambling area. For some time she worked at the bar. Recently a marijuana dispensary was being operated in the house. In March 2018, following a police raid at the dispensary, the father and others were charged with drug possession and trafficking. 202 Spadina is not a safe and healthy environment in which to raise and care for the child.

[46] In the Form 35.1, the father states that decisions for the child will be made jointly by the parents. This is unrealistic. The father has never participated in making decisions for the child and shows no interest in doing so. He has never cooperated with the mother to provide care for the child and he is verbally abusive in his communications. The father has left the mother solely responsible for the child. In the circumstances, she must rely on her family for help when needed.

[47] The father describes himself in the Form 35.1 as a “stay-at-home parent” and yet his friend told the Trial Management judge that he was busy working. He does not name the school or the daycare the child would attend or how the child would be cared for on a regular basis. Instead he says that this is “N/A”. His plan for the child to have regular contact with others, including parents and family members is also “N/A”.

[48] The father says that he will have support from his sister and mother, but there is no evidence from these family members. It is not known where they live and work and if they are prepared to help. There is also no evidence that the child even knows the father’s family.

[49] The father acknowledges that the child has special needs that he calls “attention behaviour issues”. Form 35.1 asks the parent to list the support and service that the child will receive to address the special needs, such as the names of doctors, counsellors, treatment centres etc. that are or will be providing support or services to the child. The father’s answer is “[the child] has long wanted the company of his father and siblings this will be corrected” and he states that the child needs a “stable father figure”. This highlights the father’s complete failure to recognize the child’s special needs.

[50] The evidence provided on the Form 35.1 affidavit shows that the best interests of the child would not be served if the father had custody of the child. The same concern exists for access, as I will explain bellow.

Access

[51] The mother proposes that the father be granted supervised access if he abides by a fixed schedule and pays for the cost of supervision to be provided by Brayden Supervision Services Inc.

[52] Aside from what the father stated in the Form 35.1 affidavit, there is no evidence from him addressing access and why he has chosen not to see his son since late 2016. It is not even known if he wants to see his son.

[53] The best interests of a child are typically served when a child regularly sees his parents. However this father chooses not to see his son. Before he cut off contact in late 2016, he would not follow a regular access schedule. His periods of absence and cancelled visits, took away the structure and routine that the child needs and exposed the child to disappointment.

[54] During the father’s opening and closing submissions, he did not speak about the issues before the court. Instead, he read from a script dealing with his position that he is a sovereign, that the Court has no jurisdiction over him and that he is not bound by any laws.

[55] The mother wants the child to have a relationship with his father. She has tried her best to be supportive, but the father refuses to do what is best for the child. The mother, understandably, does not trust the father to do what is best for the child, and for this reason she asks that his access be supervised.

[56] The father’s sporadic contact with the child, his long periods of absence and unwillingness to follow a set schedule are harmful to the child. The father’s conduct aggravates the child’s behavioural problems. The child needs scheduling, structure and routine and the father provides the opposite.

[57] The nature of the father’s past access cannot continue. The child cannot be left wondering if his father will show up for an access visit. If the father wishes to see the child and build a relationship, then he will have to prove that he can be trusted to follow Court orders and act in the child’s best interests.

[58] The father has repeatedly stated that, in his view, he is not bound by the laws. As a result, if he had unsupervised access, he has made it clear that he would not follow a Court order that sets out when and how access would take place and when the child must be returned to the mother.

[59] In these unfortunate circumstances, the father’s access must be supervised with the following terms:

(i) The father’s access shall be supervised by Brayden Supervision Services Inc. at the father’s expense. It is the father’s responsibility to arrange this access.

(ii) Supervised access shall be for two hours, once every other week, on a day and time that is convenient for the mother and child.

(iii) If the father has not commenced his supervised access by May 31, 2019, then he shall have no access to the child, unless a Court orders otherwise.

(iv) If the father complies with the terms of this supervised access order and wishes to request unsupervised access and/or more frequent access, he must bring a motion before the Court, on notice to the mother and obtain a Court order.

(v) A motion for unsupervised access and/or more frequent access cannot be brought until the father has exercised one year of supervised access. The motion material shall include, at a minimum, the notes of the Brayden access supervisor, an updated Form 35.1 from the father, and a proposed schedule for unsupervised access.

(vi) If the father commences supervised access and fails to follow the bi -weekly access schedule, the mother may bring a 14B motion to terminate access.

child support / father’s Income

[60] The father has not complied with his legal obligation to produce income information. He has produced nothing. The mother asks the Court to impute an income of $250,000 to the father.

[61] Section 19 (1) (f) of the Guidelines states:

19.l (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent … as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,

(f) The parent … has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so; ….

[62] The ability to impute income is not an invitation to the Court to arbitrarily select an amount as imputed income. The selection of an income must be grounded in the evidence. The court must consider what amount is reasonable in the circumstances. The onus is on the party requesting an imputation of income to establish an evidentiary basis to support such a finding: see Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322; Berta v. Berta, 2015 ONCA 918.

[63] This is not a case where the payor is unemployed or underemployed. It is a case where the father has not produced any income information despite his legal obligation to do so. Section 19(1)(f) is triggered and there is an evidentiary basis to support the mother’s request to impute $250,000 of income to the father. The evidence that I accept as fact is as follows.

[64] The father has paid support sporadically as he sees fit. The mother has requested support frequently and has received a total of $2,900. From March to November 2016, the father paid the mother about $300 a month and then stopped the payments. In total, he paid $2,100. He paid nothing further until late 2017. In November and December 2017, the father sent the mother two e-transfers by way of his sister, Jennifer Dagg, in the amount of $400 each. Since December 2017, the father has not paid any support. The amounts paid were unilaterally determined by the father. He provided the mother with no income information or documentation to support the amount.

[65] The mother is self-employed as a mid-wife. In 2017, her gross income was $79,128 and net was $62,000. This year she expects her income to drop because of the availability of midwife cases.

[66] The mother has been solely responsible for all of the child’s s. 7 expenses (healthcare, dental, educational assessments, before and after school care and programs). In total, the mother has paid $6,015 for the child’s s. 7 expenses. She also paid $1,900 for the child’s psycho-educational assessment and various learning aids. The mother cannot afford childcare when she is on call every other week. This costs about $2,500 a month. To date, she has relied on her mother to care for the child during her on call time. She needs an on call babysitting service to provide this care.

[67] In the father’s Form 35.1 affidavit, he states that he is a stay at home parent. The form reveals that he has three other children but they live with their mother. The suggestion that the father is a stay at home parent is not credible.

[68] It was clear at trial that the mother is asking the court to impute an income of $250,000 to the father. The mother provided ample evidence to show that the father does work and that an imputed income is justified. He could have testified to try and refute this evidence and chose not to do so.

[69] As noted, the father has other children with a different mother. That mother sought child support from the father. In a consent order dated March 5, 2012, Justice Snowie issued an order directing the father to pay $2,000 a month for child support for one child. He was represented by counsel when this order was made.

[70] While the order of Justice Snowie does not reveal the father’s income that led to the $2,000 child support order, the Guidelines in 2012, show that table child support in the amount of $2,000 per month for one (1) child is based on an income of approximately $250,000 per year.

[71] While this consent order alone is a sufficient evidentiary basis for imputing $250,000 of income to the father, there is additional supportive evidence that justifies this income.

[72] The mother worked for the father at his after-hours club before the child was born. She continued to acquire knowledge of his business interests after their relationship ended. As noted, I accept her evidence. She described the father’s business activities as follows.

[73] The father is a businessman and is self-employed. The mother believes that he owns or has interests in various pieces of real estate including commercial, investment and rental properties. He has owned or has had interests in various business ventures (including the after-hours club with significant cash revenues).

[74] When the mother worked for and then dated the father, he led an extravagant lifestyle. He drove a Range Rover. The mother witnessed him spending thousands of dollars in a single night on entertainment and poker. During their dating relationship, he traveled and took expensive trips for pleasure.

[75] In November 2010, the father bought the property at 202 Spadina Ave. for $1,399,000. This is where he lives and operates his businesses. In September 2016, the father transferred the Spadina property to 202 Spadina Holdings Inc. for $2,500,000. The transfer document states that Yigal Rifkind is the president, vice-president, manager, secretary, director, or treasurer authorized to act for 202 Spadina Holdings Inc. Mr. Rifkind is the father’s lawyer and friend. It is not known why the property was transferred. The father continues to list 202 Spadina Avenue as his address and it is the site of the marijuana dispensary where he was recently arrested and charged.

[76] During their relationship, the father owned a commercial cleaning business and owned and operated the after-hours club at the Spadina property. The mother worked at this after-hours club and was aware that it generated a significant amount of cash revenue. Admission into the club was $20 per person and drinks were $10 each or 3 for $20. The club was open Friday and Saturday nights from 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Bartenders earned tips only and the security guards were mostly the father’s friends. The mother estimates that he earned $8,000 cash per night from the bar. He also ran large poker games during club hours and weekly poker nights at the property.

[77] Around 2012, the mother saw a tax document with the father’s name on it that listed income of approximately $250,000.

[78] The mother also confirmed that the father started an online business in 2016 called Mainstream Media Unplugged. Corporate documents for Mainstream Media Unplugged domain show the father as the Registrant of the organization.

[79] In summary, there is ample evidence that the father has various business interests that have generated income. As well, he bought and sold the Spadina property. The father consented to the order that Justice Snowie issued. This child support order reflects an income of $250,000. The father could have testified to explain why $250,000 is no longer an income that he earns, if that is the case. He chose not to do so. Based on the evidence, it is appropriate to impute $250,000 of income to the father and order that he pay child support and s. 7 expenses based on this amount.

[80] Commencing February 1, 2019, the father shall pay the mother monthly child support based on an imputed income of $250,000. Child support for one child based on an imputed income of $250,000 is $1,994. The mother seeks child support retroactive for three years. Allowing him credit for $2,900 that he has paid for child support, the father owes retroactive child support in the amount of $68,000.

[81] The parties shall contribute to the s. 7 expenses for the child; the father shall pay 80% and the mother shall pay 20%. The father shall reimburse the mother for his 80% share of all s. 7 expenses, within 15 days of receipt of the expense.

[82] To date, the mother has incurred s. 7 expenses in the amounts of $6,015. The father shall pay the mother his 80% share for a total of $4,812.

conclusion

[83] I make the following orders:

(i) The applicant, S.P. shall have sole custody of the child, W.P.C., born on November 5, 2010.

(ii) The applicant shall be permitted to obtain and/renew W.P.C.’s passport without the respondent’s signature or consent.

(iii) The applicant shall be permitted to travel with the child, W.P.C. without the respondent’s consent.

(iv) The respondent shall have supervised access to the child, W.P.C.. The access shall be supervised by Brayden Supervision Services Inc. at the respondent’s expense. It is the respondent’s responsibility to arrange this access.

(v) Supervised access shall be for two hours, once every other week, on a day and time that is convenient for the applicant and child, W.P.C..

(vi) If the respondent has not commenced his supervised access by May 31, 2019, then he shall have no access to the child, W.P.C., unless a Court orders otherwise.

(vii) If the respondent complies with the terms of this supervised access order and wishes to request unsupervised access and/or more frequent access, he must bring a motion before the Court on notice to the applicant and obtain a Court order.

(viii) A motion for unsupervised access and/or more frequent access cannot be brought until the respondent has exercised one year of supervised access. The motion material shall include, at a minimum, the notes of the Brayden access supervisor, an updated Form 35.1 from the respondent, and a proposed schedule for unsupervised access and/or more frequent access.

(ix) If the respondent commences supervised access and fails to follow the bi-weekly access schedule, the applicant may bring a 14B motion to terminate access.

(x) The respondent’s income shall be imputed at $250,000 per annum.

(xi) Commencing February 1, 2019, the respondent shall pay the applicant monthly child support for the child W.P.C. of $1,994, based on an imputed income of $250,000.

(xii) The respondent shall pay the applicant retroactive child support for the child, W.P.C., for a period of three years at $1,994 a month less $2,900 paid, for a total of $68,000.

(xiii) The parties shall contribute to s. 7 expense for the child, W.P.C., in proportion to their income, being 80% for the respondent and 20% for the applicant. The respondent shall reimburse the applicant for his share of the s. 7 expenses within 15 days of receipt of the expense.

(xiv) The respondent shall reimburse the applicant for past s. 7 expenses incurred that total $6,015. The respondent shall pay the applicant his 80% share for a total of $4,812.

(xv) A Support Deduction order shall be issued. Unless the support order is withdrawn from the office of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under the order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to whom they are owed.

(xvi) For as long as child support is to be paid, the respondent and applicant must exchange with each other, updated income disclosure no later than June 1 of each year pursuant to s. 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.

(xvii) This judgment bears interest at the rate of 3% per year on any payment or payments in respect of which there is a default from the date of the default.

(xviii) The parties shall exchange brief written cost submissions. The applicant shall serve the respondent with her cost submissions no later than February 22, 2019. Service on the respondent by email is permitted at courtney@msmu.me. The respondent shall serve the applicant with his cost submissions by March 22, 2019. Service by email to the applicant’s counsel is permitted at emma@kellyjordanfamilylaw.com

___________________________ C. Horkins J.

Released: January 30, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-21888

DATE: 20190130

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

S.P.

Applicant

– and –

C.C.

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

C. Horkins J.

Released: January 30, 2019