COURT FILE NO.: 4396/15

DATE: 2019-02-04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

DOUGLAS VERKAIK

Applicant

– and –

ANN VERKAIK

Respondent

Paul McInnis, for the Applicant

Ann Verkaik, Self-represented

HEARD: May 16, May 18, June 16, July 4, November 14 and December 4, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

fitzpatrick j.

Background to Application

[1] The parties were married on June 10, 2001 and separated on April 13, 2006. They were divorced on September 20, 2010.

[2] The marriage produced one child of the marriage, namely, Kyle Marshall Verkaik, born October 14, 2001 (“Kyle”). Kyle is now 17 years of age and on the edge of adulthood. One would think that his parents would have long ago settled their differences. Sadly, the opposite is true here.

[3] The parties have joint custody and equally split the parenting time for Kyle pursuant to their Parenting Plan dated November 23, 2009 (the “Parenting Plan”).

[4] The Applicant and Respondent also entered into Minutes of Settlement dated September 20, 2010 (“Minutes”) to address the issue of child support, among other matters.

[5] As noted above, the parties equally split the parenting time for Kyle. Typically, a shared parenting regime would invite consideration of whether a Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”) section 9.(a) set-off of monthly child support obligations was appropriate. These parties followed a different path. Pursuant to the Minutes, the Applicant agreed to pay full Guidelines child support to the Respondent in the amount of $725 per month, commencing October 1, 2010 through to and including September 1, 2013.

[6] The $725 monthly payable by Mr. Verkaik was for a fixed and non-variable term of three years no doubt to buy some temporary peace. Neither party was obligated to provide to the other financial information set out in section 21 of the Child Support Guidelines during that three year term.

[7] I was told that the $725 monthly child support figure was based on Mr. Verkaik’s then income of approximately $80,000.

[8] The Minutes also required each party to contribute 50% to “any agreed upon” section 7. extraordinary expenses incurred for Kyle.

[9] The Minutes provided for a review of child support payable, including section 7. expenses, commencing October 1, 2013. To facilitate such review, each party was to provide the other with the income information set out in section 21 of the Guidelines.

[10] The parties were unable to reach an agreement respecting the child support payable following October 1, 2013. As such, neither party has paid basic monthly child support to the other since October 1, 2013 nor have they shared Kyle’s section.7 expenses.

[11] The Minutes also called for Mr. Verkaik to pay the Respondent $3,000 for her interest in a time share property, namely Carriage Hills. This payment and transfer was to happen by October 20, 2010 but it never did.

[12] The Minutes also provided for an exchange of family photographs. The Respondent was to provide the Applicant with copies of family photographs and videos in her possession taken before and after the marriage. Mr. Verkaik agreed to pay for the cost of copies of any pictures taken after the marriage. In return, Mr. Verkaik was to provide the Respondent with copies of family photographs in his possession at the Respondent’s cost. These were to be exchanged by October 20, 2010 but never were.

[13] Mr. Verkaik commenced this Application on November 19, 2015 where he sought:

a. A readjustment of child support, including section 7. expenses, from October 1, 2013 forward. Specifically, the Applicant sought a section 9.(a) set-off of monthly child support obligations and a reapportioning of section 7. contributions based on the respective income of the parties;

b. Payment by the Respondent of her 50% share of the section 7. expenses for Kyle paid by the Applicant from the date of the Minutes to October 1, 2013;

c. Payment of the Applicant’s costs related to Ms. Verkaik’s failure to transfer the time share interest and an order compelling her to now complete that purchase;

d. Payment by the Respondent of $846.55 representing the Applicant’s costs related to her failure to exchange copies of the family photographs; and,

e. Enforcement of the Arbitration Awards made by Helen Gouge dated June 25, 2015 and October 14, 2015.

Determining Income for Support

[14] Mr. Verkaik is self-employed and has been at all times material to this Application. The evidence before me was that he operated an electronics company and then transitioned into a real estate based business. The Applicant personally and through corporations owned real estate in Canada and the United States that was held either to generate rental revenue or for the sale of custom built residences.

[15] The Respondent is well educated. She has an undergraduate degree in both commerce and psychology earned from Concordia University. Her employment background is in the financial industry. Ms. Verkaik was also involved with the Applicant’s real estate business during their marriage. Ms. Verkaik commenced her own real estate business with a partner following her separation from the Applicant. The Respondent’s business operated through her corporations, namely CozyZone Rentals Inc. and/or 2499271 Ontario Inc., which owned real estate in Canada used to generate rental revenue plus accumulate equity.

[16] There are a number of difficulties in trying to determine what the income for the Applicant and the Respondent is for the purpose of determining their respective child support obligations.

[17] The only witnesses heard during this trial were the parties themselves.

[18] Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent retained an expert to provide an income opinion during this trial.

[19] The Applicant made repeated references to the endorsement of Justice Coats made December 12, 2016 where it was noted that the Respondent was in the process of getting an expert analysis for her income and also for Mr. Verkaik’s income. Justice Coats provided a deadline of January, 2017 for the Respondent to have that analysis completed. Justice Coats also noted that Mr. Verkaik was at liberty to then get his own income analysis.

[20] The Applicant’s argument before me was that Justice Coats ordered Ms. Verkaik to obtain an income analysis for her own income and that of Mr. Verkaik. The Respondent did not obtain any income analysis and the Applicant submits this failure was in breach of the endorsement of Justice Coats.

[21] I reject the argument that Ms. Verkaik breached Justice Coats’ endorsement. Justice Coats simply noted that both parties were at liberty to obtain an expert opinion respecting income along with a deadline for Ms. Verkaik to do so. Justice Coats did not make an order mandating either party to provide an expert income opinion.

[22] As noted above, both parties have significant real estate holdings mostly held through their respective corporations. Despite this, neither party produced any third party appraisals or other valuations for their respective portfolios. While I appreciate that there are no property division issues in this case, it seems self-evident that the fair market value of the these properties could be relevant to the determination of income for each of the parties, especially here where both parties were seeking to impute income to the other and each spent considerable time in their respective testimony telling the Court about the value of the other’s real estate. At the very least, third party evidence of the fair market value of each party’s properties would assist in any imputation of income on the basis of the income potential of the capital value of the real estate held by each party. That evidence might also be useful in any imputation of income based on lifestyle.

[23] The evidence that each did tender was problematic, as discussed below.

[24] The Applicant gave evidence with respect to the following seven different corporations relevant to his income equation:

a) Planon Systems Inc. (“Planon”) is the company that Mr. Verkaik used to sell electronics. Mr. Verkaik testified that Planon was initially profitable but began to lose money with increased competition particularly from China. He advised that Planon had not been in any meaningful operation for many years leading up to this trial;

b) DKV Initiatives Inc. (“DKV Initiatives”) is one of Mr. Verkaik’s newer corporations. DKV owns approximately 20 properties in the State of Florida that have been or are in the process of being developed (i.e. residences or other structures being built on the properties for resale). DKV initiatives also owns rental properties in Florida;

c) Zeron Technologies Inc. (“Zeron”) is another corporation Mr. Verkaik operated. Zeron primarily bought electronics and then sold these electronics to Planon;

d) DR Initiatives Inc. (“DR Initiatives”) is another corporate asset of Mr. Verkaik. DR Initiatives owned the office where Planon carried on business;

e) DNT Systems Inc (“DNT Systems”) is another holding company controlled by Mr. Verkaik;

f) 1648475 Ontario Inc. (“1648475”) is another of Mr. Verkaik’s corporate assets. Mr. Verkaik told the court that this company was a “holding company”; and,

g) Planon System Solutions Inc. (2015) is the corporate asset owned by Mr. Verkaik formed through the amalgamation of Zeron, DR Initiatives and DNT Systems.

[25] The following evidence was before me respecting the Applicant’s other properties and assets relevant to the calculation of his income:

a) Rental properties owned personally by him at 158 Annette Street (50% interest), 160 Annette Street, 457 Quebec Street and 99 Parkside Drive all located in Toronto along with 501 Knights Run and 5220 Hampton Beach Place both in Tampa, Florida;

b) His current matrimonial home at 2487 Highmount Crescent, Oakville (50% interest); and,

c) R.R.S.P. account holdings of approximately $230,000 plus a T.F.S.A. account with a balance of approximately $26,000.

[26] The Respondent testified about two different corporations relevant to her income equation:

a) CozyZone Rentals Inc. (“CozyZone”) is a corporation controlled by Ms. Verkaik that owns various rental properties in Hamilton, Ontario. Ms. Verkaik recently purchased the interest of the partner she originally had in CozyZone ; and,

b) 2499271 Ontario Inc. (“2499271”) is a newer corporation controlled by Ms. Verkaik that also owns rental properties in Hamilton.

[27] The following evidence was before me respecting the Respondent’s other properties and assets relevant to the calculation of her income:

a) Her current home at Suite 12, 2665 Thomas Street, Mississauga; and,

b) R.R.S.P. account holdings of approximately $86,000.

[28] The starting point for the income analysis in this case is the Line 150 income reported for each party.

[29] The Applicant’s Line 150 income for the years 2013-2016 were as follows: $164,171, $64,758, $55,746 and $185,071 respectively. In his most recent Financial Statement sworn April 21, 2017, Mr. Verkaik says his current income is $55,687.82. The Applicant does not accept these figures accurately represent his income for support purposes for these years.

[30] The Respondent’s Line 150 income for the years 2013-2016 were as follows: $51,940, $49,061, $51,765 and $61,598. The Respondent suggests her Line 150 accurately reflects her income for support purposes although her last Financial Statement sworn April 17, 2017 states that her true income for support is $46,728.

[31] Each party argues that the other is grossly understating income and that this Court must impute a truer figure.

[32] It is not difficult for me to conclude that Line 150 does not reflect the income available to either party for support. It is a conclusion supported by the evidence and the lack of evidence from both parties.

[33] The Applicant started this trial with the proposition that his Line 150 statement year to year did not reflect his true earnings or earning ability. He suggested his income would be negative if the net losses from his various businesses were considered. Mr. Verkaik did not ask the court to do this. Instead, he submitted that his true income could be determined by reviewing the finances of his various corporations and personal holdings.

[34] Generally speaking, this is not a novel position. The court is regularly faced with the task of determining the income for self-employed parties whether through corporations, partnerships or sole proprietorships. Self-employed parties often attempt to rely on expert evidence (i.e. accountants with specialized training and experience in assessing income) to assist the court in that determination.

[35] In this age where access to justice regularly equates to affordability of representation, including costly experts, I am a proponent of creating efficiencies wherever possible that facilitate a fair hearing of the issues. Stated in a more focussed way, I am against default reliance on the use of experts where the evidence and issues can otherwise be understood.

[36] Unfortunately, this is not a case where the court can determine Mr. Verkaik’s income without expert analysis. While not meant to be exhaustive, I offer the following references in support of this conclusion:

i) The calculation of Applicant’s income for support purposes requires consideration of the finances for Mr. Verkaik’s seven corporations along with his personal assets/finances. Mr. Verkaik’s acknowledged this where he testified that all of his corporations were interrelated;

ii) Mr. Verkaik repeatedly asserted that the court should look at the ongoing losses of his one company, Planon to understand his limited income. What is missing in this assertion is analysis of various significant, related transactions such as the following:

a) Mr. Verkaik gave evidence that one of the fundamental reasons for Planon’s negative finances was a debt owed to a now deceased investor in the company, Robert Zoelly. In essence, the evidence was that Mr. Zoelly was owed his seven figure investment. There were no documents of any kind provided to support this debt. Perhaps more important, Mr. Zoelly died in 2009/2010. There has been no claim brought by Mr. Zoelly’s estate. The passage of time suggest any claim would now be statute barred. There was no explanation offered by Mr. Verkaik as to how this unpaid and now seemingly uncollectable investment could possibly impact Planon’s finances

b) Planon transferred $350,000 “profit” in 2011 to Mr. Verkaik’s other company, 1648475. The impact on Planon, his other companies or his personal finances of this transaction was not meaningfully addressed by Mr. Verkaik;

c) A review of Planon’s Balance Sheet at July 31, 2014 (see Exhibit #15) shows what appears to be the following advances to and loans owing by Mr. Verkaik’s other companies: Zeron $502,878, DR Initiatives $39,827, DKV Initiatives $558,884, 1648475 $257,250. The amounts due by Zeron and DR Initiatives are non-interest bearing with no set terms of repayment. The amounts due by DKV Initiatives and 1648475 bear interest of 5% annually but also with no set repayment terms. None of this was analysed by Mr. Verkaik in any meaningful way;

d) Planon’s Balance Sheet at July 31, 2016 (see Exhibit #21) indicates $3,005,749 is owing to “shareholders”. The only shareholder in evidence was Mr. Verkaik. This would suggest Mr. Verkaik has advanced $3,000,000 to Planon. No explanation for this was provided;

e) Mr. Verkaik testified to Planon having several hundred thousand dollars in unrealized carry forward debt, which he could choose to use to offset the profits of other corporations.

Some obvious questions arise. Are Planon’s losses genuine or artificially created through intra-company transfers? Related to this, have these losses with related tax credits been used to offset the gains of other companies?;

iii) Mr. Verkaik testified to other intra-company loans, including the net proceeds from the $1.2 million sale of the property held by DR Initiatives (an office building where Planon operated from) to DKV Initiatives. Similarly, 1648475 was owed $2,090,454 by DKV Initiatives as at July 31, 2016 (see Exhibit #18). Mr. Verkaik personally loaned $948,889 to 1648475 (see Financial Statement April 21, 2017). DNT Systems was owed $464,305 from Zeron at 2015 (see Exhibit #27).

Interestingly, Mr. Verkaik did not know what the value of all intra-company loans was;

iv) Mr. Verkaik also did not know what the fair market value of his various businesses was. He was presented with the T2 Corporate Income Tax Return for Planon at year end July 31, 2015 noting total assets for Planon and all “associated corporations” of $8,344,288 (see Exhibit #22). Mr. Verkaik’s response was to suggest the current fair market value was less because of unspecified, diminished values for his companies. Regardless, this suggested diminished value seems contrary to Mr. Verkaik’s evidence that his businesses collectively are now essentially real property based and that his real property holdings doubled in value by his estimate since 2007. A doubling in value strongly suggests he is sitting on significant retained value that could impact his finances for support;

v) As stated, Mr. Verkaik testified that the value of his real properties doubled since 2007. As noted earlier, there were no appraisals of his real property holdings (personal or corporate). Mr. Verkaik knew surprisingly little respecting his real property holdings. For example, he could not say for sure how many properties were held by DKV Initiatives, how many properties had been sold over the prior year or what profits were generated from these sales;

vi) Mr. Verkaik had no meaningful explanation for the significant corporate retained earnings. DR Initiatives had retained earnings of $208,038 at July 31, 2015 (see Exhibit #17). 1648475 had retained earnings of $545,997 at July 31, 2016 (see Exhibit #18). I appreciate that retained earnings do not necessarily equate to funds available in an account. However, these large retained earnings do suggest available funds or potentially realizable value;

vii) DKV Initiatives is Mr. Verkaik’s current, most active business. As already noted, DKV Initiatives has properties (see Exhibit #20) worth several million dollars. Mr. Verkaik claims to be making no significant income from this business presently. However, one of the biggest expenses claimed against this business’ revenues is depreciation. The evidence before me was that DKV Initiatives owns real property. Mr. Verkaik offered no explanation for the claimed depreciation against a non-depreciating asset;

viii) Mr. Verkaik’s most recent financial statement sworn April 17, 2017 attests to his assets being worth approximately $3,000,000. The Applicant does swear to significant financing being attached to these assets. However, this begs perhaps the most obvious and unanswered question of all: How can an individual who submits he has a negative income acquire $3,000,000 in assets and/or related financing? Mr. Verkaik filed no documentation to explain this and his evidence did not otherwise penetrate this issue.

[37] In summary, the Applicant’s finances were anything but straightforward. Neither was Mr. Verkaik’s evidence as noted above.

[38] Mr. Verkaik’s determination of income amounted to an overly simplistic calculation of annual corporate gains or losses. This straight line math does not provide the analysis of corporate financial transactions and operations necessary to assess whether the corporate returns accurately reflect income available to Mr. Verkaik. This transaction/operations based analysis is required here given the interrelationship of the seven corporations closely held by Mr. Verkaik along with his personal assets and finances.

[39] It is very clear that the multi millions of dollars in assets and overall finances in evidence suggest an income for support well beyond the limited personal income suggested by Mr. Verkaik or set forth in his Line 150 annual returns. Unfortunately, he did not provide the evidence I needed to determine his income.

[40] The Respondent’s evidence was even more perplexing than Mr. Verkaik’s. She was clearly not prepared for this trial. The trial had to be suspended more than once to permit her the opportunity to prepare. She made disclosure as the trial went along up to its conclusion. Generally, Ms. Verkaik’s evidence was disorganized, opaque, at times, incoherent. This was particularly difficult to understand given the Respondent’s extensive financial background. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate:

i) Ms. Verkaik owned CozyZone with one partner, Patricia Cunningham, until May, 2017 when the Respondent bought out her partner for $400,000. This suggests, on its face, that CozyZone was valued at $800,000. This purchase amount was not meaningfully explained by Ms. Verkaik. The evidence at one point was that CozyZone had six properties with a combined fair market value of $1,750,000 but were completely financed. At another point in her testimony, Ms. Verkaik suggested that there was $500,000 equity in the CozyZone properties;

ii) In addition to CozyZone, Ms. Verkaik testified to owning properties through another corporate vehicle, 2499271 Ontario Inc. (“2499271”). She is the sole shareholder of 2499271. Ms. Verkaik testified that 2499271 owned two rental properties although the chronology was unclear. She also gave evidence that these properties were held by Patricia Cunningham personally. The Respondent also stated the two 2499271 properties were held in a trust. No details of the trust were given. No trust documents were provided;

iii) Ms. Verkaik offered more confusing testimony about her real property interests. The Respondent testified that all eight properties (i.e. the CozyZone six plus the 2499271 two) were covered by a joint venture agreement she had with Patricia Cunningham. No joint venture details or documents were provided by Ms. Verkaik;

iv) The Respondent had an interest in rental real properties since 2008. She paid $400,000 in 2017 for the 50% interest of Patricia Cunningham in CozyZone suggesting assets of significant value. However Ms. Verkaik’s evidence was that her rental properties lost money each and every year. I must admit my difficulty in understanding why the Respondent would pay $400,000 for a 50% interest in six properties that she says never produced an income for her and, according to part of her evidence had no equity. Regardless, the limited documents filed by Ms. Verkaik indicate CozyZone had rental revenue of $224,090 in 2016 and made a profit in each of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. (see Exhibits #29 and #32) contrary to her testimony;

v) One of, if not the, biggest expenses claimed against rental revenues is “repairs and maintenance”. For example, this expense represents about 25% of CozyZone’s $224,080 total revenue for the year ended November 27, 2016 [see Exhibit #32]. Ms. Verkaik could offer no meaningful explanation for such high maintenance expenses. Complicating this concern, all of the maintenance expenses were paid to the Respondent’s brother;

vi) Ms. Verkaik filed very limited documents to support income argument. Despite the Court giving Ms. Verkaik every indulgence to organize herself and make disclosure, the Respondent’s documents were limited to “Profit and Loss by Class” spreadsheets for CozyZone for the years ended 2013, 2014 and 2015. CozyZone’s audited Financial Statements for the year end 2016 were also filed. Nothing further for CozyZone was filed. Nothing at all was filed for 2499271;

vii) The accuracy/reliability of the limited financial documents filed by the Respondent was compromised by her admission that the CozyZone statements blended the financial information the properties of both her corporations (CozyZone and 2499217);

viii) The CozyZone Financial Statements for the year ended November, 2016 suggest a value of $1,699,601 for the corporate properties. Ms. Verkaik’s evidence was that this value represented the total properties (the CozyZone six plus 2499271 two). However, Ms. Verkaik’s most recent Financial Statement sworn April 12, 2017 suggests the combined value of all eight properties was $2,360,000;

ix) Similar to the Applicant I was offered no explanation by Ms. Verkaik explaining how she has acquired properties valued by her in excess of $2,000,000 which she says (again, her April 12, 2017 Financial Statement claims her current income is $46,728) are completely financed (she, in her April 12, 2017 Financial Statement, claims to have total debt of $2,553,263) on her declared modest income. It simply defies common sense.

[41] Similar to Mr. Verkaik, I am unable to determine the Respondent’s income for support purposes based on the evidence before me.

[42] In conclusion, the Application to review and vary the child support terms of the Minutes is dismissed.

Section 7. Expenses

[43] Paragraph 6 of the Minutes obligated the parties to contribute 50% to “any agreed upon” section 7. extraordinary expenses incurred for Kyle.

[44] The unchallenged evidence before me was that Mr. Verkaik made ongoing attempts to obtain the Respondent’s agreement for various expenses incurred or to be incurred for Kyle. Ms. Verkaik basically never responded. She certainly never agreed.

[45] The Applicant made the reasonable decision to simply pay for all of Kyle’s section 7. expenses in the face of the failed attempts to obtain agreement from Ms. Verkaik and Kyle’s needs. Mr. Verkaik accumulated the receipts to reconcile and created a chart setting the various items he claimed in this proceeding. The Respondent did not offer any meaningful defence or objection to all of the items claimed beyond the unsubstantiated suggestion that she had also purchased items for Kyle. She did not provide any receipts or other documentation. Regardless, Ms. Verkaik argued each party should simply be responsible for their respective expenses incurred for Kyle.

[46] Ms. Verkaik was obligated to pay 50% of all section 7. expenses for Kyle. She cannot avoid this obligation but ignoring Mr. Verkaik’s attempts to solicit her agreement. The Applicant claims $12,516.19 owing by Ms. Verkaik for her share of Kyle’s section 7. expenses from the date of the Minutes to November 18, 2016. Ms. Verkaik offered no defense to this claim. There will be judgment against her for $12,516.19.

Repayment of RESPs

[47] Ms. Verkaik acknowledged that she had withdrawn funds from an RESP account established to benefit Kyle. Mr. Verkaik contributed to this fund. The Respondent used these monies to purchase an automobile for herself noting she was not otherwise financially able to and needed the vehicle. Ms. Verkaik agreed to repay the RESPs she withdrew.

[48] Although not part of the relief claimed in the Application, there shall be a consent judgment against Ms. Verkaik requiring her to immediately repay the funds she removed from the RESP. I did not have any document in front of me to confirm the amount she withdrew. If there is any dispute about that amount then counsel/the parties should contact the Trial Coordinator towards arranging some mechanism for me to resolve same.

The Carriage Hills Time Share

[49] The Minutes called for Mr. Verkaik to pay the Respondent $3,000 for her interest in a time share property, namely Carriage Hills. This payment and transfer was to happen by October 20, 2010 but it never did. Again, Ms. Verkaik offered no defense to this claim. The Respondent simply did not cooperate to facilitate the transfer.

[50] This Applicant paid the expenses on this property to avoid credit issues.

[51] I am not prepared to order that the property be transferred to the Respondent for the same consideration of $3000 along with reimbursing Mr. Verkaik for the $3,445.55 costs he paid to maintain this property since the date of the Minutes.

[52] The Minutes provide that the Respondent shall accept $3,000 for her interest. Mr. Verkaik is entitled to deduct from this amount one-half of the $3,445.55 costs he paid to maintain this property following the Minutes given the property was joint and the Respondent failed to cooperate. As such, Mr. Verkaik owes the Respondent $1,277.22 for her interest in this property. This amount shall be deducted from the sums Ms. Verkaik owes to the Applicant pursuant to this Judgment. The Respondent shall immediately sign all necessary paperwork and otherwise cooperate to transfer her interest. If there is any difficulty in that regard then counsel/the parties should contact the Trial Coordinator towards arranging some mechanism for me to resolve same.

Costs of Photos

[53] The Minutes provided for an exchange of family photographs. The Respondent did not meet her obligations and had no meaningful explanation for failing to do so.

[54] There shall be Judgment against the Respondent in the amount of $846.55 representing Mr. Verkaik’s costs related to her failure to exchange copies of the family photographs.

Enforcing the Goudge Arbitration

[55] The Applicant essentially claimed payment from Ms. Verkaik for her share of the fees for the arbitration before Helen Goudge.

[56] Various emails from Ms. Goudge were tendered as evidence on the issue of who paid the fees owing to her. Ms. Goudge was not called as a witness. The parties were prepared to have this issued determined on the basis of the emails despite the obvious hearsay problem. That being the case, Ms.Goudge confirmed in her email dated November 14, 2017 that “Each parent covered their own costs of the arbitration” [see Exhibit #35]. As such, this claim for relief is dismissed.

Summary

[57] The Application to vary the Minutes respecting child support, including contribution to section 7. expenses from October 1, 2013 forward is dismissed.

[58] There shall be Judgment in favour of the Applicant for $12,516.19 payable by the Respondent for her share of Kyle’s section 7. expenses from the date of the Minutes to November 18, 2016.

[59] There shall be Judgment in favour of the Applicant for $846.55 payable by the Respondent for costs related to her failure to exchange copies of the family photographs.

[60] There shall be Judgment in favour of Ms. Verkaik for $1,277.22 payable by the Applicant for her interest in the Carriage Hills time share property. This amount shall be deducted from the sums Ms. Verkaik owes to the Applicant pursuant to this Judgment. The Respondent shall immediately sign all necessary paperwork and otherwise cooperate to transfer her interest.

[61] The Application seeking to enforce the Goudge arbitration is dismissed.

[62] There shall be Judgment against the Respondent requiring her to immediately repay the funds she removed from the RESP established for the benefit of Kyle.

[63] If the parties are unable to resolve the issue of costs then submissions may be made to me in writing. The Applicant shall file his written submissions not to exceed four typed pages exclusive of any relevant Offers to Settle and Bill of Costs by February 18, 2019. The Respondent shall file her written submissions not to exceed four typed pages exclusive of any relevant Offers to Settle and Bill of Costs by February 28, 2019. Any Reply by the Applicant shall not exceed two typed pages and be filed March 8, 2019.

D. Fitzpatrick J.

Released: February 4, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: 4396/15

DATE: 2019-02-04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

DOUGLAS VERKAIK

Applicant

– and –

ANN VERKAIK

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

D. Fitzpatrick J.

Released: February 4, 2019