COURT FILE NO.: 687/12 DATE: 20200605 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

Michael Drach, Applicant – and – Toscha Traboulay, Respondent

Counsel: Self-represented, for the Applicant M. G. Lucarelli, for the Respondent

Heard: March 2, 4, 2020

Before: The Honourable Justice Robert B. Reid

Reasons for Judgment

[1] The applicant, Michael Drach brought a motion to change the final separation agreement between the parties dated August 6, 2012. The matter was heard over the course of a two-day trial in which evidence was given by both parties and by Mr. Colin Cook, a chartered professional accountant (as to the applicant’s income for support purposes).

[2] Mr. Drach seeks a reduction in his child support obligations retroactive to January 1, 2014, and a retroactive reduction in his share of section 7 expenses including fees for private school. He asks that current child support be adjusted to reflect his present income with corresponding proportional sharing of section 7 expenses including private school and post-secondary education costs.

[3] The respondent, Toscha Traboulay requests an order fixing child support arrears and section 7 expense arrears and setting ongoing child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines. As well, she requests proportional sharing of future section 7 expenses in accordance with the parties’ respective current incomes.

[4] By agreement, the parties seek an order reflecting the terms of paragraph 10 of their final separation agreement that for as long as Mr. Drach is required to pay child support or child support arrears, he must maintain life insurance in the face amount of $250,000 for the benefit of the children, naming Ms. Traboulay as the trustee.

[5] Also by agreement, the parties request an order that Mr. Drach take whatever steps are necessary to renew the German passports for the children.

Background

[6] The parties were married on May 2, 2002. They have two children who I will refer to by their initials, JAD and VJD. The children are 18 and 17 years of age, respectively.

[7] The parties separated in November 2009 and were divorced in February 2013. The children have resided with Ms. Traboulay since the separation.

[8] The parties signed an interim separation agreement on June 14, 2010 and a final separation agreement on August 5 and 6, 2012.

[9] The interim agreement, which was entered into by the parties with legal advice, provided that Mr. Drach would pay child support from June 1, 2010 in the amount of $2,000 per month for the two children. It stated that the quantum of support was determined, among other things, by the fact that Mr. Drach had agreed to pay for the children’s education as set out in subparagraph 9.4 of the agreement. That paragraph read: “It is the intention of the parties that the children will attend elementary school at Wheatley School of Montessori and high school at Ridley College. The husband will pay the full costs associated with this schooling.” As to other special or extraordinary expenses, the interim agreement provided that the parties would share such expenses in accordance with the provisions of the Child Support Guidelines.

[10] The April 2012 final separation agreement was prepared by counsel shortly after the time that the interim agreement was executed. It was signed some 18 months later without further legal advice to the parties. The final agreement referred to Mr. Drach’s income for 2009 as $280,000 from his ownership of and employment at Gadra Enterprises Inc. The child support payments of $2,000 per month were continued. The agreement noted that the quantum of child support took into account, among other things, the fact that Mr. Drach had paid for the children’s education at Wheatley School of Montessori for the academic year 2010-2011 and other expenses for the children. It went on to state at paragraph 9.8 that:

It is the intention of the parties that the children will attend elementary school at Wheatley School of Montessori and high school at Ridley College. If the children attend Ridley College, it is the intention of [Mr. Drach] to pay the full cost associated with their attendance, provided it is within his means at the time. If [Mr. Drach] is unable to pay such costs, the parties will confer and agree upon a manner in which they will share the costs of Ridley College or whether in fact they wish the children to attend Ridley College given the costs associated with it.

[11] As to special or extraordinary expenses other than private school fees, the agreement provided that as of January 1, 2011 the parties would share such expenses in accordance with the provisions of the Child Support Guidelines. Post-secondary expenses were to be shared pro rata between the parties based on the costs of the children’s reasonable post-secondary expenses over and above what the children were able to contribute.

[12] JAD attended Wheatley School of Montessori up to grade 6. She then attended Ridley College from grades 7 through 12 and graduated in the spring of 2019. Since the fall of 2019, she has attended the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

[13] VJD attended Wheatley up to grade 5. She then began attending Ridley College in grade 6 and is currently finishing her grade 11 year. She has one more year to complete before graduation.

[14] Mr. Drach stopped making child support payments as of April 1, 2014. He made a final payment of $24,146 towards Ridley College fees at about that time.

Material Change in Circumstances

[15] It is a prerequisite to success in a motion to change for there to have been a material change in circumstances since the making of the previous order or domestic contract.

[16] The parties agree that there has been a material change in the financial circumstances of Mr. Drach after they signed the separation agreement. His employment situation has changed several times. He relocated to the United States where he is permitted to work because his current spouse is an American citizen.

[17] There was no suggestion that Mr. Drach is deliberately underemployed.

The Issues

[18] The appropriate amount to be paid by Mr. Drach for child support and section 7 expenses (including private school) from January 2014 was the subject of the trial.

[19] To establish Mr. Drach’s obligations from January 1, 2014 to trial, it is necessary to determine: a. his income for support purposes; b. the amount payable pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines; c. the reasonable section 7 expenses (including private school costs); and d. the appropriate proportion of section 7 expenses payable by Mr. Drach based on his income and that of Ms. Traboulay.

[20] Child support obligations for JAD from September 2019 are subject to any adjustments to the Guideline support arising from her absence from home to attend university in British Columbia.

[21] As to the appropriate proportion for sharing ongoing s.7 expenses, (including private school and post-secondary education costs), establishing the income of both parties is necessary.

Income for Support Purposes

[22] Mr. Drach has training and experience as a process engineer. His expertise is in the area of machine tools and robotics in the automobile production industry. Prior to the separation, and thereafter until about 2010, he worked for and co-owned Gadra Enterprises Inc. Then he became self-employed providing similar services directly to a variety of companies. The need for his services and correspondingly his income was subject to the vagaries of the auto industry. In 2012, he married an American resident and moved to New York State. He was able to work in the USA, providing services to American companies through a company incorporated by him and his wife known as Edrasoft LLC.

[23] On behalf of Mr. Drach, Colin Cook prepared a report dated January 16, 2019 which analyzed income for support purposes for the 2014 through 2017 calendar years.

[24] In the report, Mr. Drach’s adjusted income for support purposes was determined as follows in Canadian funds: 2014: $125,000 2015: $153,000 2016: $229,000 2017: $228,000

[25] The figures established by Mr. Cook were accepted by the respondent.

[26] Although the adjusted income was determined by his own expert, Mr. Drach questioned the propriety of the calculations in that the results were substantially greater than his income in US funds adjusted by the applicable foreign exchange rate. However, Mr. Cook explained in his testimony that the tax rate differential between the relevant American jurisdictions and Ontario must be considered in order to calculate the equivalent Canadian income required to be earned which would result in the same net amount after-tax. The tax rates in New York and Michigan where Mr. Drach earned income are lower than those in Ontario.

[27] Based on his report and his oral testimony, I accept the adjusted income for support purposes calculated by Mr. Cook for the years 2014 through 2017.

[28] Counsel for Ms. Traboulay submitted that the court should apply Mr. Cook’s calculation method to establish Mr. Drach’s income for support purposes for the years 2018 and 2019.

[29] Mr. Drach’s 2018 US tax return was filed as Tab 29 of Exhibit 3.

[30] In the United States, Mr. Drach and his spouse file a joint tax return. Their combined income for 2018 was $207,926. Of that, Ms. Traboulay proposed that 85% be attributed to Mr. Drach. That calculation attributes half of the income earned from Edrasoft to Mr. Drach and the other half to his spouse.

[31] The evidence was that Mr. Drach had no involvement in Edrasoft in 2018 and that his income was derived entirely from other sources. He testified that his spouse operated Edrasoft as an HR procurement company after his departure whereas, prior to that time, a significant portion of the corporate income was due to his own expertise and services rendered to clients. I accept the evidence of Mr. Drach on the point so that no amount of income derived from Edrasoft should be included in a calculation of his 2018 income.

[32] Removing all Edrasoft income from Mr. Drach in 2018 results in an attribution to him of US income for 2018 of $145,300 which is 70% of the total shown in the joint tax return. Applying the same percentage to total tax paid results in an attribution to Mr. Drach of $28,486 for taxes, which was a rate of 19.6%. Therefore, his after-tax US income was $116,814 [^1]. Assuming Canadian taxes at the rate of 37.5%, his pre-tax Canadian income in US dollars before currency exchange adjustment would have been $186,902. A conversion using the average Bank of Canada exchange rate in 2018 at 1.2957 produces a pre-tax income equivalent in Canadian dollars of $242,169 [^2].

[33] No tax return was available for 2019. For that year, based on Mr. Drach’s W-2 Wages and Tax Statements, his US income was $140,982 without inclusion of any Edrasoft income. That amount is close to his earnings for 2018. It is reasonable to apply the same calculations as used for the 2018 year. After deduction of US taxes at 19.6% ($27,632), his after-tax US income would be $113,350. Again, assuming Canadian taxes at a rate of 37.5%, his pre-tax Canadian income in US dollars before currency exchange adjustment would have been $181,360. A conversion using the average exchange rate in 2019 at 1.3269 produces a pre-tax income equivalent in Canadian dollars of $240,647 [^3].

[34] I accept that Mr. Drach’s income for support purposes from 2018 and 2019 was $242,169 and $240,647 respectively.

Child Support Payable

[35] There is no doubt that Mr. Drach should be responsible for child support payable since April 1, 2014 when he stopped paying $2,000/month as required by the final separation agreement.

[36] Based on the admitted change in circumstances, Mr. Drach should pay based on the amount established by the Guidelines for two children up to August 2019.

[37] From September 2019, his support obligation for JAD should be reduced to reflect that she does not live at home for eight months of the year and has significant university-related expenses which form part of Mr. Drach’s responsibility for special and extraordinary expenses.

[38] Based on the income of Mr. Drach for support purposes from January 1, 2014 through August 31, 2019, and applying the Child Support Guidelines, support for the two children was payable as follows: 2014: $125,000 -- $1,777/mo x 12 =$21,324 2015: $153,000 -- $2,113/mo x 12 = $25,356 2016: $229,000 -- $3,025/mo x 12 = $36,300 2017: $228,000 -- $3,013/mo x 12 = $36,156 2018: $242,169 -- $3,183/mo x 12 = $38,196 2019: $240,647 -- $3,165/mo x 8 = $25,320

[39] From September 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020, Mr. Drach must pay support for one child based on his annual income of $240,647 in the amount of $1,951, which totals $11,706.

[40] His total obligation for child support from January 1, 2014 to February 29, 2020 was therefore $194,328.

[41] Mr. Drach made support payments of $2,000 per month for January through March 2014, and a payment of $6,047.50 in May 2015. Once the matter was referred for collection to the Family Responsibility Office, further payments were made. The total paid since January 1, 2014 to February 29, 2020 was $176,903.

[42] As a result, there are arrears of child support outstanding as of February 29, 2020 in the amount of $17,424.

[43] In her testimony, Ms. Traboulay advised that part of the enforcement claim made through the Family Responsibility Office includes $5,000 in arrears for RESP contributions owed by Mr. Drach under the interim separation agreement at paragraph 9.7. That paragraph provides as follows:

Currently, the parties have RESP’s for the children in their joint names at AGF Investments with a total of approximately $45,018.00. Michael will continue to make payments into each of the children’s RESP’s in the amount of $2,500.00 yearly commencing (January) 20100 (sic) so long as he is entitled to do so under the plans.

[44] Although the provision was not continued in the final agreement, I accept that payments of $2,500 were owing for January 2011 and 2012, and as such, $5,000 should be added to the arrears total. That increases the child support arrears to $22,424.

Special and Extraordinary Expenses

[45] From January 1, 2014 to February 29, 2020, private school fees (including ancillary expenses like school trips, tutoring, athletics, etc.) and costs related to JAD’s attendance at UBC have been incurred on behalf of the children in the amount of $403,546.87. Those fees are properly considered extraordinary expenses, pursuant to section 7(1.1)(a) of the Guidelines.

[46] During the same period, other section 7 “special and extraordinary expenses” were incurred on behalf of the children in the amount of $37,946.66.

[47] Those two amounts total $441,191.74, which average about $5,960/month or $71,500/ year.

[48] The only items challenged by Mr. Drach as not being proper section 7 expenses were an oral surgery for each of the children, and a trip to Guatemala for JAD. In his closing submissions, he expanded his list of objections to include other school-related items, on the basis that he was not aware of them. However, as I advised at trial, I could not receive further evidence after the testimony was concluded.

[49] Other than the claim forms for the surgery which were found in Tab 40 of Exhibit 3, there was no evidence about either the need for the surgery or the reasons for objection. According to the documents filed, it appears that for each child there was “impaction”. The total cost was $5,064.30. I see no reason to exclude those costs for surgery which can be assumed to have been required.

[50] The challenged trip was a “service trip” taken under the auspices of Ridley College to offer assistance in a developing country. The cost was $1,900. There was no evidence as to why Mr. Drach objected to that expense. I note that he did not object to trip costs, through the school, for an Australian exchange or for an exchange to France. There is no reason to exclude the costs of the Guatemalan experience.

[51] Ms. Traboulay provided evidence of other section 7 expenses incurred on behalf of the children since April 2014. There was no objection to those items by Mr. Drach.

[52] In summary, section 7 expenses including private school and university costs are established as follows: 2014: $65,218.28 2015: $58,925.49 2016: $73,065.89 2017: $73,100.05 2018: $73,582.27 2019: $58,759.50 [^4] 2020: $38,842.05 [^5]

[53] From September 2019, JAD has incurred costs for her post-secondary education. The amounts claimed for 2019 and 2020 to February 29 relate to tuition, books, and residence accommodations and some incidental fees paid to the university. Those are appropriate section 7 expenses. The Guidelines provide in section 7(2) that expenses are to be shared by the parties in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense the contribution, if any, from the child. I agree with Mr. Drach that it is a reasonable expectation that JAD should contribute to her post-secondary expenses if possible. There was no evidence of a budget for post-secondary expenses reflecting JAD’s income. However, I note that there was no expense claimed for travel including flights to and from British Columbia and no claim for incidental personal expenses. I am prepared to assume that those expenses exist, and since no claim is being made, that they are the responsibility of JAD. As such, I do not reduce the section 7 expense for post-secondary expenses claimed to the date of trial.

Apportionment of Special and Extraordinary Expenses

[54] Ms. Traboulay proposes that Mr. Drach be responsible for his share of the education and other special expenses according to his proportional share of their respective incomes.

[55] The income of Ms. Traboulay was not disputed. Based on the income for support purposes set out above for Mr. Drach, as compared with Ms. Traboulay’s income, the parties’ proportional share of the section 7 expenses were: Ms. Traboulay Mr. Drach 2014: $141,089 -- 53% $125,000 -- 47% 2015: $142,404 -- 48% $153,000 -- 52% 2016: $147,601 -- 39% $229,000 -- 61% 2017: $297,802 -- 57% $228,000 -- 43% 2018: $360,843 -- 60% $242,169 -- 40% 2019: $ 79,712 -- 25% $240,647 -- 75%

[56] Mr. Drach does not object to the children being educated at private school, but disputes that the required fees and related costs were affordable based on the parties’ respective incomes.

[57] I note that the $2,000/month support amount set out in both separation agreements was predicated on an annual income for Mr. Drach of $280,000 in 2009. The monthly support payment was approximately 55% of the current Guideline amount. It makes sense that in exchange, Mr. Drach would be solely responsible for the Wheatley school fees payable at the time, in the approximate amount of $20,000/year.

[58] Two factors changed: Mr. Drach’s income declined, and in 2013 JAD began attending Ridley College for grade 7, at in excess of twice the cost of Wheatley. The costs became increased further when VJD began attending Ridley for grade 6 in September 2014.

[59] As contemplated by the final Agreement, there were discussions between the parties about the increased educational costs. Ridley College apparently offered a superior academic environment to that of Wheatley. Ms. Traboulay offered to be responsible for a share, but the matter remained unresolved. Ultimately, this Motion to Change was commenced.

[60] Despite the failure by Mr. Drach to make any payments after April 2014, the children were able to continue schooling at Ridley College. It appears that the school fees were funded by a combination of Mr. Traboulay’s income and financial assistance from her partner at the time. JAD completed her secondary school education at Ridley in spring 2019 and VJD plans to complete hers in spring 2021.

[61] Private school costs when both children attended Ridley College for 2014 through 2018 ranged from about $57,000 to $73,000 per year. As noted, Mr. Drach does not object to the quality of schooling received by the children. In effect, he agrees with Ms. Traboulay that the expenses were in the children’s best interests. However, he submits that the private schooling costs were a luxury that the family could not afford. The fact is that the money has been spent so the outstanding question is: how should responsibility for those expenses be apportioned?

[62] The children were enrolled in private schooling prior to separation, and the family made financial arrangements accordingly. The separation agreements showed a continued mutual intention for those expenses to be incurred.

[63] I conclude, based on the evidence, that private schooling was in the children’s best interests and within the parties’ contemplation on separation. The children have thrived academically, and both have high educational aspirations for university and beyond. Although responsibility for the school fees required a financial sacrifice for the parties, it was one that was reasonable for them to make. However, it was not reasonable for Mr. Drach to have continued the sole responsibility for those expenses, as per the final separation agreement, given his change in income. Mr. Traboulay has acknowledged as much.

[64] Although continuing private school enrolment for the children was a unilateral decision of Ms. Traboulay over the protests of Mr. Drach (as of April 2014), and despite the fact that the final separation agreement made Ridley College attendance contingent on the parties’ means, I find that Mr. Drach should bear responsibility for some of the educational expenses.

[65] There was evidence that in the course of the litigation over the past four years, Mr. Drach was not forthcoming about his income situation. He failed to attend a settlement conference and did not produce his report of income for support purposes until early 2019. Full details of his 2019 income were not available, even at trial. All the while, the children attended Ridley College and incurred costs accordingly. In short, I find that Mr. Drach was not transparent about the changes in his income which form the basis for this motion to change and I therefore reject his position that he should not be responsible for any of the expenses based on his lack of income.

[66] Therefore, although there should be relief as to the obligation for the full amount of the school costs anticipated by the separation agreement, I conclude that Mr. Drach should be responsible for those costs based on his proportionate share of the parties’ respective incomes, as set out above, as with the other section 7 expenses.

[67] His proportion of the annual section 7 amounts listed above are as follows: 2014: $65,218.28 x 47% = $30,652.59 2015: $58,925.49 x 52% = $30,641.25 2016: $73,065.89 x 61% = $44,570.19 2017: $73,100.05 x 43% = $31,433.02 2018: $73,582.27 x 40% = $29,432.90 2019: $58,759.50 x 75% = $44,069.62 2020: $38,842.05 x 75% = $29,131.53

[68] The total payable was $239,928. Mr. Drach paid $24,146 in April 2014, making the arrears total: $215,782.

[69] Ms. Traboulay sought an order which would include the arrears for 2012 (from July 1) and 2013, which totalled $1,306 and $7,095 respectively. In order to provide an accurate arrears total, I agree that those amounts should be included in the order to be made following this trial. Therefore, before the offsets set out below, the arrears total owed by Mr. Drach for section 7 expenses including private school costs is $224,173.

[70] Ms. Traboulay reduced her claim for arrears at trial by $27,600, which was the full amount of awards and scholarships received by the children during the relevant time. This was a generous concession, since otherwise Mr. Drach would only be entitled to a reduction based on his proportional responsibility. As well, Ms. Traboulay reduced her claim for arrears by $50,000 to account for Mr. Drach’s lower income in 2014 and 2015. According to Mr. Drach, that period also reflected a time when Ms. Traboulay’s family income was very substantial as a result of her partner’s earnings. Once again, I consider that concession to be generous since the income of a partner does not normally translate into a reduced obligation by the support payor, and since the arrears calculation set out above was based on Mr. Drach’s actual (reduced) income for those years. In any event, I accept Ms. Traboulay’s position that the arrears total should be reduced by $77,600 so that the outstanding arrears for section 7 expenses, including private school costs, totals $146,573 as of February 29, 2020.

On-going Child Support

[71] Mr. Drach continues to be responsible for child support for VJD based on the Guidelines.

[72] From March 1, 2020, support must continue to be adjusted to account for JAD’s reduced time at home due to her university attendance. Mr. Drach is therefore required to pay Guideline child support for one child at $1,951/month for eight months of the year: January through April and September through December. For the months of May through August, he is required to pay support for two children in the monthly amount of $3,165. Those payments are based on his annual income for support purposes for 2019 of $240,647 and on the assumption that JAD returns home for the summer months.

On-going Special and Extraordinary Expenses

[73] JAD is incurring expenses for her post-secondary schooling at UBC. I have already observed that section 7 expenses should be reduced by any contribution made by the child, and I have noted that there was no evidence of a post-secondary expense budget.

[74] On an ongoing basis, it is appropriate that Mr. Drach be provided with a budget including not just the expenses being incurred but also the reasonable contribution being made by JAD, or the reasons why such contribution is not possible.

[75] As noted, VJD will enter her final year of secondary school at Ridley College in September 2020. Fortunately for all concerned, VJD will receive a $15,000 grant toward her 2020-2021 Ridley fees, which will cover about 40% of her school costs for the year.

[76] Mr. Drach’s responsibility for future extraordinary expenses including private school and university costs will be at the rate of 75% for 2020, and thereafter in accordance with the proportion his income bears to that of Ms. Traboulay.

Summary and Conclusion

[77] There will be an order, on consent, that for so long as Mr. Drach is required to pay child support or child support arrears, he shall maintain a policy or policies of life insurance in the face amount of $250,000 for the benefit of JAD and VJD and shall name Ms. Traboulay as the trustee of the policy. Mr. Drach shall provide Ms. Traboulay with proof that the policy is in good standing forthwith, and annually by January 30 commencing January 30, 2021.

[78] There will be an order, also on consent, that Mr. Drach shall take whatever steps are necessary to renew the children’s German passports.

[79] Mr. Drach shall pay child support arrears and section 7 arrears arising from the period July 1, 2012 through February 29, 2020 fixed in the amount of $22,424, and $146,573 respectively.

[80] There needs to be an arrears repayment schedule providing for payments that are reasonable, but that are not so great as to have a crippling effect on Mr. Drach’s ability to support himself. On that basis, there will be an order that arrears be repaid at the monthly rate of $750, commencing June 1, 2020. Once the payment of child support ends, outstanding arrears will be repaid at the rate of $2,000 per month.

[81] Mr. Drach shall pay ongoing child support for the children JAD and VJD commencing March 1, 2020 in the monthly amount of $1,951 (for one child), increasing to $3,165 (for two children) for the months of May through August inclusive, based on his annual income for support purposes for 2019 of $240,647.

[82] From March 1, 2020, the parties shall each pay their proportional share of special and extraordinary expenses for the children as follows: 75% by Mr. Drach and 25% by Ms. Traboulay. Proof of the expenses claimed are to be provided to Mr. Drach by Ms. Traboulay with payment due 30 days thereafter. Ms. Traboulay is to provide Mr. Drach with a budget for post-secondary expenses each year as long as one or both children are attending post-secondary educational institutions by August 1.

[83] The amount of child support and contribution to special and extraordinary expenses payable by Mr. Drach shall be reviewed annually on June 1, commencing June 1, 2021 in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines. The parties shall provide each other annually on or before June 1 a copy of their T4 Statement of Remuneration Paid, T1 General Income Tax Return, Notice of Assessment and Notice of Reassessment (if applicable), or the United States equivalent of those items, commencing June 1, 2021. Any adjustment of child support and proportional sharing of special and extraordinary expenses will be effective on July 1 each year, commencing July 1, 2021.

[84] A Support Deduction Order will issue.

[85] I am aware that the parties have used different approaches for calculating and submitting the appropriate amount of support, support arrears, and section 7 expense arrears.

[86] I am prepared to accept written submissions to be received in addition to costs submissions (according to the timetable set out below) as to any arithmetical errors or other factually incorrect assumptions made in these reasons and, if I deem it appropriate to do so, I will make adjustments with written reasons. In saying this, I am not open to debate about my rationale as set out in these reasons nor is it appropriate for either party to submit new evidence.

Costs

[87] I encourage the parties to resolve the issue of costs consensually. In the event that they are not able to do so, I am prepared to receive written submissions according to the following timetable:

[88] The respondent is to serve the applicant with written costs submissions of no more than five pages and a Bill of Costs on or before June 19, 2020.

[89] The applicant is to serve the respondent with written costs submissions of no more than five pages and a Bill of Costs on or before July 3, 2020.

[90] The respondent is to serve the applicant with any responding submissions of no more than five pages on or before July 10, 2020.

[91] All submissions are to be filed with the court no later than July 13. If submissions are not received by that date, or any agreed extension, the matter of costs will be deemed settled.

Reid J. Released: June 5, 2020

[^1]: Although the report of Mr. Cook deducted Medicare payments from income (e.g. $2,743 in 2017), no information about that subject was provided for the 2018 tax year, and therefore no deduction has been allowed. [^2]: This results in an after-tax Canadian income of $151,356. [^3]: This results in an after-tax Canadian income of $150,404. [^4]: This amount includes $12,013 in expenses for JAD’s post-secondary education at UBC. [^5]: This amount includes $7,515 in expenses for JAD’s post-secondary education at UBC.