COURT FILE NO.: 563/06
DATE: 2021/05/18
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
F. (M.L.)
Applicant
– and –
B. (I.E.)
Respondent
Self-Represented
Self-Represented
HEARD: April 12, 2021
The Honourable D. A. Broad
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The parties are the parents of one adult child M.F. born […], 2001. The parties married in November 4, 1995 and separated on January 1, 2003 when M.F. was one year old. The parties divorced in September 2007.
[2] It appears from the record that the parties have been engaged in protracted litigation in the Ontario Court of Justice since the date of separation.
[3] M.F. commenced post-secondary studies at Western University in London, Ontario on September 1, 2019 and she continues to be enrolled at Western.
[4] On June 13, 2019 the applicant (the “father”) brought a Motion to Change the orders of Justice P. A. Hardman dated November 8, 2013 (the “Hardman Order”) and Justice L.J. Rogers dated April 10, 2018 (the “Rogers Order”).
[5] The Hardman Order provided, inter alia, for the parties to share joint custody of M.F., with day-to-day residence with the respondent (the “mother”) with specified parenting time with the father, and for the father to pay child support of $597 per month based on an income of $65,348 per year. The Hardman Order also provided for equal sharing of the cost of up to two different activities in which M.F. may be enrolled per year.
[6] The Rogers Order provided for the mother to pay to the father $1200 in full satisfaction of any outstanding child support claim for the period June to November 2017. It is evident that M.F. resided with the father during this period.
[7] Pursuant to his Motion to Change the father seeks the following relief:
(a) confirmation that M.F.’s day-to-day residence for the period June 1, 2017 to November 15, 2017 was with the father;
(b) that M.F. have day-to-day residence with the father;
(c) termination of the order requiring the father to pay child support pursuant to the Hardman Order and reimbursement of overpayment of child support by the father;
(d) that the mother pay child support for M.F. commencing March 1, 2019 in the sum of $685.61 per month pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) based upon the mother’s annual income of $73,461;
(e) commencing September 1, 2019 that the mother pay $1,248 per month for eight months per year towards special or extraordinary expenses related to the child’s post-secondary education, representing 40% of the estimated expense;
(f) that child support payments by the mother be suspended or reduced while her obligation to contribute to special expenses is in effect.
[8] The mother filed her Response to Motion to Change on July 18, 2019. The Response sought dismissal of the father’s Motion to Change and requested the following relief:
(a) that the father pay child support for M.F. commencing September 1, 2019 in the sum of $998 a month pursuant to the Guidelines based upon the father’s annual income of $110,060;
(b) that outstanding child support owed by the father to the mother be fixed in the sum of $5,133.32 as of March 1, 2019 and that that amount be paid on September 1, 2019.
[9] By Endorsement of Justice Walters dated March 9, 2021 the matter was directed to trial at the sittings commencing April 6, 2021.
[10] At the commencement of the trial on April 12, 2021 the mother sought and was granted leave to file an Amended Response to Motion to Change. This was unopposed by the father.
[11] The mother’s Amended Response to Motion to Change is somewhat difficult to follow. From what I have been able to discern the mother appears to request the following relief:
(a) that the Hardman Order for child support for M.F.be terminated effective September 1, 2019;
(b) that the father pay arrears of child support and s. 7 expenses for the period January 1, 2014 to March 1 2019 totalling the sum of $9,727.53. This amount is comprised of arrears of child support and the father’s share of the cost of orthodontic treatment for M.F. less child support payments made by the father to the mother from March 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 and child support payments payable by the mother from March 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019;
(c) that the father pay a fine of $2,000 to her for not covering his child support obligations and section 7 expenses for five years and for his being in contempt with two existing orders, in addition to costs;
(d) that the father pay $10,181.96 per year commencing September 1, 2019 for special or extraordinary expenses associated with the child’s post-secondary education;
(e) determination of the mother’s share of the child’s post-secondary expenses, taking into account the contribution by M.F. toward such costs in the sum of $5000 for each academic year.
Procedural Order of March 9, 2021
[12] The parties each filed multiple affidavits, a number of which appended many pages of exhibits.
[13] On December 7, 2020 the parties appeared before Justice Piccoli who made an Endorsement listing the issues from each party’s perspective and the material upon which each party relied.
[14] On March 9, 2021 the parties appeared before Justice Walters for argument of the father’s Motion to Change and the mother’s Response to the Motion to Change as a long motion. However, the matter could not proceed as Justice Walters had not been provided with access to the complete court file.
[15] Justice Walters endorsed that the parties agreed that M.F. commenced living with the father as of March 1, 2019 and that M.F. lived with the father from June 1, 2017 to November 11, 2017. They also agreed that M.F. commenced university studies at Western in September 2019.
[16] Justice Walters further defined the issues from each party’s perspective as follows:
(a) from the father’s perspective:
(i) payment of child support by the mother starting March 1, 2019;
(ii) contribution of each parent to post-secondary expenses of the child; and
(iii) costs
(b) from the mother’s perspective:
(i) underpayment of child support by the father for the period January 1, 2014 to March 1, 2019 and s. 7 expenses owed by him for that period;
(ii) whether the mother should pay child support given her position that M.F. has withdrawn from parental control;
(iii) whether and what amount, if any, the mother should be obliged to contribute to post-secondary expenses; and
(iv) Costs.
[17] Justice Walters listed in in her Endorsement the materials upon which each party intended to rely. This list was augmented at the commencement of the trial on April 12, 2021 with additional materials, as set forth below.
[18] Justice Walters directed that the matter be adjourned to a 1 to 2 day trial and gave various directions respecting the pre-trial filing of additional material, including a direction that the father file a budget of M.F.’s expenses for the years in which he is seeking the mother’s contribution to the child’s post-secondary expenses and child support.
Materials relied upon by the parties and trial process
[19] In her Endorsement of March 9, 2021 Justice Walters listed the material that each party intended to rely upon at the trial. This list was updated at the commencement of trial to include the following:
(a) Father:
(i) Motion to Change dated June 13, 2019;
(ii) affidavit dated June 10, 2019;
(iii) affidavit dated January 24, 2020;
(iv) Financial Statement dated January 24, 2020;
(v) affidavit dated November 27, 2020;
(vi) affidavit dated December 7, 2020
(vii) affidavit dated March 15, 2021; and
(viii) Financial Statement dated April 1, 2021
(b) Mother:
(i) Response to Motion to Change dated July 18, 2019;
(ii) Financial Statement dated July 18, 2019;
(iii) affidavit dated October 2, 2019;
(iv) affidavits (two) dated December 4, 2019;
(v) affidavit dated February 11, 2020;
(vi) financial statement dated February 12, 2020;
(vii) affidavit dated November 25, 2020;
(viii) affidavit dated February 24, 2021;
(ix) Financial Statement dated March 19, 2021;
(x) affidavit dated March 19, 2021; and
(xi) affidavit dated April 9, 2021.
[20] On consent of the parties I directed that the trial be conducted as a focused trial, such that each party’s affidavit material would comprise their evidence in chief and that each party would be provided an opportunity to cross-examine the opposing party. The mother conducted a cross-examination of the father. The father declined to cross-examine the mother.
Evidence
[21] Much of the affidavit evidence of the parties went beyond the provision of facts relevant to the issues for determination as defined in the pleadings, and contained lengthy recitations of positions taken and argument. The affidavit material on both sides was often complex.
[22] Given the foregoing, the following summary of the evidence is not intended to be an exhaustive reflection of the contents of the parties’ respective affidavit material, but rather represents an attempt to discern and distill the evidence of each party as it bears on and informs the issues to be decided in the trial.
[23] The father deposed, inter alia, to the following:
(i) he requires an order changing M.F.’s residence from the mother to the father for the period June 1, 2017 to June 12, 2017 in order to make tax claims and claims for the Canada Child Benefit for M.F.as a dependent for that period and for the period commencing March 1, 2019;
(ii) the mother’s 2018 income was $73,461;
(iii) M.F. commenced living with the father March 1, 2019;
(iv) after moving to London to attend Western University in September 2019, M.F. resided with the father almost every weekend, during the mid-term exams in October, during reading week in November, and during final examinations in December and winter vacation in December 2019;
(v) the child’s permanent address is the father’s home, initially in Kitchener and effective on December 1, 2019 in Stratford, Ontario;
(vi) the father owes arrears of child support to the mother for the period January 2014 to February 2019 in the sum of $4,926.02. He calculates this amount based upon his income for each year, payments required pursuant to the Guidelines during periods when M.F. was residing with the mother from 2014 to 2019 and actual payments made in those years. The father says he underpaid child support in the sum of $52.80 in 2014, $412.08 in 2015, $857.40 in 2016, $883.22 in 2017, $1935.48 in 2018, and $785.04 in 2019;
(vii) M.F. attained the age of majority on […], 2019;
(viii) the mother was obliged to pay child support in the sum of $685.61 per month pursuant to the Guidelines commencing March 1, 2019 to November 1, 2019;
(ix) the father claims that the mother should be obliged to pay child support to him in the sum of $200 per month for the periods that M.F. resides with him during the academic year in London, commencing December 1, 2019;
(x) the mother is obliged to reimburse payments made by the father to FRO during the time that M.F. resided with him commencing March 1, 2019 in the sum of $597 per month;
(xi) the mother did not request any contribution from him towards orthodontic expenses for M.F.in the year that they were incurred, which would have permitted him to make a claim for reimbursement on his extended health benefits available through his employment. The amount that would have been available for from the father’s insurance was $2000, had the claim been submitted within one year of the expense having been incurred;
(xii) based upon the father’s 2019 income of $122,500 and the mother’s 2018 income of $73,461, the mother’s share of applicable special or extraordinary expenses including the cost of postsecondary education is 37%;
(xiii) the sample budget published by Western University on its website for the year 2018-19 suggested an estimated cost of $26,110 for a student living on-campus and $21,950 for a student living off-campus;
(xiv) as of January 2020, the actual costs incurred by M.F. towards her postsecondary education for the 2019-20 academic year was the sum of $26,927;
(xv) M.F. received an entrance scholarship for the 2019-20 academic year in the sum of $2,000;
(xvi) the father proposes that M.F.be required to contribute $2,000 towards the cost for each academic year of her undergraduate degree;
(xvii) the mother contributed $6,520.66 towards the child’s expenses for the 2019-20 academic year leaving a shortfall based upon her 37% share, net of M.F.’s contribution of $2000, in the sum $1,756.24;
(xviii) M.F. took a course in the summer of 2020 at Queen’s University at a cost of $618.31;
(xix) the total amount budgeted by the father for M.F’s post-secondary costs for the academic year 2020-2021 including the cost of a laptop ($1,445.27), furniture ($1,845.33) and the summer course at Queen’s is the sum of $27,530.70;
(xx) after the child’s contribution of $2,000, the mother’s share at 37% will be $9,557.62 for the 2020-2021 academic year. The mother paid the sum of $3000, leaving a shortfall of $6,557.62;
(xxi) the father calculates the amount owing to him by the mother following adjustments to child support in the sum of $10,299.72, as follows:
mother child support @ $685.61 March 1 to November 1, 2019 = $5,485
mother child support @ $685.61 April to August 2020 = $3,770.86
reimbursement to father for payments March 1, 2019 to December 1, 2019 @ $597 = $5970
less father’s arrears of child support 2015- 2019 ($4926.02)
Balance owing by mother $10,299.72
(xxii) M.F.has been employed in the summers of 2019 and 2020 at Toyota Manufacturing in Woodstock Ontario and also works part-time as a tutor during the academic year;
(xxiii) the father produced a detailed budget for the child’s post-secondary expenses for the academic years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, together with a budget for the summer course M.F. took at Queen’s University in the summer of 2020. The total budgets for the subject years are as follows:
2019-2020 - $24,066.39;
summer course 2020 - $808.31
2020-2021 - $25,535.21
2021-2022 - $21,660.09
2022-2023 - $21,660.09
(xxiv) the father proposes that M.F.be required to contribute $2,000 for each academic year with the following amounts to be shared by the parents:
2019-2020 - $22,066.39
summer course 2020 - $808.31
2020-2021- $23,535.21
2021-2022 - $19,660.09
2022-2023 - $19,660.09
(xxv) the father’s average income for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 was the sum of $117,213.33. Based upon the mother’s 2018 income her proportionate share of the post-secondary expenses of M.F. would be 39%;
(xxvi) M.F. intends to write the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) in the summer of 2021.
[24] The mother deposed, inter alia, to the following:
(i) M.F. began residing with the father on February 28, 2019;
(ii) in September 2019 M.F. commenced a full-time post-secondary program at Western University in London, living in on-campus residence;
(iii) she acknowledges that she became responsible to pay child support commencing March 1, 2019, however that obligation should terminate on September 1, 2019 when M.F. began living in London to attend Western University;
(iv) although the mother did not agree with the child’s decision to attend Western, she paid $6,520.66 towards the child’s post-secondary costs for the 2019-2020 academic year. She calculated this contribution at 39% of the balance of the expenses following a contribution attributable to M.F. of 20%;
(v) M.F. earned $7,779.71 from employment in 2019. She withdrew $1,796 from a Registered Educational Savings Plan in July 2019, being monies that M.F. had contributed;
(vi) the father has rental income from his property in Kitchener. Given that the father has not disclosed his expenses for the rental unit, it is unreasonable to consider that his annual net rental income is $6,508.56, but rather it is reasonable that his net rental income is in the sum of $12,000 per year;
(vii) when the father’s salary increased significantly in 2014, he did not agree to the mother’s request that he update the amount of his monthly child support;
(viii) in 2016 the mother asked the father to contribute 50% to the child’s orthodontic work. He responded that he did not agree with M.F. having braces and refused to contribute to the cost. The father owes arrears of child support and section 7 orthodontic expenses;
(ix) since the onset of the COVID 19 pandemic the child’s University studies have been entirely online and she is therefore not required to live in London;
(x) M.F. worked at Toyota during summer of 2020 earning $12,000 and has continued to work part time at Toyota approximately 10 hours per week during the school year. She also tutors high school and university students approximately four hours per week;
(xi) she overpaid for the child’s post-secondary expenses in 2019-2020. She is planning to contribute $6,000 per year to the child’s education and as of November 25, 2020 had paid $3000 for the 2020-2021 year;
(xii) the parties withdrew from FRO in March 2020. The father’s FRO payments were stopped immediately and the mother returned the payments made by the father for the period January to March 2020;
(xiii) M.F. received a refund of $2,818 from Western University Housing. The mother has not received a proportionate amount from this refund and requests that it be considered her contribution towards the summer course M.F. took at Queen’s University with a cost of $618;
(xiv) the father moved from Kitchener to Stratford on December 1, 2019. His residence is a one-bedroom apartment which the mother does not consider to be an appropriate living space for the father to share with M.F.;
(xv) M.F.’s expenses for September to November 2020 were shown on the father’s credit card account and it is not clear what the expenses covered as they are mainly e-transfers to various people. It is therefore not clear whether the expenses are M.F.’s or the father’s;
(xvi) M.F. decided to buy new furniture for her rental room in London and a new laptop. The mother says that there was furniture available to her at the mother’s residence. The mother says that the child’s previous laptop was three years old and there was therefore no need to purchase another one;
(xvii) M.F. has withdrawn from her parental control.
[25] Based upon a review of the parties’ affidavit material, it appears that the parties are apart on the following issues:
(a) whether the mother should be responsible for payment of table child support under the Guidelines for the period September 1 to November 1, 2019 prior to M.F. attaining the age of majority;
(b) whether the mother should be responsible for the payment of table child support to the father from the end of each academic year to the commencement of the next academic year;
(c) whether the mother should be responsible to pay to the father any child support during each academic year;
(d) the amount reasonably incurred by M.F. for post-secondary expenses for the academic year 2019 to 2020;
(e) the estimated amount reasonably incurred by M.F. for post-secondary expenses for the academic year 2020 to 2021;
(f) the budget for the child’s post-secondary expenses for the remaining two years of her undergraduate program;
(g) the amount which M.F. should be expected to contribute towards her own post-secondary expenses;
(h) the proportionate amount to be paid by each party towards the child’s post-secondary expenses for the relevant years, net of the amount to be contributed by M.F.;
(i) whether the father should be required to reimburse the mother for his proportionate share of the cost of orthodontic work for M.F. incurred by the mother in the years 2015 and 2016; and
(j) arrears of child support by the father due to underpayment for the years 2015 to 2019.
Change of Circumstances
[26] Subsection 17(4) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. .3 (2nd Supp.), as am. provides that, before varying a child support order, the court shall satisfy itself that a change of circumstances as provided for in the applicable Guidelines has occurred since the making of the child support order.
[27] Neither party disputed the fact that a change of circumstances as provided for in the Guidelines has occurred. M.F’s primary residence changed from the mother to the father prior to March 1, 2019. At the time of the father’s Motion to Change M.F. was in the process of enrolling in a program of post-secondary education. Although the Motion to Change was brought prior to M.F. entering university, it was prospective in seeking a determination of the parties’ respective shares of the cost of the child’s post-secondary education for which the application and enrolment process had begun.
[28] I am satisfied that there has been a material change in circumstances in order to support the making of an order varying the existing order for child support.
Guiding principles respecting the support of an adult child attending full-time post-secondary education
[29] The following provisions of the Guidelines are relevant to the determination of the parties’ and child’s respective obligations to contribute to the support of a child who is over the age of majority and is in full-time attendance in a program of post-secondary education:
Presumptive rule
3 (1) Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, the amount of a child support order for children under the age of majority is
(a) the amount set out in the applicable table, according to the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates and the income of the spouse against whom the order is sought; and
(b) the amount, if any, determined under section 7.
Child the age of majority or over
(2) Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, where a child to whom a child support order relates is the age of majority or over, the amount of child support order is
(a) the amount determined by applying these Guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority; or
(b) if the court considers that approach to be inappropriate, the amount that it considers appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the child.
Special or extraordinary expenses
7 (1) In a child support order the court may, on either spouse’s request, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation:
(a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment of the spouse who has the majority of parenting time;
(b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;
(c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;
(d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs;
(e) expenses for post-secondary education; and
(f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.
Definition of “extraordinary expenses”
(1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(d) and (f), the term extraordinary expenses means
(a) expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse’s income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or
(b) where paragraph (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account
(i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate,
(ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities,
(iii) any special needs and talents of the child or children,
(iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and
(v) any other similar factor that the court considers relevant.
Sharing of expense
(2) The guiding principle in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1) is that the expense is shared by the spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child.
[30] In the case of Fanelli v. Valente, 2019 ONSC 5056 (S.C.J.) Mitrow, J. at para. 319, citing Justice Heeney’s decision in Merritt v. Merritt, 1999 CarswellOnt 1471 (S.C.J.), confirmed that it is inappropriate to apply the approach in s. 3(2)(a) for an adult child living away from home while attending a post-secondary educational institution.
[31] Justice Heeney explained his approach at para. 73 of Merritt as follows:
Where, however, a child is residing in another residence for the bulk of the year, it seems inappropriate to apply tables that are not designed with that living arrangement in mind. Furthermore, the table approach assumes that the recipient parent discharges her obligation by being physically in the same household and providing the family home and other amenities for the child. Where a child is at college, this assumption does not hold true. It therefore seems more appropriate to calculate the actual costs of providing for the needs of M.F.in his other residence, factoring in a contribution toward the cost of maintaining the family home to return to on weekends and school breaks where appropriate, and apportion that between the spouses on a Paras approach after considering the child's own ability to contribute.
[32] The Court of Appeal cited Merritt with approval in the case of Park v. Thompson, 2005 CanLII 14132 (ON CA), 2005 CarswellOnt 1632 (C.A.)
[33] In the recent case of Cox v. Webber 2021 ONSC 2728 (S.C.J.) L. Shaw, J., citing Corby v. Corby, 2015 ONSC 2700 (S.C.J.), stated at para. 55:
When a child is over 18 and is living away from home to attend school, it is not appropriate to use the approach set out in s. 3(2)(a) to determine support, as the table amount is premised on the assumption that the parent receiving child support is providing for the expenses of a child who lives with that parent. When a child is away at school, the means and needs analysis set out in s. 3(2)(b) should be used… If the child lives at home during the summer months, then the table amount can be used during that time.
[34] At paragraph 60 of Cox Shaw, J. observed that an adult child is expected to contribute to the cost of attending post-secondary education, which can be in the form of student loans, scholarships, bursaries, summer employment and savings. However, she noted that the case law is unsettled with respect to the amount that a child is expected to contribute from these various sources, and the determination of the question depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no specific formula that is applied, and the Guidelines do not expressly stipulate the amount a child should contribute. The court has a broad discretion to determine the amount that the child should contribute and will consider the means of the child and each parent in making the determination.
[35] It has been held that, where the child’s parents are of more modest means, the child may be expected to contribute a relatively higher or more significant amount to her/his education (see Corby at para. 31 and Cox at para. 65). This is reflective of the first of the three objectives of the Guidelines namely (a) to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation.
[36] While children do have an obligation to make a reasonable contribution to their education, they are not expected to contribute all their earnings, as they should derive some personal benefit from their labour (see Marsh v. Jashewski, 2011 ONSC 3793 (S.C.J.) at para. 78 and Gagnier v. Gagnier, [2002] O.J. No. 2183 (S.C.J.) at para. 54).
[37] It has been observed that ultimately the determination of the specific amount that a child is expected to contribute should be based on common sense (see MacPherson v. MacPherson, 2005 CarswellOnt 3638 (S.C.J.) at para. 38, citing Cybulskie v. Bliszczuk, (2001), 2001 CanLII 28189 (ON SC), 15 R.F.L. (5th) 319 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para. 10, per Cunningham, J.).
Discussion
(a) The mother’s child support obligations under s. 3 of the Guidelines
[38] As indicated above, the mother takes the position that no table support is payable by her for the period September 1 to November 1, 2019 as M.F. was living in London during that period and not with the father.
[39] In my view the mother remains responsible for the payment of child support until M.F. attained the age of majority on […], 2019. The presumptive rule at subsection 3(1)(a) of the Guidelines is that the amount of a child support order for children under the age of majority is the amount set out in the applicable table. Subsection 3(2) only has application in respect of a child who is the age of majority or over.
[40] Given that M.F. attained the age of majority just five days after November 1, 2019, I find that it is appropriate that the mother be responsible for the payment of child support on the first of each month from March 1 to October 1, 2019.
[41] In accordance with the cases of Meritt, Park and Fanelli I find that the mother is not responsible for paying full table support under the Guidelines during each academic year when the child, having attained the age of majority, is living in London Ontario and not at the father’s residence. However, I find that the mother is responsible for table support for the periods during which she resided full time with the father during the spring and summer between academic years. I also find that she should be responsible for a reduced amount of child support for the months that M.F.is away at school to reflect the costs of the father in providing shelter and food on weekends and school breaks.
[42] Justice Sherr made the following useful observation on this issue in the case of Chow v. Rider, 2015 ONCJ 1 (O.C.J.) at para. 58:
Most courts now find the guideline amount inappropriate when a child attends university out-of-town and only returns home during the summer and school breaks. Although each case must be examined on its own facts, most courts will order the full table amount in the months the child is living at home with a lesser amount when the child is away at school. See: Park v. Thompson 2005 CanLII 14132 (ON CA), [2005 CarswellOnt 1632 (Ont. C.A.)], 2005 CanLII 21865; Coghill v. Coghill 2006 CanLII 21778 (ON SC), [2006 CarswellOnt 3890 (Ont. S.C.J.)], 2006 CanLII 28734.
[43] At paras. 59-60 of Chow Justice Sherr noted that, although the maintenance of a more robust support obligation is possible for periods when the child is residing away from the recipient parent’s home to reflect the cost of maintaining a permanent home for the child, the provision of evidence to support such a claim is important. However, at para. 61, he cited the case of Albert v. Albert 2007 CanLII 29972 (ON SC), 2007 CarswellOnt 4863 (Ont. S.C.J.) where, even in the absence of specific evidence of the costs to maintain a room for the child at home for the full year, the payor was ordered to pay $250 per month during these periods, on the basis that there is an obvious cost for doing this.
[44] In the case at bar, the father presented evidence that M.F. returned to his home on most weekends and on school breaks, however, he did not lead evidence of specific incremental costs of maintaining a home for the child. Indeed, the father resides in a one-bedroom apartment and does not maintain a separate room for M.F. for her use when she returns home.
[45] The father claims from the mother the sum of $200 for each month in which M.F. resides in London in order to compensate him for a portion of the costs incurred during the periods she spends at his residence on weekends and during school breaks. I do not find this amount to be inappropriate as it reflects a reasonable contribution by the mother towards the costs for food, utilities, transportation and incidentals during these periods.
[46] For the following reasons I am unable to accept the submission of the mother that she should be relieved of any obligation to pay child support by reason of M.F. having withdrawn from her parental control.
[47] It is open to the court, in appropriate circumstances, to consider, as a factor in the determination of whether an order for child support should be made, the child’s termination of a relationship with the parent from whom support is sought (see Fanelli v. Valente, 2019 ONSC 5056 (S.C.J.) at para. 357).
[48] In the case of Nafar-Ross v. Raahemi, 2018 ONSC 3054 (S.C.J.) Roger, J. noted the following:
(a) most court decisions have held that an adult child terminating his or her relationship with the parent, standing alone, is rarely sufficient to relieve the parent from a child support obligation, unless it is clearly unilateral and without any apparent reason (see para. 24);
(b) it is difficult for the court to assess conduct when deciding entitlement to child support (see para. 26); and
(c) the practice of making a finding that a child is not “a child of the marriage” because of the lack of a relationship only in the clearest of cases seems a wise approach (see para. 26).
[49] In the case of Rotondi v. Rotondi, 2014 ONSC 1520 (S.C.J.) Price J. stated at para. 48 that “courts have generally not terminated a parent’s obligation to pay child support for a dependent adult child based solely on the absence of the relationship between them. The payor parent must adduce substantial evidence indicating that the child is responsible for the breakdown of the relationship.”
[50] At paragraph 54 of Rotondi Justice Price observed that “before terminating child support based on a child’s repudiation of his or her relationship with the parent, the court generally requires evidence, additionally, that the parent has persevered in his efforts to preserve or rehabilitate his relationship with the child, and that the child has unequivocally rejected those efforts.”
[51] In my view, the mother’s evidence in the case at bar falls well short of what is required in order to justify a finding that M.F.is not a “child of the marriage” by reason of a lack of a relationship with her such that she should be relived of her obligation to pay child support.
[52] In her affidavit of March 19, 2021, the mother stated, “I became aware of the motivations of [M.F.] and of her father for their behaviours gradually, since 2019.” She then went on to describe various actions, decisions and positions taken by the father, some in conjunction with M.F., with which she disagrees.
[53] I find no reliable evidence that M.F. has unilaterally and without any apparent reason terminated her relationship with the mother, that M.F.is responsible for the breakdown of the relationship, and that the mother has persevered in her efforts to preserve or rehabilitate the relationship and that M.F. has unequivocally rejected those efforts.
(b) Post-secondary expenses for the child
(i) Determination of the post-secondary expenses
[54] As noted above, the father provided, at the direction of Justice Walters, particulars of post-secondary costs for M.F. for the academic year 2019-2020, including the summer course she took through Queen’s University in the summer of 2020, and budgets for post-secondary costs for the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.
[55] The expenses and budgets may be summarized as follows:
Academic Year
Tuition, fees and books
Capital purchases (furniture and laptop computer)
Residence including meal plan and fees (2019-20) /Rent/Utilities (2020-21 and following)
Other (Food, clothing, entertainment, transportation, personal incidentals, etc.)
TOTAL
2019-20
$9,087.71
$12,906.80 (net of refund of $2,818 re: COVID-19 shut-down)
$2,071.88
$24,066.39
Summer course Queens
$808.31
2020-21
$8,586.41
$2,429.85 (furniture) $1,445.27 (laptop) Total: $3,875.12
$10,523.68
$2,550.00
$25,535.21
2021-22
$8,586.41
$10,523.68
$2,550.00
$21,660.09
2022-23
$8,586.41
$10,523.68
$2,550.00
$21,660.09
[56] The mother takes issue with the following aspects of the expenses incurred by M.F.to date:
(a) with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020 to date Western University implemented online learning such that it was not necessary for M.F.to reside in London Ontario, incurring costs for rent, utilities and transportation;
(b) the expenditures for furniture and a new laptop computer were unreasonable as the mother had furniture available for the child’s use and the child’s previous laptop was three years old and should not have required replacement; and
(c) the rental expense for off-campus housing reflects 12 months per year, notwithstanding that M.F. only occupies the London apartment for 8 months, returning to the father’s residence in the summer months.
[57] I find that it was not unreasonable for M.F.to maintain a separate residence, sharing costs with roommates, in London during the time when she was engaged in online learning with Western University following the onset of the pandemic. Commencing in December 2019 the father resided in a one-bedroom apartment in Stratford. For M.F.to have attempted to engage in online learning while sharing a one-bedroom apartment with her father would not have been feasible or beneficial to M.F.’s academic achievement. Moreover, it would have resulted in the mother being responsible for payment of table child support.
[58] I find that the acquisition of a new laptop computer for the child’s use in connection with her university studies was not unreasonable. A suitable, functional and reliable computer is indispensable in the modern academic setting.
[59] I also find that it was not unreasonable for M.F.to have independently acquired furniture for her room at the London apartment. It is self-evident that a functional desk and bed, lighting and other basis amenities are required for the child’s university studies. However, furniture is not as directly connected to the child’s academic studies as is a laptop computer and it is expected that the furniture will have a useful life or residual value beyond the completion of the child’s undergraduate degree. I would therefore ascribe 50% of the cost of the furniture, rounded to $1,215.00 as being a reasonable inclusion in the calculation of post-secondary costs for the 2020-21 academic year. This results in a revised budget for the 2020-21 academic year of $24,320.21.
[60] I accept the father’s evidence that student housing in London is generally rented on annual lease terms and that M.F. and her roommates are all required to pay rent for 12 months. The mother has led no evidence respecting the availability of suitable off-campus housing units in London with 8-month lease terms at a lower overall cost. Even with 12-month leases, living off-campus is still less expensive than living on-campus in residence, as demonstrated by the budgets produced by the father.
[61] I find that the sample budgets for on-campus and off-campus living published by Western University provide useful aids for evaluating the reasonableness of the budgets proposed by the father.
[62] I find that the particulars of the expenditures for the 2019-20 academic year in the sum of $24,066.39 and the budgets for the ensuing three academic years (revised to take into account the reduction in 2020-21 for furniture) presented by the father are reasonable.
(ii) Contribution by the child
[63] The father takes the position that M.F. should be required to contribute no more than $2,000 for each academic year towards the cost of her post-secondary education. The mother takes the position that M.F. should contribute 20% of the annual cost of her education, or a fixed amount of $5,000 for each academic year of her undergraduate degree.
[64] As indicated above, there is no specific formula to be applied to determine the appropriate amount of a child’s contribution and ultimately it is a matter of common sense.
[65] In the case of Marsh v. Jashewski, 2011 ONSC 3793 (S.C.J.) Baltman, J. found it reasonable, in consideration of all the circumstances, for the child in that case to contribute one-third of her post-secondary s. 7 expenses. The annual post-secondary cost in the Marsh case varied but were generally in the range of $15,000 per annum. The aggregate annual incomes of the parents in Marsh fell into a comparable, but not identical, range as the combined incomes of the parties in the case at bar.
[66] A similar determination, requiring M.F.to contribute one third of the annual costs of his/her post-secondary education, was made in the case of Wiewiora v. Wiewiora, 2014 MBQB 18 (Man Q.B.), relying in part on Marsh.
[67] I am able to take judicial notice that the ability of post-secondary students to generate income from summer and part-time employment has not generally kept pace with increases in the cost of post-secondary education since Marsh was decided in 2011. This would suggest that a requirement that a child make a one-third contribution may not be as realistic in many situations currently as it was in 2011.
[68] I find the mother’s position respecting the required contribution by M.F.to be more reasonable than that of the father. A contribution of $2,000 per year represents only 8% to 9% of the annual cost. A 20% contribution by M.F. equates to roughly $5,000, which would still afford the child, based upon her annual income from summer and part-time employment, an opportunity to save towards the costs of her planned continued education in the medical/healthcare field following her initial degree.
[69] I find the mother’s proposal that M.F. be required to contribute a fixed amount of $5,000 per academic year for the four years of her undergraduate studies to be reasonable and appropriate.
(iii) Proportionate shares of the parties
[70] Based upon the evidence, consisting of the parties’ respective notices of assessment for 2018 and 2019 and payslips indicating their employment incomes in 2020 I find the parties’ incomes and their respective proportionate shares for the purposes of s. 7 expenses as follows:
Academic Year
Father’s Income
Father’s Proportionate Share
Mother’s Income
Mother’s Proportionate Share
2019-2020
2018 Income: $110,065
60%
2018 Income: $73,462
40%
2020-2021
2019 Income: $122,493
62%
2019 Income: $73,925
38%
2021-2022
2020 Income: $118,804
59%
2020 Income: $82,928
41%
[71] I am unable to accept the mother’s position stated at para. 3 of her November 25, 2020 affidavit that $27,507 of rental income should be added to the father’s 2019 income in respect of his rental unit in Kitchener. This matter was not pleaded in the mother’s Response to Motion to Change nor her Amended Response to Motion to Change and I am not satisfied that the evidence supports a finding that the father’s income is different from his line 150 income on his 2019 Notice of Assessment.
[72] The following chart sets forth the parties’ respective proportionate shares of the child’s post-secondary costs for the academic years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 and the projected costs for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023:
Academic year
Total s. 7 expenses
Child’s contribution
Balance payable for s. 7
Father’s share
Mother’s share
2019-2020
$24,066.39
$5,000
$19,066.39
60% - $11,439.83
40% - $7626.56
2020-2021
$24,320.36
$5,000
$19,320.36
62% - $11,978.62
38% - $7,341.74
2021-2022 (estimated)
$21,660.00
$5,000
$16,660
59% - $9,829.40
41% - $6,830.60
2022-2023 (estimated)
$21,660.00
$5,000
$16,660
59% - $9,829.40
41% - $6,830.60
[73] The parties agreed that the mother paid the sum of $6,520.66 for the 2019-2020 academic year leaving an amount owing by her of $1,626.56. The parties also agreed that, as of the date of trial, the mother had paid the sum of $4,000 for the 2020-21 academic year leaving a shortfall of $3,351.74. The mother deposed in her March 19, 2021 affidavit that she planned to pay an additional $2,000 prior to the end of April 2021.
[74] Ordinarily it would be appropriate to require the parties to recalculate their proportionate shares for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years, based on actual expenses incurred by M.F. and their respective incomes. However, in light of the persistent litigation that the parties have engaged in since the date of separation and evident difficulty the parties have in communicating and decision-making, it would be beneficial to the parties to reduce to the extent possible the potential for further litigation by fixing the parties’ respective contributions to the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years based upon the annual budgets presented by the father and their current incomes. This would also have salutary effect of reducing the impact on scarce judicial resources of being called on to resolve ongoing financial disputes between the parties. In my view it would be fair to apportion the costs, after applying the child’s contribution of $5,000 for each of those years, 59% to the father and 41% to the mother. This would result in the father being responsible for $9,829 and the mother $6,831 for each of those academic years.
[75] The parties did not address the question of their responsibility to contribute proportionately to M.F.’s educational costs beyond her first four-year undergraduate degree. Should M.F. enroll in further full-time studies beyond her first undergraduate degree and should either party seek the other to contribute to M.F.’s costs of such additional studies, it may be the subject of a further Motion to Change.
(c) Adjustments between the parties for arrears of child support
(i) Orthodontic expense claimed by the mother
[76] The mother claims from the father the sum of $3,120 representing his 60% proportionate share of s. 7 expenses that she incurred for orthodontic treatment for M.F.in 2015-2016 totaling $5,200.
[77] The mother produced a contract/treatment plan from the treating orthodontist dated January 5, 2015 (misdated January 5, 2014) setting forth the orthodontic fee of $5,200 to be paid by an initial payment of $725 on February 11, 2015 and 19 monthly instalments of $225 commencing March 20, 2015. The mother also produced receipts for payments from January 14, 2015 to November 24, 2016.
[78] The mother did not provide evidence in her affidavit material that she sought payment from the father at the time that the expenses were incurred. She did not advance a claim against the father in respect of the orthodontic expense in her Response to the Motion to Change. The first reference to the claim appeared in the mother’s affidavit of December 4, 2019 and the first reference to the claim in the pleadings was in her Amended Response to the Motion to Change filed at the commencement of trial April 12, 2021.
[79] The father deposed that the orthodontic expense was not handled by the mother in accordance with the Hardman Order as she did not obtain his prior consent to the treatment and agreement respecting the sharing of the expense. He says that the mother’s delay in seeking the father’s contribution has prevented him from accessing his dental insurance plan in respect of the expense as the insurance claim was required to have been made within one year of the date of the expense.
[80] It is noted that the Hardman Order did not make any reference to the sharing of s. 7 expenses other than expenses associated with “activities” in which M.F. may be enrolled, as referenced at paragraph 13 of the Order. There is no explicit reference to the sharing of medical and dental expenses.
[81] Even if the provision respecting s. 7 expenses for “activities” may be extended to include dental expenses, the mother’s claim for contribution by the father is retroactive in nature and is governed by the law respecting claims for retroactive child support.
[82] The Supreme Court of Canada in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37 (S.C.C.) determined that the effective date that notice was given to the payor parent is the default date to which an award of child support award should be retroactive (see D.B.S. at para. 118). “Effective notice” for this purpose refers to any indication by the recipient parent that child support should be paid. It does not require the recipient parent to take any legal action but rather all that is required is that the topic be broached (see para. 121). The Court in D.B.S. determined that it will usually be inappropriate to make a support award retroactive, even if effective notice had been given, to a date more than three years before formal notice was given to the payor parent (see para. 123).
[83] As indicated above, there is no clear evidence that the mother gave any indication that the father should contribute to the cost of the orthodontic treatment which was performed in 2015 until her affidavit of December 4, 2019. I find that this is the date of “effective notice” of the claim. It may also be considered to be the date of “formal notice” as it was given in the context of the litigation. As noted, it will usually be inappropriate to make a support award retroactive to a date more than three years prior to the date of formal notice, in this case to December 4, 2016. The payments sought by the mother all predated December 4, 2016.
[84] I find that the father has been prejudiced by the mother’s delay in seeking contribution for the orthodontic expense by reason of his inability to access dental insurance coverage for his share of the expense.
[85] I find no evidence of any blameworthy conduct by the father in reference to the orthodontic expense that would support an extension of the retroactive date beyond the three-year period referred to in D.B.S.
[86] I therefore find that the mother’s claim against the father for contribution for the orthodontic expense incurred in 2015-2016 should be dismissed.
(ii) Underpayment of child support by the father for the period prior to March 1, 2019
[87] The parties agree that the father’s monthly payments of child support prior to March 1, 2019 in accordance with the Hardman Order did not reflect increases in his income during the relevant period. The mother calculates the aggregate amount of the underpayment by the father for the period January 1, 2015 to February 1, 2019 at $5,133.32.
[88] The father calculates his underpayment for the period January 1, 2014 to February 1, 2019 at $4,926.02.
[89] The difference between the parties’ respective calculations of the father’s underpayment is $207.30.
[90] It is noted that the father’s calculation takes into account the fact that M.F. resided with him June 1, 2017 to November 11, 2017 (to which the parties agreed as reflected in the Endorsement of Walters J. dated March 9, 2021) and references an Order made April 10, 2018 adjusting child support for 2017.
[91] I find the father’s calculation to be more reliable and fix the required adjustment for child support payable by the father prior to March 1, 2019 in the sum of $4,926.02.
(iii) Overpayment of child support by the father for the period from and after March 1, 2019
[92] The father continued to make payments to FRO pursuant to the Hardman Order from March 1, 2019 to March 1, 2020 totalling $7,761, notwithstanding that M.F. commenced residing with him on February 28, 2019. The mother is responsible to reimburse the father in this amount. The parties agree that the mother made three reimbursement payments totalling $1,791.
[93] As indicated above the mother is responsible for payment to the father of table amount of child support pursuant to the Guidelines for the period March 1 to October 1, 2019 and for the months of May to August in each spring and summer between academic years, and in the amount of $200 per month during each academic year.
[94] The arrears of child support owing by the mother for the period March 1, 2019 to May 1, 2021 is calculated as follows:
Year
Income
Table Amount
$200 per month during academic year
TOTAL
2019
$73,462
$685/mo x 8 = $5,480
$200/mo. x 2 = $400
$5,880
2020
$73,925
$690/mo x 4 = $2,760
$200/mo. x 8 = $1,600
$4,360
2021
$82,928
$773/mo. x 1 = $773
$200/mo. x 4 = $800
$1,573
AGGREGATE TOTAL March 1, 2019 to May 1, 2021
$11,813
[95] Based upon the foregoing, I find that the reconciliation of the respective amounts owing by each party to the other for arrears of child support to May 1, 2021 to be as follows:
Father – Arrears of child support prior to March 1, 2019
$4,926.02
Father - Overpayment of child support from and after March 1, 2019
$7,761 less reimbursement by the mother of three payments totalling $1,791 = ($5,970)
Net overpayment by father owing by mother $1,043.98
Mother – Arrears of child support from and after March 1, 2019
$11,813
$11,813
Net total arrears owing by mother - May 1, 2021
$12,856.98
(d) Total amount of arrears payable by the mother and terms for payment
[96] As set forth above the aggregate amount owing by the mother for arrears of child support and s. 7 expenses as of May 1, 2021 is as follows:
Net total arrears of child support
$12,856.98
Balance of contribution to post-secondary costs for 2019-2020 academic year
$1,626.56
Balance of contribution to post-secondary costs for 2020-2021 academic year
$3,351.74 (less any amount paid by the mother following trial)
TOTAL
$17,835.28
[97] The father requests that the mother be ordered to pay the amount owing by her over three years.
[98] In my view, in light of the mother’s obligations for payment of ongoing child support and s. 7 post-secondary expenses at least until M.F. completes her first undergraduate degree, I find that it would be appropriate to provide for periodic payment towards the outstanding arrears at a lower rate of $100 per month from June 1, 2021 to May 1, 2023 and provide for monthly payments of $428.75 each over three years commencing on June 1, 2023.
(e)Terms for payment of the mother’s share of post-secondary expenses
[99] The mother submits that her contributions to M.F.’s ’s post-secondary costs should be paid in three instalments, two directly to the University in August and January of each academic year and the third to directly to M.F. in May.
[100] The father submits that the mother’s aggregate contribution to the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years should be ordered to be paid in monthly instalments over three years to be enforced by FRO.
[101] In my view the mother has demonstrated her willingness and commitment to pay her share of the costs of M.F.’s post-secondary education during the first two years of her enrollment and it is not necessary to order that her contribution be paid in instalments to be enforced by FRO.
[102] I also find that it is not necessary nor appropriate for the mother to make direct payments on M.F.’s behalf to the University. M.F. will be approaching 20 years of age and entering her third year of university in September 2021. She is fully capable of accepting responsibility for her own financial relationship with the University and for managing the balance of her financial affairs. There is no reason for the mother to be inserted into M.F.’s relationship with the University.
[103] In my view it would be appropriate for the mother to pay her contributions towards M.F.’s post-secondary expenses in the sum of $6,831 for each of the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years in instalments of $2,277 each, payable to M.F. on the 15th day of each August, December and April, commencing August 15, 2021 and continuing until April 15, 2023.
(e) Interest and fine
[104] The mother has requested that the father pay interest at the rate of 3% per annum in accordance with the Hardman Order on the arrears of child support for which he is responsible for the period prior to March 1, 2019. She also submits that the father should be ordered to pay a “fine” to her in the sum of $2,000 for his failure to pay the full amount of child support for which he was responsible for during that period.
[105] In the circumstances, given that the mother’s obligation to pay child support and the father’s obligation to pay arrears of child support were offset, I do not find it appropriate to order either party to pay pre-judgment interest.
[106] The mother has provided no authority for her submission that the father should be required to pay a fine for failure to pay the required amount of child support. In my view the court does not have jurisdiction to impose a fine for breach of an order in the absence of a finding of contempt. There has been no finding of contempt in this case and in any event, contempt proceedings are not available for breach of a payment order (see sub-rules 26(3) and (4) of the Family Law Rules).
(f) Declaratory order re residency
[107] The father seeks a declaratory order to the effect that M.F.’s day-to-day residence for the period June 1, 2017 to November 15, 2017 was with him. He says that he needs this for income tax purposes.
[108] In my view I lack jurisdiction to make a declaratory order concerning past residence of the child for tax purposes as requested by the father. In the context of the father’s Motion to Change child support the court’s jurisdiction derives from s. 15.1 of the Divorce Act. The court is in a position to make findings of fact only with respect to past residency. On the basis of the parties’ agreement as reflected in Justice Walter’s Endorsement of March 9, 2021, I find that M.F. commenced living with the father as of March 1, 2019 and lived with him from June 1, 2017 to November 11, 2017.
(g) The mother’s request for a sealing order
[109] The mother seeks a sealing order with respect to the entire file. She does not provide a detailed justification for a sealing order, however, in submissions, it became apparent that a sealing order was sought to protect the M.F.’s reputation for the purposes of future academic or employment opportunities as that may relate to comments made about M.F.’s past conduct as an adolescent in the affidavit material filed by the mother.
[110] The father did not take a position with respect to the mother’s request for a sealing order.
[111] Subsection 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43 provides that a court may order that any document filed in a civil proceeding before it be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record.
[112] In the case of M. (G.) v. M. (R.), 2015 ONSC 4026 (S.C.J.) Gray, J. made the following observations at paras. 14-16:
It has been said many times that the open court principle is of fundamental importance in a democracy. Justice ought not to be administered behind closed doors. Open courts are important so that the public can be satisfied that justice is being administered properly.
However, the open court principle is subject to exceptions. Where the interest in privacy outweighs the public's right to know, orders can be made to restrict the public's right to know. However, such orders should be carefully tailored, and limited to what is actually necessary to protect legitimate rights of privacy.
Privacy interests are particularly compelling when it comes to the interests of children.
[113] Justice Gray conducted a review in M. (G.) of the jurisprudence, noting instances in which children’s right to privacy has achieved specific legislative recognition and various cases in which certain distinct factors were present justifying the granting of a sealing order.
[114] I am not satisfied that the circumstances in the case at bar are such that a sealing order with respect to the entire file is warranted or justified.
[115] However, M.F. is not a party to the proceeding and had no input in or control over what was said about her in the parties’ affidavit material. She has a legitimate privacy interest particularly in reference to her future academic and professional pursuits. Although a full sealing order is not warranted, I find it is appropriate to order that these Reasons for Decision be initialized such that the parties and M.F. are identified by initials only and not by their full names. This will reduce the opportunity for persons to utilize the internet to obtain access to these Reasons by conducting a search using M.F.’s full name.
Disposition
[116] On the basis of the foregoing it is ordered as follows:
(a) the obligation of the father to pay child support for the child M.F. pursuant to the order of Justice P. A. Hardman dated November 8, 2013 is terminated;
(b) the arrears of child support payable by the father pursuant to s. 3 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) for the period prior to March 1, 2019 is fixed in the sum of $4,926.02;
(c) the amount owing by the father for special or extraordinary expenses pursuant to s. 7 of the Guidelines as of the date hereof is fixed at zero (0);
(d) the father has overpaid child support pursuant to s. 3 of the Guidelines for the period March 1, 2019 to the date hereof, net of reimbursement by the mother, in the sum of $1,043.98;
(e) the arrears of child support payable by the mother pursuant to s. 3 of the Guidelines to May 1, 2021 is fixed at the sum of $12,856.98;
(f) the amount owing by the mother for special or extraordinary expenses pursuant to s. 7 of the Guidelines in respect of post-secondary expenses of the child M.F. for the academic years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 is fixed in the sum of $4,978.30, less any amount paid by the mother following trial and prior to the date hereof;
(g) the net total arrears of s. 3 and s. 7 child support owing by the mother to the father including the net overpayment by the father and net of the arrears of s. 3 child support owing by the father, as provided in paragraphs (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) above, is the sum of $17,835.28;
(h) the mother shall pay the said sum of $17,835.28 to the father in 24 equal monthly instalments of $100 each commencing June 1, 2023 and continuing on the first day of each month to May 1, 2023 and thereafter in 36 monthly instalments $428.75 each commencing June 1, 2023 until the balance is paid in full;
(i) so long as M.F. remains enrolled in a program of full-time post-secondary education the mother shall pay to the father child support during the four month interval between the academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 and between the academic years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 in the amount of $773/mo. on the first day of each of May, June, July and August in each of 2021 and 2022 based on her annual income of $82,928;
(j) so long as M.F. remains enrolled in a program of full-time post-secondary education the mother shall pay to the father child support during each academic year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 in the amount of $200 per month on the first day of the month from September 2021 to April 2022 and September 2022 to April 2023;
(k) Unless the foregoing support orders are withdrawn from the Family Responsibility Office, they shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under the orders shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed. A support deduction order will be issued;
(l) the mother shall contribute her proportionate share of post-secondary expenses of the child M.F. pursuant to s. 7 of the Guidelines so long as M.F. remains enrolled in full-time post-secondary education in the sum of $6,831 for each of the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years in instalments of $2,277 each payable to the child M.F. on the 15th day of each August, December and April, commencing August 15, 2021 and continuing until April 15, 2023;
(m) M.F. shall provide to both parties:
(i) written confirmation of her enrolment at Western University on a full-time basis and copies of any academic progress reports, every three months, commencing September 1, 2021; and
(ii) full particulars in writing immediately upon experiencing any change in relation to her educational program, expenses, or residential arrangements.
Costs
[117] Any party who seeks costs of the proceeding may make written submissions as such costs within 14 days of the release of these Reasons. The other party has 10 days after receipt of the said submissions to respond. The initial written submissions of each party claiming costs shall not exceed three (3) double-spaced pages exclusive of Bills of Costs or Costs Outlines and offers to settle. The responding submissions shall not exceed two (2) pages. All such written submissions are to be forwarded to me via email to the Trial Coordinator at Brantford at the same email address as utilized for the release of these Reaons.
[118] If the parties are able to settle the question of costs or if a party does not intend to deliver written submissions, the party are requested to advise the court through the Trial Coordinator at Brantford accordingly.
D.A. Broad, J.
Date: May 18, 2021