Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Date: 2021-05-25

Re: Kevin Jerome Morgan, Applicant And: Shereen Yolanda Morgan, Respondent

Before: Kiteley J.

Counsel: Jennifer S. Daudlin, counsel for the Applicant Self-represented Respondent

Heard: April 12, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is an uncontested trial of the issues raised in the Application issued August 9, 2019 as amended September 11, 2019.

Background

[2] The Applicant and Respondent began cohabiting in March 2013. They married on August 31, 2014. Their son J.K.M. was born in July, 2017.

[3] As indicated below, the Amended Answer and Claim has been struck out and the Respondent has lost the right to assert any claims. For background I have reviewed the Amended Answer and Claim. I do know that the Respondent takes issue with most of the Applicant’s recitation of the background of the case.

[4] Beginning in December, 2018, the Applicant said he became concerned about the Respondent’s behaviour. She was admitted to hospital for a few days in April, 2019. And then she quit her job. On May 1, 2019, the Applicant said that the Respondent “went missing” which caused him to file a missing person report. When the Respondent did return, the Applicant called the police who attended at their residence and, after speaking with the parties, the Applicant left the residence. The following day, the Applicant was contacted by a worker from the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto. The parents met with the CAS worker at their home on May 17, 2019 in the afternoon. The police also attended. Following discussions, the Applicant said he was advised that the CAS was placing the child into his care, until the Respondent could be evaluated by a doctor. The Applicant left the residence with the child. The CAS Intake Summary dated May 16, 2019 and the contact log dated May 23, 2019 confirms much of that evidence of the Applicant.

[5] On July 9, 2019, the Applicant and the CAS worker attended with the Respondent at the hospital for her evaluation. After a brief meeting with a psychiatrist, the Applicant understood that the Respondent was told that she did not require psychiatric care of medication. The note dated July 11, 2019 by the CAS worker confirms her understanding of the result of the evaluation.

[6] The parents met with the CAS worker. The Applicant said that the CAS worker asked him to return the child to his mother’s care in their former residence and they arranged an interim parenting schedule. An incident occurred in early August that again resulted in police involvement.

[7] The Applicant’s concerns about what he considered to be the deteriorating mental health of the Respondent caused him to issue the Application. The Respondent filed an Answer and Claim dated September 30, 2019.

[8] After further conflict, the Applicant brought an ex parte motion that was heard on October 7, 2019. In the temporary without prejudice order, Nakonechny J. directed that the child have his residence with his father; that if required, the police were to locate and apprehend and deliver the child to the father; and a case conference was scheduled for October 11, 2019. The Applicant was given leave to amend his Application.

[9] The case conference was conducted by Paisley J. on October 11, 2019. The Respondent was present and represented by an agent.

[10] The Respondent delivered an Amended Answer and Claim dated November 15, 2019 and the Reply was delivered November 28, 2019.

[11] The Applicant has provided copies of correspondence exchanged between his lawyer and the agent for the Respondent and copies of texts between him and the Respondent, all of which indicate discussion about the outstanding issues including the investment property and parenting time.

[12] The next step in the proceedings was a case conference conducted by Nakonechny J. on October 16, 2020. The Respondent attended and was represented by the same agent. The Respondent wanted to purchase the Applicant’s half interest in the rental property. In her endorsement, Nakonechny J. made an order severing the divorce from the corollary relief. She also made a without prejudice order that the Applicant have temporary care and control of the child and she noted that the Respondent did not oppose the order but did not consent. Nakonechny J. directed that the Respondent have access every Wednesday afternoon from 1:00 to 7:00 p.m. and every Sunday afternoon from 1:00 to 7:00 p.m., supervised by her aunt JW. Nakonechny J. also directed that the parties attend a settlement conference on December 7, 2020.

[13] On November 27, 2020, the Respondent’s agent advised the Applicant’s lawyer that he was unable to obtain instructions and would not attend the settlement conference on December 7, 2020 or file any further material on her behalf.

[14] The Respondent attended the settlement conference on December 7, 2020. In the endorsement dated December 7, 2020, Nakonechny J. made an order that the Applicant’s motion for an order for the partition and sale of the jointly owned property would be heard on January 26, 2021. She also scheduled a combined settlement conference and trial management conference for March 24, 2021.

[15] In that endorsement, she made an order requiring the Respondent to pay child support in the amount of $248 per month commencing January 1, 2021 based on her annual income of $29,120 for 2020. She also ordered the Respondent to pay 30% of the costs of daycare starting January 1, 2021 within 15 days of receiving the receipt for each daycare payment.

[16] At that settlement conference, Nakonechny J. noted that the Respondent had said she had not been able to exercise access in accordance with the October 16, 2020 endorsement due to work and church commitments of the supervisor and she asked for a change of days. In the endorsement dated December 7, 2020, Nakonechny J. varied the order dated October 16, 2020 by replacing it with Sundays from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. commencing December 13, 2020 with JW present for the entire access visit including pick up and drop off.

[17] The Applicant served and filed his motion for partition and sale that was heard by Aston J. on January 26, 2021. The Respondent did not file responding material or attend. The order was made for sale of the jointly owned investment property. The Applicant listed and sold the property. Out of the proceeds of sale, the amount of $2000 was paid to him as costs of the motion for sale and the net proceeds of sale ($473,326.74) are held in trust.

[18] The Applicant served and filed a motion for an order striking the Respondent’s Amended Answer and Claim that was returnable at the settlement conference held on March 24, 2021. The Respondent did not file responding material or attend. In her endorsement dated March 24, 2021, Nakonechny J. made an order that the Respondent’s Answer and pleadings were struck; that the Applicant could proceed to an uncontested trial on April 12, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.; that the trial proceed by way of affidavit evidence and that the Applicant was required to serve all materials for the uncontested trial on the Respondent by email and file no later than April 6, 2021. As indicated in the reasons for the decision, Nakonechny J. made an order, subject to the discretion of the trial judge permitting the Respondent to participate in the trial by conducting a cross-examination of the Applicant on his evidence relating to the parenting issues only for 30 minutes and she could make submissions on the parenting issues only. Nakonechny J. also directed the Applicant to serve a copy of the endorsement dated March 24, 2021 by email to the Respondent and she reserved costs of that day to the trial judge.

The uncontested trial

[19] The Applicant served and filed the following:

(a) Trial record consisting of over 600 pages, that included the Amended Application and Amended Answer, the Applicant’s form 13.1 financial statement sworn April 6, 2021, the Applicant’s net family property statement dated April 6, 2021, various form 35.1 affidavits, and the orders/endorsements dated October 7, 2019, October 11, 2019, October 16, 2020, December 7, 2020, January 26, 2021 and March 24, 2021;

(b) draft order;

(c) factum.

[20] The Applicant also provided proof of service of that material on the Respondent and proof of service of the endorsement dated March 24, 2021.

[21] The Trial Co-ordinator sent to the Respondent by email the zoom contact information originally for 2:00 on April 12, 2021 as directed by Nakonechny J., and by further email notifying her that the hearing would begin at 1:00, not 2:00 p.m.

[22] The Respondent did not attend the hearing on April 12, 2021.

The Issues

[23] The Applicant has asked for orders with respect to decision-making, parenting schedule, retroactive and prospective child support table amount and s. 7 expenses, an equalization of net family property, and costs.

[24] I have reviewed the extensive Trial Record including the Applicant’s form 23C affidavit and have considered his oral evidence. On this record, I am satisfied that the evidence is credible and reliable.

Circumstances of the Respondent

[25] As indicated above, the Respondent’s last attendance was at the settlement conference held on December 7, 2020. She did not respond to or attend at the hearing on January 26, 2021 on the Applicant’s motion for sale of the jointly owned investment property. Nor did she respond to or attend at the settlement conference on March 24, 2021 at which time her Amended Answer and Claim was struck. The dates for both of those events were set on December 7, 2020 when she was present at the settlement conference.

Parenting Issues

[26] These proceedings were brought pursuant to the Divorce Act that was amended effective March 1, 2021 with respect to parenting proceedings.

[27] The child will be four years old in July, 2021. He has lived full time with his father since October 7, 2019. Nakonechny J. made an order dated October 16, 2020 that provided for the child to see his mother from 1:00 to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Sunday afternoon, on condition that the Respondent’s aunt supervises the visit. In her order dated December 7, 2020, at the request of the Respondent, she changed it to Sundays from 3:00 to 8:00 p.m.

[28] According to the Applicant, the Respondent refuses any form of supervision, including by her aunt. She has not followed the December 7 order. At the time of the hearing on April 12, 2021, the Respondent had last seen the child on December 24, 2020 when he and the child met with the Respondent for purposes of the Respondent giving him a payment of $2000 which she said was an advance of child support. In a text dated February 15, 2021, the Respondent wrote the following:

I love our son and I want to be in our son’s life, but since you keep letting other people make decisions for you, this is why I am not able to see our son. You know where I live, my door is open to the both of you anytime.

[29] The Applicant asks that he have decision-making for the child. Pursuant to s.16 of the amended Divorce Act, the court is required to consider all of the circumstances of the child. In my view, it is in the best interests of the child that his father have decision-making authority. For the period October 7, 2019 to the present, the child has resided with and been cared for by the father; that constitutes 20 months of his 47 month life. Throughout that period, the Respondent has shown infrequent and irregular interest in the child. The Respondent refuses to acquiesce in supervision, even with her aunt, and has therefore sacrificed the time that the child should be spending with his mother. On this record, the father is meeting the child’s needs including making arrangements for child care and school.

[30] I agree with the Applicant’s submission that the court designate him as the decision-maker so that he can make decisions such as vaccinations, day care and school. The Respondent shows no signs that she intends to responsibly participate in making such decisions.

[31] The Respondent had not exercised parenting time on Wednesdays and Sundays between October 7, 2020 and December 7, 2020 and has not exercised parenting time on Sundays between 3:00 and 8:00 p.m. since December 7, 2020. The Applicant feels that as long as the December 7, 2020 interim order is outstanding, he must make the child available on Sundays between 3:00 and 8:00 p.m. That creates an expectation for the child which is not being met and therefor causes disappointment for him and interferes with other plans and activities for the child.

[32] Although unusual, the Applicant asks that the order be silent on a parenting schedule. [A.L.P. v R.A.A. 2007 48659 ONSC]. I agree that an unusual approach is appropriate here. I accept the submission that the child’s life ought not to be organized around seeing his mother every Sunday when that is clearly not happening. According to the Applicant, the child has expressed a desire to see his mother, as is evident from text messages exchanged with the Respondent. I accept and rely on the evidence of the Applicant that he will be receptive to requests by the Respondent to visit with the child and, should she make commitments to resume her relationship with the child subject to supervision at least at the beginning, he will collaborate with her to make those arrangements. In any event, the Respondent has the option of bringing a Motion to Change Final Order to vary the parenting regimen established by this order.

[33] The Applicant has asked for ancillary orders such as access to documents and travel without the Respondent’s consent. Those orders are consistent with the father having decision-making and the mother not participating with the child. I find that it in the best interests of the child that his father have that authority.

Child Support

A. Retroactive and Prospective Table Amount

[34] The parties separated on May 16, 2019. The child was with the Applicant for the balance of May and June 2019 and with the Respondent as of July 9, 2019 until the ex parte order dated October 7, 2019. He has been with the Applicant since the order dated October 7, 2019. The Respondent has an obligation to pay child support.

[35] The Respondent has made two payments on account of child support: September 25, 2020 in the amount of $1000 and December 24, 2020 when she made an “advance” of $2000.

[36] The Respondent has not provided a form 13.1 financial statement for this hearing. According to the Applicant, her income for 2019 was stated to be $31,407.60. In his form 23C affidavit and in his draft order, the Applicant asks that the retroactive and prospective child support order be imputed based on annual income of $31,407.60.

[37] I note that in the December 7, 2020 endorsement, Nakonechny J. made an order for table child support in the amount of $248 per month based on annual income of $29,120 for 2020. There is no evidence as to whether the Respondent has a job and if so, what her earnings are. Although she has declined to participate in this trial, I am not persuaded to rely on income for 2020 and 2021 that is stated to be for 2019. The last time she participated in the case was on December 7, 2020 when the judge, in her presence, made an order based on income of $29,120. In my view, the reasonable income amount is $29,120.

[38] In respect of the retroactive claim, the Applicant asks that the Respondent be ordered to pay for 5 months in 2019 consisting of the period between May 16 and July 9, 2019 and resuming on October 7, 2019. I do not accept the May to July period as the Respondent’s obligation because the Applicant had an obligation to pay child support between July 7, 2019 and October 6, 2019. I will not delve into whether there ought to be an adjustment between them prior to October 2019. I agree that the Respondent should be required to pay retroactive child support in the amount of $268.00 per month for the period October 2019 to December 2019 at her then stated income of $31,407.60 and, commencing January 1, 2020 in the amount of $248 based on annual income of $29,120.

[39] At paragraph 11 of his form 23C affidavit, the Applicant has provided a table that reflects his calculation of arrears based on income of $31,407.60 on an ongoing basis. In my view, the arrears of table child support consist of the following:

(a) October to December 2019 at the rate of $268 per month based on income of $31,407.60 for a total of $804;

(b) January 2020 to and including May 2021 at the rate of $248 per month based on income of $29,120, for a total of $4,216;

(c) for a total of $5,020.

B. Retroactive and Prospective s. 7 expenses

[40] The Applicant’s income is relevant to the claim for s. 7 expenses. According to his form 35.1 financial statement sworn April 6, 2021, his 2020 income was $76,254 inclusive of a non-recurring RRSP withdrawal in the amount of $4,467.86 leaving him with total income from employment in the amount of $71,787.34. The Applicant has provided proof of the daycare subsidy and copies of his receipts. The Respondent has not complied with the December 7, 2020 order that she pay the amount monthly. Using income of $29,210, the Respondent’s share is 29% of $11,200 or $3,248 divided by 12 = $270 per month. The arrears for the period January to and including May 2021 at $270 per month are $1,350.

C. Credits against support owed

[41] The arrears for table amount of child support ($5,020) and s. 7 ($1,350) total $6,370.

[42] The Respondent has paid a total of $3000 on account of child support. The arrears of table child support and s. 7 day care expenses are $3,370.

Equalization of Net Family Property

[43] The Applicant has provided a net family property statement dated April 6, 2021 that indicates that the Respondent owes to the Applicant an equalization payment in the amount of $106,162.74. That calculation allocates 50% of the net proceeds of sale from the jointly owned property to each party. In addition, it allocates the amount of $266,666.67 as the value of the Respondent’s one third interest in the Ronway Crescent property.

[44] The Respondent’s mother and father were tenants-in-common of the property on Ronway Crescent in Toronto. The Respondent’s mother passed away in 2009. When the Applicant and Respondent starting living together in March, 2013, the Applicant moved into the residence on Ronway Crescent. The Respondent has two siblings, one of whom (D.) has special needs. D. had resided with the Applicant and the Respondent and now resides with the Respondent.

[45] In 2016, the Respondent and her other sister started legal proceedings in which they sought guardianship of D. and an order that the three sisters are the beneficial owners of that property. In that same year, the Respondent’s father brought his own legal proceedings in which he too asked for guardianship of D. and an order that he was the sole beneficial owner of the residence on Ronway. The Applicant has provided over 200 pages of documents arising from those proceedings. It appears that the proceedings have not advanced. The Respondent continues to reside in the home with her sister D.

[46] The Applicant indicates on page 13 of his form 23C affidavit that the Respondent has taken the position that her contingent interest in Ronway should be valued at zero. In the endorsement dated December 7, 2020, the Respondent was ordered to produce an update on the status of the litigation but she has not complied. The Applicant obtained a Comparative Market Analysis of the Ronway property that reflects an estimated value of the property as of September 2020 in the amount of $850,000 to $880,000, one third of which is $266,666.67.

[47] I understand the dilemma of the Applicant given that the Respondent has not complied with her disclosure obligations, including the order dated December 7, 2020, with respect to this property and the litigation. The Applicant has provided the best evidence available to him. However, I do not accept that that amount should be attributed to the Respondent in the equalization of net family property.

[48] The Respondent is not on title. In order for the Respondent to acquire an interest in the property, she must be successful in (a) defeating her father’s interest as a registered owner and (b) in persuading a court that she is entitled to a 1/3 ownership interest. Her interest is contingent on significant factual and legal findings.

[49] I do not accept the submission of the Applicant that substantial value should be attributed to the Respondent’s asserted interest in Ronway. Even without the participation of the Respondent in this trial, the court must look critically at the evidence. The Applicant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that value should be attributed to the Respondent’s contingent interest in Ronway.

[50] For purposes of the trial, the Applicant had filed a form 13B net family property statement dated April 6 in which he attributed the amount of $266,6666.67 to the Respondent. At my request, the Applicant filed a form 13B net family property statement dated April 12 in which he attributed $133,333 in the event I allowed some amount but discounted it from the amount that reflected 1/3 of the valued based on the comparative market analysis. In the end, I have not allowed any amount.

[51] This is an extrapolation of the April 6, 2021 Form 13B Net Family Property Statement:

Category	Applicant	Respondent
Land owned at valuation date Farewell St. net proceeds	$236,663	$236,663
General household items and vehicles	$ 4,800	$ 5,500
Bank accounts, savings securities and pensions	$ 3,765	$ 11,164
Total value of property at valuation date	$245,228	$253,327
Less Debts and other liabilities [excluding notional costs of disposition on Ronway of $14,833.33]	$ 8,926 $ 13,664	$ 1,276 $ 8,512
Total value of Property Net of Liabilities	$222,638	$243,539
Less property at date of marriage: $3,500 (Applicant) and $61,908 (Respondent) Less liabilities at date of Marriage $2,000 (Applicant)	$ 1,500	$ 61,908
Net Family Property	$221,138	$181,631
Equalization Payment: Applicant Pays Respondent	Minus $19,753.50	Plus $19,753.50
Balance to each	$201,384	$201,384

[52] On that basis, the net family property of the Applicant is $221,138, the net family property of the Respondent is $181,631; and the total net family property is $402,769. Each is entitled to 50% or $201,384. Each party is entitled to one half of the proceeds of sale of Farewell and the Applicant is required to make an equalization payment of $19,753.50 from his share of the proceeds of sale, subject to adjustments below.

Adjustments to the equalization payment

[53] As indicated in paragraph 42 above, the Respondent owes table child support and s.7 expenses for day care for a total of $6,370 less the credit of $3,000 leaves a net amount owing of $3,370 that will be deducted from the equalization payment.

Costs of the case

[54] The Applicant has provided a bill of costs in the amount of $41,997.61 inclusive of HST. He asks for an order for substantial recovery costs in an amount between partial recovery of $29,364.21 and full recovery in the amount of $41,997.61.

[55] The Applicant has provided detailed information with respect to the costs incurred and his offers to settle. He asks for costs of the case conferences held on October 7, 2019, October 11, 2019 and October 16, 2020. In the endorsement dated December 7, 2020, Nakonechny J. made an order that neither party pay or recover costs. In the endorsement dated January 26, 2021, Aston J. made an order that the Respondent pay $2000 in respect of the costs of the motion for an order for sale of the investment property which has been paid. In the March 24, 2021 endorsement, Nakonechny J. ordered that costs of the 35 minute remote attendance should be reserved to the trial judge.

[56] The Applicant has been successful in obtaining an order with respect to parenting, and child support. He has not been successful in his assertion that $266,666 should be allocated to the Respondent in respect of Ronway. If he had been successful, the Respondent would have owed him an equalization payment. He now owes her a modest equalization payment.

[57] For those aspects of the case for which he was successful, he is presumptively entitled to recover costs. Having not been successful with respect to the equalization of net family property, he is not entitled to recover costs associated with that issue.

[58] The Applicant made three offers to settle. The first was an offer dated November 26, 2020 which was replaced by an offer dated November 30, 2020. In that offer, he made a detailed proposal with respected to parenting decision-making and an incremental schedule for the child to spend with his mother. He took the position that the Respondent should pay child support in the amount of $248 per month based on income of $29,120 and s.7 expenses at 29%. He proposed that the Respondent make an equalization payment in the amount of $15,000. He also asked for costs in the amount of $5,000.

[59] In his offer to settle dated March 15, 2021, the key difference was that the Respondent would be required to make an equalization payment in the amount of $80,000.

[60] In comparing the outcome of the case with his offers to settle, the Applicant has obtained an order with respect to parenting that gives him autonomy which I consider to be greater than his offers; the Applicant has an outcome equal to his offers vis-à-vis child support; and the Applicant has recovered less than his offers vis-à-vis the equalization payment.

[61] I agree that the Respondent has not acted reasonably in failing to participate actively in the case, in failing to comply with court orders as to parenting, and in failing to provide financial disclosure. I agree that the Respondent should be required to pay more than partial indemnity costs. The record assembled in support of the uncontested trial was thorough and well-organized. Because the Respondent was not participating, the Applicant had to anticipate and provide evidence on issues that might not otherwise have been required. In view of his position on the equalization payment, he is not entitled to full indemnity costs.

[62] Pursuant to rule 24(12) the court has discretion in fixing the amount of costs. Bearing the foregoing in mind, in my view it is fair and reasonable that the Respondent pay costs in the amount of $33,000 inclusive of HST.

Divorce

[63] The Applicant gave evidence that the parties have been separated for more than one year. At my request, after the hearing, counsel for the Applicant forwarded a copy of the marriage certificate and a copy of the clearance certificate from the Central Divorce Registry. On the evidence, a divorce will be granted.

FINAL ORDER TO GO AS FOLLOWS:

Pursuant to the Divorce Act:

[64] The Applicant has decision-making responsibility over the child J.K.M. (full name and birth date to be inserted into the draft order).

[65] The Applicant may apply for and obtain any and all legal documentation for the child, including but not limited to passports, travel and government documentation, and any renewals thereof without the requirement of providing notice to or obtaining the consent or signature of the Respondent, Shereen Yolanda Morgan.

[66] The Applicant may travel with the child outside the province of Ontario, country of Canada, without the consent of the Respondent, provided that the Applicant gives notice in writing at least 14 days before departure.

[67] The Respondent shall pay child support as follows:

(a) for the period October 1, 2019 to an including December 31, 2019, the sum of $268 per month based on income of $31,407.60;

(b) commencing January 1, 2020 and on the first of each month thereafter, the sum of $248 per month based on imputed income of $29,120;

(c) commencing January 1, 2021, and on the first of each month thereafter, 29% of s. 7 expenses with respect to day care (at an annual cost of $11,200) in the amount $270 per month.

[68] The Respondent owes arrears of child support table amount and s.7 expenses for day care in the amount of $3,370 calculated as follows:

(a) arrears of child support table amount from October 1, 2019 to and including December 1, 2019 in the amount of $804;

(b) arrears of child support table amount from January 1, 2020 to and including May 1, 2021 in the amount of $4,216;

(c) arrears of s.7 expenses with respect to day care, from January 1, 2021 to and including the month of May, 2021, in the amount of $1,350;

(d) less credit of $3,000.

[69] The divorce is granted and takes effect 31 days from the date below.

Pursuant to the Family Law Rules

[70] The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $33,000.00 inclusive of HST.

Pursuant to the Family Law Act

[71] Based on the calculation in paragraph 51 above:

(a) the Applicant and Respondent are each entitled to 50% of the net proceeds of sale of Farewell, namely $236,663.37;

(b) from his share of the net proceeds of sale, the Applicant shall pay an equalization payment in the amount of $19,753.50;

(c) from the funds owed to the Respondent in the amount of $236,663.27 and $19,753.50, for a total of $256,416.77 shall be paid to the Applicant:

(i) child support arrears, table amount and s.7 for day care (net of credits) the sum of $3,370;

(ii) costs in the amount of $33,000 inclusive of HST;

(iii) leaving a balance owing to the Respondent in the amount of $220,046.77;

(d) with respect to the funds owed to the Applicant, the following calculation applies:

(i) 50% of the net proceeds of sale of Farewell $236,663.37;

(ii) less equalization payment in the amount of $19,753.50;

(iii) plus arrears of child support table amount and s. 7 for day care (net of credits) the sum of $3,370;

(iv) plus costs in the amount of $33,000;

(v) leaving a balance owing to the Applicant in the amount of $253,279.87.

[72] The funds in trust shall be paid in accordance with paragraph 71.

Mandatory Clauses

[73] Commencing in 2022 and for as long as child support is to be paid, the payor and recipient, if applicable must provide updated income disclosure to the other party each year no later than May 31, in accordance with section 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines.

[74] Unless this order is withdrawn from the Director’s Office, at the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under the order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed.

[75] This order bears post-judgment interest at the rate specified in the Courts of Justice Act effective from the date of this order. Where there is default in payment, the payment in default shall bear interest only from the date of default.

[76] This order takes effect immediately without the order being signed and entered.

[77] Counsel for the Applicant may forward to my attention unapproved draft orders through the Assistant Trial Co-ordinator for signing the following:

(a) Divorce judgment;

(b) draft order incorporating the terms of paragraphs 64 to 76;

(c) Support Deduction Order and Support Deduction Order Information Sheet.

Kiteley J.

Date: May 25, 2021