Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 05-1071 DATE: 2021/11/17

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Rickey Minish -and- Tracey (Lutz) Timmons

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Laurie Lacelle

COUNSEL: Douglas Grenkie, Counsel for the Applicant Penelope Gardner, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: September 24, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

Introduction

[1] Mr. Minish brings a motion seeking an order that the post-secondary expenses for the parties’ child Kaitlyn be shared between the parents and Kaitlyn equally (e.g. each would pay 1/3 of each year’s expenses). For the reasons indicated in my prior endorsement, this ruling addresses only the expenses for the school years of 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 (orders 2 and 3 sought in the Notice of Motion).

[2] Ms. Timmons is opposed to the order sought by Mr. Minish for a number of reasons. She proposes that she pay the amount that would be the equivalent of table support for each of these school years.

Overview of the evidence

The expenses

[3] The expenses for school year 2020-2021 presented in the evidence filed by Mr. Minish total $18, 762.00. If shared equally as proposed by Mr. Minish, the parents and Kaitlyn would each pay $6, 254.00. The expenses for this school year include $1, 556.00 for the erection of a cell phone tower. Mr. Minish says this was necessary to permit Kaitlyn to do online schooling since his prior internet service was inadequate to address her needs. This budget does not include car repairs.

[4] The expenses for school year 2021-2022 are estimated to be $31, 509.00. If shared equally, the parents and Kaitlyn would each pay $10, 503.00. This budget also does not include car repairs.

The “condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child”

[5] Kaitlyn is clearly a hard-working person. She has worked at various jobs during the time available to her these past few years.

[6] In 2020, she earned $17, 619.00 (as set out at line 150 of her tax return for that year).

[7] In 2021, she estimates she will have earned $9, 000 by the end of August. She worked between June 1 and August 31, 2021 in a full-time position where she was paid $17.25 per hour.

[8] While she was ineligible for OSAP in other years, for the school year 2021-2022, she is eligible for OSAP in the amount of $8, 993.00. The grant portion of these funds is $2, 183.00, while the loan is for $6, 810.

[9] While Kaitlyn lived at her father’s house during the 2020-2021 school year, she must attend classes in person for the 2021-2022 school year. Accordingly she requires rented accomodation in Kingston, where she will be completing a program to become a registered practical nurse. Both she and her father state that she rented accomodations from May 1, 2021, because “nothing would be available to rent if she waited” to September 1, 2021. The rental costs $1250 per month.

[10] While the rental apartment is within walking distance of her school, Kaitlyn has also included in her budget for the 2021-2022 school year the expenses for her car insurance and estimated gas expenses. Mr. Minish states that while Kaitlyn can walk to school, she “still needs a car”.

[11] According to Ms. Timmon’s evidence, Kaitlyn also earned $10, 138 in 2018 and $11, 836 in 2019.

The expectations in the family prior to separation about the payment of post-secondary costs

[12] The only evidence before me comes from Kaitlyn and Ms. Timmons.

[13] Kaitlyn states that she was always advised by her parents that they would pay her post-secondary expenses “pursuant to their income”.

[14] Ms. Timmons states that it was never their practice, as a family, to attempt to determine what Kaitlyn’s financial contribution towards her own post-secondary expenses would be, especially on a year-by-year basis. To support this claim, she attaches to her affidavit of September 17, 2021 a proposed budget prepared by Kaitlyn where Kaitlyn’s contribution is left blank.

[15] Ms. Timmons agrees that it would be unfair to expect that Kaitlyn would contribute 100% of her earnings between May-August 2020 towards her costs for the 2020-2021 school year. She is of the view that she should contribute more for her third year (2021-2022) because she was able to earn much more working as a PSW in a long-term care facility.

[16] Ms. Timmons states that she agrees that children should be supported based on their needs, abilities and their parent’s financial circumstances. However, she says she is not in a position to support Kaitlyn’s post-secondary expenses now beyond contributing the table amount of child support based on her income.

The financial ability of Ms. Timmons to contribute to Kaitlyn’s support

[17] Ms. Timmons has, until relatively recently, earned between $23, 000-$30, 000 per year. Her income has been as follows: 2016 - $23, 332; 2017 - $26, 195; 2018 - $30, 864; 2019 - $26, 440; and 2020 - $28, 884.

[18] Ms. Timmons has upgraded her education and is now employed as a manager in a care home, for which she is paid approximately $45, 000 per year. She has been so employed since November 9, 2020. Her employment contract indicates a salary based on the occupancy levels of the facility, and provides for bonuses. Her annual salary starts at $45, 000 annually and may rise to $50, 000 plus bonuses where occupancy is in excess of 97%. The total of any bonus paid on a quarterly basis is also dependent on occupancy rates, and may vary between $500 to $1000 quarterly where occupancy rates are in excess of 90%.

[19] Ms. Timmons has provided an up-to-date financial statement which is complete. She works in Ottawa and has to commute to do so. Her transportation costs are significant ($1243 per month). She has debt payments of $500 per month on two credit cards. Her annual expenses, which are reasonable, are $61, 162.92. This includes $593 towards a car payment for a 3-year old vehicle, and a mortgage payment of $790. Her expenses include no meals outside the home or personal expenses. There is a shortfall of over $15, 000 between what she earns and her expenses.

[20] Ms. Timmons’s financial circumstances have changed recently. As of June 2021, she is separated from her former partner, who earned a six-figure income (though he is staying in a camper on her driveway). She is accordingly now solely responsible for her household expenses.

[21] In addition, Ms. Timmons states that prior to their separation, her former partner “took it upon himself” to do demolition work in her kitchen, laundry room and hallway, leaving these rooms without insulation and walls exposed to the studs. She attaches photos to her affidavit showing the condition of the house, which now requires significant work. She estimates her house has decreased in value by $25, 000 given its condition.

[22] Ms. Timmons is also now supporting her son (a minor child) who has returned to live with her because his father has suffered a disability and can no longer care for him.

[23] Ms. Timmons has been paying $28 monthly to insure Kaitlyn’s computer.

[24] Ms. Timmons applied for a line of credit from her bank on September 10, 2021. She proposed that the line of credit could be secured against her house. She was denied the loan. She reports she was told that her debt-to-income ratio was too high given her auto loan, her mortgage and her current salary.

[25] Ms. Timmons has no pension plan or other investments, with the exception of life insurance policies which have a collective cash surrender value of $7, 655.10. Her net worth is $30, 145.82.

The financial ability of Mr. Minish to contribute to Kaitlyn’s support

[26] Mr. Minish’s most recent financial statement is dated August 9, 2021.

[27] Mr. Minish indicates he has total annual income of $37, 902.96. He is self-employed. However, Mr. Minish has not provided a statement of income and expenses/professional activities required of self-employed individuals when completing a financial statement.

[28] Mr. Minish has not filled out the expenses portion of the financial statement. He lists assets and debts with the same values as the financial statement he filed in June of 2019. The only difference in the information provided is that a line of credit for $25, 000 is listed in the June 2019 statement and appears to have been paid off.

[29] Mr. Minish’s reported assets include a half share in his residence (with the same value as in 2019), 4 vehicles (with the same value as in 2019), an RRSP valued at $140, 000 (the same as in 2019), a bank account with $200 (the same as in 2019), and an RESP with a value of $26, 000 (the same as in 2019). His net worth is purported to be $379, 400.

[30] Mr. Minish’s income in previous years has been as follows: 2015 - $37, 417; 2016 - $49, 257; 2017 - $56, 024; 2018 - $12, 893; 2019 - $21, 766; and 2020 - $37, 903. Mr. Minish was in an accident in December of 2017 and this affected his ability to work until late October 2018. This interruption in his income prompted Mr. Minish to file a Motion to Change in respect of his child support payments (Kaitlyn lived with her mother during that time), which as I understand it, remains before the court.

[31] Mr. Minish did not complete Schedule C for the financial statement, which is required where the court is considering a claim for special or extraordinary expenses.

[32] In his affidavit dated August 9, 2021, Mr. Minish indicates that he is paying $200 montly toward a line of credit (which I understand to have been taken out by Kaitlyn and her mother’s former partner Mr. Lutz when Kaitlyn resided with him). He states the balance is now at about $5, 800 (from a balance of $6, 400 in September 2020) since he started making the $200 payments in September 2020. The line of credit was used towards payments of expenses associated with Kaitlyn’s first school year (2019-2020), which is not in issue in this decision. However, Exhibit C to Mr. Minish’s affidavit of August 9, 2021, includes a handwritten reference that “Rick paid on LOC $777.50” for the first semester of 2020. I take from this that some of his payments have been accounted for in the total expenses claimed for the school year 2020-2021, which school year is being considered by me.

The RESP

[33] Mr. Minish says nothing in his evidence about the RESP valued at $26, 000 listed in his assets on his financial statement. Counsel advises in submissions that it is in Kaitlyn’s name, and that it is Mr. Minish’s intention to use it towards a second degree for her. Counsel says all contributions were made by Mr. Minish.

[34] Ms. Timmons’ affidavit of August 21, 2019 states that she is not certain which child’s name is listed on the account. It was her understanding that funds held for their son Joshua had already been withdrawn. To the best of her knowledge, there were funds available to Kaitlyn in the RESP.

The time Kaitlyn has lived at home

[35] The parties are agreed that Kaitlyn resided with her father during the 2020-2021 school year and the summer of 2021.

[36] Mr. Minish says he is content to forego any child support that might be payable to him given his support of Kaitlyn in his home on the understanding that those funds will be directed to Kaitlyn.

The absence of evidence

[37] I have been provided no Divorce Mate calculations showing the allocation or amount of tax credits or otherwise assisting with the calculation of the proportionate share of the parties towards s. 7 expenses. I have no information about the net disposable income which would remain available to the parties under any of the scenarios proposed by counsel.

[38] There is no other information before me about how it is proposed that the tax credit for any eligible expenses will be claimed and how this will be used towards payment of the expenses.

The positions of the parties

The Applicant – Mr. Minish

[39] Mr. Minish argues that the cases generally use a formula of 1/3 contribution for each of the child and the parents and this is fair and appropriate in this case. Alternitavely, as suggested in Lewi v. Lewi, 2006 CanLII 15446 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 1847 (C.A.), it may be fair to order that each parent pay a share that is proportionate to their respective incomes, after deducting any contribution that is appropriate for the child to make.

[40] Given the amounts already paid by himself and Kaitlyn, Mr. Minish seeks an order that Ms. Timmons pay her share, which would total just over $20, 000 at this time.

[41] If the court is inclined to use the method of apportioning expenses so that they are proportionately shared based on incomes, he says that the court should use the year in which the income was earned (and not the year prior) because he and Kaitlyn were required to make the payments in the same year they earned that income.

[42] As regards the cell phone tower, Mr. Minish says there was no other way for Kaitlyn to do her schooling remotely and it was a necessary expense. Mr. Minish submits that it is not his fault that Ms. Timmons cannot manage her own affairs sufficiently to allow her to pay 1/3 of Kaitlyn’s costs, and suggests that she charge rent of some kind to her former spouse since he continues to live on her property.

The Respondent – Ms. Timmons

[43] Ms. Timmons’s position is that she is not able to pay 1/3 of the expenses as proposed by Mr. Minish. Ms. Timmons emphasizes that she is an employee and has no ability to write off expenses like Mr. Minish, who is self-employed. She highlights her expenses associated with getting to work since she commutes to Ottawa, the obligation to support another child, and her other expenses. She raises the fact that she and Kaitlyn have had a breakdown in their relationship. She says the court should also consider that Kaitlyn is eligible for OSAP this year. She identifies certain expenses in the proposed budget for Kaitlyn which are questionable, such as the inclusion of the costs associated with the erection of a cell phone tower at Mr. Minish’s residence, particularly since it has benefits for the whole household. She also questions the rental of an apartment in Kingston four months prior to it being required, and notes that the costs have not been defrayed by having a roommate. She says that since it is now confirmed that Kaitlyn is the only child who can benefit from the RESP, those funds should be used towards her education.

[44] Given these circumstances, Ms. Timmons says the court should order that she pay the equivalent of table amount child support for these two school years. She says that the previous year’s income should be used because this is how it was done for the payment of child support througout the relationship. She emphasizes the approach in Liscio v. Avram, 2009 CanLII 43640 (ON SC) and says the funds can all be paid directly to Kaitlyn if Mr. Minish does not want to be reimbursed for the costs associated with having her home. If the court agreed, then based on her income, the table amount for 2020 would be $214 per month; for 2021 it would be $245, and from January of 2022 it would be $418 based on her current income. The sums paid by her to Mr. Minish over the last few weeks (totalling $1, 000) could be directed to Kaitlyn.

The legal principles

[45] Section 3(2) of the Child Support Guidelines is the starting point for the analysis as to the quantum of child support that is payable in these circumstances. It states:

Child the age of majority or over

(2) Unless otherwise provided under these guidelines, where a child to whom an order for the support of a child relates is the age of majority or over, the amount of an order for the support of a child 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 parent or spouse to contribute to the support of the child. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 3 (2). [emphasis added]

Section 7 of the Guidelines is also relevant. It states:

Special or extraordinary expenses

7. (1) In an order for the support of a child, the court may, on the request of either parent or spouse or of an applicant under section 33 of the Act, 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 parents or spouses and those of the child and to the spending pattern of the parents or spouses in respect of the child during cohabitation:

(e) expenses for post-secondary education; … [emphasis added]

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 parents or spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 7 (2). [emphasis added]

Subsidies, tax deductions, etc.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1), the court must take into account any subsidies, benefits or income tax deductions or credits relating to the expense, and any eligibility to claim a subsidy, benefit or income tax deduction or credit relating to the expense. O. Reg. 159/07, s. 2. [emphasis added]

Universal child care benefit

(4) In determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1), the court shall not take into account any universal child care benefit or any eligibility to claim that benefit. O. Reg. 159/07, s. 2.

[46] I also consider how the case law directs me to apply these provisions. The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Lewi v. Lewi provided the following directions:

• The law presumes that the “standard Guideline approach” of s. 3(2)(a) will be used unless the court considers that approach to be inappropriate (para. 129);

• It is open to the court to find that the “standard Guideline approach” of s. 3(2)(a) may be appropriate where the child remains living at home but not if the child is away at school for 8 months of the year (para. 138);

• Both s. 7 and s. 3(2)(b) require the court to consider whether a child of majority age is able to make a contribution to his or her post-secondary education expenses (para. 141);

• Section 3(2)(b) requires the court to have regard to the “means” of the child. Both capital and income are encompassed by the term “means”. The section requires the court to consider the child’s means in the context of the financial ability of each of the parents to contribute to the support of the child (para. 142).

• While s. 7 refers in its criteria to the contribution of the child, if any, this does not indicate a greater expectation for the child’s contribution under s. 7 compared to s. 3(2)(b). The court has the discretion under both provisions to decide the amount the child should be expected to contribute (para. 159);

• As a general rule, the amount of child support that a parent is ordered to pay should be determined on the expectation that a child with means will contribute something from those means towards his or her post-secondary school education. The extent of the contribution expected depends on the circumstances of the case. There is no standard formula under either s. 7 or s. 3(2)(b);

• Proper concerns in the analysis under s. 7 and 3(2)(b) are the effect of the order on the parents given their financial means; whether the expenses are of a type that both parents would have promoted had the family remained intact; and the preservation of the existing proportion of net disposable income between the parents (para. 149). The means of the children and the means of the parents are to be considered together and balanced (para. 150);

• The focus of s. 3(2)(b) is, “[n]ot on the payer’s income but rather on the amount of support and its appropriateness having regard to the needs and condition of the children and the financial ability of the spouses to contribute to the children’s support” (para. 155);

• In fashioning an order applying the broad criteria in s. 3(2)(b), the court may well draw upon the principles of the Guidelines and its experience in applying them. For example, it would be entirely appropriate for the court, under s. 3(2)(b), to consider that the parents should share post-secondary expenses in proportion to their incomes after deducting the contribution, if any, of the child. The evidence upon which the court might conclude it was just and appropriate that the parents should share the expenses in some other proportion would be the same under both provisions (para. 157).

[47] Further, it is important to consider the proposed budget for the child’s expenses. Apart from considering the cost of items in the budget, it is important for the court to consider the appropriateness of the expense, having regard to the parties’ present and past circumstances: Jahn-Cartwright v. Cartwright, 2010 ONSC 923 at para. 70.

Analysis

[48] I begin by confirming that the fact that the relationship between Kaitlyn and Ms. Timmons has become strained affects no part of my analysis. No argument has been made that Kaitlyn has withdrawn from parental control such that Ms. Timmons should not be required to support Kaitlyn. The fact that their relationship has become difficult does not affect Ms. Timmons’ obligations under the law.

[49] I find that Kaitlyn is a child over the age of majority for whom an order of support is payable. I find that it is appropriate to assess the support payable in accordance with section 3(2)(b), since the nature of the expenses incurred to support Kaitlyn have changed with her pursuit of post-secondary education, and because she has significant means to contribute to these expenses.

[50] Accordingly, I consider the criteria in s. 3(2)(b) and s. 7 of the Guidelines in deciding what support Ms. Timmons should be ordered to pay, and to whom.

[51] In applying those criteria, as directed by the case law, I give effect to the following findings.

[52] For the year 2020-2021, Kaitlyn has set out expenses of $18, 762.00. This includes $1, 556.00 spent on erecting a cell phone tower on Mr. Minish’s property to improve internet service. I accept that this expense would not have been incurred but for Kaitlyn’s needs, but I also recognize that this household improvement has additional benefits to Mr. Minish and his spouse and probably modestly enhances his property value. In the circumstances, I think it is fair and reasonable that $500 of the costs incurred to erect the cell phone tower be included in Kaitlyn’s budget, and that Mr. Minish is responsible for the remainder. Accordingly, the budget for 2020-2021 is reduced by $1056 and is $17, 706.00.

[53] For the year 2021-2022, Kaitlyn’s estimated expenses are $31, 509.00. While most of the items in the budget are reasonable, given that Kaitlyn can walk to school from her apartment, I find that it is not reasonable to include car expenses. The bald statement that Kaitlyn needs a car does not satisfy me that this expense is reasonable or necessary, particularly given the modest means of Ms. Timmons (which I will address further below). Accordingly, I deduct the $2016 included for car insurance and $2400 included for gas from the budget. I also deduct four months rent between May and September 2021. Kaitlyn did not require an apartment during these months and did not live in it. There is insufficient evidence to satisfy me that this expense was necessary. There is no evidence of any attempts to mitigate these costs, for instance by sub-letting the apartment. Accordingly, I deduct a further $5000 (4 x $1, 250.00) from the budget. I therefore find that a budget of $22, 093 reflects reasonable and necessary costs for the 2021-2022 school year.

[54] The evidence is that Kaitlyn earned $17, 619.00 in 2020, and approximately $9, 000 in 2021. Kaitlyn also has the benefit of a $2, 183.00 grant as part of OSAP funding in 2021-2022. I find she has the means to make a significant contribution towards her own expenses for each school year, and still have funds left for her own discretionary spending and little if any OSAP debt, depending on how she chooses to organize her finances.

[55] With respect to the financial ability of Kaitlyn’s parents to contribute to her post-secondary expenses, I find that Ms. Timmons has little financial ability to contribute towards them. Her income for 2020 was $28, 884.00. While the evidence is that her income for 2021 will likely be between $45, 000-$50, 000, her financial statement shows that she is struggling financially. Her evidence generally also satisfies me of this, particularly given the renovations that are necessary for her house to be habitable, and the fact that she must support another minor child with her limited means. I accept that Ms. Timmons tried to obtain a loan to assist her with her expenses, including support for Kaitlyn, and she has not qualified. I accept that she has a modest net worth and no access to those funds without the sale of significant assets.

[56] I find Mr. Minish has a much healthier financial position. Since he has failed to make the required disclosure of expenses and other items in his financial statement, I am unable to properly assess his means, particularly as a self-employed person. What has been disclosed amply satisfies me that he has funds available to support Kaitlyn’s post-secondary education. These funds include the $26, 000 RESP, whose value is presumably higher today than Mr. Minish has disclosed. I have no confidence that the last financial statement filed by Mr. Minish is accurate since the values are identical to his statement in 2019.

[57] I also consider that any tax credits available from Kaitlyn’s education expenses will be claimed by either her or Mr. Minish. Again, I reiterate that no DivorceMate calculation was provided showing the impact of these credits.

[58] Given these findings, I am unable to adopt the approach suggested by Mr. Minish and some of the case law. First, Kaitlyn is in a position to make more significant contributions to her education than proposed by Mr. Minish. In accordance with s. 7 and s. 3(2)(b) (as discussed in para. 157 of Lewi), I find it appropriate to first consider what Kaitlyn can contribute before apportioning the expenses between the parties. I reject the approach of equally dividing the expenses between the parties and Kaitlyn because Kaitly has the means to make a significant contribution and because of Ms. Timmons’ inability to pay that proportion of the expenses given her financial means.

[59] In determining what proportion of the expenses the parties should pay, I note that I cannot perform the analysis required under s. 7(3). No DivorceMate calculations were filed and I cannot assess the impact of income tax deductions or credits relating to the expenses.

[60] I am also unable, based on this evidence, to fairly determine in accordance with s. 7(2) what a proportionate sharing of the expenses would be based on the parties’ incomes. Mr. Minish cannot file an incomplete financial statement as a self-employed individual and then seek to have the benefit of this provision. In any case, s. 7(3) is a guiding principle only. In the circumstances of this case, given Ms. Timmons’ financial means, it may have been necessary to deviate from this approach even if I had the evidence to arrive at reliable conclusions about the parties’ incomes.

[61] After balancing Kaitlyn’s means and the parties’ respective means (as per Lewi at para. 150), and after considering what little evidence is before me about the expectation of the family prior to separation about the payment of post-secondary costs, I find that Ms. Timmons’ proposal that she pay the equivalent of table child support to Kaitlyn in support of her post-secondary expenses is fair and reasonable.

[62] I apportion the expenses for each school year as follows.

School year 2020-2021

The necessary and reasonable expenses for this year total $17, 706.00.

[63] I find that it is fair that Kaitlyn contribute $10, 000 of her earnings for that year towards these expenses. This leaves her with $7, 619.00 from her earnings for that year to spend as she chooses.

[64] I find it fair that Ms. Timmons pays table amount child support to Kaitlyn for that year based on 4 months table support based on her 2019 income ($218 per month), and 8 months based on her 2020 income of $28, 884.00. The sums owing are therefore $872 (4 months x $218) and $1960 (8 months x $245). The total owing for this school year is therefore $2, 832.

[65] This leaves $4, 874 payable by Mr. Minish. This higher proportion of expenses payable by him is fair and reasonable given his superior financial means and the availability of $26, 000 in the RESP.

School year 2021-2022

[66] The necessary and reasonable expenses for this school year total $22, 093.00.

[67] I find that Kaitlyn has the means to contribute $7, 000 towards the expenses for this school year. This sum may be drawn from her approximately $9, 000 in summer earnings and $2, 183.00 in OSAP grant funds (total $11, 183.00), and leaves Kaitlyn with over $4, 000 in funds to use as she chooses. This does not require Kaitlyn to use the OSAP loan if she prefers not to incur that debt.

[68] With this contribution made by Kaitlyn, the remaining expenses are $15, 093.00.

[69] I find it is fair and reasonable for Ms. Timmons to pay the table amounts based on her 2020 income (4 months in 2021 x $245=$980) and her estimated 2021 income of $45, 000 (8 months in 2022 x $418=$3, 344), for a total contribution of $4, 324.00.

[70] This leaves $10, 769 payable by Mr. Minish, which sum I find to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, including his superior financial means and the sums available in the RESP.

[71] In my view, this is an appropriate case for the sums payable by Ms. Timmons to be paid directly to Kaitlyn. This includes the sums Ms. Timmons paid on consent following the scheduling of the motion. These funds should now be redirected to Kaitlyn and deducted from the sums owed by Ms. Timmons.

Conclusion

[72] At the conclusion of the hearing of the motion, counsel for Ms. Timmons requested that any sums that Ms. Timmons was ordered to pay be suspended until the outcome of the motion pertaining to the 2019/2020 school year, since this motion will involve a cross-claim for other s. 7 expenses. In considering this request, I consider as well that Ms. Timmons consented to an order requiring her to pay $1, 000 towards Kaitlyn’s expenses when the matter was before me in September of 2021 and had honoured that commitment at the time the motion was heard.

[73] In all the circumstances, and particularly given Ms. Timmons’ limited means and inability to secure a loan against her house, I think it is fair to give partial effect to the request to suspend the requirement that the sums ordered in this motion be paid forthwith.

[74] Accordingly, the final payment of funds for expenses already paid by Mr. Minish and Kaitlyn may be suspended until there is a final determination (on consent or otherwise) as to what sums are owing to whom in the outstanding motion. However, between now and the outcome of that motion (or consent order) Ms. Timmons is to make monthly payments to Kaitlyn in the amount of $245 in accordance with the table amount (as set out above) on December 1st, 2021. Commencing on January 1st, 2022, Ms. Timmons shall make monthly payments to Kaitlyn in the amount of $418.

[75] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, submissions of no longer than 3 pages plus attachments may be directed to my attention. Ms. Timmons shall have 3 weeks from the date of this endorsement to file her submissions, and Mr. Minish shall have a further 3 weeks to respond.

The Honourable Justice Laurie Lacelle

Date: November 17, 2021