Courchesne v. Seguin, 2022 ONSC 3102

COURT FILE NO.: FS-22603-19

DATE: 2022-05-27

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Marie Therese Chantal Courchesne

Applicant

– and –

Joseph Paul Luc Seguin

Respondent

COUNSEL:

Carol L. Hartman, for the Applicant

Matti E. Mottonen, for the Respondent

HEARD via Zoom: March 29, 2022

DECISION ON MOTIONS

P. BOUCHER J.

Introduction

[1] The applicant’s motion dated September 21, 2021, and the respondent’s motion dated October 28, 2021, were heard together. I will accordingly refer to the parties as the applicant and the respondent in this decision rather than as the moving and responding parties.

[2] The parties resolved some interim parenting issues prior to the hearing. They asked me to make a consent order in this regard, which I have done. This left support and some property issues to be determined on the motions.

[3] Briefly stated, for the purposes of determining child support and spousal support, the applicant asks me to set the respondent’s annual income at $286,000 and her annual income at $25,000. The respondent asks that the applicant’s annual income be set at $73,935. With respect to his annual income, the respondent makes the following arguments:

a. That it should be set at $103,667 which is his line 150 income on his most recent tax return;

b. Alternatively, that it should be set at $119,417 which is the three-year average of his line 150 income;

c. Alternatively, that it should be set at $140,426 which is the pre-tax income available to him through his corporation for the most recent tax year; and

d. Alternatively, that it should be set at $154,350 which is the three-year average of the pre-tax income available to him through his corporation.

[4] Both parties ask that child support and spousal support be adjusted retroactively.

Background

[5] The parties began cohabiting in 2003, were married in 2008 and separated on December 04, 2018.

[6] There are two children of the marriage: Cloé Seguin (born December 30, 2007) and Hunter Seguin (born June 10, 2009).

[7] Pursuant to Kurke J.’s temporary consent order dated September 18, 2019 (the “consent order”) the parties equally share parenting time with the children. By way of their consent dated March 24, 2022, the parties will continue to equally share parenting time with respect to Hunter. Cloé will reside primarily with the applicant. Parenting time with the respondent will be arranged directly between Cloé and the respondent. The applicant contends Cloé has resided primarily with her since February 2020 and accordingly asks that child support be adjusted retroactively to that date. The respondent disputes this request, suggesting the applicant should have brought a motion on this issue much sooner. He does not dispute Cloé has resided primarily with the applicant for some time.

[8] The respondent is the sole shareholder of 1662243 Ontario Inc. (hereinafter “Holdco”), which in turn owns the shares of Seguin Hardware & Building Supply Ltd. (hereinafter “Seguin Hardware”). Seguin Hardware pays dividends to Holdco which in turn pays dividends to the respondent. Holdco has no other source of revenue.

[9] Pursuant to the consent order, the parties agreed on a without prejudice basis to determine child support and spousal support based on an annual income of $30,000 for the applicant and $200,000 for the respondent.

The Issues

Determining the respondent’s income

The Applicant’s position

[10] The applicant argues the respondent’s dividend income from Holdco is not an accurate reflection of his available income. She asks me to attribute to him pre-tax income of $200,000 from Seguin Hardware as well as a notional salary of $85,850 for a total of $285,850. These figures are derived from a KPMG report dated January 14, 2022 (the “KPMG report”), which includes a calculation of historical income restricted to the fiscal year 2020.

[11] The applicant submits that it is fair and reasonable to assess the respondent’s income as of 2020 for several reasons. She suggests that while Seguin Hardware’s sales were almost identical in 2020 and 2021, its net income dropped significantly in 2021. She argues the respondent has not provided an explanation for this drop and asks me to draw an adverse inference from the fact that he has allegedly not complied with an undertaking to disclose Seguin Hardware’s general ledgers.

[12] With respect to this undertaking, the applicant argues the respondent merely offered to allow her counsel to attend at the business in Alban, Ontario to review the ledgers, citing their volume and the cost as reasons not to provide copies. Counsel did not attend for this review, also citing the cost.

[13] These general ledgers, she suggests, should contain details about the respondent’s personal expenses that are put through Seguin Hardware. He admitted to KPMG that he puts approximately $5,000 per year of personal expenses through Seguin Hardware. The applicant further submits that while she was its bookkeeper much more than $5,000 per year of personal expenses were funneled through Seguin Hardware. She cites the cost of motor vehicles, mobile phones and housing expenses as examples.

[14] The applicant also argues Seguin Hardware’s retained earnings have increased over the years, suggesting this is income that is available to the respondent.

[15] The applicant notes the methodology used by KPMG regarding historical income was largely adopted by Baker Tilly in their report dated February 08, 2022 (the “Baker Tilly report”) which was prepared for the respondent. The only issue Baker Tilly took with the methodology was KPMG’s inclusion of bad debt.

The respondent’s position

[16] The respondent asks me to apply ss. 16 through 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in determining his income for support purposes.[^1] I have already outlined his alternative positions regarding how they should be applied in this case.

[17] The respondent disputes the applicant’s position that his income should be based only on the analysis of his 2020 income as set out in the KPMG report. He suggests it would be unfair to base it on the best of the last three years, given the fluctuation in his income over that time. He argues that using the 2020 income would impair the viability of Seguin Hardware moving forward.

[18] The respondent also denies that he is funneling personal expenses through Seguin Hardware. He agrees he told KPMG that some personal expenses are covered during the year; however, he suggests that all his personal expenses are reconciled at the end of the year, as set out in a report dated March 10, 2022, from his accountant, Michael Lalande. He further notes that the truck he is presently using belongs to his father, not Seguin Hardware.

[19] With respect to the general ledgers, the respondent submits his undertaking was to check with his bookkeeper to determine if it was as simple as printing them out. When he realized this was not the case, he offered the opportunity to the applicant’s counsel to attend at Seguin Hardware to review the thousands of pages, which she has not done.

[20] His position is that he is not required by law to disclose the general ledgers and that his undertaking has been satisfied. He has provided the financial statements as required by the Guidelines and KPMG confirmed they had access to them as well as other corporate records when preparing their report. Finally, he submits that an adverse inference can only be drawn if there is a failure to comply with disclosure obligations under the Guidelines, which he argues is not the case here.

[21] The respondent further argues that retained earnings relate to the equity position of Seguin Hardware (assets less debts), not to income, and that they should not be considered in my income determination.

The Law

[22] The parties agree that I should have regard to the Guidelines when determining income. Indeed, s. 6.1 of the SSAGs states “[t]he starting point for the determination of income under the [SSAGs] is the definition of income under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.”

[23] The relevant portions of the Guidelines read as follows:

15. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a parent’s or spouse’s annual income is determined by the court in accordance with sections 16 to 20.

(2) Where both parents or spouses agree in writing on the annual income of a parent or spouse, the court may consider that amount to be the parent’s or spouse’s income for the purposes of these guidelines if the court thinks that the amount is reasonable having regard to the income information provided under section 21.

16. Subject to sections 17 to 20, a parent’s or spouse’s annual income is determined using the sources of income set out under the heading “Total income” in the T1 General form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency and is adjusted in accordance with Schedule III.

17. (1) If the court is of the opinion that the determination of a parent’s or spouse’s annual income under section 16 would not be the fairest determination of that income, the court may have regard to the parent’s or spouse’s income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years.

(2) Where a parent or spouse has incurred a non-recurring capital or business investment loss, the court may, if it is of the opinion that the determination of the parent’s or spouse’s annual income under section 16 would not provide the fairest determination of the annual income, choose not to apply sections 6 and 7 of Schedule III, and adjust the amount of the loss, including related expenses and carrying charges and interest expenses, to arrive at such amount as the court considers appropriate.

18. (1) Where a parent or spouse is a shareholder, director or officer of a corporation and the court is of the opinion that the amount of the parent’s or spouse’s annual income as determined under section 16 does not fairly reflect all the money available to the parent or spouse for the payment of child support, the court may consider the situations described in section 17 and determine the parent’s or spouse’s annual income to include,

(a) all or part of the pre-tax income of the corporation, and of any corporation that is related to that corporation, for the most recent taxation year; or

(b) an amount commensurate with the services that the parent or spouse provides to the corporation, provided that the amount does not exceed the corporation’s pre-tax income.

(2) In determining the pre-tax income of a corporation for the purposes of subsection (1), all amounts paid by the corporation as salaries, wages or management fees, or other payments or benefits, to or on behalf of persons with whom the corporation does not deal at arm’s length must be added to the pre-tax income, unless the parent or spouse establishes that the payments were reasonable in the circumstances.

19. (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,

(a) the parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse;

(b) the parent or spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax;

(c) the parent or spouse lives in a country that has effective rates of income tax that are significantly lower than those in Canada;

(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these guidelines;

(e) the parent’s or spouse’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate income;

(f) the parent or spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;

(g) the parent or spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income;

(h) the parent or spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax; and

(i) the parent or spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or other benefits from the trust.

(2) For the purpose of clause (1) (g), the reasonableness of an expense deduction is not solely governed by whether the deduction is permitted under the Income Tax Act (Canada).

[24] In Mason v. Mason Simmons J.A. writing for a unanimous panel held that a proper interpretation of s. 17 of the Guidelines permits a court to consider a payor’s income “over the last three years” to determine an income that “is fair and reasonable” and that, in that context, the payor’s income over the last three years includes amounts of pre-tax income that the court considers appropriate to add to the payor’s income under s. 18 of the Guidelines for each such year (at para. 151).

Analysis

[25] The Guidelines set out a ladder principle regarding determination of income, which is reflected in the alternative arguments put forward by the respondent. The default position is to look at the payor’s line 150 income on their most recent tax return. This income should be used unless the court determines it “would not be the fairest determination of that income.” In that case, ss. 17 and 18 of the Guidelines are engaged and provide a framework to the court.

[26] To determine if the line 150 approach would be the “fairest determination” of a payor’s income, the court needs to consider several years of income. This will demonstrate, for example, if the income is stable or if it is dramatically increasing or decreasing. Sometimes an increase or decrease is attributable to a non-recurring factor. In short, the court cannot find in this case that the line 150 approach is the fairest determination without having regard to the factors set out in ss. 17 and 18 of the Guidelines, if applicable. In addition, I disagree with the respondent’s approach to how this determination should be made. As Mason v. Mason makes clear at para. 164, ss. 17 and 18 of the Guidelines can be reviewed together.

[27] To assist me in my determination both parties delivered reports prepared by accountants. Counsel referred to the KPMG and Baker Tilly reports as “expert reports”. In oral argument they agreed none of the authors, including Michael Lalande, had been qualified as an expert for the purposes of the hearing. I am not aware of any request that they be treated as participant experts pursuant to r. 20.2(14).

[28] The applicant asked me to consider the Baker Tilly report as biased because it was prepared by a partner of the respondent’s accountant, Michael Lalande. I am unable to agree with this submission.

[29] Other than some disagreements on minor issues such as bad debts and whether the 20% retention of pre-tax income should be fixed on the 2020 figure, the accountants for the parties essentially agree on the methodology for determining pre-tax income. The reports are accordingly helpful to me. The real dispute between the parties is in where the fairest determination of his income lies. Should it be based on his 2020 pre-tax income available from Seguin Hardware? Or should it be restricted to his most recent tax year, or an average over three years?

[30] Applying almost the same methodology used by KPMG over the years 2019, 2020 and 2021 the Baker Tilly report notes significant fluctuations in the respondent’s historical earnings; namely, $68,051, $278,046, and $105,378 respectively. These variations confirm the fairest determination of the respondent’s income is not found in his line 150 income for the most recent tax year.

[31] I disagree with the applicant’s submission that the respondent’s historical income for 2020 is the fairest determination of his income. I am not persuaded that this amount is fair and reasonable having regard to the fluctuation in his income over the three-year period. I do not find the respondent is retaining excessive earnings in Seguin Hardware that would otherwise be available to him. The KPMG and Baker Tilly reports as well as Michael Lalande’s report account for retained pre-tax income necessary to keep Seguin Hardware a viable operation.

[32] I am also satisfied at this stage that the respondent’s personal expenses paid by Seguin Hardware are approximately $5,000 per year and are being reconciled at year’s end. The truck he drives, for example, is owned by his father. He lives in a two-bedroom apartment and has modest savings. I am unable to find that the historical income for 2020 continues to this day, somehow hidden for the respondent’s benefit. The respondent has complied with his undertaking regarding the general ledgers. I will not draw the negative inference the applicant asks me to draw in that regard.

[33] I do not agree with the respondent that his 2021 income should be determinative of the issue. The evidence establishes fluctuations in income leading me to conclude that the fair and reasonable approach would be to average his income available to him over the three-year period. The respondent’s accountant, Michael Lalande, delivered an affidavit in which he provided a break-down of income available to the respondent over this three-year period. It provides for a slightly higher average than the Baker Tilly report. This amount is fair to both parties.

Conclusion

[34] I find the fairest and most reasonable determination of the respondent’s income is based on a three-year average of income available to him from Seguin Hardware as set out by Michael Lalande. I accordingly determine the respondent’s annual income to be $154,350.

Determining the applicant’s income

The Applicant’s position

[35] Prior to separation, the applicant worked as a bookkeeper for Seguin Hardware. She received from Seguin Hardware a T4 reflecting income of $80,000 in 2018. She contends she only received $31,200 of income in 2018 and has asked the respondent for an amended T4, which she says he has not provided. The applicant has accordingly not filed tax returns since 2017, although she has provided her T4 slips for the period from 2018 onward.

[36] The applicant’s income for the past three years is as follows:

2019 - $25,555

2020 - $14,440

2021 - $36,758

[37] The applicant has three sources of income: as a teaching assistant/supply teacher; as an independent consultant selling purses and accessories for Thirty-One Gifts; and through rental income received from a unit within her home. The applicant asks me to base her income on her 2019 earnings for several reasons.

[38] First, she suggests the pandemic reduced her work with the school board in 2020 resulting in an unusually low income. Second, in 2021 and 2022, she secured a teaching contract with the school board, even though she is not qualified, due to a lack of available supply teachers. She expects this work will be reduced because the Ontario Government now permits retired teachers to work more days in a year.

[39] The applicant argues that her most recent line 150 income is not the fairest determination of her annual income. She encourages me to look at her income over the last three years but reminds me that I am not bound to take an average of that income. She suggests that it would be inappropriate to take the average because two of the years, according to her, are anomalies. The fair and reasonable amount would be to base it on her 2019 income (which, I note, is the same as the three-year average of her income).

[40] The applicant denies that I should impute any income to her under s. 19 of the Guidelines, as requested by the applicant. First, she argues that she is unable to determine how much Employment Insurance benefits she will receive for the summer of 2022. She suggests that attributing any EI income to her would be unfair and less than an educated guess.

[41] Second, she denies she is entitled to a $9,600 Canada Child Benefit (the “CCB”). She agrees she has not filed her tax returns and accordingly cannot receive the CCB but suggests that I cannot fairly determine the amount she would receive given the parties share Hunter, but Cloé resides primarily with her.

[42] Third, she asks me to consider the costs of her rental unit when determining the income available to her. She has rented the unit for the past two years, for seven months each year, and claims $530 per month in expenses (consisting of internet, heat, property taxes and hydro).

[43] Finally, she argues that her days of earning $21,000 per year with Thirty-One Gifts Inc. are over. She suggests her teaching job has taken away the time required to earn large commissions and she is now only a salesperson rather than a team leader. She notes her commission income in 2021 was only $3,708.

The respondent’s position

[44] In addition to her income available to her through the school board, the respondent asks that I impute various forms of income to the applicant.

[45] He notes, for example, that she has not claimed EI benefits. He suggests that she should be earning $638 per week over the summer for a total of $5,742.

[46] He also notes that she rents the unit in her home at a monthly rate of $1,200 from May through October. She has done so for the past two years. This totals $8,400 of additional annual income.

[47] The respondent suggests the applicant earned as much as $21,853 in 2019 through Thirty-One Gifts and there is no reason why she cannot continue to earn that income.

[48] With respect to the CCB, he asks that I impute $9,600 annually.

[49] The total annual income he asks me to set for the applicant is $73,935.

Analysis

[50] I have already set out the relevant law.

[51] Part of the difficulty with determining an accurate picture of the applicant’s income relates to her decision not to file any of her tax returns since 2018. This complicates, for example, her entitlement to and calculation of the CCB.

[52] I appreciate that in 2021 she appears to have earned her highest income in the last three years. Is the fairest determination of her income found under s. 16 of the Guidelines? I accept that the increase in working days for retired teachers and her lack of qualifications may have an impact on her ability to continue at this pace as a supply teacher. There is no evidence, however, that the teaching assistant work is not available to her. In addition, her current supply teaching contract will bring her to the end of this school term, and she expects to earn $28,335 from January 2022 to July 2022. This does not include her taxable rental income and potential earnings with Thirty-One Gifts which would bring her in the range of the same income she earned last year.

[53] The applicant asks me to find that her current income is not the fairest determination of her income moving forward. Rather than take a three-year average, she asks me to set her income at less than that which she would receive if she had full-time minimum wage employment (which in Ontario is approximately $30,000 per year). She has experience in bookkeeping, as a teacher’s assistant, as a salesperson, as a teacher’s aide, and as a supply teacher. In her current circumstances, earning income less than minimum wage would amount to intentional under-employment (see s. 19(1) Guidelines).

[54] If the applicant’s supply teaching job is not available in the fall of 2022, I would expect her to fill that void with at least full-time work that would amount to $30,000 per year. Add to that her possible commissions from Thirty-One Gifts which at its lowest was $3,700 as well as her taxable rental income, which she estimates at almost $5,000 net per year, and we are in the same range of income she earned in 2021.

[55] I disagree with the respondent’s position that I should attribute or impute further income for EI benefits and the CCB. I am simply unable on this record to determine what, if any, those entitlements would be. The CCB is complicated by the fact the parties share Hunter’s time but not Cloé’s. I have also considered that the applicant earned much more in 2019 with Thirty-One Gifts; however, I accept that her role has changed, which results in less earnings, and her full-time work prevents her from reaching the same earning capacity, though she continued to earn commissions in 2021. I am unable to find that her reduced earnings from this work currently are a result of intentional underemployment.

[56] The applicant is claiming deductions of $3,710 against her rental income of $8,400, which represents 44% of that income. A party claiming deductions from income has the onus of providing meaningful documentary evidence of them, otherwise an adverse interest may be drawn (see Orser v. Grant [2000] O.J. No. 1429 (SCJ) at para 8). While the applicant sets out the value of her deductions in her affidavit evidence she does not, as far as I can see, provide any supporting documentation.

[57] In any event, the reasonableness of deductions from income is a factor under para. 19(1)(g) of the Guidelines. The applicant has failed to provide me with evidence that I can assess to determine the reasonableness of each deduction. Is there a separate internet bill for the unit? What are the total property taxes for her home? Is there a separate hydro meter for the unit? Keep in mind this unit is in her personal residence and she accordingly receives an additional benefit, at least with respect to the property taxes, from the deductions from the rental income.

[58] The applicant has not discharged her burden of establishing the reasonableness of the expenses. I therefore decline the deductions and determine her rental income is $8,400 annually.

Conclusion

[59] For these reasons, I find the fairest determination of the applicant’s annual income is her total income of $36,758 for 2021 together with an additional $3,700 of imputed rental income (which is the amount she deducted as an expense) for a total of $40,468.

The monthly amount of the respondent’s child and spousal support

[60] I find the respondent’s monthly child support obligation is $1,692. This is based on his income of $154,350 treated as a dividend received from Holdco, and the applicant’s income of $40,468. This considers that they share Hunter’s time and that Cloé is primarily with the applicant. I have accordingly reduced the respondent’s child support obligation of $2,056 (which is what is payable for two children) by the applicant’s child support obligation of $364 (which is what is payable for one child). I find this to be an appropriate way of determining child support in this situation.

[61] Both parties relied upon the SSAGs in their submissions on the proper quantum of interim spousal support. I, too, have used the SSAGS as well as DivorceMate to determine the range of spousal support with the income figures and childcare arrangements set out in paragraph 60 herein.

[62] The applicant urges me to use the high end of the range. She suggests she has incurred new debt and used $75,000 in equity from the sale of the matrimonial home to pay legal and accounting fees and creditors. She would like to re-capture some of her losses.

[63] Many factors affect the spousal support range, including need, ability to pay, property division, debts, and self-sufficiency. I have considered the financial statements filed by the parties. I am mindful this is an interim order which is meant to essentially be a holding order until trial and that property division has not yet been completed. I find the appropriate amount of spousal support is at the higher end of the range, being $2,170 per month.

Start date for child and spousal support

[64] The respondent asks me to adjust support back to March 01, 2020. I decline to make this adjustment. The respondent did not move the court for interim relief until October 28, 2021. I see no reason on this record to adjust support prior to that time. The trial judge will be in the better position to properly assess any claims for retroactive support adjustments.

[65] The applicant asks that I adjust child support as of February 2020 when Cloé started residing with her on a primary basis. She cites a lack of funds for her failure to move the court sooner on this issue. I note the applicant delivered a motion dated March 12, 2020, in which she did not ask to address parenting issues. I do not accept the applicant’s explanation for the delay in seeking this relief.

[66] The start date for child support under the current arrangement as set out in this order is November 01, 2021. The start date for spousal support as set out in this order is November 15, 2021.

Interim property issues

[67] The parties are unable to agree on whether a Harley Davidson motorcycle was given to the applicant by the respondent as a gift. The applicant’s amended claim includes a claim for a legal interest in property owned by the respondent, which could include the motorcycle. The respondent says it was not a gift and would like it back because the registration is in his name. Credibility findings will assist in determining the outcome of this dispute. The trial judge will be in the best position to make that determination, and I accordingly decline to make an interim order regarding the motorcycle.

[68] The respondent would like the applicant to return to him his 1988 mounted trophy pickerel. The applicant opposes this request. The respondent also asks that I adjourn to the trial his claim, brought in his motion, for punitive damages for the alleged destruction of his musky trophy.

[69] The respondent’s Answer does not contain claims for the return of the trophy pickerel, punitive damages for the alleged destruction of his musky trophy or for the return of the motorcycle. He may amend his Answer, but I cannot on a motion consider granting relief he has not pleaded. This applies equally to the applicant’s request that I adjourn without a date her request for an order restraining the respondent from cancelling her insurance claim. She will need to amend her amended claim if she wishes to pursue this request.

Conclusion

[70] For these reasons I order as follows:

a. The respondent’s income, based on pre-tax income from Seguin Hardware and provided to him in dividends from Holdco, is set at $154,350;

b. The applicant’s income is set at $40,468;

c. Kurke J.’s interim order dated September 18, 2019, is varied on an interim basis as follows:

i. The applicant mother, Chantal Courchesne and the respondent father, Luc Seguin shall continue to share the interim parenting of the child, Cloé Seguin born on December 30, 2007 in accordance with the following parenting schedule:

1. The child, Cloé Seguin shall on a temporary interim basis reside primarily with the applicant mother, Chantal Courchesne at the applicant’s residence;

2. The respondent father, Luc Seguin shall have secondary parenting time with the child, Cloé Seguin on such days and at such times as the respondent father and Cloé may agree with such arrangements to be made directly between the child, Cloé Seguin and the respondent father;

3. Such secondary parenting time shall also include upon agreement between the child, Cloé Seguin and the respondent, Luc Seguin parenting time during the Thanksgiving and Easter holiday weekends, the Christmas holiday period including Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, the March school one week holiday and one week in each of the months of July and August;

ii. The applicant mother, Chantal Courchesne and the respondent father, Luc Seguin shall have the shared parenting of the youngest child of the marriage, Hunter Seguin born June 10, 2009 in accordance with the following parenting schedule:

1. Hunter will be in the care of the respondent father, Luc Seguin each week from Sunday evening until Wednesday morning;

2. Hunter will be in the care of the applicant mother, Chantal Courchesne each week on Wednesday after the conclusion of the child’s school day until Friday at 6:00 p.m.;

3. The applicant mother and the respondent father will each respectively have the care of Hunter in alternate weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. through to Sunday evening;

4. Hunter will be picked up by the school bus at the respondent father’s residence on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings and dropped off by the school bus at the respondent father’s residence on Monday and Tuesday after the conclusion of the child’s school day;

5. Hunter will be picked up by the school bus at the applicant mother’s residence on Thursday and Friday mornings and dropped off by the school bus at the applicant mother’s residence on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday after the conclusion of the child’s school day;

6. On the days that there is no school, then the parties will make alternate arrangements on those days to exchange the child directly between them;

7. The applicant mother and the respondent father will share the Thanksgiving and Easter weekends, the Christmas holidays including Christmas Eve and Christmas Day and the child’s one week March school vacation week;

8. During the child’s summer school holiday period in July and August, in addition to the regular parenting time, each parent will have Hunter for one week in each of the months of July and August. In even numbered years the applicant mother will have the first choice of the summer vacation time and in odd number years the respondent father will have the first choice of the summer vacation time. Each year the party having the first choice of the summer vacation time with Hunter shall notify the other parent of the specific two weeks that they wish Hunter to be with that parent by June 1^st of each year.

iii. The applicant mother, Chantal Courchesne and the respondent father, Luc Seguin shall share equally the responsibility and obligation of making all major parenting decisions for both children of the marriage, Cloé Seguin and Hunter Seguin.

iv. The applicant mother and the respondent father shall together with the child, Cloé Seguin undergo family counselling with a qualified professional counsellor; which counsellor is to be agreed upon by the parties, failing which the counsellor is to be determined by this Honourable Court.

v. In the event that the counselling can be covered under any extended health insurance coverage that the applicant, Chantal Courchesne may have available to her, then the counselling expense shall be submitted to any such insurer.

vi. In the event that the applicant mother does not have any extended health insurance coverage or if the applicant has health insurance coverage that limits the amount payable to any professional counsellor, then any monetary balance due and owing for the counselling services to be rendered in connection with the child, Cloé Seguin will be paid solely and absolutely by the respondent father, Luc Seguin.

vii. Commencing November 01, 2021, and on the first day of each month thereafter, the respondent shall pay to the applicant $1,692 per month as support for the children, Cloé Seguin (born December 30, 2007) and Hunter Seguin (born June 10, 2009). This amount is based on the respondent’s annual income as set out in paragraph 68(a) herein and considers that Hunter shares his time with his parents and Cloé resides primarily with the applicant. It is in accordance with the Guidelines.

viii. Commencing November 15, 2021, and on the 15^th day of each month thereafter, the respondent shall pay to the applicant $2,170 for her support. This amount is based on the SSAGs and considers the income of the parties as set out in paragraphs 68(a) and (b) herein and that the respondent pays child support to the applicant.

d. The determination of the ownership of the Harley Davidson motorcycle is adjourned to trial.

[71] If the parties cannot agree on costs, the respondent may deliver costs submissions of no more than two pages, not including any offers to settle and bill of costs within 15 days of the date of this order. The applicant may deliver her submissions within thirty days of the date of this order. There will be no reply.

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.J. Boucher

Released: May 27, 2022

[^1]: While the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (the “SSAGs”) refer to the Federal Child Support Guidelines when determining income, the Federal and Ontario child support guidelines are identical with respect to the issues at play in these motions. I will refer to them as the Guidelines – see for example, Mason v. Mason 2016 ONCA 725 at para 53.