Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-00041455-0000 DATE: 2023-03-29 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Denis OJIGHO, Applicant AND: Leah BURGE, Respondent

BEFORE: Kurz J.

COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant Self-represented Respondent

HEARD: March 27, 28 and 29, 2023

Revised Endorsement

Introduction

[1] This was a trial of the Respondent Mother’s cross-application. In my endorsement of March 27, 2023, I set out the process for this trial and the issues to be determined. In sum, the issues raised by the Mother [1] were:

1. Ongoing Table support for the parties’ two biological children;
2. Ongoing s. 7 expenses for those children;
3. Retroactive table and child support, commencing on the date of separation;
4. Whether the Applicant Father is responsible for one-half or any share of the cost of a crane-operating course undertaking by the Mother’s adult child, Isaiah Burges;
5. Whether the Father is responsible for one-half or any share of the cost of the life insurance policy that the Mother has purchased for herself, making the children the beneficiaries.
6. Whether the Mother is entitled to claim an equalization payment based on one-half of the value of the Father’s purported property in Nigeria and a request that he be responsible for one-half of her student loan.
7. Whether the Father must sign over his control over the RESP’s for each of Isaiah, Eli and Shiloh.

Background

[2] The parties began to cohabit in 2011. They married on July 29, 2016 and separated on March 6, 2018. They have two children, Eli Ojigho, born July 20, 2012 (“Eli”) and Shiloh Ojigho, born February 10, 2014 (“Shiloh”). The Mother has another child of a previous relationship, Isaiah Burges (“Isaiah”). The Father assumed a parenting role towards Isiah during his relationship with the Mother. Isaiah is now an adult. The father has not seen Isaiah since a few months after the parties separated.

[3] Isaiah has not been mentioned as a child of the marriage in either party’s pleadings, including the Fresh as Amended Answer. The only relief requested regarding Isaiah in either the Mother’s Answer or Fresh as Amended Answer is the request that the father sign over the RESP’s regarding all three of the children named above to her. The Father agrees to that relief, only as it applies to Isaiah. I note that there is less than $8,000 in the total RESP account and that neither party contributed to it following their separation.

[4] The Mother says that the Father never paid her child support from the time of separation until the June 22, 2021 consent temporary order of Miller J. That order called for him to pay table support of $450 per month, which for two children, would be based on an income of $29,400 per month, about minimum wage. The Mother says that the Father then failed to pay her the $450 per month table support called for in that order until January 2022. The Father denies that he has failed to make any of the payments called for in the Miller J. order. He provided proof of $450 e-transfer payments between March 2021 and January 2022. The Mother did not offer any reply evidence in that regard, which I take as a concession regarding the payments.

[5] However, in his submissions the Father admitted that he never made any child support payments from the time of separation until 2020. He claims to have been entitled to forbear from making those payments because the parties had a 50/50 parenting arrangement. However, he provided no evidence of that arrangement. He further stated in submissions that he had the children every weekend. I told him that even if that were the case, he would still not meet the 40% threshold for shared parenting in s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines. He then attempted to assert that he had the children each weekend as well.

[6] I am not willing to accept that submission because it is not based on any evidence offered at trial. While the Father’s Application sought an order of “joint and shared custody” of Eli and Shiloh, he makes no reference to that being the status quo post-separation. In his Reply of November 12, 2018, the father refers to his “access” to the children, an implicit admission that the status quo involved the Mother’s custody [2] of the children. The Father’s Reply claims that the status quo should change because she was unable to handle Eli and Shiloh on her own. The Father went further on October 30, 2019, when he withdrew all of the claims in his Application other than for a divorce. In doing so, he withdrew any claim to shared parenting.

[7] On January 1, 2020, the parties signed a handwritten agreement “that the kids visiting [sic] for every other weekend and child support of $450 on the 25th of every month”. Although it is left unsaid, implicit in the agreement is the Mother’s custody and the Father’s access to Eli and Shiloh. The point was further made in the Father’s affidavit for divorce of February 13, 2020. There he deposed that the custody and access arrangements for Eli and Shiloh were “Every other weekends [sic]” he further deposed that his income was $34,246 per year and that he was paying $450 per month under a written agreement dated January 2000.

[8] On November 9, 2021, the parties finally settled the parenting arrangements with an order granting the Mother primary care of the children and the Father to have specified parenting time.

[9] Accordingly, I find that there was no 50/50 parenting arrangement for Eli and Shiloh after separation. The Mother was always their primary caregiver and entitled to support from the time of separation onward.

The Father’s Ongoing Table Support for Eli and Shiloh

[10] The key issue for this trial has been the Father’s income for support purposes. Ancillary to that issue is whether income should be imputed to the Father. I find that income of $46,500 per year should be imputed to him on the basis of material non-disclosure and because he is intentionally underemployed.

[11] The issue of the Father’s true income for support purposes has always been an issue in this proceeding. He is not an ordinary T-4 employee. Rather he has always been self employed in some manner of business or another.

[12] In her June 22, 2021 order, made on consent at a case conference, Miller J. ordered the Father to produce a number of items of disclosure, including tax returns, notices of assessment, as well as details and proof of various sources of income and assets. Subsequent orders make clear that he did not comply with many of those disclosure terms.

[13] On February 18, 2022, Fitzpatrick J. conducted a trial management conference, in which he noted that each party complained about the other’s disclosure. He ordered the parties to write to each other within seven days, setting out the required disclosure that had not been provided.

[14] On September 26, 2022, following a conference with DRO, Katherine Batycky, Coats J. ordered the parties to exchange sworn financial statements and current pay statements by 4 p.m. the following day. The matter was set for a continuing trial management conference (“TMC”) the following day.

[15] On September 28, 2022 Coats J. again ordered the parties to write to each other setting out a list of outstanding disclosure, which was to be provided within 30 days.

[16] On January 4, 2023, Coats J. ordered the Father to produce to the Mother the following documents within 20 days, whether or not he says that he already produced them:

1. Complete tax returns, including all attachments and any Notice of Assessment (“NOA”) for 2019-21. He was also to produce the same for the 2022 tax year once filed and received;
2. Copies of all cheques he has received from Witness X, which employs his sole proprietorship, from 2019 to present;
3. Copies of all bank statements from 2019 to present to all accounts;
4. Fresh sworn financial statement;
5. Proof of all monies sent to Nigeria;
6. Best efforts to obtain proof that he never did get land and that the land purchase in Nigeria was a fraud on him.

[17] On March 22, 2023, Coats J. performed a final TMC. She stated that the disclosure she had ordered had not been fully provided. She ordered the Father to provide complete copies of his 2019 – 2022 income tax returns to the Mother and bring them to court two days later (for a continuation of the TMC). Coats J. further ordered the Father to provide the Mother the Witness X cheques and bank statements he was ordered to produce on January 4, 2023 and bring them to court the two days later.

[18] On March 24, 2023 Coats J. found that the Mother had made her required productions but that the Father had failed to do so. She stated that he had provided some tax returns but is not sure that all pages are there. She noted that no back statements or Witness X cheques had been provided.

[19] The father failed to produce any of the bank records or cheques at trial. He offered no explanation for his failure.

Authorities Regarding the Imputation of Income for Support Purposes

[20] The jurisdiction which allows a court to impute income to a parent for support purposes is found in s. 19(1)(a) of the CSG, which reads as follows:

Imputing income

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 spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse; (b) the spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax; (c) the 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 spouse’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate income; (f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so; (g) the spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income; (h) the 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 spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or other benefits from the trust.

[21] The leading case regarding the imputation of income to a support payor remains the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli, (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (Ont. C.A.). At paragraph 32 of that decision, the court described the imputation of income as:

... [O]ne method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this legal obligation, a parent must earn what he or she is capable of earning.

[22] The Mother asks the court to impute income to the father on the basis of both intentional underemployment and failure to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so.

[23] In Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548, Chappel J. explained the meaning of intentional underemployment, citing Drygala v. Pauli, as follows:

The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that in determining whether to impute income on the basis that a party is intentionally underemployed or unemployed pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines, it is not necessary to establish bad faith or an attempt to thwart child support obligations. A parent is intentionally underemployed within the meaning of this section if they earn less than they are capable of earning having regard for all of the circumstances. In determining whether to impute income on this basis, the court must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances.

[24] In reviewing the case law at para. 57 of Szitas, Chappel J. cites the seven following principles that apply to the imputation of income to a support payor:

1. There is a duty on the part of the payor to actively seek out reasonable employment opportunities that will maximize their income potential so as to meet the needs of their children.
2. Underemployment must be measured against what is reasonable to expect of the payor having regard for their background, education, training and experience.
3. The court will not excuse a party from their child support obligations or reduce these obligations where the party has persisted in un-remunerative employment, or where they have pursued unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations. A self-induced reduction of income is not a basis upon which to avoid or reduce child support payments.
4. If a party chooses to pursue self-employment, the court will examine whether this choice was a reasonable one in all of the circumstances, and may impute an income if it determines that the decision was not appropriate having regard for the parent's child support obligations.
5. When a parent experiences a change in their income, they may be given a "grace period" to adjust to the change and seek out employment in their field at a comparable remuneration before income will be imputed to them. However, if they have been unable to secure comparable employment within a reasonable time frame, they will be required to accept other less remunerative opportunities or options outside of the area of their expertise in order to satisfy their obligation to contribute to the support of their children.
6. Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to them.
7. The amount of income that the court imputes to a parent is a matter of discretion. The only limitation on the discretion of the court in this regard is that there must be some basis in the evidence for the amount that the court has chosen to impute.

[Citations omitted.]

[25] Amplifying on Chappel J.'s seven points, while I have broad discretion to impute income to a payor, that discretion is not absolute. As Gillese J.A. wrote for the court at para. 44 of Drygala v. Pauli:

Section 19 of the Guidelines is not an invitation to the court to arbitrarily select an amount as imputed income. There must be a rational basis underlying the selection of any such figure. The amount selected as an exercise of the court's discretion must be grounded in the evidence.

[26] In Drygala v. Pauli, the Ontario Court of Appeal set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income under s. 19 (1) (a) of the CSG:

1. Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
2. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse?
3. If not, what income is appropriately imputed?

[27] In Lavie v. Lavie, 2018 ONCA 10, the Court of Appeal for Ontario seems to have gone a step further in the test for imputing income to a spouse based on intentional underemployment. There, Rouleau J.A., speaking for the court, set out a very clear black line test for intentional underemployment. It is one in which the subjective reasons for the underemployment, (and by extension, unemployment) are not relevant. He wrote at para. 26:

26 There is no requirement of bad faith or intention to evade support obligations inherent in intentional underemployment: Drygala v. Pauli, at paras. 24-37. the reasons for underemployment are irrelevant. If a parent is earning less than she or he could be, he or she is intentionally underemployed.

Analysis of the Father’s Income

[28] In his sworn financial statement sworn on March 14, 2023, the Father claims an income of $30,000 per year as self-employment income. He claims expenses of $29,760 per year. He claims a rent of $1,100 per month, car loan and gasoline expenses of $690 per month, even though he claims to own a Toyota Camray, cell phone an internet expenses of $90 per month and grocery expenses of on $100 per month, an amount that is manifestly unreasonable and likely inaccurate. I note that he claimed at trial that his rent is $1,000 per month but that he paid $19,700 in rent in 2022. His numbers do not add up.

[29] In his tax returns, the Father claims income as follows:

1. 2019: gross business income of $44,450.87 and net business income of $10,367.10
2. 2020: gross business income of $20,271.98 and net business income of $1,207.45. He also claims “other income” of $14,000 but was unable to identify the source of that income. He felt that it was perhaps CERB.
3. 2021: Other income of $20,000 and taxable capital gains of $82.30. While he referred in his testimony to having received CERB during the pandemic he did not specifically refer to the $20,000 figure. However it was likely CERB. He was unable to identify the source of the capital gains.
4. 2022: gross business income of $46,143.59 and net business income of $29,083.66.

[30] The Father’s NOA’s generally accepted his figures. Of course, the calculation of income for support purposes is not identical to that calculation for tax purposes.

[31] The Father was cross examined about his business expenses. He admitted that he generally runs many of his personal expenses, including car payments, insurance and gas through his business.

[32] The extent of the father’s cross-examination by the Mother was limited by his unexplained failure or refusal to produce his bank records and copies of the cheques received from the company that his proprietorship provides services to – Witness X, a cryptocurrency company. He was evasive in his testimony and unable or unwilling to articulate exactly what Witness X does and what he does for it. The issue of his exact payments from Witness X and the deductions he claims remain unclear.

[33] Perhaps more importantly, he admitted that his work was part time. He works on average 20 hours per week. He says that he is doing so to study for some computer qualifications. But he is not enrolled in any course, He says that he is engaging in self study, but provides no details of that self-study and how it assists him in gaining further qualifications and ultimately increasing his income.

[34] Based on both his admission that he is only working half-time and his failure to provide disclosure that he was ordered to provide, going back as early as 2021, I find that it is appropriate to impute income to the Father. He is clearly intentionally underemployed and has proven no educational reason for that underemployment.

[35] The Mother asks that the Father’s income be imputed at $46,500, which approximates the gross income of his sole proprietorship. She states that it is a minimal level of imputation as she originally requested that it be $120,000. I agree with the $46,500 figure. It is less than double the amount that the father admits to earning from half-time employment, and matches his gross self-employed income. I note that I have no records, even in his tax returns, of the extent to which he writes off person expenses to his business. To the extent that he does so, they would have to be grossed up for taxes.

[36] I find that it is appropriate to say that he should be paying table support of $699.40 per month, commencing January 1, 2022. I select that date as he was clearly employed in 2022 and claims a gross business income of $46,143.59 that year. $46,143.59 I accept that he paid $450 per month for that period, resulting in an underpayment of $249.40 per month. Over the fifteen months since then, he has underpaid support by $3,741.

[37] Thus, I order that commencing April 1, 2023 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter until further order, the father shall pay to the Mother table child support of $699.40 per month for the support of Eli and Shiloh. He shall also pay the Mother arrears of support of $3,741 (699.40 – 450 = 249.40 x 15 mo. = $3,741). I will deal with the method of payment of arrears, as well as retroactive support, below.

Ongoing s. 7 Expenses for Eli and Shiloh

[38] The Mother claims special and extraordinary expenses for Eli and Shiloh under s. 7 of the CSG. Her income for support purposes is $52,218.66. Thus the Father’s s. 7 obligations are to pay 47% of proper special and extraordinary expenses.

[39] The Mother claims the following s. 7 expenses to date which have not been reimbursed:

Summer camp for Eli $ 150 Summer camp for Shiloh $ 150 Taekwondo for Eli $1,491.60 Citrus Dance Studio Competitive Dance for Shiloh $ 801.76 (covers six months studio is open) Studio 3 Dance Studio Non-competitive Dance For Shiloh $ 452.15 Total $3,045.51

[40] I note that these amounts are quite reasonable in the circumstances, especially in light of the absence of explicit daycare expenses (there is likely come aspect of childcare in those expenses). The Father’s 47% share of those expenses is $1,431.38. He shall pay that amount to the Mother. He shall also pay her an additional $119.28 per month towards future s. 7 expenses.

Retroactive Support

[41] The Mother seeks full table support based on an imputed annual income to the Father of $46,500 from the date of separation to date, with him receiving a credit for the payments made. However, I have no record of payments until the date of the Miller J. order of June 22, 2020. From the record, the father made some payments. Further, the parties reached an agreement for the father to pay the Mother support of $450 per month on January 1, 2020.

[42] The Father admits that he did not pay the Mother any child support from the date of separation, March 6, 2018 until 2020, a total of 20 ¾ months. There is no question that the Father’s child support obligations commence on the date of separation. I would not refuse to order retroactive support unless I find that the father will never be unable to pay that support: Colucci v Colucci, 2021 SCC 24. I do not make that finding here.

[43] Accordingly, I find that the father owes the mother $14,512.55 (20.75 x $699.40) in retroactive table support. Other than as set out above for 2022, the Mother claims no retroactive s. 7 expenses.

[44] I also note that I order no retroactive support after January 1, 2020 for two reasons, First, I have no clear statement of arrears and the Mother now seems to accept that $450 monthly payments were made from January 1, 2020 onward. Second the years 2020 and 2021 were years in which COVID affected all of Canada. The Father was in receipt of CERB during those years. I will not impute income for those years.

Payment of Arrears and Retroactive Support

[45] I find that the Father shall pay to the Mother than sum of $200 per month towards all of the arrears and retroactive support set out above, That is in addition to table support and ongoing s. 7 expenses.

Isaiah’s Crane Operating Course

[46] The Mother seeks to have the Father pay one-half of Isaiah’s crane operating course tuition of $21,900. She says that Isaiah is a child of the marriage, whom the Father accepted and raised as his own. She says that she neglected to make a claim for Isaiah when she first issued her Answer. I dismiss this claim for the following reasons:

1. No request for it is included in any of the pleadings, including the recent Fresh as Amended Answer;
2. The Father has never been called upon to pay child support for Isaiah;
3. Isaiah is an adult.
4. He presently has no relationship with the Father That in itself is not a reason to deny support for an adult child but it is a factor that I may consider, along with the others set out above;
5. I have been provided with no evidence as to the reasons Isaiah is taking this course;
6. The absence is particularly relevant in that Isaiah has already been qualified as a real estate agent;
7. I have been provided with no evidence of the contributions towards the crane-operator’s course from either Isaiah or her biological father, and if they are not making contributions, the reasons for that state of affairs.

Is the father responsible for one-half or any share of the cost of the Mother’s life insurance policy?

[47] The Mother has purchased a policy of insurance on her life with Industrial Alliance Life Insurance (the “policy”). The policy has a face value of $2 million. Its cost is $850/mo. The beneficiaries of the policy are Eli, Shiloh and Isaiah. She asks that the father be required to pay ½ of the cost of this policy.

[48] The Father says that he should not have to pay for insurance on the Mother. Besides, he has his own $350,000 life insurance policy, costing him $50 per month. He failed to produce a copy of that policy. The beneficiary of his policy, he says, is one of his brothers, in trust for his children. During the course of argument I asked whether he would be willing to agree change the beneficiary of his policy to the Mother, in trust for the children. He refused. What, he asked, if he remarried? That is not a good excuse. But there may be a middle ground here.

[49] The children are young, ten and nine. The father will likely have to pay child support for at least another decade. I calculate that the face amount of support he will have to pay in the next ten years, ignoring a discount rate, is

Ongoing table and s. 7 support $ 98,241.60 [3] Arrears of Table Support $ 3,741.00 Arrears of s. 7 $ 1,431.38 Retroactive support $ 14,512.51 Total $117,926.49

[50] This does not include any allowance for post-secondary education. I am advised that at least one child Eli, is academically gifted. If I were to add a further allowance for support after ten years and university expense, the figure would be $175,000. I order that the Father irrevocably designate the Mother as the irrevocable beneficiary of a policy of life insurance worth at least $175,000. He shall provide proof of that designation to the Mother within 30 days. He shall also provide proof of payment of that that policy once per year, commencing April 1, 2024. If he fails to make payments on the policy the Mother may take whatever steps she wishes to enforce this term, including paying the policy herself and adding the payment to the amount that the Father owes to her for child support.

The Mother’s Equalization Claim

[51] The Mother claims two forms of equalization – a share of a property that she claims that the Father owns in Nigeria and that he be required to pay ½ of her student loan, incurred during the marriage. Neither property has filed any evidence relevant to support and neither has prepared a net family property statement.

[52] The Mother entered into bankruptcy following the separation of the parties. She informs me that she has now been discharged from bankruptcy. She has provided no documents regarding that bankruptcy. However, upon bankruptcy, her property, including any claim to an equalization is assigned to her trustee in bankruptcy. She has not obtained an assignment back to her of that. Nor has she obtained an order allowing her to prosecute such a claim. For that reason, any claim that she has to an equalization payment is stayed.

[53] I add that in the absence of evidence and any net family property statements, I would be unable to determine an equalization payment in any event. Further, if the Mother asserts that her net family property is zero (it cannot go below that figure), that is not sufficient to have the court order that the Father pay half of her student loan. Any payment would have to come within the context of an equalization payment.

RESP’s

[54] The parties accumulated less than $8,000 in RESP’s for each of Isaiah, Eli and Shiloh. The parties have a high conflict separation and are unable to speak. The Mother says that she is unable to communicate with the Father regarding the RESP’s or any other subject. If they continue to be jointly held, they will be back in court because they will be unable to agree on anything regarding those children. The Father agrees regarding Isaiah but disagrees regarding the other two children. He feels that it would be best to remain involved.

[55] I proposed a compromise which I believe that both parties accepted. If they have not, the sums involved are so low and the conflict between them is so high that I would order the following in any event:

1. The mother will keep control of the RESP’s for all three children. They are account no. 21709386 for Isaiah; 21709384 for Eli; and 21709408 for Shiloh.
2. The Father’s name shall be removed from those accounts;
3. The amount held in the joint RESP shall be divided into three portions: 1/3 for each child.
4. The Father shall have no control over or benefit from the share designated for Isaiah;
5. However, the Father will receive credit for 50% of the present value of the share of the RESP designated for Eli and Shiloh plus any interest accrued on those amounts between now and the date that either or both child attends post secondary education. That credit will be towards any s. 7 post-secondary education expenses he will be required to pay for Eli and Shiloh.
6. Within 30 days, the Mother shall provide to the Father a statement setting out the exact amount in each of Eli and Shiloh’s RESP account. She shall do so again once per year, commencing April 1, 2024 and on the first day of April of each succeeding year until the father’s share of the RESP is spent.
7. Either party may open their own separate RESP account for any of the children mentioned in this endorsement.

Summary of Order

[56] In sum, I order as follows:

1. Commencing on April 1, 2023 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter until further order, the father shall pay to the Mother child support of $818.68 per month for Eli and Shiloh, based on an imputed income of $46,500 per year, calculated as follows: a. Table support of $699.40 per month; b. Special and extraordinary expenses of $119.28 per month
2. The Father shall pay to the Mother for arrears of table support based on an underpayment of support from January 1, 2022 to date of $3,741;
3. The father shall pay to the Mother arrears of s. 7 expenses of $1,431.38
4. The Father shall pay to the Mother retroactive child support of $14,512.55;
5. The arrears of support and retroactive support shall be paid by the Father at the rate of $200 per month, in addition to the ongoing child support of $818.68 per month.
6. The Father shall designate the Mother as the irrevocable beneficiary of a policy of life insurance worth at least $175,000. He shall do upon the following terms: a. He shall provide proof of that designation to the Mother within 30 days. b. He shall also provide proof of payment of that that policy once per year, commencing April 1, 2024. c. If he fails to make payments on the policy the Mother may take whatever steps she wishes to enforce this term, including paying the policy herself and adding the payment to the amount that the Father owes to her for child support.
7. The Mother’s claim for payment towards her life insurance policy is dismissed.
8. The Mother’s claim towards payment of Isaiah’s crane operating course is dismissed.
9. The Mother’s claims to an equalization payment is stayed.
10. Regarding the children’s RESP account: a. The mother will keep control of the RESP’s for all three children. They are account no. 21709386 for Isaiah; 21709384 for Eli and 21709408 for Shiloh. b. The Father’s name shall be removed from those accounts; c. The amount held in the joint RESP shall be divided into three portions: 1/3 for each child. d. The Father shall have no control or benefit from the share designated for Isaiah. e. However the father will receive credit for 50% of the present value of the share of the RESP designated for Eli and Shiloh plus any interest accrued on those amounts between now and the date that either or both child attends post secondary education. That credit will be towards any s. 7 post-secondary education expenses. f. Within 30 days, the Mother shall provide to the Father a statement setting out the exact amount in each of Eli and Shiloh’s account. She shall do so again once per year, commencing April 1, 2024 and on the first day of April of each succeeding year until the father’s share of the RESP is spent. g. Either party may open their own separate RESP account for any of the children mentioned in this endorsement.

Costs

[57] While success was divided, the Mother was substantially successful regarding the main issue, of support. However, I note that she originally sought to impute the father’s income at $120,000 per year but at trial sought the result that I granted, of $46,500 per year. I also note that the parties are self-represented.

[58] With all of that in mind, I invited the parties to speak to the issue of costs after I released the original version of this endorsement (which is identical to this one other than reference to this date and the contents of this paragraph. Neither party sought costs, thus I make no costs award.

“ Marvin Kurz J. ” Electronic signature of Justice Marvin Kurz Date: March 29, 2023

[1] As further set out below, the Father withdrew his application other than his request for a divorce. [2] In referring to the terms “custody” and “access”, I refer to the legal parenting terms in use at the time of the pleadings and any relevant orders. [3] $699.40/mo. table + 119.28/mo. s. 7 = $818.68. $818.68 x 12 mo. x 10 years = $116,495.15.