Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-00000110-0003 DATE: July 5, 2024

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: TARA IRENE ROSE, Applicant – and – MICHAEL WILLIAM PRILL, Respondent

Self-Represented

Counsel: Mark LaFrance, for the Respondent Michelle Douglas-Cummings, for the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Unit

REASONS FOR DECISION

ABRAMS J.

Introduction

[1] The court is being asked to adjudicate the respective applications by each party under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 concerning the following:

a) child support payable by the applicant to the respondent for 2021-2023; b) section 7 Child Support Guidelines expenses and other shared costs for 2020-2023; c) health benefit coverage by the applicant for the benefit of the child; d) life insurance by the applicant to secure support; and e) arrears of support.

Issues

[2] The case raises the following issues for the court’s consideration:

a) consequences arising from the applicant’s failure to comply with court orders; b) adverse inferences to be drawn by the court; c) voluntary unemployment and intentional under-employment; and d) undue hardship as claimed by the applicant.

Background

[3] The parties were married in British Columbia on April 5, 2004, having resided together since September 1999.

[4] They are the parents of Damian Prill (“Damian”), now 17 years of age, and an adult child, Blake Prill (“Blake”), now 22 years of age.

[5] The parties separated in April 2011 and divorced December 2012.

[6] The respondent remarried in 2014 and has two stepchildren who reside with his family full-time.

[7] The applicant later had two other children with her current partner.

[8] The applicant relocated to Alberta in October 2019, and the respondent to Ontario in October 2020. Both purchased homes with their partners.

[9] Blake and Damian now reside with the respondent full-time in Ontario. These proceedings, however, only concern Damian.

[10] The parties historically exchanged notices of assessment (“NOAs”) for the purpose of child support. Section 7 Guidelines expenses were shared.

[11] The respondent was the payor through to 2020. Pursuant to the current order issued by the British Columbia Provincial Court, dated June 4, 2021, the parties share joint decision making, and the applicant has parenting time. This order followed a trial, which took place February 2-4, 2021.

[12] In the result, the applicant was ordered to pay child support to the respondent in the amount of $728 per month, which resulted in arrears totaling $19,113.50. The order was eventually filed in Ontario and is being enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”).

[13] Flight costs for the child to have parenting time with the respondent are a shared expense. Requests for reimbursement under s. 7 are mostly related to medical, dental, and mental health expenses. Factoring in a modest credit to the applicant of $240.82, she owes the respondent $2,676.76 for her portion of shared flight costs and s. 7 expenses.

[14] At the time of trial in February 2021, Damian was already living with the respondent in Ontario. Further, the applicant was in her 12th year of employment as a correctional officer with the Correctional Service of Canada, with a 2020 income of $90,660. She had employment benefits available to the child, and a federal supplementary death benefit sufficient to secure her child support obligations. The applicant’s partner is also employed as a correctional officer.

[15] The day prior to the start of trial, the applicant’s employer notified her that she was under disciplinary investigation. The written notice indicated that termination was a possible outcome. The applicant did not disclose this at trial nor indicate that Damian’s right to support may have been in jeopardy.

[16] The applicant resigned from her job on February 23, 2021, less than three weeks after trial. She did so before the outcome of the investigation and upon her employer’s assurance it would be taken no further.

[17] The applicant never gave notice to the respondent that she had quit her job, had any decrease in income or had a loss of benefits. This was to the respondent’s detriment, as he continued to pay in full for s. 7 medical expenses with the expectation the applicant would claim the balance and reimburse him.

[18] The applicant received notice of the value of her pension payout on May 18, 2021, two weeks before receiving the order for support and arrears dated June 4, 2021. The payout totaled $304,156. While she had been working part-time for three months at Walmart, she quit on June 4, 2021, around the time she received her pension payout.

[19] The applicant’s lifestyle continued as it had before – notably planning trips and making large purchases, including buying a truck in cash.

[20] The applicant refused to pay child support for 17 months following the June 4, 2021 court order. Inquiries by the respondent went unanswered. When the respondent provided his 2021 NOA to the applicant pursuant to the order, the applicant would not disclose her income. Moreover, the applicant refused all requests to pay s. 7 expenses, maintaining that she was not obligated to do so.

[21] In the circumstances, the respondent sought enforcement of child support through the FRO in October 2021. When enforcement authorities contacted the applicant, she immediately listed and sold her home, liquidating her largest asset in May 2022. While admitting this generated a profit, she has refused to disclose the amount.

[22] The enforcement authorities gave the applicant written notice that she would lose her licence in July 2022. She maintained her refusal to pay and applied in Alberta to vary child support to nil and reduce arrears to nil. She claimed a material change of circumstances based on losing her employment with Corrections Canada.

[23] The application was forwarded to this court to be addressed through the Ontario interjurisdictional support order (“ISO”) process.

[24] The applicant claimed $0 on her Income Information Form I for 2022 but provided no financial disclosure. While FRO had notified the respondent there was an application, he was not served the application until late January 2023.

[25] In October 2022, Alberta support maintenance commenced enforcement proceedings, advising they would take the applicant’s driver’s licence. Consequently, the applicant made her first child support payment of $750, 17 months after the date of the final order. Further, she asked the respondent to give her money to make a second support payment (to himself) in November 2022, which he refused.

[26] On November 22, 2022, the applicant filed for a stay of enforcement in Alberta, absent production of any financial disclosure. Notably, a year and a half after the applicant had quit her job, this was the first notice the respondent received of her change in employment.

[27] Thereafter, the applicant made partial child support payments while awaiting a hearing in Alberta for the stay. Moreover, while refusing to pay her share of the accruing s. 7 expenses, she demanded that the respondent reimburse her for flight costs. This caused a period of high conflict that culminated in December 2022 with the applicant over-holding Damian in Alberta against his will. As a consequence, Damian has chosen not to visit the applicant in Alberta since.

[28] The applicant asserted in both the stay and ISO proceedings that the respondent owes her money on account of retroactive support, which is not the case. In fact, the applicant owes the respondent arrears of support pursuant to the final order. The respondent submitted his child support records to the Albert court, which confirmed the applicant’s arrears.

[29] The Alberta court also ordered the applicant to disclose her income for 2021 and 2022, which confirmed her line 15000 income for 2021 as $226,022. Her NOA also confirmed she had made a $33,023.87 withdrawal in 2022 from an undisclosed RRSP.

[30] Despite this, the applicant argued emphatically that she had no income available for support for 2021. She claimed her line 15000 income of $226,022 was, really, just over $96,000 from her pension payout and she had used it to pay off bills and then support her lifestyle through to 2022. She was adamant that the remaining income was $129,762, which her employer transferred to a locked-in retirement account (“LIRA”). She asserted those monies were never available to her and would not be until retirement. She repeated this narrative in every submission in both Ontario and Alberta, up to and including her disclosure on November 14, 2023.

[31] Following the January 2023 stay hearing, the respondent was served with the applicant’s ISO submission. It included no financial disclosure. Believing that the applicant was concealing income and was voluntarily unemployed, the respondent opposed the applicant’s request to vary. In response, he brought a cross-application to obtain financial disclosure, a variation of child support, and reimbursement for s. 7 expenses. He also sought an order requiring the applicant to establish benefits for the child and a life insurance policy to secure her child support obligations.

[32] In March 2023, the Alberta court ordered a temporary (nine-month) stay of enforcement, requiring the applicant to pay $305 per month to the respondent. The stay expired on December 31, 2023. The Alberta court noted the pending outcome of this proceeding as a consideration in ordering the stay. The applicant began making payments.

Procedural History – Ontario Superior Court

[33] The first hearing under ISO took place on August 9, 2023, before Swartz J. During the hearing, the applicant admitted she had been working. Swartz J. ordered the disclosure sought by the respondent. Moreover, Swartz J. cautioned the applicant about the consequences of failing to provide complete disclosure. Concurrent with providing disclosure, the applicant had issued a new application in support of a variation, this time claiming undue hardship due to having to provide for other children. Notably, she included no evidence that would support a claim of significant costs related to supporting other children.

[34] The parties appeared before me for the first time on October 23, 2023. At that time, the applicant had not complied with disclosure on 10 of the 14 items outlined in the August 9, 2023, order made by Swartz J. The respondent raised a key missing item: the applicant’s pension statement to clarify her claims regarding her 2021 income. The applicant stated she had been trying to get the statement but could not reach anyone. The applicant was again ordered to complete disclosure, as reflected in my endorsement of October 23, 2023. Again, she was cautioned about the consequences of failing to do so.

[35] In her supplemental affidavit sworn November 14, 2023, the applicant again failed to fully comply with the orders for disclosure. That said, some of the information that was disclosed confirmed that certain documents were in her possession since 2021, including her pension statement. Specifically, the applicant was fully aware of the amounts that comprised her pension payout and 2021 reported income.

[36] More particularly, the respondent has not provided the following:

a) receipt of child tax benefits from 2021 to 2023; b) complete T1 for the calendar year 2021; c) record of employment with the Correctional Service of Canada; d) personal bank records for the period January 21 to February 20, 2023; e) RBC account statements for account #02200154458; f) personal Scotiabank account; g) her spouse’s complete 2020 NOA; and h) investment statements for the period January 1, 2021 to June 30, 2021.

[37] By the date of the final hearing before me, the applicant had modified her position from no child support to child support payments of $125 per month. She also submitted secondary claims for undue hardship, this time on the grounds of unusually high expenses for exercising parenting time with the child. Notably, she provided no evidence of any costs for exercising parenting time with the child, much less unusually high costs.

Legal Framework

Jurisdiction

[38] When determining a child’s entitlement to support, the law of the jurisdiction where the child is habitually resident is paramount – in this case the Family Law Act. No corollary relief was issued when the parties divorced. The current operative order, dated June 4, 2021, was issued pursuant to British Columbia’s Family Law Act.

Obligation to pay child support

[39] The FLA provides as follows:

Every parent has an obligation to provide support, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so, for his or her unmarried child who,

(a) is a minor; (b) is enrolled in a full-time program of education; or (c) is unable by reason of illness, disability, or other cause to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents.

[40] The FLA further provides the following:

An order for the support of a child should,

(a) recognize that each parent has an obligation to provide support for the child; (b) apportion the obligation according to the child support guidelines.

Income calculation

[41] Unless otherwise provided under the Guidelines, “the amount of an order for the support of a child for children under the age of majority is … the amount set out in the applicable table, according to the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates and the income of the parent or spouse against whom the order is sought”.

Calculation of annual income

[42] The Guidelines state that “[s]ubject 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.”

Obligations for financial disclosure

[43] Parents have an ongoing obligation to disclose income for the purpose of paying support.

[44] Failure to disclose material information is the cancer of family law litigation.

Failure to obey an order

[45] The Family Law Rules provide that “[i]f a person fails to obey an order in a case or related case, the court may deal with the failure by making an order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter including … an order dismissing a claim”.

[46] This court has previously held that “[t]he words ‘just determination’ are sufficiently wide to include protecting the integrity of the administration of justice, and that is what is at stake if a party wilfully disobeys an order.”

[47] Quinn J. held in Gordon v. Starr that “ [a]n order is an order, not a suggestion. Non-compliance must have consequences. ”

[48] The court has jurisdiction, pursuant to r. 1(8.1) of the Rules, to make any order described in r. 1(8) when a party fails to follow the rules (barring contempt).

Adverse inference

[49] “Where the court proceeds to a hearing on the basis of an application under clause 22 (1) (a) [of the Guidelines], the court may draw an adverse inference against the parent or spouse who failed to comply and impute income to that parent or spouse in such amount as it considers appropriate”.

[50] In Bardouniotis v. Trypis, the court noted that disclosure “is critical to the court’s task of fact-finding,” especially where “there are significant credibility issues”, such that where there is non-disclosure, an adverse inference may be drawn against the party’s claims “unless corroborated by independent, credible evidence.”

[51] An adverse inference may be drawn when there is a failure to provide affidavit evidence that could have assisted the other party’s case.

[52] 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.

Intentional unemployment and under-employment

[53] This court recently stated the following:

A party is intentionally under-employed within the meaning of [ s. 19(1) (a) of the Guidelines ] if they earn less than they are capable of earning having regard for all of the circumstances. The party is intentionally unemployed when they choose not to work when capable of earning an income.

In determining whether a party is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, the court should consider the party’s capacity to earn income in light of their age, education, health, work history, the availability of work that is within the scope of the party’s capabilities and the amount of income that the party could reasonably earn if they worked to capacity.

Imputing income

[54] The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made.

[55] “Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position [they are] taking.”

[56] The court may infer that the failure of the payor to properly disclose mitigates the obligation of the recipient to provide an evidentiary basis to impute income.

[57] “The court’s authority to impute income to a party reinforces that parties must act responsibly when making financial decisions that may affect the level of income available from them for the support of their dependants or themselves”.

[58] “The court may also impute income to a party under section 19(1)(a) if the party … engage[s] in reckless behaviour or professional misconduct which affects their income-earning capacity”.

[59] “There is no requirement of bad faith or intention to evade support obligations inherent in intentional underemployment. The reasons for underemployment are irrelevant. If a parent is earning less than she or he could be, he or she is intentionally underemployed” (citation omitted).

[60] “The court has a wide discretion with respect to imputation of income, and in the context of deliberate under-employment or unemployment, the exercise of that discretion will turn on the overall reasonableness of the payor’s decisions and actions in relation to their income, taking into consideration all of the relevant circumstances”.

[61] The Guidelines provide the following:

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

Undue hardship

[62] Circumstances that may cause undue hardship include “the parent or spouse has unusually high expenses in relation to exercising parenting time with respect to a child” (emphasis added).

[63] “The courts have very narrowly construed each element of the phrase unusually high expenses in relation to access ”.

[64] Even if a determination for undue hardship is made under s. 10(1) of the Guidelines, “an application under that subsection must be denied by the court if it is of the opinion that the household of the parent or spouse who claims undue hardship would, after determining the amount of child support under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9, have a higher standard of living than the household of the other parent or spouse.”

[65] “In comparing standards of living for the purpose of [s. 10(3)], the court may use the comparison of household standards of living test set out in Schedule II [of the Guidelines]”.

Arrears

[66] The Supreme Court of Canada in Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 established the test for rescission of arrears where the court determined the arrears accurately reflected “the amount of support that the payor should have paid under the Guidelines, after all considerations, including any claim of hardship under s. 10, have been determined. In other words, the arrears represent sums that could have been paid at the time payments came due, but were not.”

[67] Under this category of cases, “the payor’s ongoing financial capacity is the only relevant factor. The payor must therefore provide sufficient reliable evidence to enable the court to assess their current and prospective financial circumstances, including their employment prospects and any assets, pensions, inheritances or other potential sources of future capacity to pay.”

[68] The court stated that the following applies in this category of cases:

[T]he payor must overcome a presumption against rescinding any part of the arrears. The presumption will only be rebutted where the payor parent establishes on a balance of probabilities that — even with a flexible payment plan — they cannot and will not ever be able to pay the arrears. Present inability to pay does not, in itself, foreclose the prospect of future ability to pay, although it may justify a temporary suspension of arrears. This presumption ensures rescission is a last resort available only where suspension or other creative payment options are inadequate to address the prejudice to the payor. It also encourages payors to keep up with their support obligations rather than allowing arrears to accumulate in the hopes that the courts will grant relief if the amount becomes sufficiently large. Arrears are a “valid debt that must be paid, similar to any other financial obligation”, regardless of whether the quantum is significant. [Citations omitted.]

[69] “While the presumption in favour of enforcing arrears may be rebutted in ‘unusual circumstances’, the standard should remain a stringent one. Rescission of arrears based solely on current financial incapacity should not be ordered lightly. It is a last resort in exceptional cases, such as where the payor suffers a ‘catastrophic injury’” (citations omitted).

Analysis

[70] In my view, the applicant has shown disregard for the court order of June 4, 2021 and the rules for ongoing disclosure of income, demonstrating an overall indifference towards the Rules and orders of the court in general. She has continually frustrated proceedings, in both provinces, by her refusal to disclose her finances. Put simply, it has taken a motion and three court orders for disclosure – one in Alberta and now two in Ontario – to get the information necessary to have a somewhat clearer picture of her financial situation. What is more, information readily known and available to the applicant remains missing.

[71] Moreover, the applicant’s ever-evolving position and the remedies sought are inconsistent, having the effect of not only creating conflicting stories, but continuously altering which matter is before the court. This has created a moving target that is unpredictable for the respondent and the court. What commenced as an application due to an alleged material change of circumstances has evolved to one claiming undue hardship related to costs for parenting time – matters that raise different legal questions and require different evidentiary burdens.

[72] What is clear is the overwhelming evidence that for nearly three years, the applicant has continued to hold out patently false claims about her income and has frustrated the court’s process of fact finding. This is seen in the significant inconsistencies between the applicant’s numerous sworn statements and the evidence finally provided through disclosure.

[73] The evidence provided confirms the applicant’s 2021 line 15000 income as $226,022, which was fully available for support purposes. The $226,022 comprised $31,653 in employment income for the year, $19,975 in an RRSP withdrawal, and $174,394 from her pension that was issued to her as taxable and accessible income. In addition, the evidence confirms that the previously non-taxed GIC amount of $129,762 was not included in the applicant’s 2021 reported income. The $129,762 was initially protected as a transfer of the in-limit pension entitlements into a five-year RBC Market-Smart GIC.

[74] GIC statements then show the applicant converted her previously non-taxed (and not forming part of her 2021 line 15000 income) GIC to a deposit savings account in September 2022, where she subsequently withdrew $32,226.76. This amount was reported to the CRA as RRSP income for 2022. She withdrew another $33,023.87 on February 1, 2023. The bank statement corresponding to the February 2023 deposit is the statement that remains missing from disclosure. She later reported making the withdrawals to support her lifestyle.

[75] The applicant continued to report to the court that her LIRA (the GIC) was locked-in and unavailable until retirement, even though she had converted it to a savings account and already withdrawn over $65,000 from the account. Further, the applicant currently has $64,511 in her deposit savings account that is readily available to her, and more than capable of paying her arrears of support in full.

[76] The evidence shows over $611,000 net moving in and out of the applicant’s personal and joint accounts in the two years since her unemployment. This occurred while she continued to assert that she “lost” her job and “lost” her home, when the evidence shows these were voluntary decisions which benefitted her.

[77] The applicant has consistently represented to the courts in both Ontario and Alberta that she had no income, which is not true. She failed to disclose the sources of her 2021 income and her pension. She claimed her spouse was forced to work overtime each week to pay their bills; he later submitted a personal statement into evidence refuting this.

[78] The respondent contends that the applicant should be responsible for non-covered medical and dental expenses for the child in full for 2021 and 2022 due to her failure to provide notice of loss of benefits until her stay application in November 2022. I agree. The applicant has family benefits available through her current partner whereby Damian would qualify as an insured dependent. Despite this, since giving notice, she has provided no reason for why Damian is not on her spouse’s family benefits. She claims not to have even inquired with the benefits office.

[79] The applicant’s request for a reduction in the ordered support and a rescission of arrears have no basis by reason of her having had access to significant and steady flows of income since quitting her job nearly three years ago. This income was sufficient to pay the amount of support ordered at the times when it was due. She also remains fully employable. At 42 years old, there is no reason to believe she does not have many employable years ahead to repay her arrears.

[80] The applicant was not forced to quit her job. She was fully aware that she had responsibilities for Damian. She could have awaited the outcome of her disciplinary investigation and challenged the results through available labour processes. She, instead, chose to voluntarily resign. It was a choice to cease earning, to cease having benefits coverage, and to cease having life insurance – things the child had always had access to. In my view, she became willfully unemployed, with no regard for consequences to Damian.

[81] While the applicant has remained fully employable, she put little effort into finding gainful employment following her voluntary resignation. It is clear she wanted her old job back as she re-applied to Corrections Canada on four occasions. All her applications were, at varying points, screened out. She was, however, successfully screened into a hiring process to be an Alberta provincial correctional peace officer, with a similar earning potential to her previous job. She voluntarily withdrew her application without reason before completing a scheduled physical.

[82] In June 2023, the applicant began working as a security officer at the River Cree Casino, where she continues to be employed. However, she works only one shift per week and has provided no valid reason – medical or otherwise - for not increasing her employment to full-time. This would be easy for her to do, given her employer continues to advertise openings for full-time security officers, promising a competitive salary and full benefits packages.

[83] The respondent asserts that any failure by the applicant to pay her support obligations should be categorized as a decision by her not to pay, not an inability to pay. I agree. Succinctly stated, child support is the right of the child, not a lifestyle choice by the applicant.

[84] The respondent argues that the court should find that the applicant has been intentionally unemployed since her resignation and is currently intentionally underemployed. For the calendar year 2022, the respondent asks the court to impute employment income to the applicant in the amount of $90,660 per year, an amount which is consistent with her 2020 salary, the last full year in her employment. For the calendar year 2023, the respondent requests the court to impute income of $78,000, which corresponds to the earning potential of a provincial correctional peace officer. I agree.

[85] Support for the parties had been calculated commencing July 1 of each year based on the prior year’s income. This process was created by the final order from British Columbia, which envisaged orderly periodic adjustments to child support when income from the preceding year was known. The applicant chose not to provide this information. There is no cogent reason why the applicant should not pay child support based upon her actual income for the calendar year 2021.

[86] The applicant’s 2021 line 15000 income, as adjusted by Schedule III of the Guidelines, was $225,753. Base child support should have been $1,954 each month.

[87] Any suggestion that the applicant’s one-time, non-recurring receipt of income in 2021 should not be included in calculating her child support obligations is rejected because the applicant readily admits to supporting her lifestyle with the income. These funds were available to her, and she simply chose not to pay child support.

[88] The applicant had a reported income of $37,500 in 2022 and will have a projected income above that amount in 2023, despite having been either voluntary unemployed or under-employed in both years. Her 2022 and 2023 income includes RRSP withdrawals from her deposit savings account. Because the account’s funds did not form part of her 2021 income, any withdrawals from that account in subsequent years’ income does not result in counting the applicant’s pension income twice for the purpose of calculating support. For this reason, total income calculations should include both RRSP withdrawal amounts and imputed income.

[89] The respondent summarizes his position concerning the applicant’s income for support purposes and calculated arrears in the following table, which I accept:

Year	Applicant’s income	Base child support per month	Section 7 expenses annual	Owed	Paid	Arrears
2021	$225,753	$1,954 x 12 = $23,448	$512	$23,960	nil	$23,960
2022	$128,110	$1,133 x 12 = $13,596	$1,586	$15,182	($2,026)	$13,156
2023	$115,024	$1,018 x 12 = $12,216	$578.76	$12,794.76	($2,885) [37]	$9,910
TOTAL						$47,026

[90] The respondent asserts there is no evidence to support a claim of undue hardship due to excessive expenses to exercise parenting time with the child. Travel costs for the child are already ordered to be shared between the parties, and costs for 2023 are nil. There is no expectation that amount will increase in 2024. I agree.

[91] A household standard of living comparison for 2021, 2022, and 2023 establishes that the applicant has a higher standard of living in her home when contrasted to the respondent. I agree.

Comparative household income ratio	Applicant/payor	Respondent/ recipient	Threshold?
2021	13.680	7.275	Not met
2022	7.538	6.102	Not met
2023	6.289	5.955	Not met

[92] The respondent’s most recent financial statement documents the high costs of supporting his large family. Any reduction in support would be detrimental to the respondent’s already lower household standard of living.

[93] The applicant has a life insurance policy of $250,000 with her sister listed as her beneficiary. This policy would secure her ongoing child support obligations by means of her irrevocably designating the respondent as the beneficiary thereof in trust for Damian.

Conclusions

[94] In the result, the following order shall issue:

a) The applicant’s claim is dismissed. b) The applicant shall pay the respondent child support arrears in the amount of $47,026 for Damian for the period January 1, 2021 to and including December 31, 2023. c) Commencing January 1, 2024, the applicant shall pay to the respondent ongoing child support in the sum of $1,092 each month, premised upon her imputed income of $123,684. d) The applicant shall pay to the respondent her proportionate share of Damian’s s. 7 expenses whereby her proportionate share is calculated to be 53 percent. Where the respondent seeks contribution from the applicant concerning these expenses, he shall provide full particulars in advance to the applicant. e) The applicant shall obtain health and dental benefits for Damian either under her spouse’s family plan or another plan. Where the respondent pays for the initial expense up-front, expenses for Damian covered by benefits shall be submitted first by the respondent under his plan. On receipt of the payment receipt, the applicant shall submit the remaining expense under the plan she has established for Damian. Within 48 hours of receipt of the reimbursement from her benefits, she will e-transfer the amount to the respondent. Should the applicant not be entitled to any reimbursement, she shall forthwith forward all documentation to the respondent arising from the denial of coverage. Should the applicant not obtain health benefits for Damian, unpaid medical and dental expenses shall be shared as expenses under s. 7. f) The respondent and applicant shall submit to each other, at the end of each month, receipts for s. 7 expenses and shared flight costs related to Damian travelling to and from Alberta for the purpose of the applicant exercising parenting time. The parties shall ensure reimbursement of their portion to the other party no later than the 15th day of the following month. g) The applicant shall maintain in force and effect a life insurance policy in the amount of at least $150,000 (base amount and not double indemnity) with the respondent irrevocably designated as the beneficiary in trust for Damian, and she shall provide to the respondent proof of such coverage and designation within 30 days of the date of this order. Should the applicant not have such life insurance on her life, and were she to pass away while Damian remains a dependent child of the marriage, the amount of $150,000 shall be a first charge against any life insurance policy on her life and additionally upon her estate. h) Commencing in 2024 and by May 15th of each year, while Damian remains a dependant child of the marriage, the applicant and the respondent shall annually exchange their respective income tax returns for the previous year, and shall provide to the other his/her respective NOA (or notice of reassessment as the case may be) within 21 days of the receipt thereof.

[95] If the parties are unable to resolve the issue of costs, written submission, limited to no more than 5 pages, shall be filed with the court within 30 days together with a bill of costs and any offers to settle.

The Honourable Mr. Justice B. W. Abrams

Released: July 5, 2024