Olson-Lipinski v Lipinski, 2018 ABQB 1018

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Olson-Lipinski v Lipinski, 2018 ABQB 1018 Date: 20181214 Docket: 4803 122211 Registry: Edmonton Between: Linda June Olson-Lipinski Applicant (Plaintiff) - and - Hans Derrick Lipinski Respondent (Defendant) _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice G.S. Dunlop _______________________________________________________ 1. Overview [ 1 ] Linda Olson-Lipinski and Hans Derrick Lipinski were married on May 13, 1995. They had two sons, Zachary, born December 15, 1996 and Bryn, born April 12, 1998.

The parents separated on March 17, 2002 and divorced on May 15, 2007. The Divorce Judgment and Corollary Relief Order, filed May 17, 2007 ordered joint custody and shared parenting of the children on a 50/50 basis. The parents’ incomes were found to be virtually identical: $82,731 for Mr. Lipinski and $82,345 for Ms. Olson-Lipinski. The following provision was made for child support:

There shall be a reservation of child support as the children will be spending an equal amount of time with the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall share equally in the costs of child care for both children as well as all agreed to extracurricular activities for the children. [ 2 ] The child support provision of the May 15, 2007 Divorce Judgment mirrored the language of Minutes of Settlement between the parties dated April 1, 2003. [ 3 ] The children resided equally with each parent until March 2014, when Zachary, age 17, started living full-time with Ms. Olson-Lipinski.

Zachary graduated from high school in June 2014, and started attending NAIT in September 2014. He graduated with a Business Degree in May 2018. Bryn graduated high school in June 2016, and started working. Bryn enrolled in a two year program at NAIT starting September 2017. Bryn lived 50% of the time with each parent from the date of the divorce (or earlier) to the present. Neither parent has ever paid child support to the other. [ 4 ] Mr. Lipinski retired in October 2017, at age 55, resulting in a reduction in his income. [ 5 ] On April 27, 2018 Ms.

Olson-Lipinski filed an application seeking child support retroactive to March 2014. That application was heard by me on October 19, 2018. The issues are: • Does Zachary remain a child of the marriage? If not, when did he cease to be a child of the marriage? • If Zachary was no longer a child of the marriage when Ms.

Olson-Lipinski filed her application, do I have jurisdiction to order retroactive child support? • If I have jurisdiction to order retroactive child support, do the circumstances warrant it? • Should the parties’ incomes be set at their line 150 incomes, or something more? • If the circumstances warrant retroactive child support, what amount of s 3 child support should be ordered? • If the circumstances warrant retroactive child support, what amount of s 7 child support should be ordered? • What adjustments should be made for RESP withdrawals? • Should Mr.

Lipinski be ordered to pay child support for Zachary if Zachary enrolls in law school in the future? [ 6 ] I find that Zachary ceased to be a child of the marriage on April 30, 2018 when he completed his Bachelor of Business Administration program at NAIT, because at that point he was employable and he had accepted an offer of full-time employment. I find he continued to be a child of the marriage up to that point because he was enrolled in post-secondary education full-time except for the summer when he worked, and he remained partially dependent on Ms. Olson-Lipinski for basic necessities.

Consequently, Zachary was a child of the marriage when Ms. Olson-Lipinski filed her application in April 2018, and therefore I have jurisdiction to order retroactive child support. [ 7 ] I find that the circumstances warrant ordering retroactive child support because the application for support was brought reasonably quickly in the circumstances, Zachary was not completely self-sufficient while he was attending NAIT and living with Ms. Olson-Lipinski, and a retroactive award would not cause hardship to Mr. Lipinski. [ 8 ] I find that Mr.

Lipinski is not intentionally underemployed, because his retirement was not for the purposes of avoiding child support. His line 150 income shall be used to calculate child support, with no imputation of additional income. Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s line 150 income in 2016 and 2017 was reduced by large unexplained expenses for a rental property.

Her income from the rental property should be adjusted to be consistent with prior years. [ 9 ] I find that the appropriate amount of s 3 child support is the difference between the Guideline amount for two children and the Guideline amount for one child, because of the ongoing support each parent provided to Bryn during the April 2014 to April 2018 period. I further find that Bryn will continue to be a child of the marriage until he graduates in April 2019, and that Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s claim should be reduced to account for the net child support she will owe Mr.

Lipinski through April 2019. [ 10 ] All of the post-secondary expenses have been paid from RESPs to which the parties contributed equally, so neither party is entitled to s 7 expenses for post-secondary expenses. With a few exceptions, most of the other s 7 expenses claimed by each party should be shared equally by the other party, in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement. [ 11 ] Some payments from the RESP contributed to covering Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s child support expenses, so her claim for retroactive child support should be reduced in an equal amount. [ 12 ] I find that Mr.

Lipinski should not be ordered to pay child support if Zachary enrolls in law school because that is a hypothetical question. [ 13 ] The net amount of retroactive child support owing by Mr. Lipinski to Ms. Olson-Lipinski is $4,540 as of April 30, 2019. 2. Zachary’s status as a child of the marriage [ 14 ] Mr. Lipinski cites Farden v Farden [1] , and emphasizes the facts that Zachary did not apply for student loans or other assistance and had the ability to apply contribute to his own support through his summer and part-time employment, as leading to the

conclusion that Zachary did not remain a child of the marriage, as of April 27, 2018, or earlier. [ 15 ] I agree that the facts cited by Mr. Lipinski weigh against finding Zachary remained a child of the marriage in April 2018. However, the following facts weigh in favour of that finding, up to April 30, 2018. Zachary graduated from high school in June 2014 and enrolled in the Business program at NAIT in September 2014. [2] He turned 18 on December 15, 2014.

Zachary worked summers staring in 2015 as a reservist in the Canadian Armed Forces. [3] He worked part-time while attending NAIT, but did not earn enough to cover his education and living expenses. [4] He graduated with a Business Degree in April 2018 and immediately went to work for the Canadian Armed Forces in Esquimalt.

He presently has a full-time job as a reservist with the Canadian Armed Forces and is living on his own, supporting himself. [5] He was promoted to the rank of Sub-Lieutenant, prior to August 10, 2018. [6] [ 16 ] I find Zachary remained a child of the marriage as long as he returned to his mother’s home each September to resume his studies at NAIT. He ceased to be a child of the marriage on April 30, 2018, when he moved out and became fully employed and self- supporting. 3. Jurisdiction to order retroactive child support [ 17 ] As Zachary was a child of the marriage on April 27, 2018, when Ms.

Olson-Lipinski filed her application, I have jurisdiction to order retroactive child support. [7] Ms. Lipinski argues that the relevant date is not April 27, 2018, but January 17, 2018, when she filed a Notice to Attend Child Support Resolution Meeting, which she was required to do before she could file her application. As I have found that Zachary was a child of the marriage on both dates, I do not need to determine that issue. 4.

Considerations relevant to retroactive child support [ 18 ] The factors which I must consider before ordering retroactive child support are: [8] • reasonable excuse for why support was not sought earlier; • conduct of the payor parent; • circumstances of the child; and • hardship occasioned by a retroactive award. 4.1 Reasonable excuse for why support was not sought earlier [ 19 ] In late 2015, Ms. Olson-Lipinski became aware that she could apply for child support. [9] Ms. Olson-Lipinski first asked Mr. Lipinski to pay child support in late 2015; Mr.

Lipinski’s response was that he had no obligation to pay child support for an 18 year old. [10] Ms. Olson-Lipinski repeated her request by email on January 31, 2016. [11] She sought the assistance of Alberta Child Support Resolution Services and the parties attended a resolution meeting in May 2016 which did not result in any agreement. [12] Shortly thereafter, Bryn discouraged Ms. Olson-Lipinski from pursuing child support, and said he would change his residence to living full-time with Mr. Lipinski is she persisted in her claim. Ms. Olson-Lipinski suspects Mr. Lipinski was behind Bryn’s reaction, but Mr.

Lipinski denies it. [13] Hoping to preserve her relationship with Bryn, Ms. Olson-Lipinski relented in seeking child support for the time being. [14] [ 20 ] Ms. Olson-Lipinski resumed her quest for child support with a Notice to Attend Child Support Resolution Meeting filed January 17, 2018. She and Mr. Lipinski attended resolution meetings, without success, on January 29, 2018 and February 23, 2018. [15] [ 21 ] Mr. Lipinski deposes that from January 2016 to the present, he made it clear to Ms.

Olson-Lipinski that he would require information about Zachary’s finances to respond to her claim for child support, but she refused to provide that information until the summer of 2018. [16] [ 22 ] I conclude that Ms. Olson-Lipinski proceeded reasonably promptly in the circumstances. In particular, without attributing it to Mr. Lipinski’s influence, Bryn’s reaction in 2016 to a child support application was a relevant factor for Ms. Olson-Lipinski to consider. 4.2 Conduct of the payor parent [ 23 ] Ms. Olson-Lipinski argues that Mr.

Lipinski has engaged in blameworthy conduct consisting of: [17] • failing to pay child support for Zachary for four years, which has led to Zachary having reduced savings and Ms. Olson-Lipinski having more debt; • coaching Bryn to lash out; and • questioning Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s deductions from income for repairs and maintenance on a rental property. [ 24 ] Mr. Lipinski’s failure to pay child support for Zachary was reasonable in the circumstances, where the parties had agreed in Minutes of Settlement that no child support would be payable, and where Mr. Lipinski had responded to Ms.

Olson-Lipinski’s request for support for Zachary, with a request for details of Zachary’s financial situation. Ms. Olson-Lipinski did not provide details of Zachary’s finances until the summer of 2018. [ 25 ] The evidence before me does not establish any coaching of Bryn by Mr. Lipinski.

[ 26 ] As discussed below, the appropriateness of large repair and maintenance deductions by Ms. Olson-Lipinski is relevant to this application. [ 27 ] Mr. Lipinski has not engaged in any blameworthy conduct. 4.3 Circumstances of the child 4.3.1 Residence [ 28 ] Zachary started living with Ms. Olson-Lipinski full-time on March 14 or 28, 2014. [18] Prior to that he had been living with each parent 50/50, as contemplated by the 2003 Minutes of Settlement. The Divorce Judgment reserved child support, so Ms.

Olson- Lipinski’s application is not a variation which would require a change in circumstances, as set out in s 17(4) of the Divorce Act . However, if a change in circumstances were required, I would find the change in residence on March 14, 2014 was a change in circumstances. [ 29 ] In 2015, 2016 and 2017, Zachary lived in Esquimalt, B.C., from the end of April to the middle of August each year. At the end of April 2018, he left Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s home and moved to Esquimalt, except for the period July 6 – 15, 2018, when he returned to Ms.

Olson-Lipinski’s home. [19] While in Esquimalt, Zachary’s room and board were and are provided by his employer, the Canadian Armed Forces; however, Zachary has missed some of the provided meals and purchased his own instead. [20] 4.3.2 Assets and income available to Zachary [ 30 ] Zachary earned a total of $57,246 in the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, and paid his own transportation, entertainment, clothing and personal expenses totaling $39,476 in that period.

He was also able to save $8,460. [21] [ 31 ] Zachary was entitled to $2,000 per year for a maximum of four years from his employer, the Canadian Armed Forces to go toward post-secondary education. He did not draw on this for his Business degree, so he may be able to do so for his law degree, if he pursues that. [22] 4.3.3 Bryn’s circumstances [ 32 ] Bryn graduated high school in June 2016 and worked for a year before enrolling in NAIT in September 2017, with an expected graduation in April 2019. Mr. Lipinski has paid $7,685 from the RESP which he controls for Bryn’s education costs. [23] Mr.

Lipinski argues that the parties’ support of Bryn is relevant to retroactive support for Zachary. I agree. Although he worked for a year after high school, Bryn is enrolled full-time in post-education, and still lives with his parents, on a 50/50 basis. For the same reasons that Zachary continued to be a child of the marriage until he graduated in April 2018, Bryn continues to be a child of the marriage, and will be until his graduation in April 2019, if not longer. 4.3.4 Zachary’s relationship with Mr. Lipinski [ 33 ] Ms. Olson-Lipinski deposes that Zachary has maintained a good relationship with Mr.

Lipinski, since 2014, attending family events, dinners out, concerts and other activities together. [24] Mr. Lipinski deposes that Zachary has chosen to distance himself from his father, from March 2014 to the present, with only eight in person contacts in four and a half years. [25] The evidence does not establish that Zachary has completely withdrawn from Mr. Lipinski. Consequently, I do not reduce or disallow child support on that basis. 4.3.5 Zachary’s present situation [ 34 ] Zachary is 21 years old.

He has a bachelor’s degree, a job with the Canadian Armed Forces, no debt and a small balance in his bank account. He also has access to $2,000 per year for four years of additional post-secondary education. He is well off compared to many young Canadians. He does not require a retroactive child support award, personally. 4.4 Hardship occasioned by a retroactive award [ 35 ] Mr.

Lipinski does not argue that a retroactive award against him would cause him any hardship, and there is no evidence on that point before me, other than the fact he has a reduced income because he is retired. 4.5 Conclusion regarding retroactive child support [ 36 ] After Zachary moved to full time residence with his mother in March 2018, the child support provided by the parents became unequal. Both children remained in their parents’ homes and partially dependent on them for support for several years thereafter. Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s delay in filing her application is understandable in the circumstances. Mr.

Lipinski will not suffer any hardship from a retroactive award. I find such an award is warranted in these circumstances. 5. Incomes [ 37 ] Ms. Olson-Lipinski submits that Mr. Lipinski’s income for 2017 and 2018 should be set at $118,115 based on her calculation of what he would have earned had he not retired in October 2017. [26] She observes that Mr. Lipinski chose to retire while he still had child support obligations. She cites C(

N) v C(U) , a case in which a father who retired in his early sixties was found to have been

intentionally unemployed. [27] That was a decision following a trial in which both parties testified. The reasons refer to internal inconsistencies in the father’s testimony as well as weaknesses in the medical evidence. Unlike C(

N) v C(U) , the case before me was heard by way of special chambers application. I heard no live testimony. The evidence consisted of affidavits and exhibits. [ 38 ] The test for intentional underemployment or unemployment is whether the parent pursued a deliberate course of conduct for the purpose of evading his or her child support obligations. [28] Mr.

Lipinski deposes that he retired after working full-time for 32 years, that he did not retire to avoid paying child support, and that he does not intend to return to work after this claim is resolved. [29] There is no contrary evidence before me and the circumstances do not lead to an inference that Mr. Lipinski retired to avoid his child support obligations. I find that Mr. Lipinski did not retire for the purposes of avoiding child support. I impute no additional income to him. [ 39 ] Mr. Lipinski submits that Ms.

Olson-Lipinski’s income for 2016 and 2017 should be adjusted because of the large unexplained deductions for maintenance and repairs on a rental property. [30] Ms.

Olson-Lipinski reported the following amounts on her tax returns with respect to the rental property: [31] 2014 2015 2016 2017 rent $13,200.00 $13,200.00 $13,200.00 $13,200.00 insurance not disclosed -$1,712.50 -$1,848.86 -$1,847.11 interest and bank charges not disclosed -$1,397.07 -$1,183.67 -$1,205.99 office expenses not disclosed -$229.26 -$88.12 -$83.94 repairs and maintenance not disclosed -$4,613.72 -$45,229.06 -$10,219.93 property taxes not disclosed -$2,802.06 -$3,080.44 -$3,084.71 net income $2,454.52 $2,445.39 -$38,230.15 -$3,241.68 [ 40 ] Mr.

Lipinski filed written interrogatories which asked questions about the repairs and maintenance expenses. Ms. Olson- Lipinski’s reply was: This is deemed not relevant. Matrimonial property is already divided. How I manage my prop erty is not relevant to a child support application. [ 41 ] In my view, details regarding the repairs and maintenance expenses for Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s rental property are relevant, because they reduced Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s line 150 income, which is relevant to child support.

The large repairs and maintenance expense in 2016 could be a capital expense, such as a new roof, which should properly be amortized and deducted over the life of the capital improvement, rather than deducted in a single year. Given Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s refusal to provide the information necessary to determine whether the repairs and maintenance expenses were correctly deducted in 2016 and 2017, I deem her net income from the rental property in those years to be $2,450, based on what she reported in 2014 and 2015. [ 42 ] With the adjustment to the rental income, the parties’ incomes were as follows: Year Ms.

Olson-Lipinski [32] Mr. Lipinski [33] 2014 $98,964 $104,905 2015 $100,312 $102,653 2016 $102,093 $102,085 2017 $112,563 $99,101 2018 $106,976 $55,119

Section 3 child support [ 43 ] Up to 2018, the parties’ incomes were close to the same. Their agreement in their Minutes of Settlement that no child support be paid for children in 50/50 shared parenting was reasonable and should be enforced. Adjustments are appropriate: with respect to Zachary, starting April 1, 2014, because from that date he resided full-time with Ms. Olson-Lipinski; and with respect to both Zachary and Bryn, starting January 1, 2018, because for 2018 and subsequent years there is a disparity in the parties’ incomes. [ 44 ] Mr.

Lipinski argues that the table amounts should not be used to calculate child support because the children are over the age of majority, and that consideration should be given to the “condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child”, pursuant s 3(2) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Mr. Lipinski does not suggest what different amount would be appropriate, other than zero. [ 45 ] I find that the table amounts are appropriate, because during the periods for which support is being awarded, the children were living with their parents.

An adjustment should be made to account for the four months each year when Zachary was living in Esquimalt. In addition, Zachary’s contribution to his own expenses will be recognized through deductions based on RESP withdrawals, addressed later in these reasons. 6.1 April 1, 2014 – December 31, 2017 [ 46 ] Mr. Lipinski is responsible for s 3 child support for Zachary starting April 1, 2014. However, because the parties were also supporting Bryn, the appropriate amount of child support for Zachary is the incremental amount for a second child.

Also, because Zachary had his room and board provided by the Canadian Armed Forces for four months each summer from 2015 to 2017, Ms. Olson- Lipinski’s child support burden was lessened during those months, though not completely eliminated. I estimate the reduced support burden on Ms. Olson-Lipinski resulting from the room and board provided by the Canadian Armed Forces for four months to be

equivalent to two months of child support. Using the table amounts, I calculate retroactive child support to be: Lipinski’s income 2 children support 1 child support Differential Months Support for year to Olson- Lipinski 2014 $104,905 $1,490 $911 $579 9 $5,211 2015 $102,653 $1,459 $891 $568 10 $5,680 2016 $102,085 $1,451 $886 $565 10 $5,650 2017 $99,101 $1,409 $860 $549 10 $5,490 $22,031 6.2 January 1, 2018 – April 30, 2018 [ 47 ] Because of Mr. Lipinski’s reduced income, child support should be calculated for both children starting January 1, 2018.

My calculations for January 1 – April 30, 2018 are as follows: Olson- Lipinski’s income 1 child support Lipinski’s income 2 children support Difference Months Jan 1 – Apr 30, 2018 support to Lipinski $106,976 $930 $55,119 $779 $151 4 $604 6.3 May 1, 2018 – April 30, 2019 [ 48 ] With just one child of the marriage, Bryn, in 50/50 shared parenting, my calculations are: Olson- Lipinski’s income 1 child support Lipinski’s income 1 child support Difference Months May 1, 2018 – Apr 30, 2019 support to Lipinski $106,976 $930 $55,119 $454 $476 12 $5,712 [ 49 ] With Bryn due to complete his NAIT program in April 2019, it is reasonably certain that he will remain a child of the marriage until then.

He may continue to be a child of that marriage beyond that date. If so, then child support may continue to be payable, in a net amount from Ms. Olson-Lipinski to Mr. Lipinski. 6.4 Balance owing as of April 30, 2019 [ 50 ] Mr. Lipinski owed Ms. Olson-Lipinski arrears of s 3 child support in the amount of $22,031 as of December 31, 2017. This was reduced to $21,427 as of April 30, 2018. Reductions will continue until April 30, 2019, when the net arrears will be $15,715 .

Section 7 child support [ 51 ] In their 2003 Minutes of Settlement, the parties agreed to “share equally in the costs of child care for both children as well as all agreed to extracurricular activities for the children”. Child care is not in issue on this application, but educational expenses, medical and dental expenses, and extracurricular expenses are. All but a few hundred dollars of those expenses were incurred before 2018. As the parties’ incomes were very close to the same up to 2018, it is equitable that they share all s 7 expenses equally, not just extracurricular activities. [ 52 ] Ms.

Olson-Lipinski claims $24,801 in post-secondary tuition and books, mostly for Zachary. She took more than that amount from her RESP. Mr. Lipinski claims to have paid $7,685 from his RESP towards Bryn’s post-secondary education. [34] The RESPs were contributed to equally by the parties. Consequently, neither party can claim now for post-secondary expenses, as they have been completely covered by the RESPs. The additional amounts withdrawn from the RESPs are discussed later in these reasons. [ 53 ] Mr.

Lipinski also claims for primary/secondary school expenses for course fees, bus passes and graduation, totaling $1,229. Ms. Olson-Lipinski argues that these are not extraordinary expenses, citing C(

N) v C(U) . [35] I agree. Mr. Lipinski is not entitled to a contribution to those expenses by Ms. Olson-Lipinski. [ 54 ] Ms. Olson-Lipinski claims $399 in medical and dental expenses and Mr. Lipinski claims $151. Neither party disputes those claims. Mr. Lipinski owes Ms. Olson-Lipinski $124 to equalize their medical and dental expenses. [ 55 ] Ms. Olson-Lipinski claims $7,878 in extracurricular expenses. Mr. Lipinski claims $402 in extracurricular expenses plus $2,400 towards a set of bagpipes purchased for Zachary in 2011, for a total of $2,802 claimed by Mr. Lipinski. [36] [ 56 ] Mr.

Lipinski states he did not agree to $900 of Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s extracurricular expense claim. [37] There is no evidence that any of the other extracurricular expenses were not agreed to. I conclude that everything except the $900 expense was agreed to and

consequently should be shared equally in accordance with the parties’ Minutes of Settlement and the Divorce Judgment. Ms. Olson- Lipinski’s accepted extracurricular expenses are $6,978 and Mr. Lipinski’s are $2,802. Mr. Lipinski owes Ms. Olson-Lipinski an equalization payment of $2,088 for extracurricular expenses. Going forward, the parties should confirm mutual agreement on any extracurricular expenses prior to incurring them. [ 57 ] Mr. Lipinski gave the children $6,000 through joint bank accounts he had with them. [38] There is no evidence that those funds were applied to basic s 3 support or s 7 expenses.

Therefore, I conclude the direct payments by Mr. Olson-Lipinski to his children through his joint bank accounts with them were gifts, which are irrelevant to this application. 8. Adjustments for RESP withdrawals [ 58 ] The parties set up RESPs and told the children about them. [39] They made equal contributions. [40] The parties split the RESPs in May 2015, with each parent assuming control of an RESP with a balance at that time of $25,999. [41] [ 59 ] Ms.

Olson-Lipinski withdrew funds from the RESP to pay for Zachary’s tuition and books. [42] She withdrew $10,387 from her RESP in 2016 and $16,263 in 2018, for a total of $26,650. She paid these funds to herself “to reimburse myself for past tuition, books and other expenses”. [43] Zachary’s tuition and book expenses for the period 2014 – 2018 total $24,551. [44] Therefore, it appears that Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s reimbursement from the RESP includes $2,099 of “other expenses”. [ 60 ] In addition to the payments to Ms.

Olson-Lipinski, payments were made from the RESPs to Zachary of $5,000 in 2014, $1,100 in 2015, and $5,188 in 2018, for a total of $11,288. [45] [ 61 ] According to Ms. Olson-Lipinski, Zachary contributed thousands of dollars per year to his own transportation, entertainment, clothing and personal expenses. [46] Those contributions would have reduced the child support burden on Ms. Olson-Lipinski. At least some of Zachary’s payments can be attributed to the funds he received from the RESP. [ 62 ] Ms. Olson-Lipinski’s claim for retroactive child support against Mr.

Lipinski should be reduced by the “other expenses” she received from the RESP, of $2,099, and the payments from the RESP to Zachary, of $11,288, for a total of $13,387 , because those funds contributed to Zachary’s support. 9. Child support if Zachary enrolls in law school [ 63 ] Ms. Olson-Lipinski deposes that Zachary “plans to study law in the future”. [47] Mr. Lipinski deposes that Bryn “has expressed interest in furthering his post-secondary studies after graduation from NAIT.” [48] There is no evidence before me directly from Zachary or Bryn.

It is possible that Zachary will resume being a child of the marriage in the future. It is possible that Bryn will continue to be a child of the marriage after April 2019. Those questions are hypothetical at this point. I decline to make any order in that regard. 10. Conclusion [ 64 ] Given that April 30, 2019 is within the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to calculate the net retroactive child support owing as of that date, as follows: Net s 3 arrears owing by Mr. Lipinski to Ms. Olson-Lipinski $15,715 Medical / dental equalization payment owing by Mr. Lipinski to Ms.

Olson-Lipinski $124 Extracurricular equalization payment owing by Mr. Lipinski to Ms. Olson-Lipinski $2,088 Reduction for RESP withdrawals not directed to tuition and books -$13,387 Net arrears as of April 30, 2019 $4,540 [ 65 ] Ms. Olson-Lipinski proposed payment in instalments over twelve months. [49] Given the amount owing, I make no direction in that regard. The parties are free to reach an agreement regarding payment in instalments, if they wish to. [ 66 ] If the parties are not able to agree on costs, they may be spoken to no later than February 28, 2019. Heard on the 19 th day of October, 2018.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 14 th day of December, 2018.

G.S. Dunlop J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Fauza Mohamed Brown Law Group for the Applicant (Plaintiff), Linda Olson-Lipinski Hans Derrick Lipinski for the Self-Represented Litigant