P.P. v. S.C. Date:, 2017 BCPC 379

Citation: P.P. v. S.C. Date: 20171106 2017 BCPC 379 File No: 3319 Registry: Burns Lake IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: P.P. APPLICANT AND: S.C. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.T. DOULIS Appearing on their own behalf: P. P. Appearing on their own behalf: S. C.

Place of Hearing: Burns Lake , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 25, 2017 Date of Judgment: November 6, 2017 Introduction [ 1 ] P.P. and S.C. have a court ordered shared parenting arrangement for their six year old son, N.P. [ 2 ] P.P. has been paying to S.C. $600 per month for N.P.’s support since 2012. P.P. has applied to the Court for a determination as to his child support obligations under the Child Support Guidelines. S.C. agrees with P.P.’s Application and although she has filed a Reply, she has not made any counterclaim.

Issues [ 3 ] The sole issue before the Court is the amount of child support P.P. is obligated to pay to S.C., if any. History of the Proceedings [ 4 ] On November 23, 2012, S.C. filed an Application to Obtain an Order for custody, guardianship, and parental maintenance. In her 2012 Application, S.C. indicated that P.P. was employed full-time as an electrician earning an annual income of $65,000. Based on this income, P.P. paid S.C. $600 per month for child support for N.P. [ 5 ] On May 20, 2014, P.P. and S.C. entered into a custody and parenting agreement in which they agreed, among other things:

a) they would share custody of N.P.;

b) N.P. would reside primarily with S.C. at her residence in Burns Lake, B.C.;

c) N.P. would reside with S.C. more than 60% of the time;

d) P.P. would have full and open access to N.P. on his days off from work;

e) P.P.’s parents, J.P. and A.P., would also have access to N.P.;

f) there was no limitation on how many days P.P. or S.C. could have parenting time with N.P.;

g) there was no limitation on how much contact time J.P. and A.P. could have with N.P.;

h) P.P. would pay S.C. $600 per month for N.P.’s support;

i) P.P. would pay N.P.’s day care costs for those times he took N.P. out of day care on his days off, plus half of the remaining balance of the monthly day care costs;

j) the parents would share equally the costs of N.P.’s agreed sports or other activities;

k) the parents would provide each other notice before taking N.P. on a vacation; and

l) the parents would not remove N.P. from Burns Lake for longer than two weeks at a time. [ 6 ] S.C. and P.P. agreed to follow the rules set out in in the Custody and Parenting Agreement to the best of their abilities until further notice or change in the living conditions, such as moving residences or change in financial income. [ 7 ] The Custody and Parental Agreement was filed with the Burns Lake Provincial Court Registry on October 20, 2014. [ 8 ] On February 18, 2015, S.C. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements to vary the March 20, 2014 Custody and Parental Agreement.

In her Application, S.C. stated that she wished to change P.P.’s access and visitation to three days per week. She also stated P.P. was seeking sole custody of N.P. [ 9 ] On March 5, 2015, P.P. filed a Reply to S.C.’s February 18, 2015 Application, in which he disagrees that he was seeking sole custody. He states: I am not asking for sole custody. I have only asked for what is currently in our agreement - that is . . .

I have my son on my days off (Monday - Thursday). [ 10 ] In his Reply, P.P. counterclaimed for a “50/50 arrangement” with respect to his access to N.P. [ 11 ] On March 24, 2015, S.C.’s February 18, 2015 Application and P.P.’s March 5, 2015 Reply and Counterclaim came before Judge Birnie sitting in the Burns Lake Provincial Court. S.C. attended on her own behalf and P.P. attended in person and represented by legal counsel, Michael Reed.

At that time, Judge Birnie adjourned the reciprocating Applications to the JCM on April 1, 2015, to fix a date for a Family Case Conference (“FCC”). [ 12 ] The FCC proceeded on May 26, 2015, before Judge Stewart. S.C. attended the FCC in person and with her legal counsel, Erin

Crocker. P.P. attended the FCC in person with his legal counsel, Charles Hutchinson. Judge Stewart made the following Interim Order, by consent:

a) S.C. and P.P. are both N.P.’s guardians;

b) S.C. and P.P. will share parenting time with N.P. on a two week alternating schedule;

c) S.C. and P.P. would pick up and drop off N.P. at S.C.’s place of employment;

d) Parenting time with N.P. for holidays and vacations were to be agreed between the parents;

e) Neither party would speak negatively about the other parent in N.P.’s presence nor allow anyone else in N.P.’s presence to speak negatively about the other parent; and

f) the matter was adjourned to the JCM to

schedule a further FCC no earlier than October 1, 2015. [ 13 ] A further FCC was scheduled for October 13, 2015, however, on October 5, 2015, S.C. asked that it be adjourned generally. Current Proceedings [ 14 ] On July 24, 2017, P.P. filed an Application to Obtain an Order for parenting time and a court determined amount of child support. P.P. indicates in his Application he was paying child support to S.C. in the amount of $600 per month. [ 15 ] On July 24, 2017, S.C. filed a Reply agreeing with P.P.’s Application.

She also agreed P.P. was paying her child support for N.P. in the amount of $600 per month. [ 16 ] On July 31, 2017, S.C. filed a Form 4 Financial Statement setting out her income, expenses, assets and debts. She also attached those income documents referred to on page 2 of the Form 4 Financial Statement. [ 17 ] On August 9, 2017, P.P. filed a Form 4 Financial Statement setting out his income and expenses, but not his assets or debts. P.P. also attached those income documents set out on page 2 of the Form 4 Financial Statement. [ 18 ] This matter came before Judge Jackson on August 16, 2017, for a FCC.

S.C. and P.P. were both self-represented. At that time, Judge Jackson made the following Orders by consent:

a) P.P. will have parenting time with N.P. on alternating weeks from and to Friday after school commencing August 18, 2017;

b) S.C. will have parenting time on alternative weeks from and to Friday after school commencing August 25, 2017; and

c) If there is a hearing, the parents will exchange any documents they have to the other two weeks before the hearing date. [ 19 ] The issue as to child support came before me for hearing in the Burns Lake Provincial Court on October 25, 2017. Both parents were self-represented. [ 20 ] At the hearing, P.P. provided S.C. and the Court with the following documents:

a) a T4E Statement of Employment Insurance and other Benefits indicating in 2016, T.A. received $22,095 in EI benefits; and

b) a T4 Statement of Remuneration indicating that in 2016, the [omitted for publishing] paid employment income to T.A. totalling $5,526.73. [ 21 ] At the hearing S.C. provided P.P. and the Court the Canada Revenue Agency’s Notice of Assessment to J.G. indicating J.G.’s income for 2016 totalled $87,738. Background Facts [ 22 ] P.P. and S.C. are the biological parents of N.P., born May 8, 2011. [ 23 ] P.P. is an electrician in the employ of [omitted for publishing]. He now works three days per week. [ 24 ] In 2016, P.P. earned an annual income of $106,435.

Upon the deduction of $959 in union dues, P.P. had a 2016 Guideline income of $105,476. He anticipates his 2017 income will be between $96,000 and $100,000. [ 25 ] In 2014, P.P. earned $77,188 and in 2015, he earned $138,383. [ 26 ] In his Form 4 Financial Statement, P.P. has not disclosed his debts or assets. [ 27 ] P.P.’s spouse is T.A. T.A. is an accountant and the mother of P.P.’s infant son. In 2016, T.A. worked for the [omitted for publishing] and earned $5,526.73. She also received $22,095 in Employment Insurance benefits. [ 28 ] T.A. has recently obtained part-time employment for [omitted for publishing].

She will be working on an on call basis so her income is unknown and unpredictable. [ 29 ] P.P. has a 19 month old son with T.A. and two step-daughters, who are 9 and 11 years old. P.P.’s household now consists of two adults and four children, including N.P.

[30] P.P. estimates his annual household expenses total $120,534, which includes lease payments of $20,280 for a 2015 Dodge oneton pickup. [31] P.P. and T.A.’s combined household income for 2016 totalled $134,056.73. [32] S.C. is 26 years old and resides with her new partner, J.G. S.C. and J.G. have a 15 month old daughter, A. [33] S.C. is a hair stylist.

She is intending to return to work in the near future; however, she has just lost her day care spot and is in abit of a quandary with respect to child care for A. [34] In her Form 4 Financial Statement, S.C. states her income in 2016 from all sources totalled $22,326.24. This income includedemployment income of $11,352.25, Employment Insurance benefits of $7,800 and RESP income of $3,173.99. [35] S.C.’s income in 2015 was $31,599; and in 2014, it was $29,183. This income includes the Universal Child Care Benefit. [36] S.C. says that before A. was born, she worked four days per week.

She says she rarely earns more than $1,200 to $1,300 permonth from her position as a hair stylist. She keeps 50% of her commissions, on which she must pay income tax. [37] J.G.’s annual income for 2016 was $87,738. S.C.’s and J.G.’s total household income in 2016 from all sources totalled$110,064.24. [38] S.C. estimates her annual expenses to be $33,516.60. [39] S.C. states her only asset is a 2014 Dodge Journey which she values at $21,110. S.C. has debts of $11,544, which includes hervehicle loan.

Legal Framework [40] The Family Law Act (“FLA”) imposes a duty on every parent to pay child support providing that the child: (

a) is a minor and nota spouse (FLA, s. 147(1)(a)); or, (

b) has attained the age of majority but is unable to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents (FLA,s. 146). Each parent of a child has a duty to provide support for the child and may be required to pay child support (FLA, ss. 147(1),149(1)). [41] The amount of child support must be determined in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines (s. 150(1)). Pursuant to theFLA and

Part 4 of the Family Law Act Regulation, BC Reg 347/2012, the Child Support Guidelines means the Federal Child SupportGuidelines (the “Guidelines”) established under s. 26.1 of the Divorce Act (Canada). The Guidelines set out the rules and tables used todetermine child support when parents are separated or divorced. [42] The purpose of the Guidelines is to: (

a) establish a fair standard of support for children so that they continue to benefit fromboth parents’ incomes after the separation or divorce; (

b) reduce conflict and tension between parents by making the calculation of childsupport more objective; (

c) ensure that parents and children in similar situations are treated the same; and (

d) make the legal processmore efficient and encourage settlements by giving courts and parents guidance about child support. (See Guidelines, s. 1 (

a) to (

d) andKowalewich v. Kowalewich, 2001 BCCA 450 , at para. 42). [43] Because P.P. and S.C. have a shared parenting arrangement for N.P., the question of prospective child support engages theanalytical framework set out in s. 9 of the Guidelines, which states: 9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over thecourse of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account (

a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses; (

b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and (

c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought. [44]

Section 9 is not a simple mathematical calculation based on a payor’s Guideline income as in s. 3. The court must also take intoconsideration and weigh all the enumerated factors to determine an appropriate amount of child support. In Contino v. Leonelli-Contino,2005 SCC 63 Justice Bastarache, said in para. 3: Shared custody arrangements are not a simple variation of the general regime; they constitute by themselves a complete system. [45] There is no presumption the amount of child support will change once the 40 percent threshold is met (para. 31).

Parents have ajoint financial obligation to support a child in accordance with their relative abilities (para. 32). Courts have the discretion to determinechild support in an amount that acknowledges the overall circumstances of the parents and the needs of the child. Application of the Setoff Formula [46] In shared parenting arrangements, the court begins its analysis with the application of a simple setoff formula. The courtdetermines the amount of child support each parent would pay to the other parent if the other parent had 60 percent or more parentingtime with the child and offsets the difference.

What are the Parents’ Guideline Incomes? [47] As a general rule, a parent’s income for the purposes of calculating child support is derived from the sources of income used to

calculate that parent’s “total income” on Line 150 of his or her T1 Income Tax and Benefit Return or the CRA’s Notice of Assessment ormost recent Notice of Reassessment (Guidelines, s. 16). In some cases, the court must look beyond Line 150 of the Return, Notice ofAssessment or Reassessment. For parents whose income fluctuates or who are self-employed, the calculation of their gross income is notas simple as it is for wage earners. They have business expenses that must be offset against the gross income. The judge must determinewhat their gross income would be if they were employed for wages. (Guidelines,

Section 16) [48] Section 17(1) of the Guidelines provides the courts with discretion to adjust income where fairness dictates. It states as follows: If the court is of the opinion that the determination of a spouse’s annual income under s.16 would not be the fairest determination of thatincome, the court may have regard to the spouse’s income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable inlight of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years. [49] In Marquez v.

Zapilola, 2013 BCCA 433 , the Court of Appeal held at paragraph 53, that the test for the applicationof s. 17(1) of the Guidelines is what is “fair and reasonable”. (See Harras v. Lhotka, 2016 BCCA 246 para. 22 wherein thecourt applied a five year average where the payor’s income was fairly described as fluctuating). [50]

Section 17 is often engaged where the spouse’s income includes monies received from a deregistered Registered RetirementSavings Plans. Under s. 16 of the Guidelines, RRSP income is presumptively part of a spouse’s income for child support purposes sinceit is included as part of “total income” on the T1 General and it is not listed as an exemption in

Schedule III of the Guidelines. Thespouse seeking to exclude the RRSP amount bears the burden of demonstrating that treating his or her RRSP withdrawal as incomewould not lead to the fairest determination of income: McKenzie v. Perestrelo, 2014 BCCA 161 at para. 82 citing Fraser v.Fraser, 2013 ONCA 715 . [51] In McKenzie v.

Perestrelo, Madam Justice Kirkpatrick, for the appellate court stated at para. 83: [83] Thus it seems clear from the jurisprudence that there is a presumption that RRSP withdrawals should be included in income for thepurpose of calculating child support and, depending on the decision with respect to the division of that asset, in the calculation of spousalsupport.

The presumption may be displaced by an array of circumstances. [52] Where a payor parent withdraws money from an RRSP the court may determine it a non-recurring amount that should not countas income to determine child support. [53] Although a parent must report UCCB payments as income for tax purposes, it is treated differently for child support purposes.

Schedule III states: 3 To calculate income for the purpose of determining an amount under an applicable table, deduct (

a) the spousal support received from the other spouse; and (

b) any universal child care benefit that is included to determine the spouse’s total income in the T1 General form issued by theCanada Revenue Agency. [54]

Section 19 of the Guidelines provides the court with a broad discretion to impute income to a spouse unencumbered with therestrictions set out in ss. 16, 17 and 18: Oulette v. Oulette, 2012 BCCA 145 at para. 66. P.P.’s Guideline Income [55] P.P.’s total employment income for 2016 as set out in his 2016 Income Tax Assessment is $106,435. From this sum he isentitled to deduct $959 in union dues: Guidelines,

Schedule III, s. 1(g). P.P.’s Guideline income based on his 2016 annual employmentincome less union dues is $105,476. [56] P.P.’s annual income fluctuated from a low of $77,186 in 2014 to a high of $138,383 in 2015, back down to $106,435 in 2016. He projects his 2017 income to be between $96,000 and $100,000. S.C.’s Guideline Income [57] S.C.’s Notice of Assessment indicates her total 2016 income as $23,285. This income came from the following sources:

a) employment income in the amount of $11,352.25;

b) Employment Insurance benefits in the amount of $7,800;

c) UCCB of $980; and

d) RRSP income of $3,173.99. [58] From the $23,285 total income, S.C. is entitled to deduct the $960 UCCB benefit, reducing her Guideline income to $22,325. S.C. has not asked the Court to deduct the $3,173.99 RRSP income nor has she offered an explanation as to why she deregistered theRRSP. [59] In 2015, S.C.’s income consisted of:

a) income from her employment with the [omitted for publishing] in the mount of $22,740.27;

b) income in the amount $6,919.25 from [omitted for publishing]; and UCCB of $1,920.

[ 60 ] S.C.’s 2015 Notice of Assessment indicates her total income for 2015 was $31,599. After deducting the UCCB of $1,920, S.C.’s 2015 Guideline income is $29,679. [ 61 ] S.C.’s 2014 Notice of Assessment indicates her total income for 2014 was $29,183. After deducing the UCCB of $1,200, S.C.’s 2014 Guideline income is $27,983.

S.C.’s returns indicated her employment income was received from [omitted for publishing]. [ 62 ] S.C.’s average Guideline income for 2014, 2015 and 2016 is $26,662: $22,325 + $29,679 + $27,983 = $79,987 ÷ 3 = $26,662.33 [ 63 ] S.C. says in 2017 she expects to earn between $1,200 and $1,300 per month, before tax, as a hair stylist. This means in the current year, S.C. anticipates earning between $14,400 to $15,600. It appears S.C.’s income has dropped dramatically since 2014 and 2015. She has not offered an explanation as to why this is the case.

What is the Setoff Amount of Child Support? [ 64 ] In accordance with step-one of the Supreme Court’s directive in Contino , I will offset P.P. and S.C.’s respective Guideline incomes for the review period. [ 65 ] Based on a Guideline Income of $105,476, P.P.’s child support payments would be $992.80 per month. Based on a Guideline income of $100,000, his child support would be $946 per month. Based on a Guideline income of $96,000, P.P.’s child support would be $912 per month. [ 66 ] Based on the three year averaged Guideline income of $26,662, S.C.’s child support payments would be $231.33 per month.

Based on an annual Guideline income of $15,600, S.C.’s child support payments would be $85.68 per month.

Based on an annual Guideline income of $14,400, S.C.’s child support payments would be $64.12 per month. [ 67 ] Applying the simple setoff formula, P.P. would pay to S.C. monthly child support for N.P. in the amount of: a) $761.47, if his Guideline income is $105,476 and S.C.’s Guideline income is $26,662; b) $714.67 if his Guideline income is $100,000 and S.C.’s Guideline income is $26,662; c) $680.67 if his Guideline income is $96,000 and S.C.’s Guideline income is $26,662; d) $907.12 if his Guideline income is $105,476 and S.C.’s Guideline income is $15,600; e) $860.32 if his Guideline income is $100,000 and S.C.’s Guideline income is $15,600; f) $826.32 his Guideline income is $96,000 and S.C.’s Guideline income is $15,600; g) $928.68 if his Guideline income is $105,476 and S.C.’s Guideline income is $14,400; h) $881.88 if his Guideline income is $100,000 and S.C.’s Guideline income is $14,400; and i) $847.88 if his Guideline income is $96,000 and S.C.’s Guideline income is $14,400; [ 68 ] In sum, P.P.’s child support obligations for N.P. using a simple setoff formula range from a low of $680.67 to a high of $928.68, depending on the parents’ respective Guideline incomes. [ 69 ] As the Supreme Court has stated in Contino , the setoff calculation is the beginning, not the end of the inquiry.

What are the increased costs of shared parenting arrangements? [ 70 ] There is no specific evidence before the Court as to the increased costs P.P. experienced as a result of the shared parenting arrangements. I cannot notionally create a budget for N.P. or guess at the increased cost of the shared parenting arrangement. I accept that consumables such as food, gas and utilities may vary, but fixed costs may not.

In Contino , Bastarche J. for the Supreme Court noted (at para. 54) that not every dollar spent by a parent exercising access over the 40 percent threshold results in a dollar saved by the recipient parent.

It is possible to presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the recipient parent’s fixed costs have remained unchanged and that his or her variable costs have been reduced only modestly by the increased access irrespective of the residential arrangement. [ 71 ] The Supreme Court in Contino (at paras. 56-57 ) has cautioned judges against making common sense assumptions about costs incurred by the payor parent. What other conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent and N.P.? [ 72 ] At hearing, I have received scant information on the factors set out in s. 9(

c) of the Child Support Guidelines . P.P.’s conditions, means, needs and other circumstances [ 73 ] P.P. is an engineer who works three days per week and earns between $96,000 to $106,000 per annum. He has a new partner, T.A., who is an accountant. P.P. and T.A. have four young children to support, including N.P. T.A. also works part-time, although her income for 2017 is uncertain.

[ 74 ] From the parents’ respective Financial Statements it is apparent that P.P.’s income and expenses are more than triple those of S.C.’s. [ 75 ] P.P.’s $120,534 in annual expenses include:

a) compulsory deductions from his employment income, such as Income Tax, CPP and EI contributions totalling $27,500;

b) housing costs such as mortgage payments, property taxes, home owners insurance, house repairs and maintenance totalling $22,364;

c) Utilities, such as heat, electricity, telephone and cable television totalling $9,860;

d) household expenses, including food, supplies and meals outside the home; totalling $16,000;

e) transportation expenses, including oil and gas, car insurance, repairs, maintenance and lease payments totalling $33,580, of which $20,280 are lease payments;

f) personal expenses such as clothing, grooming, life insurance, alcohol and gifts totalling $2,950;

g) child related expenses including third party child care, clothing, hair care, school fees, entertainment, activities, lessons and gifts totalling $5,700; and

h) other expenses such as vacations and pet care totalling $2,580. [ 76 ] P.P.’s annual expenses do not include:

a) health related expenses, such as insurance premiums, drugs, dental insurance or dental care;

b) savings for the future, such as RRSPs or RESPs;

c) support payments to others; or

d) debt payments. [ 77 ] As P.P.’s annual income is $15,000 or so less than his expenses and he admits to no debt payments, I gather T.A. also contributes to the household expenses. [ 78 ] It appears the annual expenses P.P. has set out in his Financial Statement are the expenses for his entire household. [ 79 ] There is no suggestion that P.P. or any member of his household has any mental or physical disabilities.

I have no information as to why P.P. works only three days per week and whether he has the ability and opportunity to work more and increase his income. [ 80 ] It is clear that P.P. and T.A. are both trained professionals who capable of earning a professional wage. S.C.’s conditions, means, needs and other circumstances [ 81 ] S.C. is a hair stylist who works three to four days per week.

She says she expects to earn between $1,200 to $1,300 per month; however, her Income Tax Returns for the past three years suggest that historically she has earned far more. [ 82 ] S.C. lives with her spouse, J.G., who earns $87,738. As S.C. now has a 15 month daughter, she needs to arrange day care before she can return to work. [ 83 ] S.C. also receives $600 per month from P.P. for N.P.’s support. [ 84 ] S.C. Financial Statement indicates she has $33,516.60 in annual expenses which include:

a) utilities, such as cellular telephone, cable television and internet totalling $5,420;

b) household expenses, including food, supplies and meals outside the home; totalling $9,300;

c) transportation expenses, including oil and gas, car insurance, repairs, maintenance and car loan payments totalling $12,861.60, of which $6,744.40 is her car loan payment;

d) personal expenses for clothing totalling $500;

e) child related expenses including third party child care, school fees and supplies, totalling $635; and

f) debt payments on her credit card and personal line of credit totalling $4,800. [ 85 ] S.C.’s Financial Statement indicates she has no annual expense with respect to the following expenses:

a) compulsory deductions from her employment income, such as Income Tax, CPP and EI contributions or registered pension plan;

b) housing costs such as mortgage payments, property taxes, municipal utilities fees, strata fees, home owners insurance, house repairs, and maintenance;

c) health related expense, such as insurance premiums, drugs, dental insurance or dental care;

d) savings for the future, such as RRSPs or RESPs;

e) support payments to others; or

f) other expenses such as vacations and pet care. [ 86 ] As S.C.’s annual income is less than her expenses and she admits to no housing, or health care expenses, I assume her living expenses are significantly subsidized by J.G. [ 87 ] It appears the expenses S.C. has set out in her Financial Statement are not those of her entire household. [ 88 ] There has been no suggestion S.C. or any member of her household has any physical or mental disability.

N.P. ’s conditions, means, needs and other circumstances [ 89 ] N.P. is only six years old and presumably in full time attendance at an elementary school in Burns Lake, B.C. [ 90 ] P.P. pays to S.C. $600 per month for N.P.’s support. Neither party has indicated N.P. has any special or extraordinary expenses.

Conclusion [ 91 ] I find P.P. is obligated to pay child support to S.C. pursuant to s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines. [ 92 ] As to the amount of child support, I do not find the application of a simple setoff formula is appropriate in the circumstances. [ 93 ] I have insufficient information to properly assess the factors under s. 9(

b) and (

c) of the Guidelines . Specifically, I do not know the increased costs of the shared parenting arrangements and I have but the faintest thumbnail sketch as to P.P., S.C. and N.P.’s conditions, means, needs and other circumstances. [ 94 ] In the absence of more information, I make the following Interim Orders:

a) P.P. will pay S.C. $700 per month for the support of N.P., commencing December 1, 2017, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter as long as N.P. is eligible for support under the Family Law Act or by further order of this court;

b) P.P. and S.C. may vary the terms of this Order by agreement provided they do so in writing;

c) For as long as N.P. is eligible to receive child support, P.P. and S.C. will exchange: (

a) copies of their respective Income Tax Returns for the previous year, including all attachments, not later than June 1 each year; and (

b) copies of any Notice of Assessment or Reassessment provided to them by Canada Revenue Agency, immediately upon receipt;

d) Either P.P. or S.C. can seek to vary this Order upon reasonable notice to the other and upon providing the Court and the other party with the following documentation and information:

i) an updated Form 4 Financial Statement which is complete as to the applicant’s current and household income, expenses, assets and debts and includes all attachments listed on page 2 of that Form; ii) financial documentation with respect the financial circumstances of the applicant’s spouse; iii) documentation corroborating any disputed expenses; iv) particulars of the applicant’s increased costs of the shared parenting arrangement;

v) particulars of the applicant’s conditions, means, needs and other circumstances; vi) particulars of N.P.’s conditions, means, needs and other circumstances.

e) If either party receives an application to vary this Order, the responding party must file in addition to a Reply:

i) an updated Form 4 Financial Statement which is complete as to the respondent’s current and household income, expenses, assets and debts and includes all attachments listed on page 2 of that Form; ii) financial documentation with respect the financial circumstances of the respondent’s spouse; iii) documentation corroborating any disputed expenses; iv) particulars of respondent’s increased costs of the shared parenting arrangement;

v) particulars of the respondent’s conditions, means, needs and other circumstances; and vi) particulars of N.P.’s conditions, means, needs and other circumstances. [ 95 ] P.P. and S.C.’s signature approving the form of this Order is dispensed with. [ 96 ] As the parties are self-represented, I direct the Burns Lake Court Registry to prepare the order.

“Judith Doulis” ______________________ J.T. Doulis Provincial Court Judge