S.A.H. v. B.L.C., 2018 BCPC 164

Citation: S.A.H. v. B.L.C. 2017 BCPC 447 Date: 20170619 File No: F70633 Registry: Nanaimo IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: S.A.H. APPLICANT AND: B.L.C. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE COWLING Appearing in person: S.A.H. Appearing in person: B.L.C.

Place of Hearing: Nanaimo , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 31, 2017 Date of Judgment: June 19, 2017 [ 1 ] S.A.H. is 44 and works as a HIAB operator for a building supply company. [ 2 ] B.L.C. is 38 and works in the food service industry. [ 3 ] The parties were in a common-law relationship of approximately 10 years duration. There are two children they are the natural parents of, namely, a son, J.C. age 9 and a daughter, H.C. who is almost 8. [ 4 ] B.L.C.’s son, D.C., will graduate from grade 12 in 2018 and is presently 18.

His father, J.B., has had no meaningful involvement in his life and D.C. would be considered the step-son of S.A.H. [ 5 ] Since the final separation of the parties on February 1, 2014, B.L.C. has had a fourth child, G.C., who is about 20 months of age. B.L.C. is not in a new relationship however. [ 6 ] S.A.H. has 2 other children from a previous relationship, T.H. (21) and K.H. (18). T.H. is self-supporting. K.H. lives with his mother and her partner. S.A.H. says he pays support of $400 per month for K.H.

He also says he contributes about a further $150 per month for K.H. for dietary issues related to a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease. No confirmation of these numbers has been provided. [ 7 ] The parties initially separated at the end of August, 2013, when B.L.C. moved unexpectedly back to the Nanaimo area from where the parties had been living and working in Brooks, Alberta. [ 8 ] She brought the children with her and rented the upper floor of her current residence.

On October 3, 2013, she filed an application for child support for all three children (see page two of that document) and other relief including “a peace bond”. In her 2013 application she stated “At this time I want sole custody and sole guardianship as I am afraid for myself and my kids.” [ 9 ] Later in October, S.A.H. left his position in Alberta and also returned to Nanaimo. B.L.C. permitted him to stay with her and the children. On February 1, 2014, S.A.H. moved out to his present rental accommodation without notice. Amongst other things he took with him the couch, loveseat and television.

B.L.C. says that when the children came home from school they thought they had been robbed. [ 10 ] S.A.H. has been seeing another lady for over a year who has two daughters ages 10 and 8. J.C. and H.C. have met and get along with these children and their mother.

S.A.H. says that he and this lady, B.P., may share accommodation in the future. [ 11 ] B.L.C. knows B.P. and thinks that her presence and that of her daughters would assist in making any parenting time that S.A.H. had with J.C. and H.C. more comfortable for the children. [ 12 ] B.L.C. says that a short time after S.A.H. moved out the basement, in her rental became available and she suggested he rent it but he declined.

She presently has concerns that her landlady may put their property up for sale and that finding suitable alternate accommodation will be difficult. [ 13 ] There was never any formal reply to B.L.C.’s application of October 3, 2013 and the parties lapsed into a sort of legal limbo until June 16, 2016 when S.A.H. filed an application seeking guardianship and parenting time relief with respect to J.C. and H.C. [ 14 ] B.L.C. filed a reply on October 3, 2016, seeking primary guardianship or at least controlling say over parental issues and both retroactive and ongoing child support for all three children.

Retroactive support was requested to February 1, 2014. [ 15 ] The parties appeared in family remand court where their issues were adjourned to a family case conference to be held on December 12, 2016. Both signed a scheduling slip to that effect. [ 16 ] S.A.H. did not attend on the 12 th . He said later he thought it was for the 14 th . No interim child support order was made at any time until March 3, 2017.

S.A.H. later successfully applied to suspend this order and a $1,000 penalty for failing to provide financial information on the basis he was not served with the summons for the March 3, 2017 attendance until March 6. Neither party has had the benefit of counsel other than some assistance from duty counsel. ISSUES [ 17 ] The substantive issues for this hearing concern child support, division of parental responsibilities and allocation of parenting time. [ 18 ] At an earlier stage of the proceedings a s.211 Views of the Children Report was ordered and this was completed by Jane Ward on March 6, 2017.

SUMMARY OF s.211 REPORT [ 19 ] The report was ordered on November 25, 2016 as to the views of the children regarding parenting time. The following points can be taken from the report: 1) “all three children are very fond of their little sister … .”

2) all three children “… really enjoy the occasions when their older half-siblings are present during parenting time.” 3) D.C. is a very well-adjusted youngster who has an excellent relationship with his mother. 4) D.C. has known S.A.H. since he was 3 “… and identifies him as his father.” 5) D.C. believes S.A.H. loves his children but has historically been “… less involved in day to day parenting.” 6) D.C. felt that S.A.H. “… tried to be a good parent, but he was not very caring.” He said it was hard for [him] to be consistent around activities. 7) D.C. feels that “… there are moments when [S.A.H.’s] anger is not okay” but that “his temper” has improved since the separation. 8) D.C. “…speculated that J may pull back from parenting time with their father because of his anger.” 9) D.C. said that “… his parents had loud arguments which may have gotten physical on one or two occasions.” 10) J.C. says he “manages well socially” but feels that “… he is not really good at sports.” 11) J.C. “… described his mother as enthusiastic, energetic, kind, caring, safety- conscious and a bit of a chore-giver.” 12) J.C. “described his father as fun, active and a bit cranky” - “… there are no chores at his father’s home …” - “… his father collects swords and stuff from the war.” 13) J.C. “… feels that his father is nicer since the separation … [there] is less yelling and no tears.

Also, there are no threats from the landlord about being kicked out.” 14) J.C. feels “… his father is not really set up for overnight visits.” J has declined to go for parenting time - “If he has been “yelly” then I just don’t go the next day.” He prefers parenting time when his father has an activity planned. 15) H.C. described her mother as “very nice and caring …” and “… always wants her to be safe.” 16) H.C. felt “that her mother never lets them do anything fun.” 17) H.C. appears to enjoy her time with her father and his girlfriend and says that “… her father used to be mean, but he is nicer and he does not yell now.” 18) H.C. says that “… when she is with her father she misses her mother and when she is with her mother she misses her father.” 19) H.C. thinks living one week with each parent as her friend does might be a good idea. [ 20 ] The

summary of the report suggests that all three children “have a strong emotional attachment to their mother” who has been their primary caregiver since the separation. D.C. would prefer to arrange his time with S.A.H. on his own terms. J.C. would agree to more parenting time including possibly sleep-overs subject to his father’s behaviour. H.C. expressed the greatest desire to see more of her father. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTIES : S.A.H. [ 21 ] His job as a HIAB operator/trucker is a union position. He has a history of secondary work doing security work, primarily for the a hotel in Nanaimo.

Some of this work would be what might be described as a “bouncer.” [ 22 ] S.A.H. indicated in his evidence that a full time “bouncer” in British Columbia would need to be certified or “ticketed”. Presumably an unticketed person such as S.A.H. can work on a temporary basis either under the supervision of a ticketed person or with the agreement of an employer who foregoes the requirement. [ 23 ] It would present that S.A.H. has enough experience to be able to get his ticket if he wanted to do so.

As a temporary security person it is suggested S.A.H. could earn in the area of $100 per night. [ 24 ] S.A.H. qualifies for a medical and dental plan through his union job. He has put J.C. and H.C. on his plan but not D.C. At the hearing I had him provide B.L.C. with some information as to the plan. He had not previously done this. [ 25 ] S.A.H. claims that he was not able to put D.C. on his plan.

It presents that S.A.H. has, to a certain extent adopted a course of action vis-à-vis D.C. to negate any claim by B.L.C. for support for D.C. and that not putting D.C. on his health plan was part of that strategy. [ 26 ] In his evidence, S.A.H. said he understood that if he had not provided any support for D.C. for “two years” then his obligation to D.C. expired.

This is incorrect in time terms but possibly explains why S.A.H. waited from February of 2014 until October of 2016 to apply for parenting time with his other children. [ 27 ] S.A.H. said that he was earning $70,000 a year at the time of the 2013 separation and that he “gave up a potential 6-figure income” to return to Nanaimo from Alberta.

[ 28 ] S.A.H. withdrew $19,508.17 from an RRSP in 2014 and says he used these funds to pay off family debts. The sum of $5,852.45 was held back from the total withdrawal for tax purposes.

There is no written information as to what debts were paid or as to what the ultimate tax incidence may have been. [ 29 ] He has provided evidence as to his income in the form of copies of T4 statements but not provided copies of his actual tax returns. [ 30 ] He indicates that apart from being older and less interested in security work he also spends more time with his son K.H. who plays hockey at a high level for his age. [ 31 ] The league K.H. plays in requires that at least one parent or guardian be present at any game in case there is a medical incident.

S.A.H. says that he often takes on this duty on behalf of his son. B.L.C. [ 32 ] B.L.C. had not been asked to file a financial statement but estimated her line 150 income to be $25,000. [ 33 ] She indicated that hers is a non-union job with no health plan.

This was a problem for her when D.C. suffered a broken leg. [ 34 ] She also indicated that her employer has provided D.C. with work at the restaurant as a part-time cook. [ 35 ] She says that she relies on D.C. and sharing with friends for child-care when she works. [ 36 ] She indicated that through FMEP she receives only intermittent cheques for sums such as $86 relating to D.C.’s biological father J.B. who is believed to be in Toronto. [ 37 ] She says that finances in her household are very tight such that she is presently unable to insure her car.

She says that she makes ends meet “… by being the mom who says “no”.” She gave an example of H.C. being disappointed with her when she could not take her to a movie as her father had. [ 38 ] She described S.A.H. as providing no regular support and only minimal irregular support for the children since the February 2014 separation. This included three $200 food gift cards with the last card being received about two years ago. OTHER MATTERS [ 39 ] S.A.H. said at the hearing that he had an envelope with receipts for things he had bought the children over the years.

He had not made copies or provided this information to B.L.C. in advance of the hearing. [ 40 ] I declined to receive the material in evidence. I accept the evidence of B.L.C. that his financial contribution has been minimal. [ 41 ] I am sure that he has bought some items of clothing for at least J.C. and H.C. and spent money on them for activities such as going to the pool, movies or eating out.

The s.211 report mentions going to the mall and shopping as one of their activities during his parenting time. [ 42 ] This presents as no more than what any parent might spend on their children during parenting time (in addition to a regular support payment) and/or S.A.H. acting as what is sometimes referred to as “the treat parent”. [ 43 ] I accept B.L.C.’s evidence that one of his suggestions to her in response to a query about financial assistance was that she should use food banks. [ 44 ] Consequently, S.A.H. has for over three years avoided paying any child support, spousal support, child-care and other extraordinary expenses, nor has he provided any significant indirect support for the children by being substantially involved in their care.

He has not offered any legitimate or plausible reason for this off-loading of his parental obligations onto B.L.C. LEGAL ISSUES [ 45 ] There are four areas of uncertainty and/or discretion that arise from the fact pattern herein. [ 46 ] They may be summarized as follows: 1) Appropriate application of the child support guidelines as between father and step-father (see for example H.(U.V.) v. H. (M.V.), 2008 BCCA 177 ; s.5 of the guidelines; Elliott v. Elliott , 2001 BCSC 472 ). 2) The extent to which retroactive child support is available to the mother (see cases such as McKenzie v.

Perestrelle, 2014 BCCA 161 ; deRooy v. Bergstrom, 2010 BCCA 5 ; Stuart v. Graham, 2013 BCSC 849 ). 3) Possible lack of complete financial disclosure by the applicant and to what extent his possible ability to earn income from a part-time second job should be taken into account. 4) Does the application of the mother for child support for the step-son, D.C., fail due to the passage of time (either s.1 of the Family Relations Act or s.147 (4) (

b) of the Family Law Act ). [ 47 ] I find as follows with respect to these issues: 1) The evidence and the comments in the s.211 report establish S.A.H. as a significant father figure and provider for D.C. It also

appears that the natural father is and has not been relevant to D.C.’s life and support. It appears that S.A.H. has withdrawn frominvolvement with D.C. because he hoped to avoid any financial responsibility for him by effluxion of time and also by way of preferencefor contact with his older children T.H. and K.H. Based on the facts of this case and the reasoning in the H. v. H. decision, I find S.A.H.to have an obligation to support D.C. to two thirds of the extent that would have been the case if D.C. were his natural child. 2) Having regard to comments such as paragraph 55 in the deRooy v.

Bergstrom decision which in turn relies on paragraph 101 ofthe reasons of Bastarache, J., in the DBS case as applied to the facts of this case I find that B.L.C. is entitled to retroactive support for thechildren to February 1, 2014.

a) I consider that the evidence of B.L.C. and the presentation of the parties during the hearing demonstrate that she, for a varietyof reasons, has difficulty being assertive with S.A.H. generally and as to financial matters in particular. Some of this may stem from herprior relationship with the father of D.C., some from the dynamics of her cohabitation with S.A.H., some from the fact that she was eitherpregnant or caring for a new-born child for the past approximate 29 months, and also from issues of physical and financial exhaustionbeing a single mother raising four children while working on a limited income with minimal assistance from others.

b) I find that she lacked the “financial or emotional means” to pursue her application as referenced in the DBS decision and others.

c) I also note that S.A.H. has conducted himself poorly in a number of ways including the manner of his moving out on February1, 2014 and the subsequent deprivation of the family of the benefit of shared living expenses but more particularly in not making anyreasonable effort to provide support for B.L.C. or her three children other than in token amounts while living in the same city andpresumably aware of their financial situation or wilfully blind thereto. Nor did S.A.H. provide any indirect support to B.L.C. by takingsteps to arrange to assist with their care by sharing parenting time in any meaningful way.

d) As a result, the children and in particular, B.L.C., have lived in very difficult circumstances, as has been alluded to earlier inthese reasons.

e) Finally, while the retroactive award will create a significant debt for S.A.H., he has a history of steady employment, he hasaccess to secondary work, his other children (T.H. and K.H.) are either no longer requiring support by him or shortly may not do so. B.L.C. is entitled to retroactive support and S.A.H. should not be permitted to avoid this obligation through his past conduct or byclaiming hardship.

The hardship has all fallen upon B.L.C. and her household and any “hardship” that S.A.H. may now face can be dealtwith by a reviewable payment schedule. 3) S.A.H. has been slow in providing financial disclosure and even what has been provided is deficient as he has selectivelyprovided his T4 statements and not his actual tax returns. The order of November 25, 2016, made in his presence, required him to do thisby January 15, 2017. No meaningful disclosure was made until April of 2017.

a) B.L.C. is suspicious that he has undisclosed income from his ability to work as a bouncer or in providing event security.

b) There is possible merit to her concerns but for the purpose of this hearing I am prepared to proceed on the basis of the knownearnings from his primary occupation. To a certain extent so long as S.A.H. maintains full-time employment consistent with hisbackground and abilities that income presents as sufficient for guideline purposes.

If he chooses to earn some modest extra income fromthe use of what would be leisure time for another parent that should not necessarily increase his guideline obligation but it could beconsidered as a factor in regard to his ability to pay arrears of maintenance. 4) I consider that B.L.C. established her claim for child support for D.C. by the filing of her application of October 3, 2013.

a) I do not consider that because there was a moving in together and/or reconciliation effort of less than one year durationsubsequent to that filing that this requires her to refile her claim to reserve D.C.’s right to support from S.A.H.

b) I have taken the overall circumstances of the case into account in suspending S.A.H.’s obligations as a step-parent to D.C.effective January 31, 2016.

c) I also note, although it is of no direct relevance to my order herein, that by operation of law, S.A.H. would appear to have aclaim over as against the natural father, J.B., for any monies actually paid by him for D.C.’s support pursuant to this order. [48] I consider that the comments of Madame Justice Martinson in the Earle v. Earle decision (BC SC), [1999]BCJ 383, New West. Reg. A881580) while directed to the issue of cancellation of arrears are also relevant to certain aspects of aretroactive maintenance application and are pertinent to what has happened in this case.

In particular, I make reference to the followingpassage from paragraph 46 of that judgment: a. Arrears will only be cancelled if the person is unable to pay now and will be unable to pay in the future. b. A reduction or a cancellation requires detailed and full financial disclosure, under oath (usually in the form of an affidavit) that at thetime the payments were to be made: i. the change was significant and long lasting and ii. the change was real and not one of choice and iii. every effort was made to earn money (or more money) during the time in question, and those efforts were not successful. c.

Responsibility for a second family cannot relieve the parent of his or her legal obligation to support the first family. d. Delay in enforcement is generally not a legal basis to cancel or reduce child support arrears.

e. Judges will not cancel arrears because the other party gets a lot of money at once. Otherwise, people would be encouraged to not pay maintenance and rewarded for not paying maintenance. f. Judges will not cancel arrears because the children were looked after in spite of the non-payment. g. Nor will judges cancel arrears because the children no longer need the money. The children should be compensated for what they missed. h. An agreement between parents that the maintenance for the children does not have to be paid will not be considered. i.

Lack of access between a parent and child is not a legal reason to reduce or cancel arrears. j. Judges will not reduce or cancel arrears because other money has been spent to buy things for the children. k. The fact that a person did not have legal advice when the order was made or during the time when the arrears added up, is not, by itself, a reason to reduce or cancel arrears. PARENTING TIME ISSUES [ 49 ] In his application S.A.H. requests the following: I am asking for guardianship, parenting time and contact with J.C. and H.C. I am also asking for allocation of parental responsibilities.

As noted earlier he also requested a s.211 Views of the Children report. [ 50 ] In her reply B.L.C. agreed with the request for guardianship and parenting time and for the s.211 report. She asked to remain the “primary care-giving parent with the majority of parenting time.” She was not in favour of S.A.H. having over-night parenting time. She requested “final decision making authority” for the children.

She requested on-going child support for H.C., J.C. and D.C. and also retroactive support for all three from February 1, 2014 and special expenses. [ 51 ] Based on the material in the s.211 report but more importantly based upon the evidence of the parties and their presentation in Court, I find as follows:

a) B.L.C. is the parent to whom the children are most attached;

b) B.L.C. is the more consistent and effective parent;

c) the children wish to spend time with S.A.H. but it presents that such time is more positive for them when associated with some sort of shared activity (i.e. swimming) and not for extended periods of time;

d) S.A.H. appears to have given more priority to time with his older son, K.H., than his younger children. This may possibly be due to re-establishing contact since his return from Alberta or to an interest in his son’s sports activities; it could also just be that his emotional and financial relationship with the mother of K.H. presents as less complicated than his situation with B.L.C.;

e) H.C.’s interest in the week-on, week-off type of arrangement used by her friend does not present as something that is advisable or practical at least until she is somewhat older;

f) B.L.C. is by nature very protective of her children and in the past has had reason to be apprehensive of S.A.H.’s behaviour towards her and this has likely affected how she feels he may behave towards the children;

g) B.L.C. has not actively obstructed S.A.H. having time with the children but it may have been best not to have given J.C. the option of not visiting his father;

h) S.A.H. is the person primarily responsible for the less-than-normal amount of time he has spent with J.C. and H.C. since February of 2014;

i) S.A.H. had originally planned to remain in Alberta and maintain his more lucrative employment there but then decided to return to the Nanaimo area where he has earned less;

j) it is necessary to keep in mind that D.C., J.C. and H.C. are historically close to each other and that they are also now in the process of developing a strong bond with their half-sister G.C.; and

k) S.A.H. purports only to have an interest in seeing J.C. and H.C. Law as to Parenting Time/Contact: Family Law Act , SBC 2011, c.25 Best interests of child 37

(1) In making an agreement or order under this Part respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, the parties and the court must consider the best interests of the child only.

(2) To determine what is in the best interests of a child, all of the child's needs and circumstances must be considered, including the following:

(

a) the child's health and emotional well-being; (

b) the child's views, unless it would be inappropriate to consider them; (

c) the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child's life; (

d) the history of the child's care; (

e) the child's need for stability, given the child's age and stage of development; (

f) the ability of each person who is a guardian or seeks guardianship of the child, or who has or seeks parental responsibilities, parenting time or contact with the child, to exercise his or her responsibilities; (

g) the impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member; (

h) whether the actions of a person responsible for family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the child and meet the child's needs; (

i) the appropriateness of an arrangement that would require the child's guardians to cooperate on issues affecting the child, including whether requiring cooperation would increase any risks to the safety, security or well-being of the child or other family members; (

j) any civil or criminal proceeding relevant to the child's safety, security or well-being.

(3) An agreement or order is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects, to the greatest extent possible, the child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well-being.

(4) In making an order under this Part, a court may consider a person's conduct only if it substantially affects a factor set out in subsection (2), and only to the extent that it affects that factor. DECISION [ 52 ] I consider that as noted in the s.211 report there is no need for a formal order as to parenting time as between D.C. and S.A.H.

D.C. presents as fully capable as opting in and out of visits with S.A.H. basically as he pleases and he and S.A.H. might mutually arrange. [ 53 ] Both D.C. and S.A.H. should consider that the presence of D.C. can be of benefit to J.C. and H.C. during visits. [ 54 ] B.L.C. should consider that J.C. and H.C. are now of an age when they should be capable of sustaining visits with their father on a regular basis and that if any issues arise during those visits they have to be addressed and resolved in a meaningful manner and not just dealt with by letting the children decide not to go. [ 55 ] S.A.H. needs to consider what the children have reported in the s.211 report and not be dismissive of it.

He needs to address the concerns that J.C. has expressed and also consider that there may be times when J.C.’s social activities with his friends may be more important to him than time with his father. [ 56 ] S.A.H. and B.L.C. do not appear to treat each other at all times respectfully or as equals and need to do a better job of this at least in the presence of the children. [ 57 ] For the present time, and particularly while B.L.C. is burdened with raising four children (including a child under two) while a working single-mother, I am not prepared to burden her with any involved sharing of parental responsibilities with S.A.H..

There is also the fact that he has demonstrated a serious lack of responsible parenting towards the children and has little or no allegiance to two of the four children in her household. [ 58 ] As it happens it will hopefully be a number of years before any meaningful decisions have to be made concerning J.C. and H.C. and by that time possibly the parties will be more collaborative.

ORDER 1) B.L.C. shall be sole guardian of D.C. 2) B.L.C. and S.A.H. shall be joint guardians of the children J.C. and H.C. 3) B.L.C. shall have all parental responsibilities for the children D.C., J.C. and H.C. 4) B.L.C. shall inform S.A.H. of any matters of a significant nature affecting the children J.C. and H.C. 5) B.L.C. shall provide the primary residence for all the children. 6) S.A.H. may have the following parenting time with J.C. and H.C.:

a) commencing July 8, 2017 and continuing every third weekend thereafter S.A.H. shall have parenting time with J.C. and H.C. from 10 a.m. Saturday to 10 a.m. Monday;

b) S.A.H.’s parenting time will be extended to 6 p.m. on any Monday that is a Statutory Holiday or a Pro-D Day;

c) commencing July 12, 2017 and continuing on every Wednesday thereafter S.A.H. shall have parenting time with J.C. and H.C. from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.;

d) S.A.H. shall have parenting time with J.C. and H.C. from noon on Boxing Day 2017 until 9 p.m. on December 27, 2017;

e) regardless of the rotating weekend

schedule the children will spend Christmas Day with B.L.C. unless the parties agree otherwise;

f) S.A.H. shall have such further parenting time with J.C. and H.C. as may be mutually agreed from time to time;

g) S.A.H. shall be responsible for the pick-up and drop-off of the children; and

h) the parties will arrange a mediation with a family counsellor from the Justice Access Centre to take place prior to the 2018 school spring break to review the parenting time

schedule and adjust it, if necessary, in the best interests of the children. 7) S.A.H. is found to have the following guideline incomes for the following years: a) 2014: $48,200; b) 2015: $53,100; c) 2016: $48,500; and d) 2017: $65,000. 8) Based on the aforesaid guideline incomes S.A.H. is ordered to pay to the mother the following retroactive child support for his step-son D.C. for the period from February 1, 2014 to January 31, 2016 inclusive - $3,843 (*See addendum for more detailed calculation). 9) The father is ordered to pay to the mother retroactive child support for the children J.C. and H.C. for the period from February 1, 2014 to May 31, 2017 inclusive in the sum of $31,475. 10) The father is to pay on-going child support for the children J.C. and H.C. to the mother of $986 per month commencing June 1, 2017 and continuing on the 1 st day of every month thereafter so long as they are children as defined by the Family Law Act or until further order of the Court. 11) The father and mother are to share any special expenses for J.C. and H.C. with the father to pay two thirds and the mother one third.

The mother is, whenever possible, to provide reasonable advance notice of any pending expenses and details of same. 12) The father is to reimburse the mother within 30 days of being provided with any special expense receipts or copies for his two thirds share of such amount. 13) The father is to provide the mother by no later than June 15 th of each year commencing in 2018 with the following financial information:

a) a sworn Financial Statement in Form 4 of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules , including all attachments included on Page 2 of that form. 14) The father is to pay the arrears of child support pursuant to the following schedule: a) $3,000 on or before September 30, 2017;

b) a further $5,000 on or before December 15, 2017;

c) a further $5,000 on or before May 31, 2018;

d) a further $5,000 on or before December 15, 2018;

e) a further $8,000 on or before December 15, 2019; and

f) the entire balance including any interest or penalties on or before December 15, 2020. 15) If any instalment payment on the arrears is in default for more than five (5) days then the entire balance owing shall be considered due and payable. CONCLUSION [ 59 ] I have attached a calculation sheet as an addendum to these reasons to indicate how the total arrears of $3,843 for D.C. and $31,475 for J.C. and H.C. have been arrived at.

The ultimate judgment is based upon an effort to balance all of the factors both discretionary and non-discretionary into a result that the Court considers in the best interests of the children and equitable according to the existing law.

If I am incorrect in finding that there is liability for S.A.H. to pay child support for D.C. it is also possible that my decision not to include the 2014 RRSP withdrawal as part of his guideline income in that year with respect to the calculation of support for all three children should also be reviewed. [ 60 ] The $1,000 penalty imposed by the order of March 3, 2017 is ordered suspended until July 1, 2018. In the event that S.A.H.

has made all his required payments of arrears and on-going maintenance to that date and has provided his required financial disclosure the penalty will be vacated. If he has not complied with the above it will be immediately payable in full without prejudice to whatever additional penalty that might follow. BY THE COURT ____________________________ The Honourable J. Cowling, PCJ