C.N.B. v. A.I.B., 2021 BCPC 71

Citation: C.N.B. v. A.I.B. 2021 BCPC 71 Date: 20210331 File No: 0832233 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: C.N.B. APPLICANT AND: A.I.B RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. DOULIS Appearing on his own behalf: C.N.B. Appearing on her own behalf: A.I.B. Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Dates of Hearing: February 1, March 15, 2021 Date of Judgment: March 31, 2021

Introduction: [ 1 ] C.N.B. and A.I.B. are the parents of four children: D.D.B. age 23; S.A.B. age 21; H.N.B. age 16; and Q.A.B. age 14 (Collectively the “Children”). D.D.B. and S.A.B. have been independent for some time; H.N.B. and Q.A.B. are adolescents and still dependents. For the five week days, H.N.B. and Q.A.B. reside with A.I.B.; on the weekends they reside with C.N.B. H.N.B. and Q.A.B. have equal parenting time with their parents during the Christmas and spring school breaks and such other dates and times as they may agree.

C.N.B. estimates he has parenting time with H.N.B. and Q.A.B. approximately 35% of the time. [ 2 ] C.N.B. continues pays to A.I.B. child support for H.N.B. and Q.A.B. premised on the fact that S.A.B. was dependent and living full time with him, although that situation ended in 2018 when S.A.B. moved in with her sister D.D.B. A.I.B. seeks an order requiring C.N.B. to pay to her Guideline child support for H.N.B. and Q.A.B. without a set-off for S.A.B.’s support. C.N.B. opposes the application. Both he and A.I.B. earn a modest income from full-time employment.

C.N.B. says that if he is compelled to pay A.I.B. the full Guideline support for two children, he will not be able to afford appropriate housing for H.N.B. and Q.A.B. when they reside with him, or continue with the other benefits he currently provides the Children. He says it is profoundly unfair to require him to pay child support for H.N.B. and Q.A.B. without regard to the expenses he incurs as an active and involved parent. Issues: [ 3 ] Although C.N.B. and A.I.B. have unresolved issues of parenting time with respect to H.N.B. and Q.A.B., they do not wish to address them at this time.

They are waiting for s. 211 Views of the Child reports which the court requisitioned on October 26, 2020. It is unlikely this report will be completed before September 2021. The parties wish the court to adjudicate issues relating to child support. The issues before me in this case are: a. What are C.N.B.’s ongoing child-support obligations pursuant to s. 3 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”)? b.

Will it cause C.N.B. undue hardship to pay child support in the table amount set out in the Federal Child Support Guidelines? [ 4 ] This matter came before me for trial on February 1 and March 15, 2021, in Prince George Provincial Court. Both parties were self-represented. On March 16, 2021, and March 17, 2021, at the court’s request, the parties filed 2020 income tax and property assessment documentation and at the conclusion of the hearing I reserved my decision.

These are my reasons for judgment. [ 5 ] In addition to the documents filed in court in this matter, I also received into evidence: Exhibit 1: C.N.B.’s paystubs from [omitted for publication], for the pay periods commencing August 2, 2020, and ending December 19, 2020, (11 paystubs) indicating during that five-month period, C.N.B. earned $64,860.78; Exhibit 2: Printout from Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (“FMEP”), Statement of Payments Disbursed for the period October 21, 2014, to February 1, 2021, showing during that period C.N.B. paid FMEP $36,474.60, of which $35,708.60 was paid to A.I.B., and $766 to the Provincial Government for default fees.

C.N.B. is currently not in any arrears of child support. Exhibit 3: The following are documents C.N.B. adduced into evidence: a. Residential Tenancy Agreement between [omitted for publication] and C.N.B., with respect to the residence at [omitted for publication], Prince George, BC. The rental agreement states the tenancy began on February 1, 2020, and ended on April 1 [2021]. The rent is $1,350 per month; b. TD Auto Finance Conditional Sale Contract (August 17, 2017) for a 2014 [Dodge], sale price $15,783.95, with biweekly payments of $242.27, commencing August 31, 2017, and ending on August 16, 2023; c.

A printout from C.N.B.’s chequing account from [omitted for publication] for the period commencing October 5, 2020, and ending February 1, 2021; d. C.N.B.’s account with [omitted for publication] indicating he paid $120.05 per month [omitted for publication] for internet usage; e. C.N.B.’s statement from FortisBC indicating his charges for natural gas for the period starting on November 17, 2020, and ending December 16, 2020, totaling $121.12. f.

C.N.B.’s statement from BC Hydro indicating he was invoiced $355.50 for electricity usage for the two-month period starting October 20, 2020, ending December 17, 2020; g. C.N.B.’s 2020 Income Tax

Summary filed March 16, 2020; A.I.B.’s 2020 BC Assessment Notice for [omitted for publication], Prince George, BC, tendered March 16, 2020; and A.I.B.’s affidavit filed March 17, 2021, attaching her 2020 T4 and T4tax slips. Parenting time past and present: [ 6 ] C.N.B. is 46-years-old, having been born on [omitted for publication]. He resides at [omitted for publication], Prince George, BC. [ 7 ] A.I.B. is 44-years-old, having been born on [omitted for publication]. She resides at [omitted for publication], Prince George, BC.

[ 8 ] C.N.B. and A.I.B. commenced an intimate relationship in 1995. They are the biological parents of four children, namely: a. D.D.B., born [omitted for publication], age 23; b. S.A.B. born [omitted for publication],age 21; c. H.N.B. born [omitted for publication], age 16; and d. Q.A.B. born [omitted for publication], age 14. [ 9 ] C.N.B. and A.I.B. separated in 2008 after a 13-year relationship. For the next three years the Children resided with A.I.B. during the weekdays and with C.N.B. on the weekends.

C.N.B. and A.I.B. shared equal parenting time with the Children during the Christmas and spring school breaks. Although the Children had some holiday parenting time with their father during the summer school break, the parents ordinarily kept to the parenting regime that was in place during the school year. In 2011, the parenting-time arrangements changed for S.A.B., when she went to live with C.N.B. full time. They changed again in 2015 when D.D.B. turned 18-years-old and moved in with her boyfriend, and again in October 2018 when S.A.B. moved in with D.D.B.

H.N.B. and Q.A.B.’s parenting time with C.N.B. decreased significantly from September 1, 2018, to February 1, 2020, when C.N.B. moved to Abbotsford to live with his new partner R.S. Although C.N.B. continued to work for [omitted for publication] in Prince George, he did not exercise any significant parenting time with H.N.B. and Q.A.B. during the 17 months when he lived in Abbotsford. [ 10 ] On February 1, 2020, C.N.B. returned to live full time in Prince George, BC. Since then, C.N.B. and A.I.B. revived their earlier parenting-time arrangements.

C.N.B. has parenting time with Q.A.B. and H.N.B. from Friday after school until late afternoon on Sunday, subject to their wishes. C.N.B. and A.I.B. share equal parenting time with H.N.B. and Q.A.B. during the Christmas and spring school breaks. [ 11 ] A.I.B. and C.N.B. have both re-partnered. In 2009, A.I.B. formed an intimate relationship with her current partner M.R. A.I.B. and M.R. are the biological parents of R.D.R., born [omitted for publication] , 2010.

A.I.B. continues to reside with M.R., R.D.R., and H.N.B. and Q.A.B. when they are not in C.N.B.’s care. [ 12 ] From 2009 until February 1, 2020, C.N.B. lived with R.S. and her 14-year-old son D.S., albeit not continuously. For much of their 11-year relationship C.N.B. and R.S. lived in Prince George. I note R.S. filed a number of affidavits of personal service in these proceedings in which she states she is a homemaker or “stay [at] home mom” who lives at [omitted for publication] (see: Court Electronic Information System document “CEIS” 17, 18, 42, 44, 50).

I also note that on June 26, 2014, C.N.B. filed a notice of change of address in these proceedings to [omitted for publication], Prince George, BC, [omitted for publication]. C.N.B. and R.S. separated shortly before C.N.B. returned to Prince George in February 2020. Although they remain friends, C.N.B. does not have any ongoing financial responsibilities to R.S. or D.S. C.N.B. now lives alone except when he has Q.A.B. and H.N.B. in his care. [ 13 ] D.D.B. and S.A.B. live independently, neither requiring any on-going support from their parents.

C.N.B. does help out his adult daughters from time-to-time with various projects and expenses. Although S.A.B. had a troubled adolescence, she has successfully rehabilitated, completed her missed schooling and is working full-time. [ 14 ] I understand that H.N.B. and Q.A.B. are healthy children who excel in school. Although both have engaged in extracurricular activities in the past, they are not doing so at present by choice.

H.N.B. and Q.A.B. have voiced their preference to maintain the existing parenting-time arrangements. [ 15 ] A.I.B. and C.N.B.’s ability to communicate with each other in the Children’s best interests is impaired by C.N.B.’s and M.R.’s antagonistic relationship. Procedural history: [ 16 ] On May 27, 2008, C.N.B. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking custody, guardianship and access to the Children (CEIS 1). On July 15, 2008, A.I.B. filed a Reply and Counterclaim to the May 27, 2008, application (CEIS 2).

At that time A.I.B. resided at [omitted for publication], Prince George, BC, and C.N.B. lived at [omitted for publication], Prince George, BC. The matter came before Judge Weatherly for a first appearance on July 15, 2008. C.N.B. and A.I.B. attended court self-represented. On that day, (July 15, 2008) Judge Weatherly ordered on an interim basis that C.N.B. and A.I.B. would have joint custody of their four children, D.D.B., S.A.B., H.N.B. and Q.A.B. The Children’s primary residence was with A.I.B., with C.N.B. having reasonable access as agreed to by the parties (see CEIS 3).

Judge Weatherly’s order was varied slightly by Judge D.J. O’Byrne on July 24, 2008 (CEIS 4). Neither Judge Weatherly’s July 15, 2008, order, nor Judge O’Byrne’s July 24, 2008, order, addressed child support. [ 17 ] On April 9, 2009, A.I.B. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking maintenance for four children (CEIS 5). In this application A.I.B. states that she has primary residence of the Children, with C.N.B. having reasonable access.

J.G. filed an affidavit on April 21, 2009, deposing that on April 11, 2009, she served C.N.B. with a copy of the April 9, 2009, application, together with a copy of Judge Weatherly’s July 15, 2008, order and Judge O’Byrne’s July 24, 2008, order (CEIS 9). [ 18 ] On April 24, 2014, A.I.B. filed an Application to Obtain an Order for child support (CEIS 7). On May 5, 2014, C.N.B. filed an Application to Obtain an Order seeking guardianship and custody of the Children (CEIS 10). [ 19 ] A.I.B.’s April 24, 2014, application came on for a first appearance on July 24, 2014, before Judge Hogan (CEIS 7).

A.I.B. appeared in person and self-represented. C.N.B. did not attend in person and was not represented by legal counsel or agent. In his absence, Judge Hogan imputed C.N.B. to have an annual Guideline income of $80,000 based on his occupation as a logging-truck driver. Judge Hogan ordered C.N.B. to pay to A.I.B. child support for D.D.B., Q.A.B. and H.N.B. in the amount of $1,577 per month commencing August 1, 2014 (CEIS 16). At that time the Guideline table amount of child support for three children by a payor earning $80,000 per year was $1,577.

Although at the time S.A.B. was residing full time with C.N.B., Judge Hogan did not order A.I.B. to pay C.N.B. child support for S.A.B. pursuant to s. 8 of the Guidelines .

[ 20 ] Judge Hogan’s July 24, 2014, order (CEIS 16) was the first child-support order in these proceedings since C.N.B. and A.I.B. separated in 2008. C.N.B. says he refused to voluntarily pay A.I.B. child support because she was supporting M.R., who, due to his immigration status, was unable to legally work in Canada until 2014. [ 21 ] C.N.B. testified he was working in camp on July 24, 2014, and was unaware of the court proceedings.

On August 11, 2014, C.N.B. filed a Reply with Counterclaim (CEIS 19) and Notice of Motion (CEIS 20) seeking to change or suspend or terminate Judge Hogan’s July 24, 2014, order for child support made in his absence. This matter came before Judge Keyes for trial on December 18, 2014. C.N.B. and A.I.B. attended in person and self-represented. Judge Keyes found and ordered: a. D.D.B., H.N.B. and Q.A.B. were in the primary care of A.I.B. and S.A.B. was in the primary care of C.N.B.; b. C.N.B.’s 2014 Guideline income was $72,000; c. A.I.B.’s 2014 Guideline income was $43,405; d.

C.N.B. was obligated to pay child support to A.I.B. for D.D.B., H.N.B. and Q.A.B., and A.I.B. was obligated to pay child support to C.N.B. for S.A.B.; e. Pursuant to s. 8 of the Guidelines , C.N.B. was to pay to A.I.B. child support in the amount of $1,031.11 per month commencing August 1, 2014. ($1,427 for three children based on a Guideline income of $72,000 – $396 for one child based on a Guideline income of $43,405 – $1,031.11); f. A.I.B. and C.N.B. were to exchange tax returns and notices of assessment by May 30, 2015, and each year thereafter; and g.

The parties’ respective child-support obligations would be recalculated on or before June 30 of each year based upon the previous year’s income. (CEIS 36) [ 22 ] On December 29, 2014, C.N.B. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements (CEIS 32), seeking to vary Judge Keyes’ December 18, 2014, order (CEIS 36). On December 30, 2014, A.I.B. fled a reply (CEIS 34) to C.N.B.’s December 29, 2014, application. [ 23 ] This matter came before Judge Bayliff on January 22, 2015. At that time she ordered: … 3.

The documents still extant or alive in this matter are the Application to Obtain an Order filed May 5, 2014 [CEIS 10], the Reply with Counterclaim filed on October 9, 2014 [CEIS 24], the Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements filed December 29, 2014 [CEIS 32] and the Reply filed on December 30, 2014 [CEIS 34]. 4.

The Reply with Counterclaim filed on October 31, 2014 [CEIS 29] is dismissed, as the Application to Obtain an Order filed on May 5, 2014 [CEIS 10] covers the same issues. … (CEIS 37) [ 24 ] On May 12, 2015, C.N.B. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements (CEIS 41), seeking to change Judge Keyes’ December 18, 2014, order (CEIS 36) with respect to child support stating: As of May 26, 2015, I was laid off from work, and now A.I.B.’s spouse M.R. works full time. [ 25 ] The outstanding issues in CEIS documents 7, 10, 19 and 32 came before Judge Galbraith on May 19, 2015.

Both C.N.B. and A.I.B. attended in person and self-represented. Judge Galbraith made a final order that: a. A.I.B. and C.N.B. were both guardians of D.D.B., S.A.B., H.N.B. and Q.A.B.; b. D.D.B., H.N.B. and Q.A.B.’s primary residence was with A.I.B.; and c. S.A.B.’s primary residence was with C.N.B. (CEIS 43) [ 26 ] On December 10, 2015, by consent, Judge D.H. Weatherly varied Judge Keyes’ December 18, 2014, order as follows: a. C.N.B. is imputed to have an annual Guideline income of $50,000; b. A.I.B. is imputed to have an annual Guideline income of $43,000; c.

As of November 1, 2015, D.D.B. no longer required the support of her parents; d. As of November 1, 2015, S.A.B. resided primarily with C.N.B.; e. As of November 1, 2015, H.N.B. and Q.A.B. resided primarily with A.I.B.

f. Commencing March 1, 2015, and ending November 1, 2015, C.N.B. was to pay to A.I.B. the set-off amount of child support of $606 [$998 for three children on a Guideline income of $50,000 per year, minus $392 for one child on a Guideline income of $43,000, equals $606]; g.

Commencing November 1, 2015, and continuing on the first of each month thereafter and until further court order, C.N.B. was to pay to A.I.B. child support for two children in the amount of $366 per month [$758 for three children on a Guideline income of $50,000 minus $392 for one child on a Guideline income of $43,000, equals $366]. (CEIS 51) [ 27 ] On March 4, 2020, C.N.B. filed an Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements seeking primary residence of H.N.B. and Q.A.B. (CEIS 52) on the basis that M.R. (A.I.B.’s new partner) was verbally and mentally abusing the children. [ 28 ] On July 10, 2020, A.I.B. filed a Reply (CEIS 53) disputing C.N.B.’s March 4, 2020, application.

She counterclaimed for a change in or suspension or termination of Judge Weatherly’s December 18, 2015, order (CEIS 51). [ 29 ] On August 20, 2020, Judge Wright ordered a family case conference and directed both parties to complete, file with the registry of this Court and deliver to the other a sworn financial statement in Form 4 of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules , including all attachments listed on page 2 of that form, by no later than 14 days prior to the family case conference (CEIS 55). [ 30 ] On September 30, 2020, C.N.B. and A.I.B. attended the family case conference before Judge Mengering (CEIS 59).

Both parties attended in person and were self-represented. On that date Judge Mengering ordered by consent: a. S.A.B. is no longer a dependent child of the relationship; b. A.I.B.'s obligation to pay child support for S.A.B. ended on September 30, 2020; c. C.N.B. would continue to pay to A.I.B. $366 per month child support for H.N.B. and Q.A.B. subject to recalculation of the actual child support payable, that calculation to be made at a later date; and d.

Pursuant to s. 211 of the Family Law Act , a Family Justice Counsellor will report the views of the children H.N.B. and Q.A.B., as to which household they wish their primary residence to be and how to divide the parenting time between their mother A.I.B. and father C.N.B. [ 31 ] On October 9, 2020, the court scheduled a trial for February 1 and 2, 2021, of C.N.B.’s March 4, 2020, Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements and A.I.B.’s July 10, 2020, Reply and Counterclaim, with a Pre-Trial Conference on December 17, 2020 (CEIS 60, 61). [ 32 ] On October 26, 2020, the court requested s. 211 Views of the Child reports (CEIS 62).

Financial circumstances: [ 33 ] When C.N.B. and A.I.B. separated in 2008, they were significantly in debt, C.N.B. more so than A.I.B. Ultimately, they both declared bankruptcy. I suspect some of their financial difficulties were attributable to C.N.B. suffering a serious injury in 2005 when he fell off a ladder while working at a tradeshow. Although he has since recovered, C.N.B. was unable to work for two-and-one-half years, between 2005 and 2008. Other than this rehabilitative period, C.N.B. has always worked full time.

C.N.B.’s financial circumstances: [ 34 ] Nine years ago C.N.B. earned a class 1 licence and is now a commercial truck driver. For the past three years he has worked more or less full time for [omitted for publication] in Prince George. While the business is shut down during spring break up, C.N.B. finds other temporary employment to tide him over. [ 35 ] On October 22, 2014, C.N.B. filed a Form 4 Financial Statement indicating he earned a Guideline Income of $64,899 as a truck driver for [omitted for publication] in MacKenzie, BC (CEIS 27).

Attached to this financial statement are his income tax returns and notices of assessment showing that his Guideline income was (a) $64,899 in 2013; (b) $34,551 in 2012; and (c) $19,711 in 2011. C.N.B. also attached his Employee Payroll Remittance Advice for the period ending October 11, 2014, indicating his year-to-date earnings from his employment with [omitted for publication] totalled $64,248.29.

C.N.B. declared $53,958.24 in annual expenses, $5,800 in assets (two vehicles), and no debts. [ 36 ] On November 19, 2015, C.N.B. filed a Form 4 Financial Statement (CEIS 48), indicating he worked as a truck driver for [omitted for publication], in Prince George, BC. C.N.B. states that from January 1, 2014, to November 29, 2015, he earned $27,743.93.

He also states his expenses had not changed since he filed his October 22, 2014, financial statement. [ 37 ] On September 14, 2020, C.N.B. filed a Form 4 Financial Statement (CEIS 57) stating he works as a class 1 logging-truck driver for [omitted for publication] located at [omitted for publication], Prince George, BC. C.N.B. declared a Guideline income of $55,157.52, consisting of $50,378.51 from employment income, $3,934 from employment insurance and $845.05 in workers’ compensation pension benefits.

C.N.B. attached to this financial statement his: a. 2018 Income Tax Return showing a Guideline income of $56,180.11, comprising of $47,306.11 from employment, plus $8,874 from employment insurance; and b. 2019 Income Tax Return showing a Guideline income of $55,157.52, comprising of $50,378.47 in employment income, $3,934 from employment insurance, and $845.05 in worker’s compensation pension benefits.

C.N.B.’s 2019 employment income ($50,378.47) was allocated as follows: (a) $6,424.18 from [omitted for publication]; (b) $12,887.13 from [omitted for publication]; and (c) $31,067.16 employment income from [omitted for publication]. [ 38 ] C.N.B. declared his 2020 expenses to be $5,029.22 (monthly) which includes the $366 he pays A.I.B. for child support. He reports assets (three motor vehicles and one utility trailer) valued at $16,400, and no debts.

C.N.B.’s expenses are corroborated in part by the documents he tendered and marked as Exhibit 3. [ 39 ] On February 1, 2021, C.N.B. produced 11 Paystubs from [omitted for publication] (Exhibit 1) indicating his year-to-date earnings from that employer as of December 19, 2020, totalled $64,860.78, inclusive of vacation pay. C.N.B. says as a logging-truck driver who spends 14 hours per day alone, his job was not materially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. [ 40 ] On March 16, 2021, C.N.B. provided the court a copy of his 2020 Tax Return

Summary indicating his 2020 Guideline income was $74,125.34, consisting of $65,531.52 in employment income, $6,000 in employment insurance benefits, and $2,592.82 in workers’ compensation benefits. The 2020 tax return

summary further shows C.N.B. paid a total of $12,908.92 in both federal and provincial income tax and is entitled to a $934.02 refund. A.I.B.’s financial circumstances: [ 41 ] On April 24, 2014, and October 9, 2014, A.I.B. filed Form 4 Financial Statements in which she indicated she worked as a multi- store manager for [omitted for publication], earning a Guideline income of $43,405 (CEIS 8, 26).

To these financial statements A.I.B. attached her: (a) 2013 Notice of Assessment indicating a Guideline income of $43,405; (b) 2012 Notice of Assessment indicating a Guideline income of $45,248; (c) 2011 Notice of Assessment indicating a Guideline income of $41,310. She also attached her Statement of Earnings and Deductions from [omitted for publication], indicating her year-to-date earnings up until April 19, 2014, totalled $15,012.30.

A.I.B. declared $40,385 in annual household expenses, $4,500 in assets and $3,000 in debts. [ 42 ] At the December 18, 2014, trial, A.I.B. tendered into evidence her Statement of Earnings and Deductions which were marked as Exhibit 1.

This statement indicated that as of October 18, 2014, A.I.B.’s gross year-to-date earnings from [omitted for publication] were $38,405.60. [ 43 ] On September 17, 2020, A.I.B. filed a Form 4 Financial Statement (CEIS 58) in which she states: a. she was unemployed since June 12, 2020; b. her Guideline income for 2020 was $25,204; c. her 2019 T4 employment income from [omitted for publication] was $45,775.50; d. her 2018 Guideline income was $53,248; and e. her 2017 Guideliine income was $49,519. [ 44 ] On December 15, 2020, A.I.B. filed a Form 4 Financial Statement (CEIS 63).

She states in her financial statement and testified: a. she is an optical assistant in the employ of [omitted for publication], earning $16.25 per hour; b. ordinarily, she works between 37 and 40 hours per week. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, A.I.B. did not work during the summer of 2020 and received employment insurance. A.I.B.’s 2020 Guideline income was $25,128, consisting of $16,128 in employment income and $9,000 in employment insurance. A.I.B. also received $4,392 in child support, $6,110.70 for the Universal Child Care Benefit, and a $90.84 family bonus.

These “other adjustments “ to her income total $10,593.50; c. in 2018, her Line 150 income was $53,248; d. in 2017, her Line 150 income was $49,519; and e. her annual household expenses total $50,950. [ 45 ] In her September 17, 2020, financial statement (CEIS 58), A.I.B. stated her 2019 income tax returns were not complete, but enclosed her 2019 T4 Statement from the [omitted for publication].

A.I.B. has not disclosed her 2019 income tax return or complete notice of assessment, although it was issued on November 23, 2020. [ 46 ] On March 17, 2020, A.I.B. filed an affidavit attaching the following financial documentation: (

a) her T4E tax slip (Statement of Employment Insurance and Other Benefits) showing that in 2020 she received $8,000 in employment insurance benefits; (

b) her T4 tax slip ( Statement of Remuneration Paid) showing that in 2020 she received $5,528. 56 in employment income from FYI Doctors; (

c) her T4 tax slip showing that in 2020 she earned $21,056.84 in employment income from the [omitted for publication]. I conclude from these documents A.I.B.’s 2020 Guideline income is $34,585.40. She also receives money for child support, the universal child care benefit, and family bonus. A.I.B.’s partner M.R. also works full time. A.I.B. claims she does not know M.R.’s precise income; however, she estimates it is approximately $78,000. [ 47 ] A.I.B. and M.R. jointly own a house at [omitted for publication] , Prince George, BC, a home they purchased two years ago.

It is a six-bedroom home with three bathrooms, located in the Prince George [omitted for publication] . A.I.B. provided the court with the BC Assessment Notice indicating that for 2021, the residence had an assessed value of $380,000. A.I.B. says the residence is subject to a 25- year mortgage. A.I.B. and M.R. jointly own two vehicles, a [Dodge] pickup for which they pay $830 per month, and a 2016 [ Hyundai] for which they pay $390 per month. A.I.B. and M.R. have four more years of payments on the [Dodge] pickup and three more on the [ Hyundai].

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK Parental duty to support a child: [ 48 ] Section 147(1) of the Family Law Act , S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“ FLA ”) stipulates that each parent and guardian of a child has a duty to provide support. [ 49 ] In Michel v. Graydon , 2020 SCC 24 , para. 10 , the Supreme Court of Canada restated the principles governing child support articulated in D. B.S. v. S.R.G . ; L.J.W. v. T.A.R. ; Henry v. Henry ; Hiemstra v.

Hiemstra , 2006 SCC 37 : 10 … - Child support is the right of the child , which right cannot be bargained away by the parents, and survives the breakdown of the relationship of the child’s parents …; - Child support should, as much as possible, provide children with the same standard of living they enjoyed when their parents were together …; - The child support owed will vary based upon the income of the payor parent, and is not confined to furnishing the “necessities of life” …; - Retroactive awards are not truly “retroactive”, since they merely hold payors to the legal obligation they always had to pay support commensurate with their income …; - Retroactive awards are not confined to “exceptional circumstances” or “rare cases” …; and - In determining whether to make a retroactive award, the payor parent’s interest in certainty in his/her obligations must be balanced with the need for “fairness and. . . flexibility”.

A court should consider whether the recipient parent’s delay in seeking retroactive support was reasonable in the circumstances, the conduct of the payor parent, the circumstances of the child, and the hardship the retroactive award might entail… . [ 50 ] In this case both parents are employed full time and earn a modest living. Amount of child support: [ 51 ] Pursuant to s. 150(1) of the Family Law Act , the amount of child support must be determined in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines .

Section 1 of the Family Law Act and

Part 4 of the Family Law Act Regulation , BC Reg 347/2012, define the Child Support Guidelines to mean the Federal Child Support Guidelines under s. 26.1 of the Divorce Act (Canada) . [ 52 ] Section 3(1) of the Guidelines sets out the presumptive rule that child support for children under the age of 19 is payable in the amount set out in the applicable child support table scheduled to the Guidelines . This amount is set according to the annual income of the payor parent.

The exceptions to the presumptive rule contained in s. 3(1) of the Guidelines include: a. where a child is over the provincial age of majority (s. 3(2) of the Guidelines ); b. where the payor parent earns an income of more than $150,000 (s. 4 of the Guidelines ); c. where child support is sought from a person who is not a biological parent but who stands in the place of a parent (s. 5 of the Guidelines ); d. in split custody arrangements whereby each parent has custody of one or more of the children (s. 8 of the Guidelines ); e. in shared custody or access arrangements where a child spends not less than 40 percent of the year with each parent (s. 9 of the Guidelines ); f. where undue hardship arises and the household income of the party asserting undue hardship does not exceed that of the other household (s. 10 of the Guidelines ); and g. where there are consensual arrangements in place that attract the operation of 150(2) of the Family Law Act . [ 53 ] The objectives of the Guidelines are set out in s.1 : a. to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation; b. to reduce conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of child support orders more objective; c. to improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the levels of child support orders and encouraging settlement; and d. to ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances. [ 54 ] Although he did not voluntarily pay A.I.B. any money for child support post-separation, C.N.B. did contribute to the Children’s support in various ways, including (

a) purchasing a vehicle for D.D.B. and S.A.B. when they turned 16; (

b) providing each child with a cell phone when they turned 14 and paying the monthly charges; (

c) sharing with A.I.B. the cost of various child-related expenses; (

d) taking sole responsibility for S.A.B.’s well-being and rehabilitation during her troubled adolescence. Calculating income: [ 55 ] The first step in determining the payor parent’s child-support obligation is to calculate their income. In order to do this fairly and accurately, the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the Provincial Court (Family) Rules , BC Reg 417/98 , require applicants and respondents to disclose to the court and each other information relevant to the child-support proceedings. Because the parties are self- represented, I have set out the relevant sections of this legislation for their ease of reference. [ 56 ]

Section 21 of the Guidelines state: Obligation of applicant 21

(1) A spouse who is applying for a child support order and whose income information is necessary to determine the amount of the order must include the following with the application: (

a) a copy of every personal income tax return filed by the spouse for each of the three most recent taxation years; (

b) a copy of every notice of assessment and reassessment issued to the spouse for each of the three most recent taxation years; (

c) where the spouse is an employee, the most recent statement of earnings indicating the total earnings paid in the year to date, including overtime or, where such a statement is not provided by the employer, a letter from the spouse’s employer setting out that information including the spouse’s rate of annual salary or remuneration; (

d) where the spouse is self-employed, for the three most recent taxation years (

i) the financial statements of the spouse’s business or professional practice, other than a partnership, and (ii) a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the spouse does not deal at arm’s length; (

e) where the spouse is a partner in a partnership, confirmation of the spouse’s income and draw from, and capital in, the partnership for its three most recent taxation years; (

f) where the spouse controls a corporation, for its three most recent taxation years (

i) the financial statements of the corporation and its subsidiaries, and (ii) a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the corporation, and every related corporation, does not deal at arm’s length; (

g) where the spouse is a beneficiary under a trust, a copy of the trust settlement agreement and copies of the trust’s three most recent financial statements; and (

h) in addition to any income information that must be included under paragraphs (

c) to (g), where the spouse receives income from employment insurance, social assistance, a pension, workers compensation, disability payments or any other source, the most recent statement of income indicating the total amount of income from the applicable source during the current year, or if such a statement is not provided, a letter from the appropriate authority stating the required information. Obligation of respondent

(2) A spouse who is served with an application for a child support order and whose income information is necessary to determine the amount of the order, must, within 30 days after the application is served if the spouse resides in Canada or the United States or within 60 days if the spouse resides elsewhere, or such other time limit as the court specifies, provide the court, as well as the other spouse or the order assignee, as the case may be, with the documents referred to in subsection (1). Special expenses or undue hardship

(3) Where, in the course of proceedings in respect of an application for a child support order, a spouse requests an amount to cover expenses referred to in subsection 7(1) or pleads undue hardship, the spouse who would be receiving the amount of child support must, within 30 days after the amount is sought or undue hardship is pleaded if the spouse resides in Canada or the United States or within 60 days if the spouse resides elsewhere, or such other time limit as the court specifies, provide the court and the other spouse with the documents referred to in subsection (1). [ 57 ] Rule 4 of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules require the payor parent and often the recipient to file a financial statement when child support is in issue.

It states in relevant part: Rule 4 — Provision of Financial Information Persons who must provide financial information

(1) Subrule (2) applies to the following persons: …

(

c) a person who applies, in Form 1 or 3, for a child support order and who is required under the Child Support Guidelines Regulation to provide income information; (

d) a person who is responding to an application for a child support order; (

e) a person who applies, in Form 2 or 3, to change, suspend or terminate a child support order and who is required under the Child Support Guidelines Regulation to provide income information; (

f) a person who is responding to an application to change, suspend or terminate a child support order and who is required under the Child Support Guidelines Regulation to provide income information; … Requirement to file financial information

(2) A person referred to in subrule (1) must (

a) complete a financial statement in Form 4, following the instructions on the financial statement, and (

b) when filing the application or the reply, as the case may be, file the original and 3 copies of that financial statement and any applicable documentation described in Form 4 or required under the Child Support Guidelines Regulation. If the parties agree on income and amount of child support

(3) Parties to an application for child support or to change child support are deemed to have complied with the documentation requirements of the Child Support Guidelines Regulation and the requirement to complete and file financial statements under subrule (2) in respect of that application if (

a) the parties have agreed on the amount of child support to be paid and on the annual income of each party who would otherwise be required to provide income information under that regulation, (

b) the parties have signed a consent in Form 19 respecting that agreement, and (

c) the consent, together with a copy of the most recent income tax return of each party who would otherwise be required to provide income information under that regulation and a copy of that person's most recent income tax notice of assessment or reassessment, have been filed. [ 58 ] In this case, both parents have filed a Form 4 Financial Statement, although neither has provided all the required supporting documentation. Typically, the court determines the parents’ respective Guideline income from Line 150 of their most recent income tax return.

For this reason, the court generally calculates the parents’ child-support obligations based on the previous year’s income of each spouse: J.(K.M.) v. N. (J.H.D.) , 2014 BCSC 1895 , at para. 114 . [ 59 ] Section 2(3) of the Guidelines hold:

(3) Where, for the purposes of these Guidelines , any amount is determined on the basis of specified information, the most current information must be used. [ 60 ] This suggests the court can calculate the parents’ income based on their most recent statements of earnings where their income stream is relatively certain. [ 61 ] Section 17(1) of the Guidelines allows the court to consider income patterns or fluctuations to arrive at a fair amount. It states: Pattern of income: 17

(1) If the court is of the opinion that the determination of a spouse’s annual income under

section 16 would not be the fairest determination of that income, the court may have regard to the spouse’s income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years. Issue #1: What is C.N.B.’s ongoing child-support obligation pursuant to s. 3 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines? [ 62 ] C.N.B. and A.I.B. separated in 2008 and never reconciled. They have now lived separate and apart for 13 years.

For the first three years post-separation, from 2009 to 2011 inclusive, C.N.B. was legally obligated to pay A.I.B. child support for all four Children. From 2012 to 2015 inclusive, C.N.B. was legally obligated to pay A.I.B. child support for three children and A.I.B. was obligated to pay C.N.B. child support for one child. From 2016 to 2018 inclusive, C.N.B. was legally obligated to pay A.I.B. child support for two children and A.I.B. was obligated to pay C.N.B. child support for one child. Although she turned 19 on March 1, 2019, S.A.B. had voluntarily withdrawn from her parents’ charge in October 2018.

As of November 1, 2018, there was no longer a split-custody arrangement between the parties and s. 8 of the Guidelines no longer applied. In other words, as of November 1, 2018, C.N.B. ought to have paid A.I.B. the Guideline table amount of child support for two children without set-off. [ 63 ] A.I.B. registered Judge Hogan’s July 24, 2014, order with FMEP on October 21, 2014, requiring C.N.B. to pay child support in the amount of $1,577 per month commencing on August 1, 2014. At the time of enrolment with FMEP, C.N.B. was already in arrears of $3,093.

The FMEP Statement of Payments (Exhibit 2), indicates C.N.B. did not pay any child support until April 21, 2015. On May 1, 2015, C.N.B. began paying child support in the amount of $606 per month, together with interest, until November 1, 2015, when he began paying $366 per month (CEIS 51). C.N.B. has paid $366 in child support from November 1, 2015, to date.

[64] In this case, C.N.B. and A.I.B. both work for independent employers. Their annual income is that set out in Line 150 of theirincome tax, which is inclusive of employment income, bonuses, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation payments, pensionincome, disability payments and government benefits (including the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit). Their incomes do fluctuatesomewhat from year to year.

Nevertheless, I find it appropriate to determine their Guideline income from Line 150 of their respectiveincome tax returns from the preceding year. [65] I find that pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines: a. C.N.B. is a resident of British Columbia; b. A.I.B. is a resident of British Columbia; c. C.N.B. has a Guideline income of $56,180 for 2018 d. C.N.B. has a Guideline income of $55,157 for 2019 ; e. C.N.B. has a Guideline income of $74,124 for 2020; f. A.I.B. has a Guideline income of $53,248 for 2018; g.

As A.I.B. has not provided the court with documentation proving her 2019 income, I will impute to her a 2019 Guideline income of$53,248, which is what she earned in 2018; and h. A.I.B. has a Guideline income of $34,585 for 2020. [66] Using the parents’ actual Guideline incomes for 2018, C.N.B. paid roughly the amount of child support required under s. 8 of theGuidelines until S.A.B. left home in October 2018. [67] Based on his 2019 Guideline income of $55,157.62, C.N.B. ought to have paid $856 per month for H.N.B. and Q.A.B.’s childsupport without set-off for a total of $10,272.

Ultimately, C.N.B. paid $4,392, which is $5,880 less than the Guideline table amount ofchild support. Even so, the FMEP Statement of Payments indicates C.N.B. paid a total of $1,925 in 2019, and by December 31, 2019, hewas in arrears of $2,467.71. [68] Based on his 2020 Guideline income, C.N.B. ought to have paid $1,150 per month for H.N.B. and Q.A.B.’s child support withoutset-off for 2020, for a total of $13,800. Instead, C.N.B. paid $4,392 in child support, which is $9,408 less than the Guideline tableamount.

Issue #2: Will it cause C.N.B. undue hardship to pay child support in the table amount set out in the Federal Child SupportGuidelines? [69] A.I.B. seeks Guideline child support for H.N.B. and Q.A.B. who are in her primary care. She further seeks retroactive relief fromthe set-off of child support payable for S.A.B., now 21-years-old and who has lived independently since she was 18. A.I.B. does not seekany contribution of special or extraordinary expenses pursuant to s. 7 of the Guidelines. [70] C.N.B. seeks relief from paying the full Guideline table amount of child support.

C.N.B. has not specifically pled “unduehardship”, nor did he complete

Schedule 2 of the Form 4 Financial Statement for “undue hardship”. Nevertheless, he did provide therequisite financial information, so for expediency sake I will consider his oral application. [71] Section 10(1) of the Guidelines permit the court to depart from the table amount if the judge finds that it would cause the payor“undue hardship”. An application for undue hardship can be made by the payor parent, or by the recipient parent on behalf of a child. Inthis case there is no issue of hardship to the Children. [72] In Kelly v.

Kelly, 2011 BCCA 173, at paras. 33 and 34, the court held that a claim for undue hardship under s. 10 of theGuidelines requires a two-step analysis: a. Firstly, the applicant must demonstrate that paying the table amounts would result in the payor or the child suffering undue hardship. b.

Secondly, if the court accepts that undue hardship is established, it must compare the standard of living in each parent’s household toensure that the payor parent does not have a higher standard of living than the recipient parent, if a reduction in Guidelines support ismade. [73] If these two steps are met, the court may exercise its discretion to award a different amount of maintenance than that provided inthe child support tables: Van Gool v. Van Gool, (BC CA), at para. 45. In Kelly v.

Kelly, at para. 35, the Court ofAppeal held that the court’s discretion to order child support in an amount other than that required by the Guidelines is narrow andshould be exercised cautiously to avoid thwarting the Guidelines’ objectives of predictability and consistency. [74] As the applicant, C.N.B. bears the burden of leading cogent evidence to establish why the table amount of child support wouldcause him undue hardship. The threshold for establishing undue hardship is high. Section 10(1) must be interpreted in accordance withthe Guidelines’ objectives set out in s. 1, and the presumptive rule in s. 3(1).

The hardship that results from paying child support pursuantto s. 3(1) of the Guidelines must be “excessive, extreme, improper, unreasonable, unjustified”: Van Gool v. Van Gool, (BCCA), para. 48-51. [75] Because H.N.B. and Q.A.B. reside with their father less than 40% of the time, C.N.B. is obligated to pay child support to A.I.B.pursuant to s. 3(1) of the Guidelines. C.N.B. submits that if he was required to pay A.I.B. the table amount of child support, he would beleft with so little in after-tax dollars that he could not afford to provide adequate accommodation for Q.A.B. and H.N.B. when they are in

his care. His rent for a modest duplex unit in Prince George is $16,200 per year. [76] Section 10(2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which may give rise to a finding of undue hardship. It states: Circumstances that may cause undue hardship

(2) Circumstances that may cause a spouse or child to suffer undue hardship include the following: (

a) the spouse has responsibility for an unusually high level of debts reasonably incurred to support the spouses and their children prior tothe separation or to earn a living; (

b) the spouse has unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access to a child; (

c) the spouse has a legal duty under a judgment, order or written separation agreement to support any person; (

d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage, who is (

i) under the age of majority, or (ii) the age of majority or over but is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessaries of life; and (

e) the spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to an illness or disability. [77] Section 10(3) states: Standards of living must be considered

(3) Despite a determination of undue hardship under subsection (1), an application under that subsection must be denied by the court if itis of the opinion that the household of the spouse who claims undue hardship would, after determining the amount of child support underany of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9, have a higher standard of living than the household of the other spouse. Standards of living test

(4) In comparing standards of living for the purpose of subsection (3), the court may use the comparison of household standards of livingtest set out in

Schedule II. [78] In other words, even if I were to find undue hardship under s. 10(1) of the Guidelines, I must deny C.N.B.’s application if hishousehold would have a higher standard of living than A.I.B.’s household. [79] Applying those circumstances enumerated in s. 10(2) of the Guidelines to C.N.B., I am satisfied that: a. Post-separation, C.N.B. assumed responsibility for an unusually high level of debt reasonably incurred while he and A.I.B. were stilla couple; however, they have been separated now for 13 years. Both parents declared bankruptcy years ago as a result of their pre-separation debt load.

C.N.B. no longer has any debts that relate to his period of cohabitation with A.I.B.; b. C.N.B. lives within walking distance of H.N.B. and Q.A.B.’s school and therefore incurs few transit expenses in order to exerciseparenting time. I gather for the 17 months he lived in Abbotsford, C.N.B. did not exercise significant parenting time with his twoyoungest children. In any event, C.N.B. still worked for [omitted for publication], which would have required him to be in Prince Georgewhere H.N.B. and Q.A.B. ordinarily live with their mother; c.

C.N.B. has no legal duty under a judgment, order, or written separation agreement to support any person other than H.N.B. andQ.A.B., who are his minor biological children of his relationship with A.I.B.; and d. C.N.B. has no legal duty to support any person who is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessariesof life. [80] In

summary, the only applicable circumstance in s. 10(2) of the Guidelines is C.N.B.’s legal obligation to support H.N.B. andQ.A.B. [81] It is noteworthy, however, that s. 10(2) sets out a “non-exhaustive list”, meaning other circumstances may be reviewed: D.B.S. v.S.R.G, 2006 SCC 37 , para. 129; Kelly v. Kelly, para. 33. I have also taken into consideration: a. Since C.N.B. and A.I.B. separated in early 2008, C.N.B. paid no child support to A.I.B. for the first seven years (although he didaccrue some arrears after August 1, 2014) and significantly underpaid child support for at least two years; b.

Although he has not always paid Guideline child support to A.I.B. directly, he has contributed to the Children’s cost of living in otherways, such as providing them with vehicles and cell phones; and c. Even though H.N.B. and Q.A.B. do not reside with him more than 40% of the time, C.N.B. still needs to have appropriateaccommodations for the Children to have meaningful parenting time with their father. [82] C.N.B. argues the cost of housing in Prince George is a relevant circumstance in assessing his claim of undue hardship.

He saysthat in order to rent accommodation which is suitable for housing H.N.B. and Q.A.B., even on a part-time basis, is significant. I acceptthis is a relevant and reviewable factor in assessing undue hardship.

[83] With a Guideline income of $74,124, C.N.B. is left with $61,215 in after-tax dollars. If he were to pay to A.I.B. $1,150 permonth in child support, he would be left with $47,415 to pay his own living expenses ($61,215 – $13,800 = $47,415). [84] C.N.B. has a Guideline income of $74,124 in 2020. His income tax

summary indicates that his after-tax income for 2020 is$61,215 ($74,124 – $12,909 = $61,215). This means C.N.B. has at his disposal $5,101.25 per month in after-tax dollars. Upon deductingchild support in the amount of $1,150 per month, C.N.B. would be left with $3,951.25 per month, or $47,415 per year, to pay his ownliving expenses ($61,215 – $13,800 = $47,415). Upon deducting his rent of $1,350, C.N.B. is left with $2,601.25 per month. [85] In Redlick v.

Redlick, 2013 BCSC 1155 , Justice Greyell dismissed the payor mother’s claim for undue hardship baseddue to a mortgage payment on a house she purchased, anticipating the children would reside with her and she would receive child supportfrom their father. This did not happen. Justice Greyell dismissed Ms. Redlick’s plea of undue hardship, concluding: [48] I find Ms. Redlick has failed on the first step of the undue hardship test. I cannot accept her submission that the financial burden ofa mortgage in these circumstances amounts to undue hardship.

Certainly there is inconvenience but the obligation of paying child supportdoes not give rise to an "exceptional" or "excessive" burden. [86] In Roy v. Roy, 2017 BCSC 74 , Justice Hyslop refused the payor father’s application for undue hardship, finding hishardship arose as a result of purchasing a residence when he could not meet his expenses because of his child-support obligations. Shestates: [48] As I have found, Mr.

Roy’s “hardship” is taking on debt, knowing full well that the child support payments in the Order that he waspaying was insufficient. … [87] In this case, C.N.B. knew or ought to have known that he was not entitled to continue to off-set child support for S.A.B. givenshe had been living independently since October 2018. [88] I find paying child support will not cause C.N.B. undue hardship under s. 10(2) of the Guidelines. Thus, it is unnecessary tocompare the standards of living of the parties. In Kelly v.

Kelly, the Court of Appeal held at para. 34: [34] If, and only if, this first requirement is met, the second step engages a comparison of the standard of living in each parent’shousehold under s. 10(3) of the Guidelines, to ensure the payor of child support will not have a higher standard of living than therecipient if a reduction in Guidelines support is made. Conclusion: [89] On July 10, 2020, A.I.B. counterclaimed for a change in or suspension or termination of Judge Weatherly’s December 18, 2015,order, which fixed C.N.B.’s child-support obligation at $366 per month.

In my view, C.N.B.’s child-support obligation as set out in JudgeWeatherly’s December 18, 2015, order, ought to have been reviewed shortly after S.A.B. withdrew from her parents’ charge in October2018. In any case, C.N.B.’s child-support obligation ought to have been readjusted no later than March 1, 2019, when S.A.B. turned 19,the age of majority in BC. [90] I am cognizant that Judge Mengering ordered A.I.B.’s child-support obligations for S.A.B. cease as of September 30, 2020,because that was the first time the issue was brought before the court.

Judge Mengering further ordered by consent that C.N.B. wouldcontinue to pay to A.I.B. $366 per month child support for H.N.B. and Q.A.B. “subject to recalculation of the actual child supportpayable”. It is clear to me that Judge Mengering’s September 30, 2020, order was an interim order made by consent at a family caseconference. A family case conference is not the forum for adjudicating issues of retroactive child support: see Rule 7, Provincial Court(Family) Rules. f [91]

Section 152 or the Family Law Act empowers this court to change, suspend, or terminate an order respecting child support,prospectively or retroactively. In D.B.S. v. S.R.G, at para. 123, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted a rough guideline that absentblameworthy conduct, an award for child support should not go back more than three years before formal notice was given to the payorparent. In this case, A.I.B. gave effective notice to C.N.B. as of July 10, 2020.

Her request for a readjustment of child support as of July1, 2020, is entirely reasonable, if not generous. [92] As set out above, I find that C.N.B. has not satisfied his burden under s. 10 of the Guidelines to show he would suffer unduehardship if required to pay child support in the Guideline table amount. More particularly, I have no cogent evidence C.N.B. wouldexperience hardship that is severe, excessive, or otherwise disproportionate in all the circumstances. Disposition: [93] In conclusion, I make the following orders with respect to C.N.B. and A.I.B.’s competing applications concerning child support: a.

The order of the Honourable Judge D.H. Weatherly, made December 18, 2015, is terminated as of June 30, 2020; b. The court finds C.N.B. is a resident of British Columbia with an annual Guideline income of $74,124; c. C.N.B.’s application to pay less child support than the amount set out in the tables of the Child Support Guidelines is denied; d.

C.N.B. will pay to A.I.B. $1,150 per month for the support of H.N.B. born [omitted for publication], and Q.A.B. born [omitted forpublication], commencing July 1, 2020, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter for as long as H.N.B. andQ.A.B. are eligible for support under the Family Law Act, or until further court order; e. C.N.B.’s arrears of child support owing to A.I.B. as of March 31, 2021, are fixed at $7,056 ($1,150 - $366 = $784 x 9 months =$7,056) as of March 31, 2021, inclusive of any statutory interest and statutory default fees;

f. C.N.B. will pay to A.I.B. toward the arrears in child support and in addition to his regular monthly child support payments the minimum sum of $200 per month beginning the first day of May 2021, and continuing on the first of each and every month thereafter until the arrears are paid in full or further order of the Court; g. For as long as H.N.B. and Q.A.B. are eligible to receive child support, C.N.B. will provide to A.I.B. (

a) a copy of his income tax return for the previous year, including all attachments, not later than May 15 each year; and (

b) copies of any notices of assessment or reassessment provided by Canada Revenue Agency immediately upon receipt; h. Under s. 222 of the FLA , upon delivery of C.N.B.’s income tax return and notices of assessment, C.N.B. and A.I.B. are required to discuss any material change in circumstances which may warrant a change in the amount or date of support payable.

Any agreement to change the support payable will be set out in a consent order and filed with the court in accordance with Rule 14 of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules. [ 94 ] The court will draft the order and the signatures of the parties approving it as to form is not required. ____________________________ The Honourable Judge J.T. Doulis Provincial Court of British Columbia