J.R.M. v. K.J.H. Date:, 2017 BCPC 25

Citation: J.R.M. v. K.J.H. Date: 20170126 2017 BCPC 25 File No: 1138756 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: J. R. M. APPLICANT AND: K. J. H. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. T. DOULIS Appearing on their own behalf: J. R. M. Appearing on their own behalf: K. J. H. Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C.

Date of Hearing: January 16, 17, 2017 Date of Judgment: January 26, 2017 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on February 6, 2017. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] J.R.M. (“Ms. M.”) and K.J.H. (“Mr. H.”) are the biological parents of six year old R.J.H.M. (“R.”), born (omitted). Ms. M. and Mr. H. lived together in a common law relationship between September 2009 and August 2012. Since their separation, Ms. M. and Mr. H. each have had parenting time with R. pursuant to a bi-weekly

schedule they worked out on their own. Over the years Mr. H. has paid child support to Ms. M. in varying amounts. [ 2 ] By the trial date, Ms. M. and Mr. H. had reached a consensus on a number of issues raised in their initial pleadings. They agree they are both guardians of and share parenting responsibilities for R. There is no longer any issue with respect to Mr. H.’s contact with Ms. M.’s youngest son, K. [ 3 ] This matter came before me for trial on January 16 and 17, 2017. Neither Ms. M. nor Mr. H. was represented by legal counsel. I received evidence from four witnesses: Ms. M., Mr. H., S.U. and H.B.

The parties tendered into evidence a total of 21 exhibits. They made oral submissions at the conclusion of the trial and Mr. H. provided the Court with six cases. These are my reasons for judgment. In reaching my decision, I have carefully considered all of the evidence, oral and documentary, submissions of the parties, relevant legislation and case law. ISSUES [ 4 ] The principal issues outstanding at trial were as follows: 1. Do the parties have a shared parenting arrangement with respect to R.? 2. How should the parties share parenting time with R. prospectively? 3. How much child support must Mr.

H. pay to Ms. M. for R. prospectively? 4 How should R.’s special expenses be allocated prospectively? 5. What amount should Mr. H. pay for R.’s special expenses retroactively? 6. Should Mr. H. and Ms. M. share the expense of dropping of and picking up R.? 7. Should the Universal Child Care Benefit be shared equally between the parties? 8. Is Mr. H. entitled to the 2016 Universal Child Care Benefit? HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS [ 5 ] On October 9, 2015, Ms. M. filed an Application to Obtain An Order under the Family Law Act , S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“ FLA ”) seeking with respect to R.: (

i) guardianship; (ii) allocation of parental responsibilities; (iii) child support; and with respect to K.; (iv) a protection or no contact order. [ 6 ] On October 13, 2015, Mr. H. filed an Application to Obtain an Order in which he sought with respect to R.: (

a) guardianship; (

b) parenting time; and (

c) allocation of parental responsibilities. [ 7 ] On November 9, 2015, Mr. H. filed a Reply to Ms. M.’s Application to Obtain an Order in which he agreed in part to Ms. M.’s claim for child support. [ 8 ] On November 9, 2015, Mr. H. filed a Financial Statement attaching his 2015 Statement of Earnings from P.W.B. Co., and his Canada Revenue Agency Notices of Assessment for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxation years. Mr. H. declared a total income for 2015 of $41,346.14. [ 9 ] The first appearance of the parties’ reciprocal applications was scheduled for January 7, 2016. Both received the assistance of duty counsel.

At that time, Regional Administrative Judge Brecknell found Mr. H. to have an imputed Guideline income of $55,000 per annum and ordered he pay child support for R. in the amount of $458 per month in bi-weekly instalments of $210 each. [ 10 ] On February 11, 2016, Mr. H. and Ms. M. attended a Family Case Conference before Judge Bayliff. The parties resolved their outstanding issues concerning Mr. H.’s contact time with K. and Judge Bayliff ordered a

Section 211 “Views of the Child Report” with respect to R. and K. [ 11 ] The parties attended a further Family Case Conference on September 9, 2016, in which Regional Administrative Judge Brecknell ordered the parties produce updated Form 4 Financial Statements with all the necessary attachments and exchange these documents 30 days before trial. Regional Administrative Judge Brecknell also ordered the parties to exchange all other documents and will say statements by November 18, 2016.

[ 12 ] On December 22, 2016, the parties attended a trial preparation conference. At that time, I ordered the parties to file and serve one another with updated Financial Statements by December 23, 2016. I also ruled that any person intending on giving evidence at trial, either orally or by affidavit, must attend in person for cross-examination. [ 13 ] On December 23, 2016, Ms. M. filed a Financial Statement in which she claimed her income was unknown because her employment with (omitted) terminated on December 30, 2016. Ms.

M. attached her Earnings Statement from (omitted) for pay periods ending December 14, 2012, December 12, 2013, December 12, 2014, December 25, 2015 and December 9, 2016. She did not attach any of her personal Income Tax Returns or CRA Notices of Assessment. Ms. M. did not complete those portions of the Financial Statement relating to her personal expenses, assets and debts. Ms. M. indicated she sought special expenses for R.’s after school care for ten months in an unspecified amount and $1,500 for day-care for the two month school summer break. [ 14 ] On January 4, 2017, Mr.

H. filed a second Financial Statement in which he declared an annual income of $58,000 from his employment with P.W.B. Co. To this Financial Statement Mr. H. attached: (

a) his Statement of Earnings from (omitted) as of December 16, 2016; (

b) his 2015 T1 General Individual Income Tax and Benefit Return filed with the CRA by his Trustee in Bankruptcy; (

c) CRA Notice of Assessment for the 2015 tax year; (

d) CRA Assessment for the 2014 tax year; and (

e) CRA Assessment for the 2013 tax year. Mr. H. did not complete the expenses, assets and debts portion of the Financial Statement, however, this information is included in (omitted) Ltd.’s filings dated March 14, 2016 with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada. [ 15 ] On January 4, 2017, Mr. H. filed a Notice of Motion returnable January 13, 2017, seeking the following orders: a. Mr. H. and Ms. M. share the expense of dropping of and picking up R.; b. the Universal Child [Care Benefit] be shared equally between the parties; c. Mr.

H. is entitled to the 2016 Universal Child [Care Benefit]; d. disclosure of Ms. M.’s employment status and earnings; e. proof of all past and present day-care expenses; and f. Mr. H. pay his share of the day-care expenses directly to the day-care. Background Facts [ 16 ] Ms. M. is 40 years old. She is the biological mother of the following children: R. J. H. M., born (omitted), age 6 (“R.”); K. M., born (omitted), age 8 (“K.”); C. A., born (omitted), age 16 (“C.”); and L. M., born (omitted), age 19 (“L.”). [ 17 ] Ms.

M. currently lives with R., K. and C. in a single family dwelling at (omitted), Prince George, B.C. Ms. M. has owned this residence since 2004. [ 18 ] When Ms. M. and Mr. H. commenced their common law relationship in September 2009, Mr. H. moved into (omitted) with Ms. M. and her three children. At that time, Ms. M.’s youngest child, K., was only 10 months old. K. had no relationship with his biological father and over the years came to regard Mr. H. as his father. [ 19 ] Ms. M. and Mr. H. separated on August 31, 2012 and Mr. H. moved to his current residence at (omitted), Prince George B.C. Ms.

M. lives in northwest Prince George and Mr. H. lives in north Prince George. So, although they both live within the city limits, their residences are a 20 to 25 minute drive apart. [ 20 ] When Ms. M. and Mr. H. separated, L., C., K., and R. remained living primarily with Ms. M. From the outset, K. and R. had visits with Mr. H. both during the week and on the weekend. Initially their visits with Mr. H. during the weekdays were on Mondays and Wednesdays between 5 and 7 p.m.

During the weekend, which commenced Friday, their visits were overnight. [ 21 ] This parenting arrangement changed on October 4, 2013, when K. and R. began overnight visits with Mr. H. both during the week and on the weekend. Mr. H. and Ms. M. worked out a bi-weekly rotating

schedule to which they continue to adhere. [ 22 ] Mr. H.’s parenting time with R. has been more or less uninterrupted. This was not the case with Mr. H.’s contact time with K. Between May 2015 and February 2016, Ms. M. stopped sending K. for visits with Mr. H. The reason for this hiatus is unclear. Mr. H. says Ms. M. put an end to K.’s visits because she was angry. Ms. M. blames Mr. H. In any event, Mr. H.’s contact with K. was re- stablished at the February 11, 2016 Family Case Conference. K. continues to regard Mr. H. as his father and calls him “Dad.” K. has visits with Mr. H. at the same time as R.

Parenting Time Arrangement [ 23 ] Since October 4, 2013, Ms. M. and Mr. H. have been maintaining a bi-weekly regime of parenting time. Mr. H. picks up and drops off R. and K. from their mother’s residence or day-care or the school. R. and K. attend (omitted) and the YMCA after school care program. Both facilities are located close to Ms. M.’s residence. [ 24 ] Occasionally, Mr. H. and Ms. M. arrange to meet at Superstore or Spruceland Mall to transition the children, and on a few

occasions Ms. M. delivered R. and K. to Mr. H. at his home in (omitted). For the most part, it is Mr. H. who transitions the children from their two homes. [ 25 ] Ms. M. and Mr. H.’s bi-weekly parenting time regime is set out in Ms. M.’s

schedule entered as Exhibit 3 at trial and Mr. H.’s

schedule entered as Exhibit 13. They have each calculated parenting time in terms of the number of hours R. is with each parent or in school or day-care in a 336 hour two week period. From the evidence adduced at trial, I find that since October 4, 2013, Ms. M. and Mr. H. have maintained the following biweekly parenting time schedule: Week One: Mr. H. picks up R. and K. at the end of his workday on Monday at approximately 5 p.m. and drops them off at their school on Tuesday morning at 8:30 a.m. He picks them up again on Thursday at 5:00 p.m. and returns them to their mother’s residence at 5 p.m. Sunday.

Week Two: Mr. H. picks up R. and K. from Ms. M.’s residence or day-care at the end of his workday on Wednesday and Thursday at approximately 5 p.m. He drops R. and K. off at their school at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday and Friday. After school, they go to the YMCA after school care. [ 26 ] By Ms. M.’s calculation, over a 336 hour period, Mr. H. has parenting time with R. 108 hours, she has parenting time 138 hours and for the remaining 90 hours, she is either in school or day-care. As Ms. M. is recently unemployed, she anticipates that until she finds work she will not require after school care for R.

While she is unemployed, commencing February 1, 2017, Mr. H. will maintain his current 108 hours of bi-weekly parenting. Ms. M.’s parenting time will increase to 168 hours and the amount of time R. is in school or day-care will decrease to 60 hours. [ 27 ] Mr. H. has produced a

schedule of parenting time showing that during the school year he has R. 35.27% of the time, Ms. M. has her 37.95% of the time, she is in day-care or school 25.30% of the time and alone 1.49% of the time. By alone, Mr. H. means R. is in the care of Ms. M.’s older sons, L. or C., for a one hour period between the time Ms. M. leaves for work in the morning until R. arrives at school. [ 28 ] Teachers and day-care providers are not R.’s guardians and do not have parenting time. When R. is in the care of Ms. M.’s older children, she is not alone. Ms. M. says that when in school or day-care, R. is actually in her care.

There have been two occasions when R. needed to leave school before the end of the day. The Principal called Ms. M. who left work, attended at school and retrieved R. As R. is a healthy child, it is rare she is unable to attend or remain at school during an instructional day. [ 29 ] R. attends the YMCA after school care program while school is in session. During school breaks, Ms. M. makes other arrangements. In the summer, Ms. M. arranges her

schedule so she is only working four days per week. In the summer, R. has attended (omitted) in Prince George, B.C. Ms. M. also relies on her parents, K.M. and R.M., and older sons, L. and C., to assist from time to time with child care. [ 30 ] Ms. M. says that since they separated, Mr. H. has not contributed to R.’s third party child care costs. Mr. H. says he has contributed to these costs because he has consistently paid Ms. M. child support in excess of his Guideline income.

Moreover, he has not had any offset to his child support payments despite their shared parenting arrangement nor has he received any contribution from Ms. M. for the care he provides to K. Views of the Child [ 31 ] On February 11, 2016, Judge Bayliff ordered a

Section 211 FLA “Views of the Child Report” with respect to R. and K. Karen Fenton, Family Justice Counsellor, interviewed R. and K. at the Family Justice Centre on May 25, 2016, and authored the report on June 22, 2016. (See: Exhibit 5). Ms. Fenton interviewed R. and K. to glean their views with respect to parenting and contact time with Mr. H. With respect to R., Ms. Fenton writes in part: R. likes when her mother sings and enjoys reading with her father. She talked about doing similar activities in the community with each parent, naming the waterpark, playground and the train as a few of her favourites.

She has her own bedroom in both homes, but likes to sleep with her parent when permitted. (page 3) … R. likes when her mother makes macaroni, but referred to her father as the best cook when he makes eggs, toast, sausages and tacos. R. likes swimming with her father and is delighted to see the horses near his house. (page 3) R. enjoys all of her time with both parents. She was not specific about the

schedule of parenting time with her father, but would like to do more with him. She enjoys when K. is present but is not reluctant to attend alone. (page 4) [ 32 ] With respect to K., Ms. Fenton writes: K. states his dad doesn’t watch television so when they are with him they do “ten crafts” each and read daily. He enjoys playing “lego” at dad’s house and “mindcraft” on the computer at mom’s house.” (page 4) … K. values the experiences he has at his dad’s house, but would like the choice to stay at his mother’s to play with his friends or have some time separated from his younger sister.

He does not want his dad to yell at him or restrict him from contacting his mother if he wants to connect with her. (page 4) [ 33 ] Mr. H. has tendered in evidence 24 photographs of his residence to show he has devoted most of the living space in his home to R. and K. and their activities. He also testified as to the type of activities he enjoyed with the children, such as skating, swimming, and

visiting the horses in the stables near his home. [34] S.U., Mr. H.’s neighbour, and H.B., Mr. H.’s supervisor, also testified at trial. Mr. U. says that he often sees R. and K. at Mr.H.’s residence and has observed Mr. H. transitioning them to and from his home. Mr. B. testified that he allows Mr. H. flexibility in hiswork

schedule to facilitate his parenting time. Mr. B. has also been at Mr. H.’s residence and from his view Mr. H.’s life is dividedbetween his work and children. The evidence at trial corroborates Mr. B.’s view of Mr. H.’s devotion to R., K. and his work.

Issue#1: Do the parties have a shared parenting arrangement with respect to R.? [35] A shared parenting arrangement arises when a guardian has parenting time with a child for not less than 40 percent of the timeover the course of a year: see Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, s. 9 and Family Law Act Regulation, BC Reg 347/2012. [36] The question of whether Ms. M. and Mr. H. have a shared parenting arrangement with respect to R. depends upon how thisCourt allocates parenting time when R. is in school or day-care. Ms. M. argues it should be allocated 100% in her favour.

I do notbelieve that is fair to Mr. H. even though Ms. M. has shouldered the burden of arranging R.’s child care when she is not in school andboth parties are working. I note, however, that generally Ms. M. arranges child care for both R. and K. Mr. H. also provides asignificant amount of child care for K. As C. is 16 and L. 19, and no longer living in the family home, Ms. M. has some respite fromchild care responsibilities while K. is in Mr. H.’s care. Also, Mr.

H. bears the greater burden and expense of transitioning the childrenbetween their two homes. [37] In balancing the competing factors, I am of the view it is appropriate to allocate the time when R. is in day-care or schoolproportionally between the parties. Using Ms. M.’s calculations set out in Exhibit 3, R. would have been in Ms. M.’s care approximately188 hours of the 336 hours in two weeks or 56% of the time. Conversely, R. would be in Mr. H.’s care 44% of the time. [38] If Ms. M. remains unemployed and R. is home with her rather than in after school or day-care, Ms.

M.’s parenting time willincrease to approximately 205 hours bi-weekly or 61% of the time. As Ms. M. has worked fulltime for the past 4½ years and has amplemarketable skills, I expect she will regain employment in the near future. [39] I have also allocated the parenting time proportionally while R. is in school or day-care to Mr. H.’s calculations. This results inMr. H. having parenting time for 159 of the 336 bi-weekly hours or 47% of the time. Conversely, Ms. M. has R. 177 hours bi-weekly or53% of the time.

Decision on Issue #1: Do the parties have a shared parenting arrangement with respect to R.? [40] I find that Mr. H. and Ms. M. have had a shared parenting arrangement with respect to R. since October 4, 2013. Issue #2: How should the parties share parenting time with R. prospectively? [41] At the conclusion of the trial of this matter, Ms. M. and Mr. H. agreed: a. the existing bi-weekly parenting time

schedule should continue; b. they would share equally parenting time during the school spring and Christmas breaks; and c. in the summer school break, they will share parenting time equally on an alternating week on, week off basis. [42] In this proposed schedule, Ms. M. would have parenting time with R. approximately 53% of the time and Mr. H. 47%. I findthis proposal to be a positive parenting arrangement which will maximize R.’s time with each parent. Although Mr. H. and Ms.

M. havediffering perspectives on some issues, they have demonstrated an ability and willingness to cooperate in sharing parenting time with R. Iam heartened by their mutual respect for the other’s parenting ability. Ms. M. would like Mr. H. to exercise more parenting time whileR. is on a school break and Mr. H. would like Ms. M. to share in the transitions and consult with him concerning summer day-care. Nevertheless, I have not discerned any excessive micromanaging, criticism, or hostility from either party with respect to the other’sparenting.

R. is blessed with two loving and competent parents who I am confident will place her interests above their own. I find ashared parenting arrangement on the terms agreed to by the parties at trial to be in R.’s best interest. Issue #3: How much child support must Mr. H. pay to Ms. M. for R. prospectively? [43] Every parent has a duty to pay child support providing that the child: (

a) is a minor and not a 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 aduty to provide support for the child and may be required to pay child support (FLA, ss. 147(1), 149(1)). [44] 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

section 26.1 of the Divorce Act (Canada). The Guidelines set out the rules and tablesused to determine child support when parents are separated or divorced. The purpose of the Guidelines is to: (

a) establish a fair standardof support for children so that they continue to benefit from both parents’ incomes after the separation or divorce; (

b) reduce conflict andtension between parents by making the calculation of child support more objective and (

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

d) make the legal process more efficient and encourage settlements by giving courts and parentsguidance about child support. (See Guidelines, s. 1 (

a) to (

d) and Kowalewich v. Kowalewich, 2001 BCCA 450 , at para. 42). [45] Because Ms. M. and Mr. H. have a shared parenting arrangement for R., 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 the

course 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. [46]

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. [47] 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 Set Off Formula [48] In shared parenting arrangements, the court begins its analysis with the application of a simple set off 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. Ms.

M.’s Guideline Income Past and Present [49] Ms. M.’s Notice of Assessments (Exhibit 1) indicate her total income in 2012 was $10,649, in 2013 it was $34,509, in 2014 itwas $41,918, and in 2015 it was $43,169. In determining Ms. M.’s Guideline income, the Court does not consider as income the moniesMs. M. paid for union dues or received from the Universal Child Care Benefit. (See Guidelines,

Schedule III, s. 3) [50] Between July 23, 2012 and December 30, 2016, Ms. M. worked full-time as a Property Information Administrator II for(omitted). From this employment, Ms. M. earned $10,649.33 in 2012, $32,799.84 in 2013, $37,727.78 in 2014, $41,079.62 in 2015. (See Exhibits 1: Ms. M. Notice of Assessments and Exhibit 2: Ms. M. Financial Statement.) Ms. M. did not provide a copy of her finalstatement of earnings for 2016. The statement Ms. M. did provide indicates she earned $41,164.58 for the pay period ending December9, 2016. I note from her Record of Employment and Earning Statements Ms.

M. received $1,718.81 biweekly. This means Ms. M.would have earned an additional three weeks salary in 2016 in the amount of $2,578.22 for a total income of $43,742.78. Ms. M.’sGuideline income for 2016 would be this amount less union dues in the approximate amount of $872.53. ($820.96 + $51.57 = $872.53). Accordingly, I find Ms. M.’s Guideline income for 2016 to be $42,870.25. [51] Ms. M.’s employment as a Property Information Administrator ended on December 30, 2016, when her contract was notrenewed. Ms.

M. applied for Employment Insurance and now receives $466 per week in benefits. (See Exhibit 1: EmploymentInsurance Claim and Record of Employment) Mr. H.’s Guideline Income Past and Present [52] Mr. H. is the Operations Manager for (omitted) in Prince George B.C. It is a job he has held since 2015. He anticipates his2016 employment income was $58,000. (See Exhibit 10: H. Financial Statement filed January 4, 2017). As this is a salaried managerialposition, Mr. H. does not earn overtime pay notwithstanding his long hours of work. [53] In 2015, Mr.

H. earned $50,020.90 in income from his positions with (omitted), P.H.S.A. and (omitted). (See Exhibit 18:Statement of Earnings and Exhibit 9: H. Financial Statement filed November 9, 2015). [54] From April 2014 to January 1, 2015, Mr. H. worked casually for P.H.S.A. earning $22.24 per hour. [55] In 2014, Mr. H. earned $24,052.69 from this employment, from which he paid $505.11 in union dues. (See: Exhibit 18:Statement of Earnings). Mr. H.’s earnings in 2014 totalled $26,028. He explained that in 2014, he became ill and received medicalEmployment Insurance and social assistance. [56] In 2013, Mr.

H. earned $27,950 (See Exhibit 9: H. Financial Statement filed November 9, 2015). [57] On March 14, 2016, Mr. H. made an assignment in bankruptcy under s. 49 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S. 1985, c.B-3. MNP Ltd. was appointed trustee of his estate. Mr. H.’s Form 79 Statement of Affairs filed with the Official Receiver of theSuperintendent of Bankruptcy indicates that on March 14, 2016. Mr. H. had assets valued at $113,886.35, which included his residence,vehicle, RRSPs and furnishings and he had secured and unsecured debts totalling $175,574.53. [58] Mr.

H.’s Form 65, Monthly Income and Expense Statement filed with the Official Receiver indicates that after paying childsupport in the amount of $420 per month and medical insurance of $40 per month, Mr. H.’s available monthly income is $2,707.84. From this sum, Mr.

H.’s pays his living expenses as well as $309.42 to his estate. [59] I pause to note that ss. 69.41(1) and 121(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provide that the stay of proceedings against abankrupt person set out under s. 69.3(1) of that Act does not apply to claims for child or spousal support under any court order oragreement. [60] I have set out below the parties’ respective child support payments pursuant to s. 3 of the Guidelines for the taxation yearsbetween 2012 to 2016, inclusive:

K. H. J. M. Payor on Shared Parenting set off Taxation Year Guideline Income Monthly Child Support Amount Paid Guideline Income Monthly Child Support 2012 $35,953 $327 $400 $15,449 $105 N/A 2013 $27, 950 $248 $400 $34,509 $152 N/A 2014 $26,028 $227 $217 $41,918 $360 M. 2015 $50,021 $458 $455 $43,169 $394 H. 2016 $58,000 $537 $455 $42,870 $390 H. [ 61 ] Applying a simple set off formulae from 2014 onward produces the following results: 2014: Mr. H.’s monthly payments of $227 set off against Ms. M.’s Guideline payment of $360 would result in Ms. M. paying Mr. H. $133 per month. Instead, Mr. H. paid Ms.

M. a total of $2,600 in 2014, giving her a net benefit of $4,196. ($2,600 + ($133 x 12) = $4,196). 2015: Mr. H.’s monthly Guideline payments of $458 set off against Ms. M.’s Guideline payment of $394 would result in Mr. H. paying Ms. M. $64 per month. Instead, Mr. H. paid Ms. M. a total of $5,460, giving her a net benefit of $4,692. 2016: Mr. H.’s monthly Guideline payments: $537, set off against Ms. M.’s Guideline payment of $390 would result in Mr. H. paying Mr. M. $147 per month. Mr. H. paid Ms.

M. a total of $5,460 in 2016, giving her a total net benefit of $3,696. ($455 x 12 = $5,460 - ($147 x 12) = $3,696). [ 62 ] Mr. H.’s Guideline income for 2017 is anticipated to be $58,000 per annum. His child support payments would be $537 per month if Ms. M. had 60% or more of the parenting time for R. Ms. M. is now unemployed and earns $466 per week. If she remains unemployed for the entire year, her annual income from Employment Insurance will be $24,232 and her monthly Guideline support payments would be $208. This means Mr. H. would pay Ms.

M. $329 per month. ($537 - $208 = $329) [ 63 ] Upon a mathematical application of the set off method to the parents’ respective Guideline incomes, Mr. H. has paid to Ms. M. $12,584 more than the Guidelines require between 2014 and 2016 inclusive. ($4,196 + $4,692 + $3,696= $12,584) [ 64 ] As the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated in Contino , the set off calculations is the beginning, not the end, of the inquiry.

What are the increased costs of shared parenting arrangements? [ 65 ] There is no specific evidence before the Court as to the increased costs either party experienced as a result of the shared parenting arrangements. Ms. M. continues to live in the residence she has owned since 2004. Mr. H. has a residence suitable for himself, R. and K. I accept a parent’s housing costs do not decrease because their child is with the other parent.

In Contino , Bastarche J. stated at para. 54: not every dollar spent by a parent exercising access over the 40 percent threshold results in a dollar saved by the recipient parent and 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 (para 54). [ 66 ] R. needs equal living space in each residence.

The consumables such as food, gas, and utilities would likely vary, but fixed costs would not. [ 67 ] Both Mr. H. and Ms. M. typically work in full-time jobs. Until Ms. M. lost her job on December 30, 2016, their respective incomes were not significantly different. [ 68 ] Given R.’s age, Mr. H. and Ms. M. require child care while they are working. To date, Ms. M. has paid for that child care. Mr. H. says this is fair because he has consistently paid child support above the Guidelines . His January 2015 court ordered child care payments were based on an imputed income which was more than Mr.

H. earned and did not take into consideration the shared parenting regime. [ 69 ] Mr. H. has undertaken the majority of the expense involved in transitioning R. and K. between residences. Given Ms. M. and Mr. H.’s residences are separated by a 20 to 25 minute drive, this expense is more than trivial. [ 70 ] For the first five years of his employment, Mr. H. is not entitled to take any vacation during the summer. He only receives two weeks paid vacation per year. He will have to find and pay for childcare while R. is in his care while he is working.

What are the other conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent and R.? [ 71 ] The parties’ respective Notices of Assessment and Statement of Earnings show Ms. M. and Mr. H. are persons of modest means. Recently, they have both fallen on hard times. Mr. H. has declared bankruptcy in March 2016 and Ms. M. lost her job. Mr. H. has appeared to have suffered some health related problems. Mr. H.’s Circumstances

[ 72 ] Mr. H.’s financial circumstances are particularized in Exhibit 19. His Statement of Affairs indicates he owns a home valued at $90,000 which secures a loan of $87,276.03. Mr. H. makes a mortgage payment of $660.83 per month. Mr. H. owns a 2008 Ford 150 Pickup valued at $9,922 against which there is owing $8,500. His monthly car payment is $528.67. Mr. H. has RRSPs totalling $11,270.50 which are exempt property. [ 73 ] The Form 85, Monthly Income and Statement of the Bankrupt, confirm that Mr. H. has few luxuries other than smoking. For example, he has no monies available for vacations.

Any surplus after his bare bones budget must be paid to his estate for the benefit of his creditors. [ 74 ] Mr. H.’s Form 79, Information Relating to the Affairs of the Bankrupt, indicates Mr. H.’s financial difficulties arose as a result of his unprofitable courier business followed by a low paying job. I have no evidence whether any of the debts set out in his Statement of Liabilities were family-related. [ 75 ] Mr.

H. engages in low cost, high participation activities with the children such as crafts, swimming, skating, and visiting with members of his extended family and the horses in stables near his home. [ 76 ] Mr. H. has paid to Ms. M. child support since their separation in 2012. Despite his income or their shared parenting arrangement commencing October 4, 2013, Mr. H. paid Ms. M. child support for R. in the amount of $400 per month from September 2012 to December 31, 2013. In 2014, Mr. H. paid child support totalling $2,600 ($217 per month) and in 2015 he paid $455 per month.

There has been no offset in child support payments to adjust for his increased expenses as the result of the shared parenting regime. Moreover, Ms. M. claims the full Universal Child Care Benefit for R. [ 77 ] Mr. H. also has K. with him at the same time as R. and that is an additional expense for him as well. [ 78 ] Mr. H. does not seek an order for retroactive child support. Ms. M.’s Circumstances [ 79 ] Ms. M. has one year of post-secondary education. She has a Certificate in Business Administration from (omitted). She has worked in a number of different jobs in her life and has a variety of marketable skills.

As mentioned earlier, since 2012, Ms. M. has worked as a Property Information Administrator II for (omitted). She says there are many jobs she has done and is capable of doing. [ 80 ] Ms. M. has four children from various relationships and receives, or has received, some child and spousal support from L. and C.’s father. [ 81 ] Ms. M. resides in a home she has owned since 2004 in northwest Prince George. She has not provided a list of her expenses, assets and liabilities.

I am left with the impression she works very hard and juggles many demands and obligations in order to support and care for herself and her family. Decision on Issue #3: How much child support must Mr. H. pay to Ms. M. for R. prospectively? [ 82 ] A simple set off calculation does not take into account the discrete “conditions, means, needs and other circumstances” of the parents necessary to properly assess their respective child support obligations.

Nevertheless, I am satisfied that in this case using a straight set off calculation of child support is not going to result in a figure which is unrealistic or undermines the Guideline goal of ensuring a consistent standard of living for R. across both households. In reaching this conclusion, I have considered all of the evidence before me, including the following circumstances: a. Ms. M. and Mr. H.’s incomes, expenses, education and lifestyle are not significantly different; b. Both Ms. M. and Mr. H.’s typically work in full-time in jobs which pay a modest wage; c. Recently, Ms. M. and Mr.

H. have both fallen on hard times. Mr. H. was ill and in 2014 survived on medical Employment Insurance benefits and social assistance. In March 2016, he declared bankruptcy. Ms. M. has just lost her job of 4½ years; d. Given his recent assignment in bankruptcy, Ms. M. likely has more assets and less debt than Mr. H. Also, given his bankruptcy, Mr. H. is unlikely to have access to credit for some time; e. There is no suggestion that either party has expensive pastimes, hobbies or vacations. Similarly, they have not involved their children in costly recreational activities; f. Mr.

H. now provides child care for K. roughly equal to that which he provides to R.; g. In the future, Mr. H. and Ms. M. will share R.’s child care expenses while they work; h. Mr. H. has accepted the majority of the responsibility and cost for transitioning the children between residences; i. Since October 4, 2013, when the parties commenced a shared parenting arrangement, Mr. H. has paid child support pursuant to s. 3 of the Guidelines . Mr. H. is not seeking any compensation for any monies he has paid in excess of what he would have paid pursuant to s. 9; and j. Ms.

M. has the benefit of the Universal Child Care benefit for R. [ 83 ] Commencing February 1, 2017, Mr. H. will pay to Ms. M. $329 per month for R.’s support in 26 bi-weekly instalments of $151.85.

Issue #4: How should R.’s special expenses be allocated prospectively? [84] Ms. M. seeks

Section 7 expenses for R.’s child care prospectively and retroactively. Ms. M. says that Mr. H. should pay 50 to60% of R.’s day-care and after school care expenses. Alternatively, Mr. H. can arrange and pay for R.’s child care expenses when he isexercising parenting time.

To date, he has paid nothing in excess of his monthly child support payments. [85] The applicable provisions of the Guidelines are as follows: Special or extraordinary expenses 7(1) In a child support order the court may, on either spouse’s request, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of thefollowing expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s bestinterests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spendingpattern prior to the separation: (

a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial parent’s employment, illness, disability or education or training foremployment; (

b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child; (

c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment,professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupationaltherapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses; (

d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’sparticular needs; (

e) expenses for post-secondary education; and (

f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. [86] The Court of Appeal in Bodine-Shah v. Shah, 2014 BCCA 191 summarized the governing principles with respect toexpenses under s. 7of the Guidelines: [66] Special expenses listed in ss. 7(1)(a)-(

c) and (

e) are distinct from extraordinary expenses referred to in ss. 7(1)(

d) and (f). Special expenses are defined as relating to child care, medical or dental insurance premiums, health-related costs, and post-secondaryeducation. They must be found to be reasonable and necessary. Extraordinary expenses are not defined. Their extraordinariness isdetermined in the context of the combined income of the spouses, as well as other considerations, including the nature and amount of theindividual expense, the nature and number of the activities, any special needs or talents of the child, and the overall cost of the activities. They also must be found to be reasonable and necessary.

Relevant considerations for the tests of necessity and reasonableness includewhether the expenses are necessary in relation to the child’s best interests, and reasonable having regard to the means of the spouses, thechild, and to the family’s spending pattern prior to separation. See McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (1998), (BC CA), 57B.C.L.R. (3d) 186 at paras. 81-82 (C.A.). In assessing “means”, the court may consider the parties’ capital assets, income distribution,debts, third-party resources, access costs, support obligations, receipt of support, and any other relevant factor: Delichte v.

Rogers, 2013MBCA 106 , 37 R.F.L. (7th) 81 at para. 38. Courts may consider whether the non-custodial parent was consulted regarding theexpense, though a lack of consultation does not automatically preclude a finding that the expense is reasonable and necessary: Delichte atparas. 39, 44. [87] Ms. M. and Mr. H. ordinarily work full-time and R. regularly requires after school care and day-care. These expenses arereasonable and necessary special expenses under s. 7 of the Guidelines. Day-care during school breaks [88] Ms. M. has asked that Mr.

H. be responsible for arranging and paying R.’s day-care costs during his parenting time on theschool spring, Christmas, and summer breaks. [89] Ms. M. says that she does not need R. in day-care when she is not working, which is the present case. Ms. M. benefits from agovernment child care subsidy and assistance from her parents and older children. She also has K. to consider.

Given the number ofvariables at play in arranging day-care for R. during the school breaks, I agree it makes the most sense for the party who is exercisingparenting time to arrange and pay for his or her own childcare requirements. [90] When Ms. M. returns to work, the parties may find it impractical or costly to have R. change day-care providers depending onwho she is with at any particular time. I am confident these concerns can be addressed and minimized through good faith parentalconsultation. After School Care [91] Mr. H. and Ms.

M. require after school care for R. during the school year when they are working. Since she started school in2015, R. has attended the YMCA after school care program. [92] When both parties are working they ought to share the expense for after school care equally, otherwise, each party shouldarrange and pay for whatever third party childcare he or she may require for R. while exercising parenting time. [93] If Ms. M. is not working and does not need or want R. in after school care, then Mr. H. will arrange and pay for R.’s afterschool care as follows:

a. In Week One when he has R. on Monday and then Thursday to Sunday, Mr. H. will be responsible for after school care onThursday and Friday. b. In Week Two, Mr. H. will be responsible for after school care on Wednesday and Thursdays. Decision on Issue #4: How should R.’s special expenses be allocated prospectively? [94] Each party will arrange and pay for whatever third party child care he or she may require for R. while exercising parenting time. [95] If both parties require third party after school care for R., they will share this expense equally. [96] If only Mr.

H. requires after school care during his bi-weekly parenting time, then he will arrange and pay for it for two daysper week when he is exercising parenting time. [97] Each party is obliged to consult the other as to R.’s third party child care providers in order to minimize transitions, disruption,costs and inconvenience. [98] There is nothing in my ruling to preclude the parties from agreeing the other will have the right of first refusal in the event oneof them is unavailable to parent. For example, while Ms. M. is unemployed, she may wish to have R. home rather than go to after schoolcare two days per week.

Similarly, there is nothing to prevent Mr. H. paying additional monies to Ms. M. for providing after schoolchildcare during his parenting time. Issue #5: What amount should Mr. H. pay for R.’s special expenses retroactively? [99] Ms. M. seeks reimbursement for special expenses she has paid for R.’s day-care and after school care since March 2015. TheFLA provides that a child support order may be made for any period of time prior to the application for child support (s. 170(b)). Aretroactive order is discretionary but not exceptional; see Williams v.

Williams, 2015 BCSC 928 at paras 108-112. [100] The governing authority on retroactive child support obligations is the Supreme Court of Canada decision of D.B.S. v. S.R.G.,2006 SCC 37 . D.B.S. dealt with an application by the recipient parent for a retroactive increase in child support. Mr.

JusticeBastarache makes it clear in D.S.B. (at para. 60) that “[n]o child support analysis should ever lose sight of the fact that support is theright of the child.” Bastarache J. sets out four factors to be considered by the court in assessing whether a retroactive order isappropriate: a. whether there is a reasonable excuse for why support was not sought earlier; b. the conduct of the payor parent; c. the circumstances of the child or recipient spouse; and d. any hardship occasioned by a retroactive award on the payor spouse. (See McKenzie v.

Perestrelo, 2014 BCCA 161 at para. 106) [101] In D.B.S., the Supreme Court held that as a general rule, absent misconduct, a retroactive change to a child support order willcommence the date of effective notice, but no more than three years in the past. “Effective notice” is “not restricted to the date uponwhich an application to the court or formal notice is given, but generally when the topic is broached.” The reason for this rule is thatpersons must have some certainty in their financial affairs. [102] In this case, Ms.

M. indicated on her Application to Obtain an Order filed October 9, 2015, that she sought retroactive childsupport to September 1, 2012. This application was served on Mr. H. on October 15, 2015. At trial, Ms. M. limited her claim for one-half of R.’s day-care and after school care expenses retroactive to March 2015. I find Mr. H. received effective notice of Ms. M.’sintention to seek a retroactive award for child support on October 15, 2015. Did Ms. M. have a reasonable excuse for why support was not sought earlier? [103] Ms.

M. has not explained why she waited until October 2015 to ask for retroactive child support. In determining whether theCourt should consider an award prior to Mr. H. receiving notice of her claim on October 15, 2015, I have taken into consideration thatMs. M. was ordered to provide all documentation upon which she intended to rely at trial by November 18, 2016. Nevertheless, the onlydocuments Ms.

M. entered into evidence with respect to her retroactive child support claim were two receipts from the YMCA showingthat in 2015, from September 1 to December 31, 2015, she paid $932.55 in after school care for R. and in 2016 she paid $2,387.85 for atotal of $3,320.40. [104] I conclude that Ms. M.’s claim for retroactive s. 7 special expenses for R.’s day-care ought to be restricted to the period from andincluding September 1, 2015, and I so order. The conduct of the payor parent [105] Mr. H. says Ms. M. insisted he pay child support in cash because his personal cheques often bounced.

This is not surprisinggiven Mr. H. assignment in bankruptcy in March 2016. I understand Mr. H. did in fact make those payments in cash. I do not considerthe fact he was struggling to meet his obligations in times of grave financial difficulties as misconduct. Accordingly, there is nothingMr. H.’s has done to suggest he was attempting to conceal his income or shirk his responsibilities. In fact, Mr. H. filed his FinancialStatement on November 9, 2015, on the same day he filed his Reply to Ms. M.’s application. The circumstances of the child or recipient spouse

[ 106 ] During the review period, Ms. M. was working full-time for (omitted). In 2015, she earned $43,169 and in 2016, she earned $42,870 and any Universal Child Care Benefit she may have received. She lived in her own residence that she has owned since 2004. According to her documentary and oral evidence, in the 16 month period from September 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, Ms. M. paid after school day-care costs for R. totaling $3,320.40 and $1,500 for day-care during the summer holidays for a total of $4,820.40. Fifty percent of this sum is $2,410 and 60% is $2,892. Despite the shared parenting arrangement, Mr.

H. paid Ms. M. child support as though there was no such arrangement with the result that during the 16 month review period (September 1, 2015 to December 30, 2016) Ms. M. received $3,949 more than she would have if the parents had offset their respective support payments for that period. ($64 x 4 + $3,696 = $3,949). Ms. M. also claimed the Universal Child Care Benefit for R. [ 107 ] For ten months of the review period, Ms. M. received some benefit from Mr. H. providing child care for K. at the same time as he had parenting time with R. Also, Ms. M. benefited from the fact that Mr.

H. accepted the responsibility and expense for transitioning the children between residences. Any hardship occasioned by a retroactive award on the payor? [ 108 ] Exhibit 19 shows that during the review period, Mr. H. was mired in debt and made an assignment in bankruptcy. After making his child support payment to Ms. M., Mr. H. was allowed expenses for a household of one. He had to support R. and K. while they were at his residence on a meagre discretionary allowance. Mr. H.’s home and vehicle are encumbered by liens and mortgages to the point they have very little equity. Mr. H.’s only asset is his wage.

Until he is discharged, he will have to pay any surplus income to his estate. I cannot see where Mr. H. is going to obtain the funds to pay Ms. M. a retroactive award for special expenses. Decision Issue #5: What amount should Mr. H. pay for R.’s special expenses retroactively? [ 109 ] I acknowledge that Ms. M. has had the burden of organizing and paying for the day-care costs since the parties have separated. Still, I have decided against ordering Mr. H. to reimburse Ms. M. retroactively for a portion of the s.7 special expenses she paid for child care.

In reaching this decision I have considered the following circumstances: a. $1,500 of the day-care costs for the review period is not receipted; b. Mr. H. has additional responsibility and expense of caring for K. as well as R.; c. Mr. H. incurred the majority of the expense for picking up and dropping off R. and K.; d. Mr. H. has been paying child support since 2014 on the basis that Ms. M. had 60% or more of the parenting time with R., which I find is not the case. I have found that on a mathematical application of the set off formula, Mr. H. paid to Ms.

M. $12,584 more than he would have had the parents offset their respective support obligations; e. The $309 monthly payment Mr. H. has to pay to his bankrupt estate has been determined by the Trustee in accordance with Mr. H.’s income and expenses as of March of 2016. At that time, no amount was attributed to s. 7 expenses. Had Mr. H. known he would have to pay retroactive day-care costs; this sum may have been taken into account in assessing his monthly payments to the estate. Instead of having to make a surplus payment of $309.42 per month to his estate, Mr.

H. may have paid some of that money directly to a day-care facility or to reimburse Ms. M. for his share of this expense; f. Because Mr. H. has recently made an assignment in bankruptcy, he has no assets to sell or access to credit. If I were to order him to pay the special expenses retroactively, Mr. H. may be left with too little money to support himself and his family. I find Bastarache J.’s comments in In D.B.S. instructive: There are various reasons why retroactive awards could lead to hardship in circumstances where a prospective award would not.

For instance, the quantum of retroactive awards is usually based on past income rather than present income; in other words, unlike prospective awards, the calculation of retroactive awards is not intrinsically linked to what the payor parent can currently afford... In short, retroactive awards disrupt payor parents’ management of their financial affairs in ways that prospective awards do not. Courts should be attentive to this fact. Issue #6: Should Mr. H. and Ms. M. share the expense of dropping off and picking up R.? [ 110 ] In determining the amount of child support Mr. H. ought to pay Ms.

M., I have factored in the cost and inconvenience to Mr. H. in dropping off and picking up R. If this expense were shared, I may have ordered he pay more than the simple application of the set off formula requires. Accordingly, I will not order Ms. M. share in the expense of transitioning R. between residences. Issue #7: Should the Universal Child Care Benefit shared equally between the parties? [ 111 ] I am not granting Mr. H.’s application the parties share equally the Universal Child Care Benefit for the following reasons: a. Ms. M. lost her job at the end of 2016 and now receives half of Mr. H.’s wage; b. Ms.

M. has more parenting time with R. than Mr. H.; c. In refusing Ms. M.’s application for retroactive special expenses, I have considered the fact that she obtains the Universal Child Care Benefit; and d. In adopting a simple set off method of determining the amount of child support Mr. H. will pay prospectively, I have taken account of the fact Ms. M. obtains the Universal Child Care Benefit. Issue #8: Is Mr. H. entitled to the 2016 Universal Child Care benefit?

[ 112 ] For the reasons set out in above in my determination of Issue #7, Mr. H. is not entitled to the 2016 Universal Child Care Benefit.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO R. [ 113 ] The Court is satisfied that J.R.M. and K.J.H. are the guardians of the child, R.J.H.M., born (omitted), under s.39(1) of the Family Law Act . [ 114 ] Under s. 40(2) of the FLA , the guardians will share equally all parental responsibilities for R. [ 115 ] Mr. H. and Ms. M. have had a shared parenting arrangement for R. since October 4, 2013. [ 116 ] Mr. H. and Ms. M. will continue a shared parenting arrangement for R. as follows: a. Commencing February 1, 2017, Mr. H. and Ms. M. will have the following bi-weekly parenting

schedule while school is in session: Week One: Mr. H. will pick up R. on Monday at 5 p.m. and drop her off at her school on Tuesday morning at 8:30 a.m. He will pick her up again on Thursday at 5:00 p.m. and returns her to Ms. M. at 5 p.m. Sunday. Week Two: Mr. H. will pick up R. at 5 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday and drop her off at school at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday and Friday. b. Mr. H. and Ms. M. will share parenting time with R. equally during the school spring and Christmas break on dates and at such times as may the parents may agree. c. In the summer school break, Mr. H. and Ms.

M. will share parenting time equally on an alternating week on, week off basis starting and ending on dates and at such times as may the parents may agree. [ 117 ] The parties are at liberty to make permanent or temporary changes to this parenting time

schedule provided such changes are agreed to by both in advance by text message, email, or other written communication. [ 118 ] Each party will make day-to-day decisions affecting R. and will have day-to-day control and supervision of R. while she is in his or her care. [ 119 ] Ms. M. and Mr. H. each have the right to obtain information concerning R. directly from third parties, including but not limited to teachers, schools, counsellors, medical professionals, and third party caregivers . [ 120 ] Mr. H. is a resident of British Columbia and has a gross annual income for 2017 of $58,000. [ 121 ] Ms.

M. is a resident of British Columbia and has a gross annual income for 2017 of $24,232. [ 122 ] Commencing February 1, 2017, Mr. H. will pay to Ms. M. for R.’s support $329 per month in 26 equal bi-weekly instalments of $151.85 for as long as R. is eligible for support under the Family Law Act or until further court order. [ 123 ] For as long as R. is eligible to receive child support, Ms. M. and Mr. H. will exchange: (

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

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

The purpose of this disclosure is so that each may monitor the application of the Guidelines to their family situation. [ 124 ] Under s. 222 of the FLA , upon exchange of their Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment, the parties are required to discuss any material change in circumstances which warrant a change in the amount of support payable. [ 125 ] Each party will arrange and pay for whatever third party child care he or she may require for R. while exercising parenting time. [ 126 ] If both parties require third party after school care for R., Ms. M. and Mr.

H. will share this expense equally. [ 127 ] If only Mr. H. requires after school care during his bi-weekly parenting time, then he will arrange and pay for it for the two days per week he is exercising parenting time. [ 128 ] Each party is obliged to consult the other as to R.’s third party child care in order to minimize transitions, disruption, costs, and inconvenience. [ 129 ] Ms. M.’s application for an order requiring Mr. H. to pay her for R.’s special expenses retroactively is dismissed. [ 130 ] Mr.

H.’s application requiring the parties share the expense of dropping of and picking up R. is dismissed. [ 131 ] Mr. H.’s application that the parties share equally the Universal Child Care Benefit is dismissed. [ 132 ] Mr. H.’s application that he is entitled to the 2016 Universal Child Care Benefit is dismissed. [ 133 ] The Court will review this matter in six months. [ 134 ] I direct the Prince George Registry to prepare the form of this order based upon the provisions of paragraphs 113 to 133 of these reasons for judgment with all necessary amendments.

[ 135 ] The signatures of both of the parties approving the form of the order are dispensed with and not required. The Honourable Judge J. T. Doulis Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM - RELEASED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2017 In the Reasons for Judgment dated January 26, 2017, the following changes have been made: 1. Eliminate paragraph 123 as it is a repeat of paragraph 122. 2. Correction to p aragraph 135 should now read as follows: [135] I direct the Prince George Registry to prepare the form of this order based upon the provisions of paragraphs 113 to 133 of these reasons for judgment with all necessary amendments.