M.A. v. G.A. Date:, 2013 BCPC 416

Citation: M.A. v. G.A. Date: 20130711 2013 BCPC 0416 File No: 12-4373 Registry: Williams Lake IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: M.A. APPLICANT AND: G.A. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE E. L. BAYLIFF Counsel for the Applicant: S. McKinley Appearing on their own behalf: G.A . Place of Hearing: 100 Mile House , B.C.

Date of Hearing: April 30, 2013 Date of Judgment: July 11, 2013 [ 1 ] This is my decision following the trial of this matter which took place on April 30 th , 2013 in 100 Mile House and the filing of written submissions by the parties. [ 2 ] The relevant court documents are MA’s Application to Obtain an Order filed November 18 th , 2011 (# 1) and my Order of February 9 th , 2012, MA’s further Notice of Motion filed August 20 th , 2012 (# 7) and GA’s Application to Change or Cancel the February 2012 Order, filed August 30 th , 2012 (# 10). [ 3 ] The issues are as follows: 1.

Child Support: 1.1 Should child support be reduced? Or increased? 1.2 How much longer should GA have to continue paying it given the age of his daughter PA? 1.3 Payment of child support only during the university year? 1.4 Payment directly to PA? 1.5 Reduction in child support because of purchasing a car for PA?

Section 7 “Extraordinary Expenses”: 2.1 How much does GA owe for these expenses? 2.2 What is the correct division of expenses going forward? and 2.3 What is the best mechanism for payment? 3. Spousal Support: 3.1 Has MA established that she is entitled to receive spousal support? 3.2 If so, what is the correct amount and over what time period? 1. Child Support 1.1 Should the amount be reduced? Or increased? Or should it stay the same? [ 4 ] For the reasons set out below I have decided that there will be no change in the amount of ongoing, weekly child support.

It will remain at $206.00/week ($895/month) as set out in my Order of February 9 th , 2012 (‘the Order’, ‘the existing Order’). I will explain why I have reached this conclusion. [ 5 ] The law says that each parent has a duty to provide support for their child. [1] The parent that has the child in their care the majority (60% or more) of the time (MA in this case) makes her contribution by caring for the child on a day to day basis. The other parent (GA in this case) is required to make his contribution by paying an amount of money set by the Federal Child Support Guidelines (“the Guidelines”).

The amount of money that must be paid is determined by the payor parent’s total income [2] which is similar to gross income. As a general rule, assuming that all his income was earned off Reserve, GA can determine his total income by looking at line 150 of his income tax return. [ 6 ] Thus, child support is calculated on the payor parent’s income before deductions for income tax, EI, CPP, the payor parent’s own living expenses or the living expenses of his current partner and her family.

The reasoning behind this is that “children come first” – the obligation to support one’s own children comes before all other commitments. [ 7 ] Therefore, the starting point for determining the proper monthly amount of child support is to determine the payor parent’s total income.

The higher the income the higher the amount of child support payable; the lower the income the lower the amount payable. [ 8 ] In my Order of February 9 th , 2012 (“the Order” or “the existing Order”) I imputed to GA an annual income for child support purposes of $96,910 and I ordered that he pay MA $206 per week in child support for PA, who is the youngest of their 4 children.

[ 9 ] GA was not present when that Order was made (he had not been notified of the court date because he had not filed a Reply). He argues that the figure of $96,910 assigned to him is too high. He says that it was based on inaccurate information and that there has been a change in circumstances because he now has to pay income tax since moving off Reserve in July, 2012. [ 10 ] Ms.

McKinley, on behalf of MA argues that $96,910 is actually too low and that the evidence shows GA made considerably more than this sum in 2012, plus she argues that any income earned on Reserve should be “grossed up” to account for the fact that GA did not have to pay tax on that portion of his income. [ 11 ] I will now review the evidence that has been put before me in this case about GA’s total income: • His gross pay from his job as Supervisor at [omitted for publishing] in 2012 was $91,332.00 ( Exhibit 2); • About ½ this sum ($45,400) was earned while he still lived on the [omitted for publishing] Reserve and therefore he did not have to pay income tax on this money; • He also earned about $4,018 from [omitted for publishing] during break up in the spring of 2012; • As a band councilman for the months of January to April, 2012 he also earned $750/mo x 4 = $3,000.

He did not have to pay income tax on this money; • Also connected with his band council work in the first part of 2012, he received approximately $500 as a wage loss allowance for attending meetings; • No information was provided about his income in 2013. [ 12 ] When GA’s employment income with [omitted for publishing] and [omitted for publishing] , his band council honorarium and his wage loss allowance are added up, his total income for 2012 is $98,350 which is more than the $96,900 figure I imputed or assigned to him in the existing Order. Therefore, the existing Order is actually favourable to GA.

And, this does not take into account the fact that the $98,350 figure should be “grossed up” [3] to reflect the reality that GA did not pay tax on about ½ of that sum. [ 13 ] I therefore conclude that the $96,900 income used in the existing Order for 2012 is a fair, even a generous figure as far as GA is concerned and I decline to reduce it and I therefore decline to reduce the ongoing, weekly amount of child support. [ 14 ] Ms. McKinley urges me to increase the amount of ongoing child support payable by GA by finding that his income in 2012 was actually quite a bit higher - in the range of $126,367.

She reaches this figure by “grossing up” – adding to his 2012 gross income an amount equivalent to the amount of tax he would have had to pay had all of his 2012 income been earned off Reserve. [ 15 ] There is certainly ample evidence to support such a result; however, I have decided to leave my finding concerning GA’s Guideline income, unchanged. I find that GA’s Guideline income in 2012 was $96,900. [ 16 ] As for GA’s income in 2013 there is very little information before the court. It is clear that he did not earn an honorarium or wage loss allowance this year as he has not sat as a band councilor in 2013.

He may also have earned less income during spring break up than was the case in 2012 since he said that he only worked a few days this year for someone else before his regular employer, [omitted for publishing] , asked him to come back and take on certain projects during break up. [ 17 ] GA’s income in 2013 may well prove to be in the $90,000 range rather than in the $96,000 range however, I am not prepared to make that reduction without documentation. [4] [ 18 ] I find that for 2013 GA’s income is $96,900 as set out in my existing Order.

I will arrange for this matter to be reviewed about a year from now, in the spring or summer of 2014. By then GA should have received his T4’s for 2013 and have his tax return filed and a Notice of Assessment or Re-assessment back from Canada Revenue Agency so it should be possible to get a more accurate view of his 2013 income and, I hope, to predict his income for the next few years. [ 19 ] In

summary, I find that the existing Order was reasonably accurate in finding that GA’s Guideline income [5] was $96,900. Based on the evidence I have heard, this figure is perhaps a little low for 2012 and likely a little high for 2013. But, overall, I find that it is a fair figure upon which to base the assessment of child support. The Table [6] amount of support for one child at an income of $96,900 is $895/month.

GA prefers to pay this by the week so the sum is $206/week [7] - as set out in the existing Order. [ 20 ] Before leaving this topic I do wish to specifically address GA’s argument that the amount of child support he pays should be reduced because he now has to pay income tax on his earnings as he has moved off Reserve. This is not a reason to reduce child support. As I have said, the Federal Child Support Guidelines provide that child support is to be calculated on the payor parent’s total income. This is very similar to gross income before deductions for income tax, EI, CPP or other things.

The fact that GA now has the added expense of paying income tax on his income is irrelevant for child support purposes just as it would be irrelevant if he had taken on a debt such as a truck payment. 1.2 How long should GA have to continue to support his daughter PA? [ 21 ] PA turned 18 on [omitted for publishing] of this year. She graduated from high school in June of this year. How long does the law require her parents to continue to support her? [ 22 ] The law requires that parents continue to support their children as long as those children are pursuing post-secondary education

with reasonable diligence. This is the case even after the child turns 19 and becomes an adult in the eyes of the law. [8] [ 23 ] PA is an excellent student and is planning to attend university this fall in Kamloops. She plans to study sciences with the goal of getting a degree in pharmacy. I take judicial notice of the fact that if PA follows through with this plan it will require her to be a student for about another 4 to 6 years. [ 24 ] As PA does not turn 19 until next February GA will have to continue to pay the Table amount of child support (which I have determined is $206/week) until at least that time.

And, since this matter will be reviewed by the court in the spring or summer of 2014 he will need to continue to pay this sum until at least the date of that review. [ 25 ] From a legal perspective the only thing that will change when PA turns 19 next spring is that a more flexible approach can be taken by the court to the amount of child support.

If the court considers it appropriate considering the condition, needs and means of PA, the court can order that the amount of support paid be different than that set out in the B.C. child support table. [9] [ 26 ] At the time of the review next year GA and MA can assess whether the Table amount of child support continues to be appropriate for PA. The federal government pays her tuition and books and she will be receiving a $900/month living allowance from her band for the months when she is at university.

According to a budget prepared by MA this year (see Exhibit 2) PA’s living expenses are expected to total about $1,787/month which leaves a shortfall of $887/month. The budget appears realistic to me but the only way to know is if MA and PA keep careful track of her expenses over the next year. It will then be clear what the difference is between the $900 allowance and PA’s actual expenses. MA should provide GA with a list of those expenses prior to the review in 2014.

MA should also provide GA and the court with proof of PA’s ongoing enrolment at university and with a transcript of her marks and proof of the courses she is registered in. [ 27 ] The law does place some expectation on the child – on PA – to contribute to her own support once she is an adult.

So, starting next year, it may be advisable for PA to consider some form of summer employment to help pay for her university living expenses. 1.3 Payment of child support only during the university year? [ 28 ] In his written submission GA proposed that he pay support for PA only while she is attending school or university but not during the summer months. The law requires that child support be paid monthly whether school or university is in session or not.

The reasoning behind this is that children require food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and activities on all days of the year, whether they are in school or not. The costs are less in some months and more in others but the amounts set out in the B.C. Table attached to the Federal Child Support Guidelines attempt to average these fluctuations in costs over the course of a year.

Thus, the law does not permit me to make an order that child support only be paid during those months when PA is in school or university. 1.4 Payment of child support directly to PA? [ 29 ] In his written submission GA proposes that he pay child support directly to PA. This may be appropriate in a few years time but I do not consider appropriate at this point. By all accounts PA is a very mature, intelligent and responsible young woman.

However, she has not yet had any real experience of living away from home, setting up her own apartment, shopping for her own food, cooking, cleaning, paying for utilities and so on. In my view PA needs some more life experience before being burdened with the additional responsibility of dealing with her father directly over child support. This is a responsibility that her mother, MA, will have to continue to shoulder for a few more years.

Child support will therefore continue to be payable directly to MA until the parents otherwise agree or a court otherwise orders. 1.5 Reduction in child support because of purchasing a car for PA? [ 30 ] In his written submission GA states that he purchased a car for PA – a 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier for $3,500 – and he asks that this somehow be taken into account either through a reduction in the amount of weekly child support he has to pay or as a credit towards PA’s 4H, figure skating and other extracurricular expenses [10] . Neither GA nor MA mentioned this in their evidence in court on April 30 th .

I expect it just got forgotten. [ 31 ] Without MA’s input on this issue I do not feel comfortable making any sort of order concerning the car.

It is something the parties will have to keep in mind and address when this matter is reviewed in 2014. [ 32 ] One possible way to resolve this is simply to treat the car as GA’s graduation gift to his daughter in the same way that MA paid for PA’s graduation dress, shoes and so on for an approximate cost of $1,000 according to the evidence I heard on April 30 th . [ 33 ] Or, since the car cost more than 3 times what the dress and shoes cost, perhaps MA would agree that GA should also receive some credit towards ongoing child support in exchange for having bought PA the car – for example, that he be excused from paying

child support for 2 months which is nearly equal to $2,000. [ 34 ] I am not suggesting that either of these ideas is a good one; I am simply putting out some possible ways of resolving the issue of the car. As I say, the car will be added to the list of things for review in 2014.

Section 7 “Extraordinary Expenses” [11] 2.1 How much does GA owe (arrears) for these expenses? [ 35 ] In my February 9 th , 2012 Order I directed that GA and MA were to divide the payment of the expenses for PA’s extra- curricular activities between them on a 65/35% ratio. This was based on their relative incomes. For various reasons GA has refused to pay 65% of these expenses though he has paid some of them. He has paid $1,120 towards PA’s extra-curricular expenses since my Order of February 9 th , 2012. He still owes $1,645.75. [12] [ 36 ] Ms.

McKinley, on behalf of MA asks the court to do two things as it concerns the extra-curricular expenses. First, she seeks an order that GA pay the arrears owing forthwith. Second, she seeks an order that, from now on, GA pay a set figure each month for these expenses to enable enforcement by the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (‘FMEP’). [ 37 ] GA acknowledges that he owes MA some money for his share of PA’s extra-curricular expenses over the last year to year and a half and does not object to paying his fair share.

The reason he has not done so up to this point, I gather, is that he feels he should receive credit for certain expenses he paid for PA himself – either that or MA should pay him 35% of each of the expenses he paid. As he put it, the Order “should go both ways”. [ 38 ] The expenses GA said that he had paid on behalf of PA were as follows: • He paid about $6,000 for beef and pork at the 4H Show and Sale as a way of supporting PA (and possibly other 4H kids). This was prior to him leaving the family home and I gather may have occurred in 2011 and previous years.

He left this meat behind in the freezers at the house when he left. He argues he should receive some credit for this contribution; • GA also raised an issue about a GST cheque which he had cashed and given to MA but then the government came back at him for it as she had claimed a GST refund as well; • He bought PA the car worth $3,500 and should receive credit for this; • He drove to Salmon Arm to get a load of feed for PA’s 4H steer in the spring of 2012.

The costs were made up of gas, meals and $329 for the 1,000 lb bag of feed. [ 39 ] In my view the first and second points (the meat and the GST cheque) are property issues which GA and MA are going to have to resolve as part of their divorce proceedings if they do end up getting divorced. They are similar to the issue with the furniture raised by GA in his closing submission. Or to the issue with the small, grey truck which I heard about from MA in her testimony.

I encourage GA and MA to reach a final agreement about how to divide up their commonly held possessions in a way that is fair, but this is not an issue I can address in the current proceeding which is dealing with child support, extra-curricular expenses for PA and spousal support. [ 40 ] The third point deals with the car GA says he purchased for PA. As I said earlier, neither GA nor MA said anything about the car for PA when they testified so I simply do not have enough information to determine whether it should factor into the child support and extra-curricular expense analysis or not.

This is something that can be re-visited at the review in 2014. [ 41 ] The final point raised by GA is the trip to Salmon Arm to buy feed. I agree that he should receive credit for MA’s share of this expense which I calculate to be $251.65 as follows: Cost of feed: $329.00 Fuel (estimate): $350.00 Meals (estimate): $ 40.00 Total: $719.00 Less GA’s share (65%): $467.35 MA’s share (to be paid by deducting this sum from the arrears owed by GA): $251.65 [ 42 ] The sum of $251.65 will be deducted from the $1,645.75 GA owes for PA’s extra-curricular activities, leaving a balance owing of $1,394.10.

This sum is payable forthwith.

2.2 What is the percentage of expenses each parent should bear going forward? [ 43 ] In the existing Order I have assigned GA 65% and MA 35% of PA’s extra-curricular expenses. I did this on the basis of their respective incomes as I understood them to be at the time. [ 44 ] Based on the evidence I heard on April 30 th this figure must be adjusted somewhat. I conclude that the correct division from now on is 59% to GA and 41% to MA. I will explain why. [ 45 ] As I explained when speaking about basic child support under

part 1 above, I estimate that GA’s total income in 2013 will be $96,900. Now that he lives off Reserve he has to pay tax on that income. [ 46 ] MA’s total income for 2013 I estimate at $53,460. See her 2012 T4 marked Exhibit 6. This income was earned on Reserve where she serves as the Education Co-ordinator for the [omitted for publishing] Band.

Her income must be “grossed-up” to $67,202 [13] to make allowance for the fact that she does not pay income tax. [ 47 ] The ratio of GA’s income to MA’s income in 2013 is therefore 59:41, calculated as follows: Total family income: $96,900 + $67,202 = $164,102 Father’s % of total family income: 96,900/164,102 = .59 or 59% Mother’s % of total family income: 67,202/164,102 = .41 or 41% 2.3 How should extra-curricular expenses be paid? [ 48 ] The third issue that the parties seek a ruling on is the mechanism by which these two parents reimburse each other for expenses they each incur on behalf of PA for her extra-curricular activities. [ 49 ] I have concluded that it would be simpler for all concerned if I were to order that GA pay a set amount to MA each week for these extra-curricular expenses.

These parents have difficulty speaking with one another so it would be simpler for this reason. It would also be easier for GA if he just had to write one cheque or set up one automatic debit each week. And, it would make enforcement easier should enforcement prove necessary. [ 50 ] It is very difficult to say what PA’s extraordinary expenses will end up being over the years ahead. She will likely not be continuing with 4H this coming winter.

However, there may be other kinds of expenses such as sports at university, skiing at Sun Peaks or a lap top or peripherals to assist her in her studies. [ 51 ] I have decided to estimate that PA’s extraordinary expenses over the next year will total $3,000. GA’s share of that is $1,770 (.59 x $3,000 = $1,770).

I order that he pay this sum in installments of $34/week. [ 52 ] MA must keep track of all such expenses so that this sum can be reviewed by the court in 2014. [ 53 ] If GA ends up paying some expenses on behalf of PA he should keep track of these and raise it with MA and the court when the matter is reviewed in 2014 and adjustments can be made at that time to ensure that he receives credit for her share of these expenses. 3. Spousal Support 3.1 Has MA established that she is entitled to receive spousal support [ 54 ] GA is currently 48 years of age and MA is 46.

They got together in high school and were a couple for 27 years. They have 4 children of which PA, now 18, is the youngest. GA has entered a new relationship, with RW, though he insists this is not why his marriage ended. MA is convinced that their marriage ended because of his new relationship. [ 55 ] Sections 160 to 162 of the B.C.

Family Law Act set out the things the court must consider in deciding whether spousal support should be ordered. [ 56 ] In determining entitlement to spousal support the court must consider firstly, the objective of recognizing any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the relationship or the breakdown of the relationship. MA gave birth to the couple’s 4 children between when she was about 18 and 26 years of age. It appears from something she said in her evidence that MA did

work during part of this time. At some point she began studying to get her Bachelor’s of Education by distance learning and she was successful in doing that over a period of 7 years. At some point after that she obtained her current position as Education Coordinator. [ 57 ] GA obtained post-secondary education as a carpenter and, I gather, worked in that trade for some years.

In the past 5 years his main employment has been as a supervisor with the band logging enterprise, [omitted for publishing] . [ 58 ] MA testified that GA was always the higher income earner when he was working though he was sometimes laid off while she continued to work. [ 59 ] I conclude that there was some economic disadvantage suffered by MA as result of her relationship in that her pursuit of her own education and career was delayed somewhat by the birth of the children she and GA had together. [ 60 ] Another objective the court must consider is to relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of their relationship. [ 61 ] MA testified that it caused her economic hardship to have to take on the payment of all the household expenses once GA left.

Previously they had shared these expenses. She says he took the small, grey truck which she had understood to be “her” truck and which she had been making payments on, leaving her with the car even though she had need of the truck in order to transport feed and supplies for PA’s 4H projects. She has recently sold the car and bought a 2012 truck for this purpose. [ 62 ] GA argues that he too suffered economic hardship as a result of the breakup because while MA was able to stay in the family home at the fairly modest monthly payment of $575, he had to move off Reserve and his housing costs are now double that.

He says he tried to get his own house on the Reserve but due to the community taking MA’s side in their breakup he was denied a house. [ 63 ] In my view the principal reason why GA moved off Reserve in July, 2012 was because he wished to pursue his relationship with RW. [ 64 ] Another objective the court must consider is, as far as practicable, to promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time. Both GA and MA are well educated and have good jobs and are already self-sufficient.

GA’s job pays considerably more than MA’s but that has more to do I think with how the economy values different types of work than with any disparity between them in education, experience or opportunity.

MA’s job is likely the more stable of the two. [ 65 ] In my view MA has established some entitlement to spousal support on the basis of economic disadvantage as a result of the relationship and economic hardship resulting from the breakdown of the relationship. [ 66 ] In deciding the amount and duration of spousal support I am to consider the “conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse” including the length of time they lived together and the functions performed by each during the marriage. [ 67 ] As noted, the relationship was a long one – 27 years.

As for the functions performed by each during the marriage the evidence is sparse. MA was asked who was the house parent and answered “I would say it was me”. It appears that both spouses worked full time in recent years but when their children were younger, and before she obtained her degree, MA was more often at home with the children than GA. However, at times, when he was laid off, GA would care for the kids while MA was at work. [ 68 ] Ms.

McKinley has prepared two calculations using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (‘ SSAG’), one using a grossed up income for GA of $126,367.00 and the other using the lower income of $91,332 taken from Exhibit 2 [14] . [ 69 ] As I said earlier in these Reasons, I find that GA’s income for 2012 and 2013 falls in between these two figures, at $96,900. [ 70 ] At the lower income (and assuming a grossed up income of $67,202 for MA) the range is from 0 to $183/month, payable indefinitely.

At the higher income the range is from a low of $186 to a high of $885/month, indefinitely. [ 71 ] Bearing these ranges in mind, Ms. McKinley proposes a sum of $100/month, payable indefinitely. [ 72 ] I have decided that GA must pay MA the sum of $10,000 in spousal support. This is the equivalent of $100/month over about 8 years and 4 months. There is, no doubt, some economic disadvantage to MA as a result of the relationship but it is very difficult to quantify on the evidence and MA has long since taken the steps necessary to get a good education and a good job.

In my view to require GA to pay MA spousal support indefinitely would be to over shoot the objectives set out in s. 161 of the Family Law Act. [ 73 ] As for how this sum is to be paid, I will order that GA pay $23.08 each week ($100/month x 12 months = $1,200/52 weeks = $23.08) for so long as he is also paying support (and/or extraordinary expenses) for PA. Once he is no longer required to pay support for PA, GA shall pay what remains owing of the spousal support at the rate of $57.69/week ($250/month x 12 months = $3,000/52 weeks = $57.69/week).

Summary [ 74 ] In

summary, I make the following Order: 1. GA’s application to reduce child support (as set out in paragraph 4 of the Order of February 9 th , 2012) is hereby dismissed;

2. Paragraph 5 of the Order of February 9 th , 2012 dealing with extraordinary expenses is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: “GA shall pay MA the sum of $34/week for extraordinary expenses of the child PA, born [omitted for publishing] (“the child”) commencing on Friday, August 2 nd , 2013 and continuing on each and every Friday thereafter until further order of the court.”; 3. GA is found to owe MA the sum of $1,645.75 in arrears of extraordinary expenses for the child, which sum is payable forthwith; 4. MA is found to be entitled to receive spousal support from GA and GA is ordered to pay spousal support to MA in total amount of $10,000 which sum shall be paid as follows: (

a) at the rate of $23.08/week ($100/month) commencing on Friday, August 2 nd , 2013 and continuing on each and every Friday thereafter for so long as GA is also paying child support for the child PA; (

b) once GA is no longer paying child support, and assuming the total sum of spousal support has not yet been paid in full, at the rate of $57.69/week ($250/month) until the sum is paid in full. 5. For greater clarity, GA shall pay MA the total sum of $263.08/week ($206 basic child support + $34 extraordinary expenses + $23.08 spousal support = $263.08) commencing Friday August 2 nd , 2013 and continuing on each and every Friday thereafter until consent or further order of the court. 6. This matter is adjourned for a review on a date in May or June, 2014 to be scheduled by the Judicial Case Manager.

Two hours is estimated. Judge Bayliff is not seized of this matter. The issues for review are: (

a) GA‘s and MA’s income for 2013 and for the year to date in 2014; (

b) Whether PA is still a student and whether child support for her is still appropriate (s. 3(2) of the Guidelines); (

c) The amount of extraordinary expenses actually incurred by PA in 2013-2014 and whether GA has over-paid or under-paid for his proportionate share of these expenses; (

d) The car purchased for PA by GA and whether GA should receive a credit towards ongoing child support as a result. 7. GA and MA shall bring to the review updated financial information including: (a) 2013 tax returns and notices of assessment or re-assessment; (

b) Proof of 2014 earnings to date; (

c) A record of PA’s extraordinary expenses in 2013/2014; (

d) Proof of enrolment and transcripts to document PA’s attendance at university. I would ask that Ms. McKinley prepare this Order. It should be approved by GA prior to submission to the Court Registry. _____________________________ E. L. Bayliff Provincial Court Judge