S.M.L. v. R.X.R. Date:, 2013 BCPC 123

Citation: S.M.L. v. R.X.R. Date: 20130514 2013 BCPC 0123 File No: 12519 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: S.M.L. APPLICANT AND: R.X.R. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.A. DONEGAN Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. John Grover

Appearing on their own behalf: Mr. R.X.R. Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Date of Hearing: April 8 and April 10, 2013 Date of Judgment: May 14, 2013 INTRODUCTION: [ 1 ] Dr. R.X.R. applies to vary a 2009 order for child support retroactively to January 1, 2012. Among other things, the order of August 24, 2009 requires Dr. R.X.R. to pay child support to Ms. S.M.L. l in the amount of $750.00 per month for the support of his three children (the Order). [ 2 ] Dr.

R.X.R. submits that since the Order was made circumstances have changed in that he has now moved back to Canada from Portugal and earns significantly less income than reflected in the Order. Specifically, he asks this court to find his annual income to be $13,475.00 in 2012, requiring him to pay child support of $185.00 per month. He seeks this change retroactively to January 1, 2012, asking for reimbursement from Ms. S.M.L. in the amount of $9,072.00. [ 3 ] Ms. S.M.L. opposes the application. She submits that as a Doctor of Chiropractic for some 17 years, Dr. R.X.R. is underemployed and has been for some time.

She submits that the court ought to impute income to him in the amount set out in the Order and maintain his current child support payments. [ 4 ] Both parties testified at this hearing. Dr. R.X.R. filed three Financial Statements in support of his application and tendered a number of documents (Exhibit 1). FACTS: [ 5 ] By way of background, the parties were married on May 5, 1993. In the early years of their marriage, Dr. R.X.R. obtained two university degrees – his Bachelor of Science degree followed by his Doctorate in Chiropractic.

He became a licensed chiropractor in British Columbia in 1996 and began practicing immediately. [ 6 ] G.R.R. was born in 1998, followed by J.P.R. in 2000. The family moved to Portugal in 2001 where Dr. R.X.R. began to pursue chiropractic endeavours. Their daughter H.T.R. was born in 2004. [ 7 ] The parties’ relationship began to deteriorate in 2006. Ms. S.M.L. and the children moved back to Canada in April of 2006, while Dr. R.X.R. remained in Portugal. He returned to Canada for a short time in the latter part of 2006 and early 2007, where he declared bankruptcy.

He returned to Portugal in March of 2007 where he remained living and working for the next five years. [ 8 ] In late 2008, Ms. S.M.L. brought an application for, among other things, child support. Dr. R.X.R. had returned to Canada for a Christmas visit. He testified that he retained counsel and prepared a “preliminary financial statement”. He estimated his annual income for child support purposes to be $37,000.00 per year. [ 9 ] Dr. R.X.R. did not attend court on August 24, 2009. The Order was made in his absence, on the basis of the financial information he had provided.

He explained that his absence was due to a lack of funds, forcing him to go back to Portugal. [ 10 ] Dr. R.X.R. was aware of the terms of the Order. One term required that a review be held on December 23, 2009. Another term required Dr. R.X.R. to file an updated financial statement by December 15, 2009. [ 11 ] Dr. R.X.R. chose to not comply with those terms. He did not provide further financial disclosure as required and did not attend for the review. Instead, he chose to take no further action with respect to the Order and continued to pay $750.00 per month.

While testifying at this hearing, he admitted that he was “not diligent regarding adhering to all aspects of the order”. [ 12 ] From the time the Order was made until his return to Canada on February 22, 2012, Dr. R.X.R. lived in Portugal, sending $750.00 per month to Ms. S.M.L. for the support of their three children. He was occasionally late with his payments, but he is not currently in arrears. [ 13 ] Dr. R.X.R. spent some considerable time detailing his work history in Portugal, submitted that he earned far less than the $37,000.00 he estimated in his “draft financial statement”.

He testified that he attempted a number of different chiropractic endeavours during his time in Portugal which, for a variety of reasons, all failed. Despite his assertion that his income during his years in Portugal was far less than $37,000.00 per year, he was able to meet his child support obligation. [ 14 ] On February 22, 2012, Dr. R.X.R. moved back to Canada to be near his children. He intended to start up a chiropractic practice in the Kamloops area.

He planned his move to Canada for quite some time prior to February 22, but made no efforts to look into work opportunities prior to the move. [ 15 ] Upon his return, with no employment arranged, Dr. R.X.R. moved into his parent’s home in Kamloops. He continues to live there today. He pays no rent and contributes nothing to household operating expenses. His parents loaned Dr. R.X.R. $19,000.00. He used $11,000.00 of this loan toward the purchase a vehicle. He has not repaid any amount of these funds and there is no agreement for repayment. [ 16 ] On March 1, 2012, Dr.

R.X.R. obtained his qualifications to again practice chiropractic medicine in British Columbia. He started looking for employment at that point. He first accepted a temporary six week position in another community. This temporary

position is called a “locum”, a situation that sees one doctor fills in for another while he/she is temporarily away from his/her practice. Accepting this locum work has several negative aspects to it. First, Dr. R.X.R. was paid 50% of the billings he would have ordinarily made had the billings been made in the course of his own practice. Second, working in another community required additional expenses for travel. Finally, moving temporarily to another community did not allow Dr. R.X.R. to pursue his stated goal of establishing a practice in Kamloops. [ 17 ] Dr.

R.X.R. detailed his efforts at seeking and maintaining employment throughout 2012 and into 2013. He contacted a number of Kamloops chiropractors to inquire about opportunities. He learned that the Kamloops market would be a difficult one to break into, requiring time and patience. He was fortunate, it seems, to have been offered a position as an independent contractor in the office of Dr. John Davidson early on, in the spring of 2012. Dr. R.X.R. tendered a letter by Dr. Davidson dated January 16, 2013 (Tab 6 of Exhibit “1”), which explained the terms of his offer to Dr. R.X.R. The letter reads in part: “Dr.

R.X.R. was offered an independent contractor position where he would be responsible for billing his own practice. It was suggested that he use his own phone number, as I could not offer reception on those days when I would not be in the office. He was offered the use of a treatment room for two months at no expense with rent to be mutually agreed upon after this time period.” [ 18 ] Dr. R.X.R. disputed that he was offered an “independent contractor position”, but the letter he submitted by Dr. Davidson is clear and I accept that he was offered such a position. [ 19 ] In and around the same time, Dr.

R.X.R. also learned of a part time practice opportunity in the nearby community of Logan Lake, the same community where Ms. S.M.L. and the children reside. [ 20 ] Dr. R.X.R. testified that he decided to pursue both the Logan Lake part time opportunity and the independent contractor position with Dr. Davidson. Even though both opportunities were presented to him in the spring of 2012, he decided to delay his start in both positions. He testified that he did so because he needed to care for his parents – his mother had knee surgery on May 30 and his father was suffering from Parkinson’s disease.

As a result, he decided to delay his start date in Dr. Davidson’s office to the beginning of July 2012 and the Logan Lake position, one day a week, to some point in June. [ 21 ] When it came time to start in Dr. Davidson’s office in early July, Dr. R.X.R. delayed again. He testified that he saw an advertisement for a one month locum position in Prince Rupert and decided to pursue that opportunity instead. While he did so, he “kept in touch with Dr.

Davidson” to ensure the space was still available upon his eventual return. [ 22 ] As he was no longer attending the Logan Lake office, he was asked to vacate the space he was using in August of 2012. This temporary venture, one day a week, only lasted two months. [ 23 ] Upon his return to Kamloops from his locum position in Prince Rupert, Dr. R.X.R. did not pursue Dr. Davidson’s offer. Instead, he accepted a position at the Travelodge Hotel in Kamloops, working as a “night auditor”. Dr. R.X.R. only stayed at this position for five weeks, quitting on October 18, 2012.

He did not enjoy this job and left it to accept another locum position, this time in Prince George. [ 24 ] Testifying that while he still intended to pursue Dr. Davidson’s offer, he then learned of part time locum work in Chase and an opportunity at a new fitness facility in Kamloops. This fitness facility was seeking health care practitioners to rent space inside their facility. [ 25 ] Dr. R.X.R. never did accept Dr. Davidson’s offer from the spring of 2012. [ 26 ] He entered into lease negotiations with the owners of the fitness facility in mid-November of 2012. Dr.

R.X.R. provided the court with his e-mail negotiations (Tab 9 of Exhibit “1”). The e-mails demonstrate that Dr. R.X.R. and the owner of the fitness facility negotiated the terms of the lease throughout the latter part of November through to December 13, 2012. Dr. R.X.R. had a lawyer assisting him with this process. [ 27 ] On December 13, 2012, Dr. R.X.R.’ e-mail indicates that he was agreeable to signing the lease. He asked the owner if he could start operating on February 1, 2013 as opposed to January 1 because he was still “needed” for the month of January in Prince George.

He indicated in his e-mail that he would “still pay rent as of January 1 (as long as the room is ready)”. The owner replied that construction was delayed until the end of January. The business opened at the beginning of February, 2013. [ 28 ] Dr. R.X.R. declined to sign the lease when the business opened at the beginning of February, 2013. Instead, he chose to wait until the conclusion of this hearing, previously scheduled for February 21, 2013. The hearing was adjourned to April 8 th on that date as there was insufficient court time. [ 29 ] Dr.

R.X.R. eventually signed the lease (also at Tab 9 of Exhibit 1) and began working at the fitness facility on March 1, 2013. As of the date of this hearing, Dr. R.X.R. had only seen three patients in his new endeavour – two on March 5, 2013 and one on March 26, 2013. His lack of business during his first several weeks, he explained, was as a result of “lack of exposure”, caused by a delay by the signage company. In March of 2013 he worked two days a week doing locum work in Chase. [ 30 ] Dr.

R.X.R. made clear throughout the course of his evidence that if his child support obligation of $750.00 per month was not reduced, he would have no choice but to give up his opportunity with the fitness facility. He claimed that he would not be able to afford to pay the rent required by the lease. [ 31 ] I do not accept this proposition. Based on the evidence before me, I find that Dr. R.X.R. is set up quite well. With respect to his business, he charges $40.00 per client visit, with each visit lasting approximately 10 to 15 minutes. His busiest day in the past saw him treat up to 127 patients. Further, Dr.

R.X.R. has already paid his January through April, 2013 rent and malpractice insurance. He

has already paid for most, if not all, of his start up costs - office insurance, office furniture, business cards, signage and a phone. Personally, Dr. R.X.R. has minimal living expenses. His debts were eliminated in the 2006/2007 bankruptcy. He pays no rent and contributes nothing to the household operating expenses at his parents’ home. THE LAW: [ 32 ] On March 18, 2013, the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c. 25 (the Act ) came into force in British Columbia. While significantly changing the legislative landscape in some areas of family law, it provided small updates in others.

Certain principles applicable to this case remain the same. [ 33 ] Section 147(1) of the Act outlines that each parent and guardian has a duty to support a child. [ 34 ]

Section 150 of the Act outlines what a court must consider in determining the amount of child support. It establishes that the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines ) are the starting point for determining the appropriate amount to be paid. It reads: 150

(1) If a court makes an order respecting child support, the amount of child support must be determined in accordance with the child support guidelines.

(2) Despite subsection (1), a court may order child support in an amount different from that required by the child support guidelines if (

a) the parties consent under

section 219 [persons may consent to order being made] or have an agreement respecting child support, and (

b) the court is satisfied that reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of the child.

(3) The court must consider the child support guidelines for the purposes of subsection (2), but must not consider arrangements made for the support of the child to be unreasonable only because the amount required under the child support guidelines differs from those arrangements.

(4) Despite subsection (1), a court may order child support in an amount different from that required by the child support guidelines if satisfied that (

a) an agreement or order respecting the financial duties of the parents or guardians or the division or transfer of property, other than an agreement respecting child support, benefits the child directly or indirectly, or that special provisions have otherwise been made for the benefit of the child, and (

b) applying the child support guidelines would be inequitable on consideration of the agreement, order or special provisions.

(5) If a court makes an order respecting child support in an amount different from that required under the child support guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so. [ 35 ] The Guidelines remain unchanged with the Act . Some relevant sections include the following: Objectives 1 . The objectives of these Guidelines are (

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. Presumptive Rule 3.

(1) Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, the amount of a child support order for children under the age of majority is (

a) the amount set out in the applicable table, according to the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates and the income of the spouse against whom the order is sought; and (

b) the amount, if any, determined under

section 7.

(2) Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, where a child to whom a child support order relates is the age of majority or over, the amount of the child support order is (

a) the amount determined by applying these Guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority; or

(

b) if the court considers that approach to be inappropriate, the amount that it considers appropriate, having regard to the condition,means, needs and other circumstances of the child and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the child.

(3) The applicable table is (

a) if the spouse against whom an order is sought resides in Canada, (

i) the table for the province in which that spouse ordinarily resides at the time the application for the child support order, or for avariation order in respect of a child support order, is made or the amount is to be recalculated under

section 25.1 of the Act, (ii) where the court is satisfied that the province in which that spouse ordinarily resides has changed since the time described insubparagraph (i), the table for the province in which the spouse ordinarily resides at the time of determining the amount of support, or (iii) where the court is satisfied that, in the near future after determination of the amount of support, that spouse will ordinarily reside ina given province other than the province in which the spouse ordinarily resides at the time of that determination, the table for the givenprovince; and (

b) if the spouse against whom an order is sought resides outside of Canada, or if the residence of that spouse is unknown, the table forthe province where the other spouse ordinarily resides at the time the application for the child support order or for a variation order inrespect of a child support order is made or the amount is to be recalculated under

section 25.1 of the Act. [36] It is clear that basic principles regarding child support continue to apply. In Earle v. Earle, (BC SC), [1999]B.C.J. No. 383, Martinson J. outlined the following basic child support principles: 15. Three fundamental principles apply to all child support applications, including the first decision about what payments should bemade, applications to vary or change that amount, and applications to cancel or reduce arrears. a. Joint Legal Obligation 16. Parents have a joint ongoing legal obligation to support their children.

It is considered such an important obligation that adivorce cannot be granted until parents made satisfactory arrangements for the care of their children. b. Right of the Child 17. It is the child, not the parent with custody, who has the right to maintenance. This has long been the case and has been confirmedin the Federal Child Support Guidelines. The first objective of the Guidelines is to establish a fair standard of support for children thatensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation. c. Ability to Pay 18.

The payment of maintenance is based on ability to pay. That means that it is based not only on what the parent does earn, butalso what the parent can earn. The result is that parents have a legal obligation to earn as much as they are capable of earning to meettheir obligation to support their children. [37]

Section 152 of the Act expands the grounds for changing, suspending or terminating a child support order. This

section makesexplicit that child support orders may be changed, suspended or terminated retroactively as well as prospectively. [38] Under the former legislation, the Family Relations Act, a parent wishing to vary or rescind a child support order had to show amaterial change in circumstances since the making of the last order. Now, under the Act, this is just one of three potential requirementsfor changing, suspending or terminating a child support order.

Section 152 reads: 152

(1) On application, a court may change, suspend or terminate an order respecting child support, and may do so prospectively orretroactively.

(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the court must be satisfied that at least one of the following exists, and take it intoconsideration: (

a) a change in circumstances, as provided for in the child support guidelines, has occurred since the order respecting child support wasmade; (

b) evidence of a substantial nature that was not available during the previous hearing has become available; (

c) evidence of a lack of financial disclosure by a party was discovered after the last order was made. [39] In this case, Dr. R.X.R. relies upon a change in circumstances - his return to Canada in 2012 where he earned an income of$13,475.42. [40]

Section 14 of the Guidelines outlines what constitutes a change of circumstances: 14. For the purposes of subsection 17(4) of the Act, any one of the following constitutes a change of circumstances that gives rise to themaking of a variation order in respect of a child support order:

(

a) in the case where the amount of child support includes a determination made in accordance with the applicable table, any change incircumstances that would result in a different child support order or any provision thereof; (

b) in the case where the amount of child support does not include a determination made in accordance with a table, any change in thecondition, means, needs or other circumstances of either spouse or of any child who is entitled to support; and (

c) in the case of an order made before May 1, 1997, the coming into force of

section 15.1 of the Act, enacted by

section 2 of

chapter 1 ofthe Statutes of Canada, (1997). ANALYSIS: [41] Dr. R.X.R. moved back to Canada in February of 2012 after several years in Portugal. His chiropractic income in Portugalfluctuated over the years from a high of nearly $67,000.00 in 2002 to a low of $4,693.17 in 2011(Exhibit 2). In 2012, his income taxreturn reflects earnings of $13,475.42. Dr. R.X.R. asserts this income should be accepted for child support purposes and, as such, beconsidered a change of circumstances requiring a reduction in ongoing support.

He further seeks a retroactive reduction, requiring Ms.S.M.L. to repay him approximately $9,000.00. [42] Ms. S.M.L. asserts the court ought to impute income to Dr. R.X.R. to the amount he advised he was earning at the time of theoriginal order, $37,000.00. With no material change in circumstance, there should be no reduction in child support payments. [43] Section 19(1) of the Guidelines allows the court to impute such amount of income to a parent as it considers appropriate in thecircumstances. Section 19(1)(

a) sets out that one of those circumstances can include where the parent is intentionally under-employed orunemployed. [44] Martinson, J. provided guidance in this area in Hanson v. Hanson, (BC SC), [1999] B.C.J. No. 2532,outlining several general principles: The Concept of Imputing Income 8 Parents have a joint and ongoing legal obligation to support their children. In order to meet this legal obligation, a parent mustearn what the parent is capable of earning.

Section 26.1(2) of the Divorce Act says that the Guidelines "shall be based on the principlethat spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain the children of the marriage in accordance with their relative abilities tocontribute to the performance of that obligation." 9 Imputing income is the way in which the court gives effect to the legal requirement that a parent must earn what the parent iscapable of earning. The British Columbia Court of Appeal in Van Gool v.

Van Gool (1998), (BC CA), 166 D.L.R.(4th) 528, pointed out that the income imputing provisions in the Guidelines are similar to pre-Guidelines tests based on capacity. Thatis, the court must consider not only the amount of income a spouse actually earns, but "the amount of income a spouse could earn ifworking to capacity." (at para. 28) Meaning of "Intentionally" in section 19(1)(

a) of the Guidelines 10 Section 19(1)(

a) of the Guidelines requires that before income can be imputed, the court must find that the person is intentionallyunder-employed or intentionally unemployed. There has been some judicial debate about the meaning of the word "intentionally." Is badfaith required? That is, is a specific intent to evade child support obligations required? 11 No such requirement is found in s. 19 itself. The Court of Appeal's conclusion in Van Gool that the obligation to pay child supportis based on capacity to earn, supports the view that bad faith is not required.

To reach a conclusion that it is required would be tomisconstrue the purpose of the Guidelines. 12 They are not designed to punish parents who try to avoid child support payments. Instead, the Guidelines are designed to establisha fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both parents afterseparation. (s. 1(a)) 13 Therefore, bad faith is not required. The parent required to pay is intentionally under-employed if that parent chooses to earn lessthan he or she is capable of earning.

The parent required to pay is intentionally unemployed if he or she chooses not to work whencapable of earning an income. General Principles Relating to Capacity to Earn Income 14 The following principles apply when determining capacity to earn an income. (See Dr. Julien D. Payne, Imputing Income,"Determination of Income; Disclosure of Income", Child Support in Canada, Danrab Inc., August 3, 1999.) 1. There is a duty to seek employment in a case where a parent is healthy and there is no reason why the parent cannotwork.

It is "no answer for a person liable to support a child to say he is unemployed and does not intend to seek workor that his potential to earn income is an irrelevant factor." (Van Gool at para 30.)2. When imputing income on the basis of intentional under-employment, a court must consider what is reasonable underthe circumstances. The age, education, experience, skills and health of the parent are factors to be considered inaddition to such matters as availability of work, freedom to relocate and other obligations.

3 . A parent's limited work experience and job skills do not justify a failure to pursue employment that does not require significant skills, or employment in which the necessary skills can be learned on the job. While this may mean that job availability will be at the lower end of the wage scale, courts have never sanctioned the refusal of a parent to take reasonable steps to support his or her children simply because the parent cannot obtain interesting or highly paid employment. 4 . Persistence in unremunerative employment may entitle the court to impute income. 5 .

A parent cannot be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations. 6 . As a general rule, a parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income. 19 How does the court decide whether a person is earning to his or her capacity? The court should be provided with information about the parent's capacity to earn and the parent's present income earning situation. The two can then be compared. 20 There are two aspects to a parent's capacity to earn.

The first is what the parent is capable of earning based age, education, experience, skills and health. The second is the job opportunities that are realistically available. [ 45 ] What is Dr. R.X.R. capable of earning? He is a healthy, 46 year old man who has been a chiropractor for 17 years. He has worked both in Canada and Portugal in a number of different chiropractic settings, demonstrating that he is resourceful and flexible. Dr. R.X.R. possesses two university degrees and clearly has the skills, training and experience to work as a chiropractor.

I am more than satisfied that he has the capacity to earn a higher income than he has earned in the past few years. In fact, he is capable of earning an income much higher than that. [ 46 ] What employment opportunities are realistically available? Dr. R.X.R. wants to build a chiropractic practice near his children, in the Kamloops area. Building a practice will take time, dedication, commitment and patience. Unfortunately, Dr. R.X.R. has demonstrated a pattern that undermines his ability to build a practice.

He finds good opportunities to build a practice, but consistently forgoes these opportunities in the futile hope that he will find something better or in furtherance of short term remuneration. [ 47 ] Dr. R.X.R. had two very good opportunities shortly after his arrival back in Canada to develop a practice in the Kamloops and Logan Lake areas. He was offered a position as an independent contractor in the office of Dr. Davidson in Kamloops, rent free for two months. He was further offered a part time position in Logan Lake, which he could have developed and grown.

Instead of pouring his time and energy into these two opportunities, Dr. R.X.R. pursued several other short term, non-lucrative positions that saw him earn very little income. [ 48 ] With no significant debts, no housing and related costs and a substantial amount of time on his hands, Dr. R.X.R. certainly had, and continues to have, the resources to dedicate to building a practice. Had Dr. R.X.R. stayed in the part time Logan Lake position, it had the opportunity to grow. Had Dr. R.X.R. not delayed and eventually foregone the opportunity with Dr.

Davidson, he could have, over the past year, grown a practice in Kamloops. Even in an unrelated field, had Dr. R.X.R. stayed at his position as a night auditor at the Travel Lodge for more than five weeks, he could have earned considerably more income than he did. [ 49 ] Dr. R.X.R. made many choices over approximately the last year. These choices were not consistent with his duty to provide support for his children. He chose to leave Portugal without any plans for employment in Canada.

He chose to arrive in Canada, knowing he had obligations to support his children, with not so much as an inquiry about employment ahead of time. He chose to forego legitimate opportunities in his chosen field and full time work in a field outside of his profession in order to pursue short term positions or other opportunities that, for one reason or another, did not work out. [ 50 ] In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in concluding that Dr. R.X.R. is capable of earning more than he earned in 2012 and capable of earning more than he is now.

His present income earning situation with the fitness facility is positive, should he choose to stay with it and not fall into old patterns. It is appropriate to impute income to Dr. R.X.R. based on what he is capable of earning. He is capable of earning, on the evidence before me, far in excess of $37,000.00 per year. However, I must take into account the likelihood that it will take some time to build up his business at the fitness facility. In doing so, I find it appropriate to impute income to Dr. R.X.R. in the amount of $37,000.00 per year. [ 51 ] Accordingly, Dr.

R.X.R. has not demonstrated a change in circumstances. His child support obligations will remain the same, $750.00 per month. Dr. R.X.R.’s application to vary the Order is dismissed. [ 52 ] I do make an order that Dr. R.X.R. provide a copy of his income tax return and all attachments to Ms. S.M.L. by no later than June 1 of each year and a copy of his Notice of Assessment or Re-Assessment to Ms. S.M.L. each year as soon as it is received. _____________________ S.A. Donegan Provincial Court Judge