A. C. C. v. F. X. Z. Date:, 2011 BCPC 518

Citation: A. C. C. v. F. X. Z. Date: 20110830 2011 BCPC 0518 File No: 12863 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY RELATIONS ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 128 BETWEEN: A. C. C. APPLICANT AND: F. X. Z. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A.E. ROUNTHWAITE

Counsel for the Applicant: M. Perry Appearing in person: F. X. Z. Place of Hearing: Surrey, B.C. Date of Hearing: August 16, 17, 2011 Date of Judgment: August 30, 2011 [1] ACC is the mother and FXZ the father of JC, born March 22, 1985, and now 26 years old. JC obtained an Honours Bachelor ofCommerce degree in October 2009 and is now working, but wants to return to school full time to obtain an M.B.A. [2] In these reasons I will refer to the parties as “the mother” and “the father”, and to JC as “the daughter”. The parents lived inWindsor, Ontario, when their daughter was born.

On June 14, 1988, the Ontario Provincial Court ordered the father to pay the motherchild support of $50 a week for the daughter. On December 20, 1994, the Court increased child support to $100 a week with an annualcost of living increase that has resulted in child support increasing to $577.63 a month as of October 2010. [3] The 1994 order also required the father to provide the mother and the Director of the Ontario Family Support Plan with hisaddress and his employer’s particulars, and any changes in this information.

Since the 1994 order predates the enactment of the ChildSupport Guidelines (“the Guidelines”) in May 1997, the father has been entitled to deduct child support from his income for tax purposesand the mother has been required to declare it as taxable income. Orders made since the enactment of the Guidelines are tax neutral:neither deductible from the payor’s income nor declarable as income to the recipient. [4] The father moved to British Columbia in January 2005 and the mother and daughter moved here in 2007.

On October 6, 2009,the mother filed an application to increase child support but did not proceed because she was unable to serve the father with theapplication. On September 29, 2010, the father applied for a finding that the daughter is no longer a child within the definition of s. 87 ofthe Family Relations Act (“the Act”), an order terminating child support, and a finding that there are no arrears owing. [5] In the mother’s Reply, she sought a finding that the daughter remains a child within the definition of s. 87, and retroactiveorders.

She is asking that the 1994 order be varied to provide that the father pay increased child support commencing in May 1997 tomake his monthly child support payments income tax neutral and consistent with the Guidelines, and special and extraordinary expensesunder s. 7 of the Act for the daughter’s childhood figure skating, secondary school and undergraduate post secondary expenses. [6] The issues have been narrowed during the hearing. In his closing submissions, the father conceded that the daughter remained achild, unable to withdraw from parental support, until she obtained her B. Comm. in October 2009. Mr.

Perry, counsel for the mother,took the position that the daughter remains a child for whom her mother is entitled to child support until the hearing date, but said themother foregoes her claim for on-going child support and contribution to the daughter’s future M.B.A. costs. [7] The issues I must decide are therefore as follows: 1. Should the daughter be considered a child within the definition of s. 87 of the Act, and therefore eligible for child support, for theperiod between October 2009 when she obtained her B. Comm. and August 2011 when the hearing took place? 2.

Is the mother entitled to a retroactive variation in child support payments and retroactive special expenses? 3. If so, how much, if any, retroactive child support should be paid? 4. And if so, what contribution, if any, should the father be required to make to the daughter’s figure skating, secondary school andundergraduate post secondary expenses? In deciding these issues I have considered the affidavits and exhibits filed by the parents as well as their testimony and that of thedaughter. 1.

Should the daughter be considered a child within the definition of s. 87 of the Act for the period between October 2009 andAugust 2011? [8] When she turned 19 in March 2004, the daughter was completing her final year of high school. She attended university fromSeptember 2004 until she obtained her honours B. Comm. in October 2009. She also worked part time after graduating from high school,except in 2006/2007 and 2009.

After graduating from university she worked at part time and minimum wage jobs until September 2010when she obtained her current employment with an online store, taking home $818 bi-weekly. [9] The daughter has planned to obtain an M.B.A. since she was in high school but has not taken steps to pursue this goal becauseshe and her mother cannot afford the cost. She believes that her opportunities for advancement in a business career are limited with only abachelor’s degree. [10]

Section 87 of the Act defines a child for whom child support can be ordered as follows: "child" includes a person who is 19 years of age or older and, in relation to the parents of the person, is unable, because of illness,disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessaries of life. The B.C. Supreme Court decision in Farden v. Farden (1993) (BC SC), 48 R.F.L. (3d) 60, approved by the B.C. Court of Appeal in Darlington v. Darlington (1997), (BC CA), 32 R.F.L. (4th) 406), identified various factors a judge

may consider when deciding whether a child over 19 attending school is a child within the meaning of the Act .

Those factors are as follows: • whether the studies are full or part time; • whether the child is eligible for student loans or financial assistance and whether she has applied for them; • whether the child’s career plans are reasonable or appropriate; • the child’s ability to contribute to her own support through part time employment; • the child’s age; • the child’s past academic performance and proven success in studies; • the plans the parents made for the child; and • whether the child unilaterally terminated the parent/child relationship. [ 11 ] From 2004 until 2009 the daughter was engaged in full time studies.

Although there is no evidence of her grades in other years, in her first year she averaged C+/B- marks. She obtained student loans, for which she owed $50,622.33 as of October 29, 2010, as well as some grants and bursaries, and contributed to her own support through part time work. [ 12 ] The father obtained a degree in psychology and also studied theology and sociology as an adult and while working. He later obtained a Certificate in Management of a Residential Care Facility. The mother is a Certified Human Resources Professional.

There is no evidence the parents made any joint plans for their daughter’s future, but given her parents’ circumstances and levels of education and her abilities, I consider an undergraduate degree to be a reasonable expectation for the daughter. The father did not dispute this. [ 13 ] I accept the daughter’s evidence that her father ceased communication with her after a one month series of emails in 1996, although she wanted to maintain contact with him. The father’s testimony on this topic was evasive and inconsistent.

He first attributed the breakdown of communication with his daughter to not wanting to share personal information on a website; then said he didn’t have email communication with her when he couldn’t have personal visits; and then said he didn’t remember which of them stopped email communication. The daughter’s testimony on this issue was clear and consistent, and I find it more credible than that of her father. [ 14 ] Mr. Perry submitted that the daughter is still unable to withdraw from her parents’ charge because her B.

Comm. only equips her for an “entry level” position such as she now holds, and that she does not earn enough to support herself in the Lower Mainland of B.C. I accept the daughter’s testimony that there is a ceiling to her possibilities for advancement with a bachelor’s degree and find her plan to obtain a masters degree to be a sound goal.

However, neither of her parents has a post graduate degree and their financial circumstances do not justify their being obligated to support a child with a bachelor’s degree who is able to obtain employment, or to fund post graduate education for a 26 year old daughter. [ 15 ] Because she lost her own mother at a young age, the mother has been unstinting in her efforts to give her daughter every possible advantage, including a post graduate degree. The daughter continues to live with her mother and has no current plans to move out.

However, weighing all the factors, I find that the daughter remained a child for child support purposes only until she obtained her B.Comm. in October 2009. Since then she has been equipped to obtain and maintain employment.

Entry level positions are where people start their careers, and with an annual take home income of $21,268 ($818 bi-weekly x 26 weeks), I am satisfied that the daughter has the means to support herself, even in the expensive Lower Mainland of B.C., while making small payments on her student loans. [ 16 ] I therefore find that the father’s obligation to pay child support ceased on October 31, 2009. 2. Is the mother entitled to a retroactive increase in child support and special expenses? [ 17 ] In D.B.S. v.

S.R.G , et al., 2006 SCC 37 , the Supreme Court of Canada held that judges should consider the following factors when deciding whether to change child support orders retroactively: - the statutory scheme: in this case the Act and Guidelines, - the recipient’s reason for delay in applying to vary child support, - the payor’s conduct, particularly any blameworthy conduct, - the child’s past and present circumstances, and - whether a retroactive order would cause hardship to the payor. [ 18 ] The Court said judges should balance the payor’s interest in certainty about his financial obligations with fairness to the child, and it provided guidance on how far into the past any retroactive order should be extended.

If a retroactive order is warranted, it should generally be retroactive to the date when the recipient gave the payor effective notice that child support should be increased, to a maximum of three years, unless the payor has engaged in blameworthy conduct justifying a longer retroactive period. [ 19 ] The mother’s explanation for not applying earlier to increase child support and obtain contribution to special expenses was that

she could not serve the father with documents because she did not know where he was living or working. The father said he couldn’t notify the mother of his address changes because she didn’t give him her address. He also testified that the mother could have located him because the daughter was in contact with his sister and her children so the mother could have obtained his address from his relatives; and that he authorized the B.C. Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (“FMEP”) to give the mother his address.

He said he believes this constituted compliance with the 1994 order. [ 20 ] The mother testified as follows. The father left his employment and moved to B.C. shortly after the order was made, without giving her contact information. After that he did not obey the court order to keep her informed of his address and employment particulars. He also did not make child support payments for months at a time, and has been in arrears 70% of the time since January 1995. He visited Windsor in 1996 and saw the daughter who gave him her mother’s contact information and asked for his.

The father only provided an email address and then communicated with the daughter by email for one month before ceasing communication. He also sent the daughter a package around that time, showing that he knew the address where she was living with her mother. [ 21 ] The mother said she did not email the father to ask for his address because she was convinced he didn’t want to share that information and she didn’t want to interfere with her daughter maintaining a relationship with her father.

However, the mother made repeated efforts to obtain the father’s address and employment particulars by contacting her previous lawyer and her M.P., repeatedly contacting the maintenance enforcement bodies in Ontario and B.C., and hiring a private detective. [ 22 ] Assessing the evidence on this issue, I accept the mother’s evidence and reject that of the father for the following reasons. The father’s evidence was contradictory and not believable. First, he clearly breached the 1994 court order by failing to inform the mother of all changes in his address and employment particulars.

His professed belief to the contrary is incredible. He is too well educated to believe that he complied with the order by telling his sister where he was living. Second, he initially said in an affidavit that he gave the FMEP written authorization to release the information to the mother, but he was unable to provide any document to prove this, and when cross examined, he changed his evidence and said he was pretty sure it was a verbal release.

Third, his testimony that he didn’t have the mother’s address was contradicted by his admission that he mailed a parcel to the daughter after his visit in 1996. [ 23 ] On the other hand, the mother’s testimony was supported by copies of correspondence with an M.P.’s office and with the Ontario Family Support Plan and the FMEP. It would not have made sense for her to make all the efforts she did to find the father if she could have obtained his address from his sister.

Given the mother’s correspondence from the FMEP refusing to release information about the father because of privacy legislation, the evidence that FMEP has done seven searches for the father, and his inconsistent, unsupported and unbelievable evidence on this issue, I reject the father’s version and accept the mother’s. [ 24 ] I note that the father was concerned that his testimony may have been adversely affected by his health, but in assessing his testimony I have considered his health, as well as his conduct since 1996 and his affidavit drafted by a lawyer and sworn in February 2011.

His effort when testifying to shift responsibility to the mother for his failure to obey the court order was consistent with the attitude displayed in the affidavit. [ 25 ] As a result of the father’s failure to obey the Ontario Court Order, the mother has a reasonable explanation for her delay in applying to increase child support and the father is guilty of blameworthy conduct. [ 26 ] The evidence establishes the following with regard to the child’s circumstances.

The mother went to extreme lengths to protect the child from the impact of the periods when the father didn’t pay child support and the mother was unable to seek increased contribution from him. For example, during periods when she lost her employment and the father did not pay child support, the mother only ate dinner every second night to save money.

The daughter’s current circumstances are that she is employed, but has student loans totaling $50,622.33 including interest. [ 27 ] With regard to potential hardship to the father, the evidence establishes that he sustained injuries in a car accident in November 2010 that have prevented him from continuing to work as manager of a residential care facility. Since the accident, he has received two weeks of sick benefits, fifteen weeks of Employment Insurance benefits, and at least one payment of $2,100 from ICBC. He may be eligible for long term disability payments but is currently supported by his wife.

The other driver has admitted liability for the accident and the father has a lawyer handling his claim for damages. The father said he should not be required to pay retroactive support or expenses because he currently has no income and it may take two or three years to conclude the accident litigation. However, I accept Mr.

Perry’s submission that on the available evidence there is likelihood that the father will receive compensation for his injuries, including past and future wage loss. [ 28 ] Case law makes it clear that it is unfair to expect a parent to pay for past support and expenses when the other parent has the ability to inform and consult but does not. However, here the mother could not discuss increasing child support with the father or consult him about the daughter’s skating and university expenses because he did not keep her informed of his address as he was ordered to do.

Moreover, even if the father cannot pay any retroactive award in a lump sum immediately, on the evidence it is probable that he will eventually receive compensation for his injuries that would allow him to pay retroactive support and expenses. [ 29 ] Considering the father’s blameworthy conduct in ignoring his court ordered obligation to keep the mother informed of his address and the probability that his financial circumstances will improve in the future, as well as the mother’s sacrifices to maintain the daughter’s standard of living and the daughter’s large debt, I am satisfied that retroactive orders for child support and special expenses are amply justified in this case. [ 30 ] In reaching this conclusion I have considered the similarities between this case and B.S. v.

D.H. 2011 ONSC 1788 , where the mother’s failure to apply was brought about entirely by the father’s misconduct, as a result of which he forfeited his interest in certainty.

Moreover, because the father not only failed to keep the mother informed of his whereabouts but also did so in violation of a court order, I find his conduct is sufficiently blameworthy to justify extending a retroactive order beyond three years. [ 31 ] However, I conclude that there should be no retroactive order for figure skating expenses incurred in 1994 and 1995 because the issue of child support was before the Ontario Court in December 1994; the parents agreed to Minutes of Settlement that were incorporated in a court order; and special expenses for those years could have been dealt with then but were not.

[ 32 ] The mother’s unserved application was filed in October 2009, the last month in which the daughter remained a “child”. When the father’s application was filed in September 2010, and the mother’s Reply filed in October 2010, the daughter was no longer a “child”. However, this is not a bar to the mother’s request for retroactive orders. As in B.S. v. D.H. , it was the father’s actions that prevented the mother from proceeding with an application earlier.

Therefore she should not be penalized for the delay, and fairness requires that she be permitted to proceed with her application for retroactive payments even though the daughter was no longer a “child” in 2010. 3. How much, if any, retroactive child support should the father pay? [ 33 ] Section 3(2)(

a) and (

b) of the Guidelines state that maintenance payable for a child over 19 shall be the amount stated in the Table unless a judge considers it inappropriate having regard to the child’s circumstances and the parents’ abilities to contribute. Here neither party submitted that the father should pay other than the Guideline amount for the period between the daughter’s 19 th birthday and her graduation from university. [ 34 ] The father has provided slightly different figures for his gross annual incomes for Guideline purposes (“GAI”) in different document. I have relied on the figures used in both Exhibit C of the father’s Exhibit 4 affidavit and in

Schedule A to Mr. Perry’s written Opening Submissions because they agree. In addition, those documents provide the Guideline support payments applicable to the agreed GAIs. I list the father’s GAIs below with the Guideline amounts applicable to those incomes. Where not otherwise noted, the Guideline amount would be payable for 12 months in the calendar year. [ 35 ] The father submitted that he has actually paid more than the Guideline amounts when his payments are totaled.

However, the mother had to pay income tax on payments made under the 1994 order although tax would not have been payable on support received if the order had been varied under the Guidelines passed in 1997. The father’s analysis does not reflect that fact. Moreover, the father was able to reduce his income tax by deducting support payments, thereby reducing the cost to him of child support paid. Mr.

Perry submitted that this inequity could be redressed by increasing the Guideline amounts payable by 40%, but there was no evidence to support that percentage adjustment. [ 36 ] To address the unfairness of tax consequences, in the absence of evidence from an accountant suggesting a better approach, I have calculated the percentage of the mother’s income that she paid in tax each year. I conclude that the Guideline amounts should be increased by these percentages in order to compensate the mother for income tax paid on the child support she received.

In the table that follows I have rounded sums to the nearest dollar.

Year GAI Guideline Amounts Tax Adjustment Amount Payable 1997 46,939 $401 x 8 months +0% $401 x 8 months 1998 41,144 $357 +15% $411 1999 28,469 $252 +4% $262 2000 36,577 $315 +7% $337 2001 37,225 $321 +7% $343 2002 36,131 $312 +2% $318 2003 56,552 $479 +3% $493 2004 19,365 $164 +0% $164 2005 21,925 $191 +0% $191 2006 33,068 $288 x 4 months +25% $360 x 4 months $308 x 8 months +25% $385 x 8 months 2007 43,000 $398 +16% $462 2008 65,194 $609 +18% $719 2009 57,827 $540 x 10 months +16% $626 x 10 months [ 37 ] Retroactive variation should start on May 1, 1997, because the Guidelines came into effect that month.

I therefore order that the order made on December 20, 1994, be varied to provide that the father pay to the mother retroactive child support for the period from May 1, 1997, through October 1, 2009.

I order that retroactive child support be calculated by totaling the monthly payments shown in the Amount Payable column above, and subtracting from that total the amount the father has actually paid from May 1, 1997, until August 31, 2011. [ 38 ] I ask that the parties calculate the difference between the retroactive child support payable and the amounts actually paid, and attempt to agree on a payment plan for any balance owing. Any such agreement may be included in the order to be drafted by Mr. Perry on receipt of these Reasons.

If the father has overpaid, the amount by which he has overpaid should be credited against any sum owing for extraordinary expenses. 4. What contribution, if any, should the father make to the daughter’s figure skating, secondary school and undergraduate university expenses? [ 39 ] A child support order may include extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities and post secondary education. Section 7(1.1) of the Guidelines defines extraordinary expenses as: (

a) expenses that exceed those that the parent requesting the amount can reasonably cover taking into account income and the Guideline amount payable, or,

(

b) where (

a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers extraordinary taking into account: i. the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount the parent receivesunder the Guidelines; ii. the nature and number of extracurricular activities; iii. any special needs and talents of the child; iv. the overall cost of the programs or activities; v. other similar relevant factors. [40] In determining whether additional payment for extraordinary expenses should be ordered, a judge must consider the necessityof the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the parents andthe child, as well as the family’s spending pattern before separation, if any. [41] The mother asked that the father contribute to the daughter’s figure skating expenses of $23,028.26 from 1994 through 1999 inan amount proportional to his share of their combined incomes during that period.

Although she did not have receipts for all theexpenses, she extrapolated from a combination of some receipts and memory refreshed by memorabilia. [42] While she has not claimed contribution to the child’s other extra-curricular activities such as swimming, camps, or gymnastics,the mother sought contribution for figure skating because of the extent of the child’s involvement and the high cost. The daughterexcelled at skating and advanced quickly through the Canadian Figure Skating Association competitive skating programme.

Because thedaughter showed a particular talent for figure skating and it developed her social skills, self discipline, and self esteem, the motherconsidered it worth the effort and expense to continue her participation from the age of 9 through 14. [43] As explained above, I have decided that retroactive expenses should not be ordered for 1994 and 1995. However, I accept thatcompetitive figure skating was important for the daughter’s development, reasonable, and necessary.

During the period from 1996through 1999 the mother’s income was as follows: $17,601 in 1996, $8,296 in 1997, $30,472 in 1998, and $31,476 in 1999. Monthlycourt ordered child support was $433 in 1996 and Guideline child support was $401 in 1997, $357 in 1998 and $252 in 1999. I find thatcompetitive figure skating cost more than the mother could reasonably pay using her salary and child support during those years.

It istherefore appropriate for the father to contribute a proportional share of the reasonable skating expenses from 1996 through 1999. [44] The amount claimed by the mother for skating expenses amounts to a reconstruction or estimate. Taking into account theevidence supporting her estimates, I find her claim of $3,906 in 1996, $4,466 in 1997, $7,790 in 1998 and $4,720 in 1999 to bereasonable for skating expenses.

Based on his income and the mother’s during the relevant years, I find the father’s proportional share isas follows: 1996 $2,695 (69% of total for the year) 1997 $3,751 (84% of total for the year) 1998 $4,362 (56% of total for the year) 1999 $2,596 (55% of total for the year) Total $13,404 [45] I do not find the expenses claimed for activities, uniforms, dances etc. during secondary school to be extraordinary.

Theevidence does not establish that they exceed what the mother could reasonably cover given her incomes and child support from 2000through 2004. [46] When considering the claim for university expenses, I bear in mind that I have decided that the father should pay the Tableamount of maintenance in accordance with section 3(2)(

a) of the Guidelines for the years in which the daughter attended university. InW.P.N. v. B.J.N., 2005 BCCA 7 , [2005] B.C.J. No. 12, the B.C. Court of Appeal stated that, in principle, support for an adultchild who is entitled to support because of attendance at a post secondary institution should be determined by awarding an amountdifferent from the Table under section 3(2)(

b) of the Guidelines. However, the Court did not rule out making an additional award for“special and extraordinary expenses” under Guidelines

section 7 where appropriate. I am taking the latter approach because that is themanner in which the parties framed the issues in this case. [47] The father will have contributed to the daughter’s housing, food and miscellaneous costs during her university years by payingGuideline child support. I find that tuition, fees, and books for the daughter’s B. Comm. degree constitute extraordinary expenses thatshould be shared proportionally amongst the parents and the daughter.

However, except for 2009, the evidence on the actual amount oftuition, fees and books expenses was not clear. [48] There are no receipts for tuition expenses in other years. The mother testified that the daughter’s student loans of $48,274covered her tuition, fees and books, but at Tab F3 of Exhibit 8 there is a notation that the loans also covered transportation, supplies andother school related expenses. Moreover, the daughter’s income tax returns show that the sums she claimed as eligible tuition expenseswere significantly lower than the sums she received as student loans.

The amount she claimed for eligible tuition expenses in 2009, being$1,691, was also significantly lower than the amount that receipts indicate she paid for tuition and fees that year, being $2,801. Iconclude that the actual tuition costs lie between the eligible tuition amounts declared on the daughter’s tax returns and the amount ofstudent loans she received, both shown below.

Year Eligible Student Tuition Loans 2004 $2,434 $ 9,194 2005 $5,490 $ 9,078 2006 $6,178 $11,639 2007 $6,290 $14,850 2008 $2,991 $ 3,513 Total $23,383 $48,274 [ 49 ] Taking into account reasonable amounts for tuition that was not eligible as a tax deductible expense, as well fees and books, I consider $8,000 a school year to be a reasonable estimate of the daughter’s expenditures for tuition, fees and books from September 2004 through August 2008.

The father’s proportional share of these expenses, based on his share of the combined total income of the father, mother, and daughter is as follows: 2004/05 $4,720 (59%) 2005/06 $4,320 (54%) 2006/07 $2,400 (30%) 2007/08 $3,920 (49%) Total $15,360 [ 50 ] The daughter required a fifth year to complete her University of Windsor degree. When she moved to British Columbia in 2007, she arranged to complete the required courses at U.B.C., but was not able to do so. She therefore returned to Windsor to complete the degree requirements in 2009, but was not eligible for student loans in her fifth year.

Receipts establish tuition and fees totaling $2,801 and course materials totalling $679 in 2009. The father’s proportional share of tuition, fees and books for the daughter’s final year of university is $2,018 (58% of the $3,480 total for 2009). [ 51 ] I find these to be the only expenses proven to be extraordinary.

In particular, rent payments for the daughter to remain in the family home in Windsor while her mother worked in Oakville, the daughter’s move from Windsor to Vancouver in 2007, her “senior trip” to Costa Rica, and graduation celebrations are either expenses the mother and daughter could pay using their income and Guideline support, or expenditures not proven necessary to the daughter’s best interests, or not proven reasonable given the parties’ circumstances.

Furthermore, the father is not responsible for interest on student loans accrued after October 2009, when the daughter was no longer a “child”. [ 52 ] For these reasons I order that the father pay to the mother $30,782 for the daughter’s extraordinary expenses (being $13,404 for figure skating and $17,378 for post-secondary tuition, fees and books) provided that $15,360 of this amount be applied to the daughter’s student loan. I ask the parents to attempt to agree on a payment plan for this sum less any amount by which the father may have overpaid child support.

Any such agreement may be incorporated in the order to be drafted by Mr. Perry on receipt of these Reasons. Finally, I order that the funds held in trust by Mark G. Perry Law Corporation be released to the mother as partial payment of retroactive extraordinary expenses. The Honourable Judge A.E. Rounthwaite Provincial Court of British Columbia