C.K. v. A.S. et al. Date:, 2012 BCPC 534

Citation: C.K. v. A.S. et al. Date: 20120705 2012 BCPC 0534 File No: 12958 Registry: Fort St. John IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY RELATIONS ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 128 BETWEEN: C. K. 1 APPLICANT AND: A.S., C.K.2, and J. B. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUDGE M. J. BRECKNELL Re: Child Support Appearing on their own behalf: C.K. 1 Appearing on their own behalf: A.S.

Appearing on their own behalf: C.K.2 Appearing on their own behalf: J.B. Place of Hearing: Dawson Creek , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 18, 2012 Date of Judgment: July 5, 2012 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Some of the parties in this matter have been engaged in litigation for over 13 years. During that time there has been an almost unending series of acrimoniously detailed Applications to Obtain an Order, Replies, Notices of Motion, and Affidavits, as well as Financial Statements and reports from various experts.

There have been numerous appearances, hearings and trials. [ 2 ] The children at issue in this proceeding have grown up residing at various times in the homes of either parent or their grandmother.

Over the years since the parents’ separation they have found, resided with and separated from new partners and, in the case of the father, have added additional parental responsibilities. [ 3 ] After years of being in contention, the custodial status of the children has finally been resolved by a recent interim Consent Order resulting in one child residing with each parent. [ 4 ] The only remaining issues to be resolved relate to the appropriate amount of child support to be paid both retroactively and prospectively.

THE PLAYERS [ 5 ] Although there are four parties to the proceeding the only issues outstanding are the child support matters between the parents. [ 6 ] The children are J. L. K. (J.) and B. R. K. (B.) (collectively the Children). J. and B. are twins born on [DOB]. [ 7 ] C.K.2 (Mr. K.) is the father of the Children. Since the most recent Consent Order, J. has resided with him. Prior to that the Children had, for some time, resided with their mother but he had frequent contact with them including on some occasions for periods of time three to four days per week. [ 8 ] For the past several years Mr.

K. has been employed at the same job operating heavy equipment. Mr. K. is also the father of a child from a subsequent relationship for whom he pays child support of $500.00 per month. He has access to that child. [ 9 ] A. S. (Ms. S.) is the mother of the Children. Since the most recent Consent Order B. has resided with her. Prior to that both Children resided with her for some time and they have enjoyed access with Mr. K. and their grandmother. [ 10 ] Ms. S. has resided in several communities over the past few years.

In the fall of 2010 she began college training in Dawson Creek for an administrative office position but did not complete that course. She advised the Court that she quit the course because she realized she was not cut out for office work. [ 11 ] Recently she has held a variety of permanent, temporary or part-time positions for a pilot car company in the oilfield industry or in auto detailing. She also rents out a room in her home. [ 12 ] C. K.1 (Ms. K.) is the grandmother of the Children and the mother of their father. She has been fully engaged in this litigation throughout.

At various points in time the Children resided with her and at other points in time she has enjoyed access to them. Recently she has assisted financially by paying for orthodontia for J. [ 13 ] J. B. (Mr. B.) is a subsequent, and now separated, partner of Ms. S. He has a continuing financial relationship with her concerning a motor vehicle registered in his name but operated by her. The vehicle has outstanding loan on which Ms. S. is making payments and once that loan is retired the motor vehicle will be transferred to her by Mr. B. [ 14 ] All the parties and the Children reside in the Fort St. John area.

THE ISSUES [ 15 ] There are several issues raised by the parties and otherwise which must be resolved in the context of child support. (

A) Calculation of Income [ 16 ] This matter must be resolved by considering

Section 19 (Imputing Income) of the Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines ) because Mr. K. has alleged that Ms. S. is intentionally under-employed and has failed to use her property reasonably to generate income. [ 17 ] Mr. K.’s income is relatively straightforward because he has been employed in the same job by the same employer for several years. However, there are a few possible complexities concerning his income including:

a) the payment of a bonus which is production related and may not be available every year; and

b) a transportation allowance Mr. K. receives from his employer and the transportation deductions he claims on his Income Tax return. [ 18 ] Ms. S.'s income is more problematic to calculate because of her recent changes to employment. In addition, Mr. K. contends that Ms. S. has been less than forthright with the Court in several areas including:

a) the nature of the arrangement with Mr. B. concerning the motor vehicle payments which Mr. K. contends amounts to an indirect income because Mr. B. is subsidizing Ms. S.’s expenses;

b) the amount of rent Ms. S. collects from her roommate which Mr. K. contends is much less than market rate;

c) the pay rate Ms. S. receives from her employer which Mr. K. says amounts to less than the going rate amounting to under- employment;

d) Ms. S.’s choice to cease her schooling which, if completed, would have offered enhanced employment opportunities to her. (

B) Calculation of Child Support [ 19 ] This issue must be resolved by considering

Section 8 (Split Custody) and

Section 9 (Shared Custody) of the Guidelines and recognizing that the Children have resided in different circumstances at different times in the past, at the present, and into the future where each will reside with one parent. (

C) Calculation of "Arrears" or Retroactivity [ 20 ] Once the appropriate commencement date has been established and the quantum of child support due based on the incomes of Mr. K. and Ms. S. and the custodial arrangements for the Children from time to time has been ascertained the amount of arrears or retroactivity, if any, can be calculated. (

D) Commencement Date for Child Support [ 21 ] It has been agreed between Mr. K. and Ms. S. that Mr. K. has paid the child support required in previous final and interim Court Orders up to and including March 2012, but he has paid no child support to Ms. S. since then. They also agree that an increase in child support was claimed by Ms. S. in December 2010. (

E) Special or Extraordinary Expenses [ 22 ]

Section 7 (Special or Extraordinary Expenses) of the Guidelines must be considered because J. has required orthodontia which, although it is covered in part by Mr. K.’s extended dental plan, has required a further considerable cash outlay. J. has no other special or extraordinary expenses. [ 23 ] B. has no need for orthodontia nor does she have any other special or extraordinary expenses. [ 24 ] The proportionate contribution to the orthodontia or any other special or extraordinary expenses by each of the parents has to be calculated based on their incomes and considered in light of the other child support issues. (

F) Other Responsibilities for Child Support [ 25 ] Mr. K. maintains that the Court must consider his other child support obligations to a daughter from a subsequent relationship in the amount of $500.00 per month in arriving at an appropriate amount of child support in this matter. APPROACH TO THE HEARING AND DECISION [ 26 ] Given the history of the litigation in this matter and the volumes of material available in the file, I approached the conduct of the hearing of these present issues in the following, somewhat unique, manner. [ 27 ] First, on the basis that the Court could consider all the relevant previously filed documents, I considered the following:

a) all of the Financial Statements filed by Mr. K. or Ms. S. in 2010, 2011 or 2012;

b) all the pleadings filed in 2010, 2011 or 2012;

c) all of the Affidavits filed in 2010, 2011 or 2012 pertaining to the child custody or support issues. [ 28 ] Second, I invited submissions from all the parties present on all the topics relevant to the issues of child support and permitted submissions on several other topics of importance to the parties but of little relevance to the issues to be resolved.

Based on a review of the file (several hundred pages of conflicting pleadings, Affidavits and some trial transcripts), I did not consider it a necessary or appropriate use of the Court’s time to hear further "he said/she said" sniping in the form of viva voce evidence when the necessary evidence is set out in the filed Financial Statements and Affidavits and the other portions of the file.

[29] Third, I considered the relevant provisions of the Family Relations Act (the Act), the Guidelines and case law presented by Mr.K. as well as the other applicable case law review by the Court. THE LAW [30] Mr. K. provided the following cases for the Court’s consideration:

a) S.W. v. K.F. 2007 BCPC 89 , 2007 BCPC 0089

b) L.L.F. v. S.L.Y. 2006 BCPC 647 , 2006 BCPC 0647

c) G.T.W. v. A.M.K. 2006 BCPC 22 , 2006 BCPC 0022

d) K.N.H. v. T.D.H. 2005 BCPC 381 , 2005 BCPC 0381

e) R.-L.H.-A. v. G.A. 2005 BCPC 247 , 2005 BCPC 0247

f) T. v. (L.) v. H.B.(E.) 2000 BCPC 148 , 2000 BCPC 0148 [31] Those cases tangentially addressed some of the issues to be decided here. [32] In addition, the Court also considered the following cases:

a) Ouellette v. Ouellette 2012 BCCA 145

b) D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra 2006 SCC 37 (D.B.S.)

c) Contino v. Leonelli-Contino 2005 SCC 63

d) Wright v. Wright 2002 BCSC 266 , 2002 BCSC 0266 RECENT RELEVANT PLEADINGS AND ORDERS [33] On June 14, 2004, Mr. K. was ordered to pay child support to Ms. S. for the Children commencing on September 1, 2004 in theamount of $200.00 per month. [34] On April 6, 2005, Mr. K. was ordered to pay increased child support commencing on April 1, 2005 in the amount of $472.00per month. [35] On December 1, 2010, Mr. K. filed an Application to Change or Vary an Order in which he claimed custody of the Children. [36] On December 13, 2010, Ms.

S. filed the Reply to the Application and claimed increased child support. [37] Throughout mid-December 2010, several Affidavits were filed on behalf of and in support of Mr. K.’s and Ms. S.'s positionconcerning the custody of the Children. Those Affidavits detailed that the Children were residing with Ms. S. and there were allegationsthat Mr. K. was being denied access to them which resulted in his Application filed on December 1, 2010. [38] On February 15, 2011, the parties attended a Family Case Conference where they agreed that on an interim basis Mr.

K. wouldpay child support commencing on February 25, 2011 and on the 10th and 25th of each month thereafter in the amount of $400.00 perpayment or $800.00 per month. [39] On April 5, 2012, the parties agreed to an interim Consent Order that J. would reside with Mr. K. and B. would reside with Ms.S. [40] Throughout the history of these proceedings and, in particular, in the more recent years there have been several Orders,directions and suggestions made by various Judges of the Court concerning the appropriate type and detail of financial disclosure to besupplied by Mr. K. and Ms. S. Mr.

K. has contended for some time that Ms. S. has not been cooperative or forthcoming with the Courtin that regard. DISCUSSION (

A) Calculation of Income [41] The relevant time periods for the income of the parties to be considered in this matter are the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 with anestimate to be made for 2012. Mr. K. [42] Based on his Financial Statements and his Tax Return information Mr. K. indicates his income as follows: a) 2009 - Tax Return - $79,594.00;

b) 2010 - Tax Return - $77,826.00 earned income plus $6,495.00 of RRSP refund. Claimed motor vehicle expenses of $6,357.00; c) 2011 - Financial Statement April 1, 2011 - $77,000.00; d) 2011 - Tax Return - $95,257.00. Claimed motor vehicle expenses $10,042.00; e) 2012 - Financial Statement June 13, 2012 - $98,000.00 not including a bonus of $5,972.00 paid for past production. [ 43 ] Based on information supplied by Mr. K., I determine that his income for the years in question is as follows: a) 2009 - $79,594.00; b) 2010 - $77,826.00; c) 2011 - $95,257.00; d) 2012 - $110,000.00. This is an estimate based on Mr.

K.’s June 1, 2012 paystub and including the bonus paid to him which is a form of employment income. The calculation actually reveals an income of $113,972.00 but is rounded down to take into account any possible reduction in overtime. [ 44 ] I reject Mr. K.’s suggestion that his gross income should be reduced because of his high travel costs to and from work for the following reasons:

a) he receives funds from his employer to reduce the impact of such expenses; and

b) he claims motor vehicle expenses for fuel and other matters on his tax returns. Ms. S. [ 45 ] Based on her Financial Statements and her Tax Return information Ms. S. indicates her income as follows: a) 2009 - Tax

Summary - $11,238.00; b) 2010 - Tax

Summary - $0 but she did receive student loans totalling $22,500.00 which must be repaid; c) 2011 - Financial Statement June 14, 2011 - $0. She had just started employment; d) 2011 - Financial Statement February 21, 2012 - $0. However, the attached Honda dealership year to date pay stubs indicate $14,884.00 and the pilot car company pay stubs indicate total of $1,146.00 for a total of $16,030.00; e) 2011 - Notice of Assessment - $16,500.00; f) 2012 - Financial Statement June 13, 2012 - $0.

However, the attached pilot car company year to date paystub indicates $9,198.00 and the auto detailing company year to date paystub indicates $795.00 for a total of $9,993.00. [ 46 ] Ms. S. had, within the few days immediately before the hearing, obtained full-time employment as an auto detailer at a local auto dealership. She indicated that it pays $15.00 per hour for 40 hour work week. This is $5.00 per hour less than she was earning at the Honda dealership but that employment ended abruptly when the employer failed to follow through on some employment related promises made to Ms. S. [ 47 ] Ms.

S. also explained that her present intention is to remain in the auto detailing position until she can train for and obtain the necessary certifications to work in an oil industry position. She commented that it is unlikely that she would return to the pilot car company because the work, although lucrative when occurring, was sporadic and seasonal. [ 48 ] Ms. S. also has income from her roommate which was at one point $400.00 per month, but with a new roommate is now $200.00 per month. She stated that the new roommate is a student and a friend and she is trying to help him out. Mr.

K. contends that the going rate for room rental in Fort St. John is $600.00 per month. [ 49 ] Ms. S. also has been receiving the Child Tax Benefit and associated benefits for the Children in the amount of between $560.00 and $575.00 per month for the past few years. That amount will probably be varied once the benefit provider becomes aware of the new custodial regime for the Children. When that occurs, or what amount Ms. S. will then receive, cannot be estimated at this time. [ 50 ] Furthermore, Ms.

S. has also be receiving a GST rebate of approximate $770.00 per year paid and the amount of $193.00 each quarter. [ 51 ] Ms. S. also pays Mr. B. the amount of $420.00 per month for the motor vehicle payment of insurance on the vehicle registered in Mr. B.’s name. Mr. K. contends that he was told by Mr. B. that Mr. B. was paying the full amount of the payments of over $800.00

per month. Mr. B. filed an Affidavit on June 12, 2012, stating that the amount Ms. S. pays him is $420.00 per month. He advised the Court in submissions the full amount of the payment was $800.00 per month and that he was making it in the past but the conversation with Mr. K. had occurred over 2 1/2 years ago and the circumstances have changed. Both Mr. B. and Ms. S. made mention of a Separation Agreement entered into between them but that Agreement was not produced to the Court. [ 52 ] Based on information provided by Ms. S., taking into account the issues raised by Mr. K. and considering the provisions of

Section 19 of the Guidelines, I am satisfied that an income has to be imputed to Ms. S. for the following reasons:

a) she has not had a full year of steady employment so some estimation must be made of what an annual income would be;

b) Mr. K. has not satisfied me that Ms. S.'s present hourly rate falls far below the prevailing market rate for her kind of work. If he had wished to do so he could have obtained evidence from other similar employers to show that auto detailers are paid substantially more by other dealerships;

c) Mr. K. has not satisfied me that Ms. S.'s arrangement with Mr. B. is an indirect form of income which needs to be taken into account;

d) Mr. K. has not satisfied me that Ms. S.'s withdrawal from her college course should result in the Court concluding that she is under- employed. Mr. K. did not present any evidence to suggest that Ms. S. would have obtained employment in the field for which she was training and furthermore did not present any evidence to suggest that Ms. S. was acting in bad faith by deciding to withdraw from a course for which she concluded she was not suited;

e) Mr. K. has satisfied me that Ms. S.'s arrangement with regard to the rental of a room in her residence to a roommate is well below market value and is not a reasonable utilization of her "property" to generate income. It is very generous of Ms. S. to assist the person renting from her but she has a duty to maximize her income particularly to ensure appropriate standard of living for B.;

f) The amount of Child Tax Benefit received by Ms. S. is not, except for

Section 9 calculations, considered as income for the purposes of the Guidelines but the receipt of a GST rebate can be included. [ 53 ] Based on information supplied by Ms. S., I determine that her income for the years in question is as follows: a) 2009 - $11,238.00; b) 2010 - $0. Ms. S. did receive the benefit of the $22,500.00 student loan which must be repaid; c) 2011 - $21,300.00. $16,500.00 from the Notice of Assessment plus attributed income of $4,800.00 (12 months rent at $400.00 per month); d) 2012 - $30,000.00.

This is an estimate based on past and present employment and attributed rental income of $9,993.00 from past employment, $17,400.00 from new employment and $4,800.00 from rental income, totalling $32,193.00 which is rounded down to allow for some employment absences or lack of rental income. [ 54 ] I agree with Mr. K.’s submissions that Ms. S.’s Financial Statements have not been as complete or accurate as is required by the Rules . However, I do not attribute that to misfeasance, but rather ignorance on her part. It appears from Ms.

S.’s sporadic employment history combined with the manner in which she has completed the Financial Statements in this matter that she has not paid close attention to the directions set out on those documents. Nevertheless, Ms. S. would be well advised to take care to ensure future Financial Statements are accurate and complete. (

B) Calculation of Child Support and (

C) Calculation of “Arrears” or Retroactivity [ 55 ] The amount of basic child support payable from one parent to another is based on the Guidelines and the custodial arrangements for the Children. The basic amount of support due under the Guidelines changed effective January 1, 2012. The amount of increased child support claimed by Ms. S. dates back to January 1, 2011. The amounts due under the Guidelines for the time periods at issue based on the incomes I have found for Mr. K. and Ms. S. and the changes to the custodial arrangements for the Children are as follows: Date Mr. K.

Annual Income Support Due Support Paid Arrears Ms. S. Income Support Due January 2011 $95,257 $1383 (1) $472 $911 $21,000 0 February 2011 $95,257 $1383 $472 $911 $21,000 0 March 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0 April 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0 May 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0 June 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0 July 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0

August 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0 September 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0 October 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0 November 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0 December 2011 $95,257 $1383 $800 $583 $21,000 0 January 2012 $110,000 $1606 $800 $806 $30,000 0 February 2012 $110,000 $1606 $800 $806 $30,000 0 March 2012 $110,000 $1606 $800 $806 $30,000 0 April 2012 $110,000 $1004 (2) 0 $735 (3) $30,000 $269

(2) May 2012 $110,000 $1004 0 $735 $30,000 $269 June 2012 $110,000 $1004 0 $735 $30,000 $269 July 2012 $110,000 $1004 0 $735 $30,000 $269 TOTAL: $13,010

(1) For 2 children

(2) For 1 child

(3) Note: set off because each parent has 1 child $1020 - $269 = $751 [ 56 ] During the submissions, there was some disagreement as to whether the Children had at some points in time in 2011 and early 2012, resided nearly as often with Mr. K. as with Ms. S. Having reviewed the pleadings, it is clear by the nature of Mr. K.’s Application on December 10, 2010, the children were in Ms. S.’s custody. [ 57 ] Furthermore, it is obvious from the Affidavits filed and the Interim Order agreed to at the Family Case Conference on February 5, 2011, that although Mr.

K. was entitled to have the Children up to the full amount of his four days off in each shift rotation, the reality was that when the Children were in school his access to them was reduced to the point that he normally saw them on the weekends when he was not working. [ 58 ] Based on the pattern of contact Mr. K.’s time with the Children over the course of the year would not amount to the 40% required to invoke the provisions of

Section 9 of the Guidelines thereby requiring the Court to enter into the analysis described in Contino . (

D) Commencement Date for Support [ 59 ] Based on the case law concerning retroactive support as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in D.B.S. , it is clear that Mr. K.'s obligation to pay increased child support arose when Ms. S.’s filed her Reply on December 13, 2010. As such, I find that the appropriate commencement date for the increased amount of child support to be January 1, 2011. [ 60 ] Given Mr. K.’s income over the past few years and the amount he had been paying in child support, he is fortunate that Ms. S. did not bring her Application sooner.

The decision in D.B.S. makes it clear that parents are responsible to support their children commensurate to their income and have a further duty to keep the other parent informed of their income from year-to-year. [ 61 ] Despite his submissions to the contrary, I am unable to find any undue hardship imposed on Mr. K. resulting from properly maintaining his Children by paying the Guidelines support amounts from January 1, 2011. (

E) Special and Extraordinary Expenses [ 62 ] Ms. K. stated that she had paid part of the orthodontia bill for J. and is obligated to make monthly payments until the debt is retired. She stated the total bill was $8,600.00 of which is already paid $4,700.00 leaving $3,900.00 to be paid. [ 63 ] Ms. S. did not contest the necessity of J.'s orthodontia but contends that Ms. K. offered to pay for it herself, something Ms. K. denies. Regardless of Ms.

K.'s generosity, it is responsibility of the parents (not the grandparent) for such expenditures and they are liable to pay for the expense on a prorated basis. [ 64 ] Mr. K.’s income is $110,000.00 and Ms. S.’s income is $30,000.00. This means that Mr. K. has 78.5% of the total parental income and Ms. K. has 21.5%. This would make Mr. K. responsible for $6,750.00 (78.5%) and Ms. S. for $1,850.00 (21.5%) of the total orthodontia bill. Given the strained history of the relationship between Ms. S. and Ms. K., I will deduct Ms. S.'s contribution for the present orthodontia bill from the arrears due to her by Mr.

K. and leave him to sort out his payment for the orthodontia with Ms. K. That will serve to reduce the arrears of support owed by Mr. K. to Ms. S. from $13,010.00 to $11,160.00. [ 65 ] There was disagreement between Mr. K. and Ms. S. as to the cost of the Children's schooling expenses. Any expenses charged by the school to permit the Children to attend educational or mandatory activities (not optional things such as school dances or yearbooks) in the future should be shared by Mr. K. and Ms. S. in the same proportion as the orthodontia expenses.

If one party incurs an expense of this nature for either of the Children and the other party refuses to pay their fair contribution, the matter can be resolved at

the Review of this Order detailed later in these reasons. Other Child Support Responsibilities [ 66 ] I reject Mr. K.’s submission that his payment of support in this matter should be reduced either retroactively or prospectively on account of his other child support obligations for the following reasons:

a) the total child support Mr. K. now pays remains less than he would be obligated to pay under the Guidelines for the two children not in his custody;

b) the amount of child support Mr. K. pays for his daughter of the subsequent relationship is less than one half what the Guidelines mandates he should be paying;

c) Mr. K. has made no claim under

Section 10 (Undue Hardship) of the Guidelines based on his subsequent Court ordered financial responsibilities to his daughter (even if he had his present income strongly suggests such an Application would be unsuccessful). DECISION AND ORDER [ 67 ] The income for Mr. K. is imputed at $110,000 for 2012. The income for Ms. S. is imputed at $30,000.00 for 2012. [ 68 ] The retroactive date for commencement of child support payments due to Ms. S. based on her Reply filed December 13, 2010, is determined to be January 1, 2011. [ 69 ] The arrears of child support due by Mr. K. to Ms.

S. arising from the retroactive commencement date are fixed at $13,010.00. [ 70 ] Mr. K. shall be given credit of $1,850.00 arising from Ms. S.'s proportionate share of the orthodontia bill for J. leaving a net amount of arrears of $11,160.00 as at July 5, 2012. [ 71 ] Mr. K. shall be solely responsible for J.’s orthodontia expenses up to and including July 5, 2012. [ 72 ] For the remainder of 2012, any further special and extraordinary expenses shall be shared between Mr. K. and Ms. S. proportionately with Mr. K. paying 78.5% and Ms.

S. paying 21.5% of any such expenses. [ 73 ] Commencing on August 1, 2012, and on the first day of each month thereafter until further order of the Court, Mr. K. shall pay child support to Ms. S. in the amount of $735.00 per month. [ 74 ] Mr. K. shall pay the arrears due to Ms. S. under this Order in the following amounts on or before the following dates: a) $2,500.00 on or before September 1, 2012; b) $2,500.00 on or before December 1, 2012; c) $2,500.00 on or before March 1, 2013; d) $3,660.00 on or before June 1, 2013. [ 75 ] On or before May 15, 2013, Mr. K. and Ms.

S. shall prepare, file and exchange fully completed Financial Statement in Form 4 including documentation of income from all sources and a Tax Return for 2012 and documentation of income from all sources up to and including April 30, 2013. [ 76 ] This matter is to be returned before me for a review of child support and scheduled for a half day hearing in June 2013, at a time and date fixed by the Judicial Case Manager. [ 77 ] I am seized with all aspects of this file until June 30, 2013. ___________________________ M. J. Brecknell Associate Chief Judge Provincial Court of BC