Rodriguez v. Singh, 2011 ONCJ 728

Toronto Registry No. D42271/06 DATE: 2011·XI·07 CITATION: Rodriguez v. Singh , 2011 ONCJ 728 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MYRIAM RODRIGUEZ Applicant (Responding Party) — AND — JASWINDER SINGH Respondent (Moving Party) Before Justice Curtis Heard on 14 June; 29, 30 September; 3 October 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 7 November 2011 Applicant appeared unrepresented Veena Pohani .................................... counsel for the Respondent CURTIS, J.: INDEX 1. Overview 2. Background 3. Litigation History 4. The Father’s Income 5. The Father’s Financial Circumstances 6.

History of the Payment of Child Support 7. Credibility 8. Change in Circumstances 9. The Law Regarding the Father’s Income 10. Analysis 11. S. 7 Expenses 12. Arrears of Child Support

13. Orders 14. Costs Overview 1 . This is the decision in the four day trial regarding child support for seven year old Alyiah. The father also brought a motion to change custody to joint custody. The custody and access issues were settled on the first day of the trial. 2 . The child support issue was framed by the father as a motion to change a final order of child support. However, the order of Pugsley, J. made 3 August 2004 was a temporary order. The trial regarding child support is a trial of the child support issue in the original application.

In any event, whether heard as a motion to change what was thought to be a final order, or as a trial on the child support issue in the original application, the outcome would not be any different. Background 3 . The mother, the applicant (respondent in the motion), Myriam Rodriguez (born 30 August 1976) was 35 years old at the trial’s conclusion. She works for a non-profit organization mentoring young people who have been in conflict with the law. She has a 16 year old daughter from a previous relationship who lives with her and Alyiah. 4 .

The father, the respondent (the moving party), Jaswinder Singh, (born 26 June 1975) was 36 years old at the trial’s conclusion. He works part-time as a security guard. He lives with his current partner. 5 . The parents lived together from 2002 to 2004, and were not married to each other. There is one child of the relationship, Alyiah Gabriela (born 28 October 2003) almost eight years old at trial. Litigation History 6 .

There is a long history of conflict and litigation between the parents over many years, and there were many court orders (in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2010), mostly surrounding custody and access. 7 . The order the parents are asking to change at trial is the temporary consent child support order of Pugsley, J. made 3 August 2004. The child support agreed to and ordered was $429 per month from 1 August 2004. No income amount was specified in the order, but that table amount ordered relates to annual income of $50,000.

The order also required the sharing of s. 7 expenses by the parents in proportion to their respective incomes, and specifically mentioned day-care, to be started on the mother’s return to work. 8 . The original litigation concluded with a final consent order by Karswick, J. on 12 December 2005 for joint custody with primary residence with the mother and a detailed access arrangement. No final order was ever made regarding child support. 9 . After these orders, the litigation continued, there were motions to change brought, and many orders were made.

The father brought several motions regarding custody of the child. The original custody and access order has been changed several times as a result of this litigation. 10 . The current trial is the result of two motions to change brought by the father. 11 . In August 2009, the father started a motion to change the order of Pugsley, J. made 3 August 2004, asking to reduce child support to reflect his reduced income and to rescind arrears. The father wanted arrears to be rescinded to reflect both changes in his income, and to reflect payments he says were made directly to the mother.

The father believes he has over-paid child support and that an amount (over $7,000) should be refunded to him. The mother did not accept the father’s claims about his income, and made a claim for the child support to be adjusted to reflect increases in the father’s income, for income to be imputed to the father, and for adjustments to the on- going support in accordance with the father’s current income. The mother also wants the father to pay 50% of the s. 7 expenses (rather

than the proportionate share originally ordered) and to pay s. 7 expenses on a retroactive and on-going basis. The mother wants no reduction in arrears owing. 12 . In April 2010, the father brought a second motion to change the order of Zuker, J. made 5 March 2009, which provided sole custody to the mother, no access to the father, and a restraining order. The father asked for joint custody of the child with primary residence with him, and to change the child’s school to Brampton. At that time, the father had not seen the child for a year, since February 2009.

On the first day of the trial 14 June 2011, the parents settled the custody and access issues with two final consents. The father’s claim for joint custody was withdrawn, and the parents agreed to specific access terms. 13 . The litigation surrounding the two motions to change was acrimonious and there were many substantive orders made during this litigation. 14 . Bovard, J. made a temporary order reducing chid support to $0 on 3 March 2010. This order also contained specific disclosure that the father was required to produce. 15 .

At trial, the parents agreed that there are no arrears of child support owing from August 2004 to June 2005, as the parents were attempting reconciliation during that period. The Father’s Income 16 . It was difficult to follow the history of the father’s work. And it was difficult to understand what the father’s income was. The father provided a chart showing his income from 2005 through to 2011, and then specifically corrected some of the income amounts in his evidence. 17 . The father said that he worked for Road Star from July 2007, and that he was paid in several different ways:

a) The employer paid his mortgage directly in the amount of $900 plus $600 biweekly (he later said his mortgage was $1,800 per month);

b) The employer made child support payments for him directly to the mother;

c) The employer paid the daycare cost for the child directly to the day-care centre for him; and,

d) He received gas money from the employer. 18 . No evidence was offered to prove any of these payments. No T4’s were produced by the father regarding this claim. No bank records were produced, neither the father’s bank records, nor the employer’s. No evidence was produced to show the total amount the employer paid him in any of the years he worked for Road Star. 19 . In 2007, the father said that he was paid $32,267 in income, plus various expenses as set out above, totalling $9,200 net for the months July to December 2007, so that his income in 2007 totalled $41,467. 20 .

In 2008 the father says he received $18,000 income (an amount he said was determined by the cash paid to him and shown on the books of his employer, books which were not produced at trial). In addition to this, the employer paid expenses for the father amounting to an additional $11,604 net. The father said his total income in 2008 was $29,604. 21 . The father said that he was unemployed from February to August 2009. He said that his income for 2009 was $7,400.

22 . The father says that he had an accident on 18 December 2009, which resulted in pain in his lower back, shoulder, neck and leg, and, he says, in an inability to work. The father produced very little medical evidence to support his claim of an inability to work as a result of this injury. At trial, the entire medical evidence produced by the father consisted of the following:

a) An undated letter from a medical radiologist, identifying “spinal instabilities”, but with no reference to ability to work, and containing no diagnosis, no prognosis, and no treatment plan;

b) a letter from a chiropractor citing an inability to work at hard labour from 21 January 2010 to 18 February 2010. The letter contained no diagnosis, no prognosis, and no treatment plan;

c) A letter dated 11 March 2011 from a gastroenterologist regarding other medical conditions, but with no reference to ability to work and containing no diagnosis, no prognosis, and no treatment plan; and,

d) A letter from Dr. Glover (who is not a specialist) dated 9 June 2011 with a diagnosis of low back strain, a treatment plan (physiotherapy, heat, rest, Tylenol #3 and Robaxacet), and a recommendation of return to light duties as a security officer. 23 . The father did not work in 2010 and said that is income for 2010 was 0. 24 . The father was working part-time at the time of the trial. He started working as a licensed security officer on 24 May 2011. He is only working 30 hours per week, as 40 hours per week was not available.

He is earning $11 per hour, approximately $17,160 per year, for a 30 hour work week. 25 . Bovard, J.’s order on 3 March 2010 contained specific disclosure requirements regarding the father’s income and ability to work. The father was to produce letters from doctors regarding his ability to work, an updated job search, proof of the status of civil claims he was involved in, and all sources of his income. 26 .

In 2009, the father received refunds from the Canada Revenue Agency (“C.R.A.”) in the following amounts: Year Refund amount For 2005 $3,287 For 2006 $5,293 For 2007 $3,183 Total $11,763 None of the money was used to pay the child support owing. The Father’s Financial Circumstances 27 . In 2006, the father showed the mother the plans for and photos of a three or four bedroom house he was buying in Brampton. It was his hope that the mother and child would move back with him into this house and they would reconcile. The mother declined. The father moved into this house in 2007.

In 2008 the father gave the mother a tour of the home, and told her it could be her home. The mother’s evidence was that it was a beautiful home. The child’s room in the home contained a Princess bedroom set worth $3,000 from the Brick. 28 . There was litigation between the father and his former employer, which litigation resulted in a settlement in August 2010 of $17,500 to be paid to the father. At trial, he had not yet received this money. The mother only learned about this information at trial. 29 . At trial, the father was living in a house owned by his father, for which he pays no rent.

He says that he does not own any property.

30 . The father lives with his current partner and has lived with her since April 2008. The father’s current partner works as a law clerk, earning $33,000 per year. During his periods of unemployment he says he was completely dependent on his partner’s income, and that she paid the family’s expenses. They live with two children, ages 5 years and 6 months. The older child is his partner’s child from a previous relationship. The baby is the child he has recently had with his partner. 31 . The father’s financial statements show a debt for legal fees of $30,000 as of 4 May 2011 and then of $18,000 as of 24 May 2011.

He says he did not pay this amount down, but that he got the numbers wrong. His explanation was confusing. The father’s evidence was that he was making partial payments at the time of the trial to the lawyers for this debt of $50 to $100, whenever he could. History of the Payment of Child Support 32 . The payment history regarding child support is somewhat complicated by the fact that the mother withdrew the enforcement of the support order from the Family Responsibility Office (“F.R.O.”) on 21 January 2005. The mother says that she withdrew the order as they were trying to reconcile at the time.

They ended the relationship in about June 2005. The order was refiled for enforcement with the F.R.O. on 1 April 2009. As a result, there are no payment records available from the F.R.O. during the period January 2005 to April 2009. 33 . The father’s evidence about the history of the payment of child support is the following:

a) From August 2004 to February 2009 there are no arrears owing as the father paid cash directly to the mother (additional details provided below);

b) From February to July 2009, no support was paid;

c) From August to December 2009, the father paid support directly to the F.R.O.;

d) After 18 December 2009, there were no child support payments made as a result of his accident and inability to work;

e) After 3 March 2010 no child support is owing, as Bovard, J.’s order reduced child support to zero. 34 . In his evidence the father alleges that there are no arrears in child support owing from 30 July 2004 to June 2007 (earlier in his evidence he had said no arrears owing up to February 2009). He says that during this period he paid the mother directly (and not through F.R.O.), in several different ways:

a) He paid cash to her directly in various amounts smaller than the $429 per month ordered;

b) He sometimes paid for activities for the child directly to the service provider (for daycare, ballet, soccer); and,

c) His employer paid money on his behalf to the mother directly. 35 . The father said that his employer made payments to the mother during this period for child support, and that she frequently went herself to the employer’s office to pick up this money. He also said that the employer made other third party payments on his behalf during this period, for example, that the employer paid his mortgage in the amount of $1800 per month. The father said that this arrangement ended in 2009, when the employer’s business failed.

36 . The father said that he paid the mother the full amount required, $429 every month, and that he never missed a month. He says that no money is owing for this period (30 July 2004 to June 2007). 37 . The father provided no list or

summary of the payments he says he made to the mother or on her behalf during this period. The father has no receipts from the mother for these payments. He produced no bank statements to show withdrawals from his bank accounts of the money he says he paid the mother directly during this period. 38 . The father provided no list or

summary of the payments he says his employer made to the mother or on her behalf. The father did not call his then employer as a witness to confirm this unusual arrangement. He did not produce any bank records, either his own nor his employers, to show these payments. He did not produce any financial statements from his employer showing that these payments were made, and that they were made on his behalf.

He did not produce any of the employer’s records from this period showing the total amount of money credited to the father as wages or salary, including the amounts he says were paid to the mother or on her behalf. 39 . The mother’s evidence is that this is entirely untrue. The mother says that he did not pay her any child support during this period. He did not pay her money directly, she did not receive any money directly from his employer, and his employer did not pay any expenses on her behalf, in any of the years from 2005 to 2011.

The mother said that she had never heard that story until the father gave evidence at the trial. 40 . The mother’s evidence is that the father did not pay for any of the child’s activities (either directly or through his employer), but that she paid for the activities. The mother did say that the father made some payments for day-care directly to the day-care centre in 2006, 2007 and 2008. 41 . The mother’s evidence is that the father would not give her money to buy things for the child, but that he insisted on taking the mother and the child to the store so he would pay for things for the child.

The father wanted to buy the child toys, but the mother wanted him to pay for clothes and shoes, and so he did. The mother’s evidence was that this amounted to a total of $300 to $400 in 2006, and $300 to $400 in 2007. 42 . The mother’s evidence is that the father told her he would never pay child support to her, because she would not need child support if she had stayed in a relationship with him. She says that he also told her that if she pursued child support, that he had ways to hide his income and that she would not be able to prove what his income was. Credibility 43 .

The father’s evidence was difficult to follow and generally hard to believe. At trial, the father was represented by a lawyer. He had no records to prove the claims he was making about the income he was paid, the method of payment, and the payments he says were made to the mother for support by his employer. He was not believable. 44 . The mother’s evidence was organized, calm, direct, detailed and helpful. Although she was not represented by a lawyer, her presentation of her case generally was efficient, and appropriate. In fact, the mother’s organization and presentation was better than that of many lawyers.

She was a strong and clear witness with high credibility. The Law Regarding the Father’s Income 45 . The primary issue regarding child support is the father’s income, that is, not what he is earning, but rather, whether there should be income imputed to him for the purposes of child support. 46 . Section 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, Ont. Reg. 391/97, as amended, addresses imputing income: 19.

(1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following: (

a) the parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is

required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs ofthe parent or spouse; 47. There is a duty to seek employment in a case where a parent is healthy: Drygala v. Pauli, (ON CA),2002 CarswellOnt 3228, 29 R.F.L. (5th) 293, [2002] W.D.F.L. 406, 219 D.L.R. (4th) 319, 61 O.R. (3d) 711, 164 O.A.C. 241 (Ont. C.A.),para 38. 48. The need to ensure appropriate financial support for the children is dealt with by imputing income.

Imputing income isone method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet thislegal obligation, a parent must earn what he is capable of earning: Drygala v. Pauli, supra, 2002 (Ont. C.A.), para 32, 35. 49. The payor is intentionally under-employed if that parent chooses to earn less than he is capable of earning. That parent isintentionally unemployed when he chooses not to work when capable of earning an income: Drygala v. Pauli, supra, 2002 (Ont. C.A.),para 28. 50.

A parent cannot pursue an improvident career path at the expense of the child: Evans v. Gravely, (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 4748 (Ont. S.C.J.), para. 10. 51. A parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income: Weir v. Therrien, (ON SC), [2001] O.J. No. 2612, 20 R.F.L. (5th) 199, 106 A.C.W.S. (3d) 494 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), para 25. 52. The court has a broad discretion to impute income where the father is not working to his potential. 53. In Duffy v. Duffy, [2009] N.J.

No. 245, 2009 NLCA 48, 73 R.F.L. (6th) 233, 289 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 132, 2009CarswellNfld 211, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 879 (Nfld & Lab. S.C. – C.A.), para. 35, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal set outa list of general principles to be considered regarding child support and when determining whether to impute income: 1. The fundamental obligation of a parent to support his or her children takes precedence over the parent's own interests and choices. 2. A parent will not be permitted to knowingly avoid or diminish, and may not choose to ignore, his or her obligation to support his orher children. 3.

A parent is required to act responsibly when making financial decisions that may affect the level of child support available fromthat parent. 4. Imputing income to a parent on the basis that the parent is "intentionally under-employed or unemployed" does not incorporate arequirement for proof of bad faith. "Intentionally" in this context clarifies that the provision does not apply to situations beyond theparent's control. 5. The determination to impute income is discretionary, as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances. 6.

Where a parent is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, the court may exercise its discretion not to impute income wherethat parent establishes the reasonableness of his or her decision.

7. A parent will not be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirationsor interests. Nor will it be acceptable for a parent to choose to work for future rewards to the detriment of the present needs of his or herchildren, unless the parent establishes the reasonableness of his or her course of action. 8. A parent must provide proper and full disclosure of financial information. Failure to do so may result in the court drawing anadverse inference and imputing income. 54.

The absence of evidence of a diligent job search leaves the court with no choice but to find that the payor wasintentionally unemployed: Filippeto v. Timpano, (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 417, 164 A.C.W.S. (3d) 303 (Ont. Sup.Ct.), para 12. 55. The court finds that the father has manipulated his financial affairs to reduce his income for support purposes. The fathermade choices which contributed to his current financial situation. It is open to the court to find that he is intentionally under-employed,and on the basis of the evidence available at trial, the court finds that he is.

Section 19 of the Guidelines is not an invitation to the court to arbitrarily select an amount as imputed income. Theremust be a rational basis underlying the selection of any such figure. The amount selected as an exercise of the court's discretion must begrounded in the evidence: Drygala v. Pauli, supra, 2002 (Ont. C.A.), para 44. Analysis 57. The father asks that the court adjust the child support order to reflect changes to his income for the years from 2005 to 2011,and that the calculation of arrears should take into account the payments he says that he made directly to the mother. 58.

The father’s explanation for the payments he says he made is not believable. No evidence was offered to support this claim. The mother says she never received any such payments from him from 2005 up to the trial in 2011 (other than several payments shownon the F.R.O. statement of arrears in 2009 and 2010). It is an explanation with no proof and no merit. 59. The court finds that there were no child support payments made to the mother at all in those years (2005 to 2011), other thanthose payments shown on the F.R.O. statement of arrears. 60.

The father’s evidence regarding his income over the years in question (2005 to 2011) was incomplete, imprecise, unclear,confusing and almost entirely unsupported by documentation or other proof. It was also not credible. 61. The very little medical evidence offered by the father did not deal directly with the central issue, namely, the father’s ability to workas a result of the injury he received. 62. The father has a university education, 10 years experience in the car rental field, and three to four years work experience in thetelecommunications industry. He has been capable of earning $54,000 per year.

He is working part-time and is currently earning$17,160. This is not even minimum wage. He is capable of earning more than minimum wage. He is underemployed. 63. The following is a list of the evidence and submissions about the fathers income for the years in question, and the court’sfindings regarding the father’s income for those years: Year The father’s income fromhis evidence andsubmissions The father’s income assubmitted by mother The father’s income as determined by the court 2004 $50,000 $50,000 $50,0002005 $41,289 $41,289 $41,2892006 $54,228 $54,228 $54,228

2007 $32,267 + $9,200 net = $41,467 $41,467 $41,467 2008 $18,000 + $11,604 net = $29,604 $40,000 imputed $40,000 + $21,600 net mortgage payments = $61,600 imputed 2009 $7,400 $40,000 imputed $40,000 imputed 2010 0 Minimum wage imputed $21,300 imputed 2011 $22,880 $33,000 imputed $40,000 imputed a) 2007: the father‘s evidence was that expenses were paid by his employer of $9,200 net, and he conceded that this amount should be added to his income in that year. It would have been possible to gross up the $9,200 net he received to the gross figure this would amount to.

The court declined to do this, and determined his income for 2007 to be $41,467; b) 2008: the father‘s evidence was that mortgage payments were paid by his employer and he conceded that this amount should be added to his income in that year. He proposed adding only $11,600 net to his income of $18,000 (although the mortgage payments were $1,800 per month). The court imputes income to him for 2008 of $40,000 and adds in the full amount of the mortgage payments made ($21,600 net) for imputed income of $61,600 for 2008.

It would have been possible to gross up the $21,600 net he received to the gross figure this would amount to. The court declined to do this, and imputed income to him for 2008 at $61,600; c) 2009: the father’s explanation for the reasons he left work in 2009 were inconsistent (he left due to depression, then he said that he left to take a vacation). A reasonable income of $40,000 should be imputed for 2009; d) 2010: the father did not work in 2010, but by his own medical evidence (inadequate though it was) he was cleared for a return to light duties by June 2011.

Minimum wage income of $21,300 (a reasonable proposal from the mother) should be imputed for 2010; e) 2011: the father is underemployed. Income should be imputed, and based on his recent earning capacity, imputed income of $40,000 for 2010 is reasonable. S. 7 expenses 64 . The consent order of Pugsley, J. made 3 August 2004 provided for the sharing of s. 7 expenses by the parents in proportion to income, and specifically mentioned day-care, to be started on the mother’s return to work. The child started in day-care in October 2004, when the mother returned to work. 65 .

At trial, the mother chose to seek payment of s. 7 expenses for day-care starting only in 2009. There was some evidence (although not clear and not specific) that the father had paid some of the day-care expenses directly in 2006, 2007 and 2008. 66 . The parents’ incomes for 2009, 2010 and 2011, and the cost of day-care was: Year Mother Father Day-care 2009 $45,343 $40,000 $5,818 2010 $47,511 $21,.300 $5,393 2011 $48,500 $40,000 $5,393 67 . The s. 7 expenses, including day-care, shall be shared equally by the parties.

The parents’ incomes are similar, and a requirement for equal sharing is much less complicated for the parents than other solutions, and requires less work on annual recalculations. 68 . The father’s share of the day-care costs for 2009 is $2,909, for 2010 is $2,697, and for 2011 (to end September 2011, nine months) is $2,022. The father currently owes the mother arrears of s. 7 expenses for day-care of $7,628 (to end September 2011).

Arrears of Child Support 69 . The father has not paid child support for a very long time, despite a consent order that he do so. He did not even pay the table amount of child support when he admits he was earning over $54,000 per year (in 2006). Under the terms of the order the court is making now, there are substantial arrears owing, for both the table amount of support and the s. 7 special expenses for day-care. If an order for monthly repayment of the arrears is made, even with a substantial monthly payment towards arrears, it will be a very long time before the arrears of child support are paid in full.

However, it is time for the father to contribute appropriately to the child’s costs, and $300 per month is a reasonable amount for the father to pay towards arrears, given his current imputed income. Orders 70 . On consent, an order shall issue in the terms of the two Minutes of Settlement filed on 14 June 2011 regarding custody and access. 71 . On consent, there are no arrears of child support owing from August 2004 to June 2005. 72 . The father shall pay the following table amounts of child support:

a) From 1 July 2005, $356 per month on income of $41,289;

b) From 1 January 2006, $462 per month on income of $54,228;

c) From 1 May 2006, $502 per month on income of $54,228;

d) From 1 January 2007, $381 per month on income of $41,467;

e) From 1 January 2008, $572 per month on imputed income of $61,600;

f) From 1 January 2009, $367 per month on imputed income of $40,000;

g) From 1 January 2010, $182 per month on imputed income of $21,300; and,

h) From 1 January 2011, $367 per month on imputed income of $40,000. 73 . The father shall produce to the mother every year, by 1 June, starting in 2012, copies of his Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment, pursuant to ss. 24.1, 25 and the disclosure requirements of the Child Support Guidelines. 74 . The father shall notify the mother and the F.R.O. in writing of any change in his employment within five days. 75 .

The father shall pay 50% of the s. 7 expenses for the child, including, but not restricted to the following: daycare, post- secondary school, tutors if required, medical expenses not covered by OHIP, including orthodontic treatments not covered by the mother’s health insurance plan. The mother shall provide receipts to the father quarterly and the father shall pay the amounts owing within 30 days.

76 . The father owes the mother arrears of s. 7 expenses for day-care for 2009, 2010 and 2011 (up to 30 September 2011) of $7,628. 77 . Any arrears of child support owing under this order shall be paid by the father at the rate of $300 per month starting 1 December 2011. If the father defaults on any on-going child support payments or payments towards arrears, all arrears then owing are due and payable immediately, and the Family Responsibility Office may take whatever steps to enforce the order they determine to be appropriate. 78 . The father shall pay the two outstanding costs orders as follows by 31 December 2011:

a) Karswick, J. on 31 October 2005, costs of $300; and,

b) Sherr, J. on 12 September 2011, costs of $200. 79 . The father shall not bring any further motions to change without leave obtained in advance under Rules 1(7), 1(8), 2, 14(21) of the Family Law Rules. There have been many unwarranted motions regarding custody and access issues and the litigation must end. Leave may be requested with a Form 14B motion. Material in support of the motion shall set out the reason for the motion in two pages. 80 . The father shall not bring any further motions to change until all costs are paid in full. Costs 81 . The mother is seeking costs.

The scheduling office shall set a return date as soon as available for costs to be argued. The parties shall request this date by 15 December 2011. Released: 7 November 2011 _______________________ Justice Carole Curtis