B.L. v. S.L. Date:, 2012 BCPC 288

Citation: B.L. v. S.L. Date: 20120815 2012 BCPC 0288 File No: 18829 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: B.L. APPLICANT AND: S.L. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. N. HAMILTON Appearing in person: B.L.

Appearing in person: S.L. Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: August 9, 2012 Date of Judgment: August 15, 2012 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] B.L. and S.L. are the mother and father respectively of 25-year-old A.L., born [DOB]. Both parties have applications before me relating to child support. S.L. applies for an order that he is no longer obliged to pay monthly child support for A.L. In the alternative, he seeks an order that he pay a reduced amount of support in light of the fact that he has retired and is earning a lower income.

B.L. applies for an order that S.L. pay his proportionate share of A.L.’s tuition fees and other expenses related to her university studies. [ 2 ] A.L. is presently enrolled at Simon Fraser University studying for a Bachelor of Arts Honours degree with a major in Psychology and a minor in Kinesiology. She wants to become a sports psychologist. [ 3 ] S.L. pays B.L. monthly child support for A.L. pursuant to a Consent Order dated December 19, 2009 (the “Consent Order”). The relevant terms of the Consent Order provide that Mr.

S.L. has an annual guideline income of $55,679 and is to pay B.L. $518 per month in child support for A.L. S.L. seeks to terminate his support obligation in the Consent Order or vary that obligation to reduce the payment. [ 4 ] B.L. applies for an order that S.L. pay his proportionate share of A.L.’s educational expenses for the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 academic years. Up to August, 2011, A.L.’s post secondary educational expenses were covered by funds in a Registered Educational Saving Plan (“R.E.S.P.”). Those funds were exhausted by August, 2011.

S.L. did not contribute any funds for A.L.’s educational expenses for the 2011/2012 academic year, but he is of the view that he should contribute some funds for the upcoming 2012/2013 academic year. BACKGROUND [ 5 ] B.L. and S.L. separated on September 1, 1999, and executed a Separation Agreement in March, 2000. They filed the Separation Agreement in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in March, 2000. Their Separation Agreement resolved the parties’ property division.

The L.’s agreed to keep matters of custody and child support in the Provincial Court of British Columbia. [ 6 ] The L.’s Provincial Court proceedings commenced on January 22, 2001, and there have been a number of court orders granted over the years. The Consent Order is the only relevant order in these applications. [ 7 ] Mr. and Mrs. L. have another child, C.L. He is 23 years old and lives and works in Alberta. C.L.’s circumstances are not relevant to the applications before me. [ 8 ] S.L. worked as a letter carrier with Canada Post for 32 years. He earned $50,000 - $55,000 per year in his later years. Mr.

S.L. retired in October, 2010, and began receiving his monthly pension. He was eligible for retirement at that time and he was suffering some health issues that were impacting his continuing ability to do his job. Shortly after his retirement, S.L. commenced contract work for Canada Post through which he earned some money to supplement his pension income. Mr. S.L.’s monthly pension is $2,687.78 for an annual pension income of $32,253.36. In his Financial Statement filed June 5, 2012, Mr. S.L. listed his annual guideline income as $39,448. The Consent Order is predicated on Mr.

S.L.’s annual guideline income at $55,679. Accordingly, even if Mr. S.L. is obliged to continue monthly child support payments for A.L., he says those payments should be reduced to reflect his reduced annual income. [ 9 ] Mrs. B.L. argues that Mr. S.L. retired early by choice such that he is intentionally unemployed and as such I should impute income to Mr. S.L. and maintain the child support payments at $518 per month. [ 10 ] Mrs. B.L. is an Excise Tax Auditor with the Canada Revenue Agency. I do not know how long she has worked in that position, but she earns $79,000 annually. [ 11 ] Mrs.

B.L. testified that she paid for A.L.’s educational expenses for the 2011/2012 academic year because the R.E.S.P. funds were exhausted. With respect to the R.E.S.P. funds, Mr. and Mrs. L. contributed to educational savings for both A.L. and C.L. However, C.L. did not pursue post secondary education so A.L. has had the benefit of all of the educational savings. [ 12 ] A.L. graduated from high school in June, 2005, and commenced her post secondary education in January, 2006, at the University College of the Fraser Valley (“U.C.F.V.”).

In September, 2009, A.L. transferred her studies to Simon Fraser University (“S.F.U.”). She expects to graduate with her Bachelor of Arts Honours degree in April 2013 – seven and a half years after starting her studies at U.C.F.V. [ 13 ] The principal objection Mr. S.L. has with continuing his child support payments is the length of time it has taken A.L. to obtain her degree.

He says seven and a half years to obtain a Bachelor of Arts Honours degree is too long, and it is unreasonable to expect him to continue his child support payments any longer. [ 14 ] Throughout grades 11 and 12, and in her years thus far at university, A.L. can fairly be described as a very good academic student. She has achieved mainly “A”s and “B”s. She presently has a cumulative grade point average (“C.G.P.A.”) of 3.68 and a cumulative upper division grade point average (“C.U.D.G.P.A.”) of 3.70. Her C.U.D.G.P.A. reflects her grades in senior courses taken

at S.F.U. [15] A.L. testified that she hopes to attend graduate school after she completes her undergraduate degree. She hopes to achieve aMasters degree or a Doctorate degree.

She is very interested in pursuing studies related to sports concussions and believes there is anopportunity to earn a comfortable living given the present level of interest in sports concussions in professional sports. [16] A.L. testified that to gain acceptance into graduate school she would need a C.G.P.A. of at least 3.7 and if she attained aC.G.P.A. of 3.8 she would be in an excellent position to get offers to numerous graduate schools. [17] In order to improve her C.G.P.A., A.L. has decided to retake four courses she has already completed in prior years but in whichshe obtained a disappointing grade, in her view.

For the Spring 2012 semester, A.L. repeated two of those four courses and improved hergrade in one course from a “C+” to an “A” and in the other course from a “B-“ to an “A-“. She was able to improve her C.G.P.A. by0.16 which is significant. [18] While A.L. attended U.C.F.V. from January, 2006, until September, 2009, she worked and lived in a horse barn in exchange forfree room and board for herself and her horse. A.L. has spent time while growing up involved in equestrian riding and training.

InJanuary, 2009, A.L. accepted an opportunity to travel to Palm Springs for several months to pursue her equestrian riding and training. She was not enrolled in school for those months. Upon her return to Vancouver, A.L. decided to move back home with her mother. A.L.found that working at the horse stable occupied too much of her time and took her attention away from her studies.

The result, she felt,was that she was not achieving good enough grades to allow her to pursue her goal of getting into graduate school. [19] In the result, A.L. stopped working full-time at the horse stable in order to focus her efforts on her school work. On thematerial before me, it appears that A.L. continued some remunerative work while living with Mrs. B.L. In 2009 A.L. earned $3,590from employment income and $3,675 from her R.E.S.P. for a total income of $7,265. In 2010 A.L. earned $1,129 from employmentincome and $4,878 from her R.E.S.P. for a total income of $6,007.

In 2011 A.L. earned $6,461 in employment income and reported noincome from her R.E.S.P. [20] In 2012 A.L. began volunteering in two labs at S.F.U. in order to gain valuable practical experience in her chosen field of study. One of those volunteer positions became paid work and she has worked throughout the summer at this lab earning $666 biweekly.

A.L.has saved $3,000 from her employment earnings thus far in 2012. [21] Lastly with respect to A.L.’s circumstances at school, she has enrolled in no more than four courses in any given semester whileat S.F.U. save and except for her summer semester in 2010 when she enrolled in five courses. A.L. enrolled in four courses for thefollowing semesters: Fall 2009, Spring 2010, Fall 2010, Spring 2011, and Spring 2012. A.L. enrolled in two courses for the Summer2011 semester, and three courses for the Fall 2011 semester.

A.L. did not enrol in any courses for the Summer 2012 semester, is enrolledin one course for the Fall 2012 semester, and four courses for the Spring 2013 semester at the conclusion of which she expects tograduate. [22] A.L. testified that enrolling in five courses each semester is considered a full course load, but that she has enrolled in fewercourses in most semesters in order that she not have as burdensome a course load and can focus on her studies to obtain higher grades.

As well, some courses are not available in all semesters so, at times, her course load has been smaller because specific courses she wantsor needs to take were not available. [23] Mr. S.L. points to A.L.’s reduced course load each semester as another reason why A.L.’s graduation has been delayed thusprolonging his child support obligation. This is another reason, he says, that he should no longer have to pay child support for A.L. DISCUSSION [24] Resolving the issue of whether Mr.

S.L. continues to be obliged to pay child support for A.L. requires me to consider section3(2) of the Child Support Guidelines and to consider whether having reached the age of majority and while attending S.F.U. A.L. is stilleligible for child support.

A number of prior court decisions provide helpful analysis of these issues to guide my deliberations. [25] In Farden v Farden (1993), (BC SC), 48 R.F.L. (3d) 60, Master Joyce (as he then was) listed eight, non-exhaustive, factors to consider in determining whether a child, having reached the age of majority and while attending post secondaryschooling, is eligible for ongoing child support.

Master Joyce’s Farden factors are: (1) whether the child is in fact enrolled in a course of studies and whether it is a full-time or part-time course of studies; (2) whether or not the child has applied for or is eligible for student loans or other financial assistance; (3) the career plans of the child, i.e. whether the child has some reasonable and appropriate plan or is simply going to college becausethere is nothing better to do; (4) the ability of the child to contribute to his own support through part-time employment; (5) the age of the child; (6) the child's past academic performance, whether the child is demonstrating success in the chosen course of studies; (7) what plans the parents made for the education of their children, particularly where those plans were made during cohabitation; and (8) at least in the case of a mature child who has reached the age of majority, whether or not the child has unilaterally terminated arelationship from the parent from whom support is sought. [26] I will apply the Farden factors to A.L.’s circumstances shortly.

[27] If I determine that A.L. remains eligible to receive child support, I must then determine the quantum (amount) of supportpayable. Determining the quantum of support requires that I consider section 3(2) of the Child Support Guidelines.

Section 3 of theGuidelines, in its entirety, says: 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 orderrelates and the income of the spouse against whom the order is sought; and (

b) the amount, if any, determined under

section 7. Child the age of majority or over

(2) Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, where a child to whom a child support order relates is the age of majority orover, 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. [28] In Wesemann v.

Wesemann (1999), (BC SC), 49 R.F.L. (4th) 435 (B.C.S.C.), Madam Justice Martinsonestablished a four part test for the determination of the quantum of support in these kinds of cases in the following terms: [9] The law with respect to support for children over the age of majority can be looked at as a four step procedure: Step One Decide whether the child is a "child of the marriage" as defined in the Divorce Act? If s/he is not, that ends the matter. Step Two Determine whether the approach of applying the Guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority ("the usual Guidelinesapproach") is challenged.

If that approach is not challenged, determine the amount payable based on the usual Guidelines approach. Step Three If the usual Guidelines approach is challenged, decide whether the challenger has proven that the usual Guidelines approach isinappropriate. If not, the usual Guidelines amount applies.

Step Four If the usual Guidelines approach is inappropriate, decide what amount is appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs andother circumstances of the child and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the child? [29] However, in Neufeld v Neufeld 2005 BCCA 7, our Court of Appeal concluded that Justice Martinson’s approach to thedetermination of the quantum of support under section 3(2) of the Guidelines where the Table amount of support is presumptivelyapplicable was incorrect.

In Neufeld, Madam Justice Levine, writing for a unanimous bench, concluded at paragraph 35: In rejecting the father's argument that he should apply s. 3(2)(

b) of the Guidelines, the chambers judge did not consider the developingjurisprudence in B.C. Supreme Court and other jurisdictions that has found that where an adult student is living away from home,determining child support by using the "table amount" and adding "special and extraordinary expenses", as directed by s. 3(1) of theGuidelines for children under the age of majority is, in principle, "inappropriate".

In those cases, child support has instead beendetermined by applying s. 3(2)(b). [30] Justice Levine reached the following conclusion in Neufeld at paragraph 42: In my opinion, in principle, support for an adult child who is entitled to child support because of his or her attendance at a post-secondaryinstitution generally should be determined under s. 3(2)(b). The "table amount", as noted by Martinson J. in Wesemann, contemplates acontribution by the non-custodial parent to the expenses borne by the custodial parent in providing a home for the child.

The fact that the"table amount" increases incrementally and not absolutely for additional children supports that

interpretation of the intention of theGuidelines. The "table amount" does not contemplate a child's contribution, which is an important factor in considering the amount ofsupport a student requires. [31] At paragraph 45 Justice Levine said further, that: In my view, child support determined under s. 3(2)(

b) does not necessarily preclude a specific award for "special and extraordinaryexpenses" under s. 7, where appropriate. The existence of a separation agreement that expressly deals with specific expenses may lead tosuch an approach. [32] Accordingly, if I conclude that A.L. is entitled to ongoing child support based upon the Farden factors, then my determinationof the quantum of her monthly support must be made pursuant to section 3(2)(

b) of the Child Support Guidelines.

IS A.L. ENTITLED TO CONTINUED CHILD SUPPORT? [ 33 ] Applying the Farden factors I make the following findings: 1. A.L. is enrolled as a full-time student although she is not taking a full course load. As I indicated earlier, A.L. has usually taken four courses each semester rather than five which would be a full course load. A.L. has done so by choice in order that she has more time to study. A.L.’s choice has been beneficial to her given the high marks she is obtaining. If A.L. was taking a reduced course load to simply make the educational process easier on her I would be critical of her choice.

If she took a reduced course load in order to obtain higher grades, but was unable to do so, again I would be critical of that decision. However, she has set a goal for herself to graduate with a high enough C.G.P.A. to get accepted into graduate school. She is reaching her goal and if she achieves her goal, her choice to take a reduced course load will benefit her tremendously. A.L.’s course load for the 2012/2013 academic year is reduced again. In the Fall 2012 semester she is registered to take only one course.

But she will continue her work in the two labs and her position in one of those labs may continue to be paid work. If the funding or paid work ends and A.L. returns to a volunteer position in that lab, she intends to continue her work there in order to benefit her career objectives from the excellent work experience she gets in the lab. For the Spring 2013 semester, A.L. is taking four courses but two of those are courses she is repeating in order to improve her grades and thereby increase her C.G.P.A.

For the reasons I stated earlier, given the marked improvement A.L. achieved in the two other courses she has repeated, and given the high C.G.P.A. needed to get into graduate school, her plan for the 2012/2013 school year is reasonable. However, I also find that with only one course for the Fall 2012 semester and the reduced demand on her for the Spring 2013 semester, it is reasonable to expect that A.L. find herself part-time paid work to help support herself if she stops being paid for her lab work. 2. A.L. only recently applied for and was turned down for a scholarship.

She has not applied for a student loan or bursaries, but she has had the benefit of her and C.L.’s R.E.S.P.’s which covered her educational expenses until the 2011/2012 school year. Mrs. B.L. paid for A.L.’s educational expenses for the 2011/2012 school year and there is no evidence that she asked for a contribution to those expenses from Mr. S.L. Mr. S.L. testified that he has never voluntarily paid for any of A.L.’s educational expenses; however, he did make the R.E.S.P. contributions which money A.L. used until it ran out in August, 2011. 3. A.L.’s career plans are focused and specific.

She does not want to simply work in the field of neuroscience, nor does she want to be a generalized sports psychologist. A.L. has chosen a career in which she will focus on sports concussions. She hopes to develop testing for use in the profession to determine the electrical output of non-concussed brains and concussed brains to be better able to determine when a concussed athlete has recovered from the concussion or recovered sufficiently to return to the sport. Her current lab work involves working on the kind of testing she hopes to develop.

A.L. is certainly not going to university because there is nothing better to do. 4. A.L. has the ability to contribute to her own support through her lab work. As I have stated earlier, if her paid lab work returns to voluntary lab work, given her reduced course load in the 2012/2013 academic year, it is reasonable to expect that she obtain part-time paid employment to contribute to her financial support. 5. A.L. is 25 years old, an age at which most of her peers would be working at part-time jobs, at a minimum. 6. A.L. is clearly demonstrating academic success.

She attains very high grades and I find that her success is due, at least in part, to the choices she has made to reduce her course load and to not work full-time while attending school. 7. Mr. and Mrs. L. invested money into R.E.S.P.s and term deposits for both of their children’s education during their cohabitation. At separation, according to their Separation Agreement, the parties had saved $24,840 to fund the children’s post secondary education. When C.L. did not pursue studies after high school, A.L. became the beneficiary of all of those educational savings. 8. A.L.’s relationship with Mr.

S.L. is currently strained. They are not speaking to each other. A.L. says that the strain in their relationship is due to the present court proceedings. Mr. S.L. confirmed that the strain in his relationship with A.L. coincided with his filing and serving this application. I find that A.L. has not unilaterally terminated her relationship with her father and I anticipate that A.L.’s relationship with Mr.

S.L. will return to where it was previously now that this litigation is concluded. [ 34 ] Having reviewed the Farden factors, I am satisfied that A.L. remains a “child of the marriage” and is thus eligible for continued financial support from both of her parents. I come to that conclusion based upon my findings that A.L.’s plan for her education is not only reasonable, but focused, specific, and goal driven. She has her sights on a chosen career which she is having considerable success at achieving.

Her reduced course load, her decision to stop working full-time, and her decision to retake some courses have prolonged A.L.’s undergraduate degree program. But her choices were made with the goal of achieving higher grades which will maximize her opportunity of getting offers to attend graduate school. Her plan is working.

She is getting those grades. [ 35 ] While I have concluded that A.L. continues to be eligible for financial support from her parents, I have also concluded that given A.L.’s age and her reduced course load for the 2012/2013 academic year, it is reasonable to expect A.L. to contribute to her educational and living expenses. WHAT QUANTUM OF CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD MR. S.L. PAY FOR A.L.? [ 36 ] Applying the four part test set out in Wesemann I reach the following conclusions: 1. I have already concluded that A.L. continues to be a “child of the marriage”; 2. The usual Guidelines approach is being challenged by Mr. S.L.

He is of the view that he should pay no further child support;

3. As modified by the Court of Appeal in Neufeld , it is not incumbent upon Mr. S.L. to prove that the usual Guideline approach is inappropriate. Rather, I am to determine the amount of child support pursuant to section 3(2)(

b) of the Guidelines and determine the amount of child support having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of A.L.; 4. In light of the decision in Neufeld , step four is subsumed into step three. [ 37 ] A.L.’s “condition” is such that she is able to work to provide some financial support for herself. She is a healthy, energetic, motivated, 26-year old, and an academically high achieving university student. She is capable of earning a modest part-time income without adversely affecting her studies. [ 38 ] I have already discussed A.L.’s “means” earlier in these Reasons.

She is presently earning $666 every two weeks working in her lab. If she were to work at a part-time job for 15 – 20 hours per week earning minimum wage, she could earn $300 to $400 every two weeks. Mr. S.L.’s present court ordered child support obligation is $518 per month. [ 39 ] As well, A.L. has approximately $4,000 left in R.E.S.P. funds and she has saved $3,000 from her lab work. She sold her horse at one point and the money she received is being held to help offset the cost of graduate school. [ 40 ] A.L.’s needs are relatively modest. According to Mrs.

B.L., A.L.’s tuition averages about $700 per course. [ 41 ] For the 2012/2013 academic year, A.L. is registered for five courses for a tuition cost of roughly $3,500. The average cost of books is $150 per course for an additional cost of $750. There are additional fees for a transit pass, student medical and dental plans, and student service and activity fees. I expect that the total cost of A.L.’s tuition, books and other related student fees will approach $5,000 for the 2012/2013 academic year. In a Financial Statement that A.L. and Mrs.

B.L. prepared for A.L. for 2012, they estimated her educational expenses at $4,750. [ 42 ] Indeed, A.L.’s Financial Statement estimates her net expenses for 2012 including educational expenses at $27,790. Some of those expenses seem high, and $6,000 is listed as notional rent A.L. should pay to Mrs. B.L. and it is termed an “opportunity cost” to Mrs. B.L. [ 43 ] I have carefully reviewed the listed expenses. Most, if not all, are based upon a twelve month year or are calculated over 52 weeks.

A.L.’s 2012/2013 academic year will only be eight months. [ 44 ] In addition, during the 2012 Fall semester A.L. is registered in only one course which ought to result in less gas expenses and fewer meals purchased at school. [ 45 ] I have not considered added wear and tear or depreciation on her vehicle, nor do I think $2,500 for a vacation is reasonable.

I also do not think $200 per month in clothing purchases for a student is reasonable. [ 46 ] Taking all of this into account, I conclude that A.L.’s living expenses for the 2012/2013 academic year will be approximately $10,000 not including rent, plus her tuition, books, and other school fees of $5,000. I will address the educational costs separately, and Mrs. B.L. is not charging A.L. rent so I will not include the “opportunity cost” to Mrs. B.L. into A.L.’s “needs”.

Accordingly, I assess A.L.’s “needs” for the upcoming school year at $10,000 or $1,250 per month over the eight months she is in school, plus her educational expenses. [ 47 ] I am of the view that A.L. can, and should, contribute $700 per month to her living expenses. I arrive at that figure on the basis that if her paid lab work returns to volunteer work, then A.L. should seek part-time employment of 15 – 20 hours per week at minimum wage. That leaves $550 per month in unmet expenses for A.L. I order that Mr.

S.L. is to pay $200 per month towards those expenses commencing September 1, 2012, and continue on the first of each month thereafter up to and including April 1, 2013. [ 48 ] I arrive at the figure of $200 given the significantly higher income Mrs. B.L. earns over Mr. S.L.’s income. I have considered that Mrs. B.L., in addition to the $350 she will be responsible for in A.L.’s unmet expenses, is also providing rent free accommodation for A.L. I note that Mrs. B.L. is living in her home mortgage free. She has slightly more than one million dollars in assets and no debts. Mr.

S.L. has a $175,000 mortgage on his home, and about $500,000 in assets. [ 49 ] I am not prepared to impute income to Mr. S.L. He retired in October, 2010, as he was entitled to do. He did not expect that A.L.’s degree program would be extended for this long. Despite earning his pension income and other minor employment income, Mr. S.L. continued to pay the full amount of child support set out in the Consent Order which was based upon an income $20,000 greater than he was earning once he retired. He stopped paying child support in April, 2012, as A.L. was out of school at that time.

I am of the view that he was entitled to stop his child support payment at that time because it was reasonable to expect A.L. to find summer employment, which she did at the lab. Her income from the lab is more than double the monthly child support received from Mr. S.L. [ 50 ] As for the payment of the educational expenses of $5,000 for the 2012/2013 academic year, A.L. has $4,000 left in her R.E.S.P.; however, all of those funds have been contributed by Mrs. B.L. The educational expenses should be divided between the two parties and A.L.

I am of the view that it is reasonable to expect A.L. to contribute $1,000 towards her educational expenses leaving $4,000 to be divided between Mr. and Mrs. L. I assess Mr. S.L.’s obligation to be 33% as his proportionate share based upon his and Mrs. L.’s incomes as set out in their Financial Statements. Accordingly Mr. S.L. will be responsible for $1,320 of A.L.’s educational expenses for the 2012/2013 academic year which is 33% of $4,000. Mr.

S.L. may pay his proportionate share in a lump sum or monthly at the rate of $165 per month. [ 51 ] With respect to A.L.’s educational expenses for her 2011/2012 academic year, the cost of books and tuition totalled $6,090. Mrs. B.L. testified that she paid for those expenses. However, there is no evidence before me that Mr. S.L. was advised that all of the R.E.S.P. money had been spent, or that his input was sought over the years as to how the R.E.S.P. funds would be used. There is no evidence that Mrs. B.L. asked Mr. S.L. for a contribution toward A.L.’s 2011/2012 educational expenses and that Mr. S.L. refused.

Lastly, Mrs. B.L.’s application for a contribution from Mr. S.L. for A.L.’s 2011/2012 educational expenses is contained in her Reply

filed on June 6, 2012 – after A.L. had completed that academic year. [ 52 ] For all of those reasons I find that it is inappropriate for me to order retroactively that Mr. S.L. contribute to A.L.’s 2011/2012 educational expenses. CONCLUSION [ 53 ] In

summary, I make the following orders: 1. I dismiss Mr. S.L.’s application to cancel his monthly child support obligation as set out in the Consent Order; 2. I find that Mr. S.L. has an annual guideline income of $39,448 based upon his Financial Statement filed June 5, 2012; 3. I vary the Consent Order to provide that Mr. S.L. will pay child support for the support and maintenance of A.L. in the amount of $200 per month commencing September 1, 2012, and continuing on the first of each month thereafter up to and including April 1, 2013; 4. I dismiss Mrs. B.L.’s application to impute income to Mr. S.L.; 5.

I dismiss Mrs. B.L.’s application that Mr. S.L. contribute his proportionate share of A.L.’s educational expenses for the 2011/2012 academic year; and 6. I grant Mrs. B.L.’s application that Mr. S.L. contribute to A.L.’s educational expenses for her 2012/2013 academic year. I fix the amount of Mr. S.L.’s contribution at 33% of $4,000 or $1,320. Mr. S.L. may make his contribution payment either by way of a lump sum payment or in eight monthly payments of $165 per month. If Mr. S.L. chooses to make the lump sum payment, it will be payable on or before September 1, 2012. If Mr.

S.L. chooses to make his contribution payments by way of monthly payments he will make those payments along with his monthly child support payment for a total monthly payment of $365 commencing September 1, 2012. _________________________________ The Honourable Judge R. N. Hamilton Provincial Court of British Columbia