R.C. v. P.V., 2021 BCPC 48

Citation: R.C. v. P.V. 2021 BCPC 48 Date: 20210316 File No: 1931545 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: R.C. APPLICANT AND: P.V. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE W. LEE

Counsel for the Applicant: N. Dhillon Appearing on their own behalf: P.V., by MS Teams Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: February 26, 2021 Date of Judgment: March 16, 2021 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on March 16, 2021. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] R.C. and P.V. married in 2001 and separated in 2017.

They are the parents of two children, aged 17 and 14 at the time of the trial. [ 2 ] To resolve issues arising from their break up, the parties entered into a lengthy collaborative law process resulting in a Separation Agreement dated December 13, 2019, and filed with the court on December 30, 2019 (the “Agreement”). [ 3 ] The Agreement was wide-ranging and included provisions covering parenting time and child support. The hearing before me was set down to just deal with the issue of child support. A separate issue of parenting time was previously adjourned to await a s. 211 report.

That report was filed with the court shortly before this hearing date. P.V. asked that the issue of parenting time be dealt with at the hearing, but I ordered that the matter be set over for a one-day hearing; one reason being that there was insufficient trial time set aside for the issue of parenting time. THE CLAIMS OF EACH PARTY [ 4 ] Based on the filed applications and counterclaims, the orders sought dealing with child support are as follows: 1.

Amended Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements filed by P.V. on October 1, 2020 • Change an order dated December 16, 2019, to reduce child support to $16,000 per year maximum and revise sections 3.12, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.1 • Cancel child support arrears for 2020 2. Reply and Counterclaim filed by R.C. on November 19, 2020 • An order for increased support based on P.V.’s 2019 income of $201,052 retroactive to January 1, 2019 • An order to share expense based on 2019 incomes of R.C. $95,426 (32.5%) and P.V. $198,428 (67.5%) 3.

Application Respecting Existing Orders or Agreements filed by P.V. on October 21, 2020 • Change an order dated December 6, 2019 to reduce child support to $16,500 per year maximum for two children, and to $10,000 a year for one child • Cancel child support arrears for 2020 and give credit in 2021 for support paid in 2020 above $16,500 4.

Reply and Counterclaim filed by R.C. on Nov 23, 2020 • An order for increased support based on P.V.’s 2019 income of $201,052 retroactive to January 1, 2019 • An order to share expenses based on the 2019 incomes of R.C. $95,426 (32.5%) and P.V. $198,428 (67.5%) [ 5 ] Although P.V.’s applications refer to changing a court order, he is in fact seeking an order to set aside and replace parts of the Agreement. [ 6 ] P.V.’s affidavit filed February 8, 2021, refers to other orders that he is seeking: 1.

R.C. to sign a document called an interspousal transfer deed to enable P.V. to obtain mortgage financing in California. 2. Set child support based on his 2021 income. 3. Set an end date for child support for two children as of September 2021 and for one child as of September 2024. THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT [ 7 ] According to the Agreement, the parties had shared custody of the two children from January 1 to November 30, 2019, after which R.C. had primary custody. During the period of shared custody. R.C.’s income was $85,531 and her child support obligation was $1,322.

According to clause 4.4 of the Agreement, P.V.’s income was $176,000 and his child support obligation was $2,433. [ 8 ] As of December 1, 2019, when the period of shared custody was over, P.V. was to pay child support of $2,433 by installments of $1,216.50 on the 2 nd and 18 th day of each month starting December 1, 2019. [ 9 ] Clause 4.9 stated that as of December 1, 2019, R.C.’s share of special and extraordinary expenses was 36.7% and P.V.’s share

was 63.3%. The Agreement defined what expenses the parents were to share. [ 10 ] Clause 5.1 of the Agreement provided for an annual review of child support starting May 18, 2020, and on May 18 th of each year thereafter based on the income set out at line 150 of the tax return for the previous taxation year, which was payable starting June 2 nd of each year. [ 11 ] I note that under current tax forms, what was line 150 is now referred to as line 15000.

For the purposes of this decision, I will continue to refer to this as line 150 income. [ 12 ] The initial amount of support payable under the Agreement was based on an estimate of P.V.’s income at $176,000. Clause 5.2 provided that for the May 2020 review, P.V. was to provide a “top-up” for the support due for the period from January 1, 2019 to May 2020, based on the line 150 income for the 2019 taxation year. In other words, the top-up was to pay for any shortfall in child support payments based on the actual line 150 income amount for the 2019 tax year.

Unfortunately, clause 5.2 of the Agreement is badly drafted. It reads: In the May, 2020 Annual Review, P.V. will, top up the amount of Child Support paid from January 1, 2019 through May, 2020 (the “2020 Top-Up”). The 2020 Top-Up will be paid to R.C. no later that June 10, 2020, and will be calculated as follows: a. P.V.’s line 150 income for 2019, less any adjustments provided by the Federal Child Support Guidelines , b. Less $2433 c.

Times 17 months. [ 13 ] Both parties agree that the calculation of the top-up should occur as follows: 1) Determine the monthly amount of child support payable by P.V. based on his line 150 income amount, less any adjustments provided for by the Federal Child Support Guidelines . 2) Deduct from the monthly support payable the sum of $2,433, being the support amount payable pursuant to clause 4.4 of the Agreement. 3) Multiply the resulting number by 17, representing the number of months from January 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020. [ 14 ] The Agreement is silent on what income amount is to be used in calculating the top-up.

R.C. submits that I use P.V.’s 2019 income, which is the income amount that the Agreement uses for the May 2020 review. P.V. says that due to a material change in circumstances, I should use his 2021 income, which has dropped significantly since 2019. [ 15 ] Clause 5.4 of the Agreement sets out what may occur if there is a material change in circumstances for either party. The clause states in part: Despite the terms of this Agreement, either R.C. or P.V. may request, by delivering a written notice to the other, a review of the Child Support if there is: a.

A material change in circumstances, such as a change of a Child’s primary residence, a significant change in the parenting time, or either of us going on disability or being unable to work because of health, THE EVIDENCE [ 16 ] P.V. first started the court process by filing an Application Respecting Existing Orders and Agreements in January 2020, which focused just on parenting time. [ 17 ] P.V. has worked for many years as an [omitted for publication] for [omitted for publication]. In April 2020, P.V. went on sick leave.

He said this was due to the stress of not seeing his children. [ 18 ] On May 20, 2020, P.V. submitted an application for disability benefits to Canada Life. In that application, P.V. reported the following: Nature of illness: stress, emotional exhaustion Cause of illness: custody dispute, loss of time with my children due to move and COVID List of all symptoms: insomnia, sadness, depression, fatigue, apathy, anger, weakness [ 19 ] Sometime after, P.V. said he started to limp, develop weakness in his legs and lacked balance. He said he suffered from cramps, spasms and dexterity problems.

P.V. said his symptoms were characteristic of ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). However, he has no actual diagnosis of this. P.V. says that other causes have to be ruled out first before a diagnosis of ALS can be made, and that this can take years. [ 20 ] There is no medical evidence in support of a claim that P.V. is disabled from ALS. Indeed, P.V. has not submitted any medical evidence at all. However, P.V. does have confirmation from Canada Life that he is presently in receipt of disability benefits.

P.V. said he commenced receiving long-term disability benefits on May 2, 2020. [ 21 ] At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic affected P.V.’s employment. P.V. submitted a Memorandum of Agreement between

[omitted for publication] and [omitted for publication] dated September 29, 2020. P.V. says this agreement resulted from the reduced travel due to the pandemic. He said this represented a reduction in work hours and would cause a drop in his pay of between $4,000 and $6,000 a month. Of course, the drop in pay would only occur if P.V. was working. [ 22 ] R.C. stated in her affidavit filed December 4, 2020, that a mediation was held on August 21, 2020, involving Family Justice Counsellor James Cayetano, but a resolution was not reached. R.C. said that this mediation dealt only with child support.

P.V. said that mediation dealt with parenting time. [ 23 ] As of August 2020, child support was not an issue before the court and so I am uncertain whether Mr. Cayetano would be dealing with child support. However, I do not have the benefit of his evidence. [ 24 ] On October 1, 2020, P.V. amended his Application Respecting Existing Orders and Agreements to seek a revision of the Agreement as it related to child support. [ 25 ] On October 21, 2020, P.V. filed two more documents. The first was another Application Respecting Existing Orders and Agreements, which also focused just on child support.

The second was a document called a Notice of Intention to Change Existing Child or Spousal Support Due to COVID-19 Income Change. This second document was part of the Expedited Resolution Process started by the Provincial Court to deal with urgent support variation applications due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Details of this process can be found in the Provincial Court Practice Direction FAM 08 (Change or Suspend Child or Spousal Support due to COVID-19). [ 26 ] In order to proceed through the Expedited Resolution Process, the parties first undergo a needs assessment.

If it is determined that participation in a Dispute Resolution Process is appropriate, then the parties participate in that next step. I did not receive any evidence that the parties did participate in the Dispute Resolution Process as part of the Expedited Resolution Process. [ 27 ] A review of the court file shows that Her Honour Judge Bond heard the Expedited Resolution Process hearing on December 14, 2020, and that she refused to make an order.

Judge Bond adjourned the application over to a pre-trial conference and then eventually it was set for a full hearing, which came before me. [ 28 ] I turn now to review P.V.’s financial circumstances. [ 29 ] According to P.V.’s Notice of Assessment for the 2019 taxation year, his line 150 income was $201,052. P.V. did not provide me with any financial record showing any allowable deductions for calculating income for child support purposes. However, R.C.’s evidence was that P.V. did have allowable deductions that reduced P.V.’s income to $198,429 for Child Support purposes.

I accept this as P.V.’s 2019 income. [ 30 ] P.V.’s tax return for the year 2020 is not yet available. According to a T4 issued by [omitted for publication] for 2020, P.V.’s employment income was $120,486.31, with union dues of $915.29.

For the purposes of the Child Support Guidelines , P.V.’s employment income would be $119,571.02. [ 31 ] P.V. also received disability benefits in 2020 as shown by a T4A tax form issued by the Canada Life Assurance Company for $17,527.98. [ 32 ] These two amounts total $137,099, representing a significant drop in income since 2019. [ 33 ] P.V. also received $6,000 in Canada Emergency Recovery Benefits (“CERB”) payments in 2020, but he anticipates that he will have to repay this. [ 34 ] I am satisfied that P.V.’s income in 2020 for the purposes of calculating child support was $137,099. [ 35 ] P.V. also put into evidence a Canada Life benefit statement dated December 1, 2020, showing that he is entitled to receive long- term disability payments of $8,620.32 per month, or $103,443.84 over the year.

P.V. said he has no other sources of income although he may receive investment income. [ 36 ] According to information R.C. received from the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, as of February 25, 2021, the support arrears totalled $10,405 plus statutory interest of $85.35, for a total of $10,490.35. [ 37 ] P.V. moved to Washington State in December 2019. He returned to Canada from June 1 to October 31, 2020, before moving to California on November 1, 2020. After moving to California, P.V. sought to obtain mortgage financing to purchase a home in California.

P.V.’s lender informed him that because he was still married, the lender required R.C. to sign a document called an interspousal transfer deed to confirm that she had no claim to the California property. R.C. refused to sign the document because she did not have any advice on the legal effect of signing the document. As a result, P.V. purchased the home using cash. P.V. still seeks an order for R.C. to sign the interspousal transfer deed so that he can mortgage his California home, where he continues to reside. [ 38 ] I turn now to discuss the issues. WAS P.V.

REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION BEFORE TAKING COURT ACTION? [ 39 ] R.C.’s counsel submits that I follow the decision Onstein v Onstein , 2020 BCSC 2 for the proposition set out at paragraph 36 that P.V. must first follow the dispute resolution process set out in the Agreement before pursuing any relief in court. [ 40 ] The dispute resolution provisions in the Agreement are as follows: 22.1 If a dispute arises with respect to this Agreement or the enforcement of this Agreement, we will use our best efforts to resolve the dispute through negotiation and if an agreement is not reached, we will consider entering the Collaborative Law Process, mediation, mediation-arbitration, or arbitration prior to either of us bringing a Court application.

22.2 In the event that a dispute arises in relation to parenting, we agree to use Divorce Coaches within a Collaborative Process,mediation, arbitration (including a parenting coordinator) or some other alternate to court, to resolve any non-emergency dispute, beforeusing lawyers or a legal process to resolve the dispute. [41] Clause 22.2 deals with disputes “in relation to parenting”. The Agreement does not define what is meant by “parenting” althoughthe Agreement speaks of parenting responsibilities starting at clause 3.2. Child support is dealt with in a different

section of theAgreement. In my view, “parenting” as used in the Agreement does not refer to child support issues, and so clause 22.2 does not apply tothis matter before me. [42] Clause 22.1 only requires that the parties consider using alternate dispute resolution processes.

It is not mandatory. [43] The parties did exchange emails starting in March 2020, discussing an adjustment of the child support payable and so I amsatisfied that there were at least some efforts to negotiate the dispute over child support. [44] I do not agree that P.V. was required to participate in any dispute resolution process before starting court proceedings to deal withthe issue of child support. WAS THERE A MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES? [45] Pursuant to s. 148 of the Family Law Act, a court has jurisdiction to set aside all or part of an agreement and replace it with anorder.

If an order is made regarding child support, then s. 150(1) states that the amount is determined in accordance with the ChildSupport Guidelines, subject to any agreement or order that may otherwise benefit the child. [46] The decision E.A.H. v. C.R.H., 2015 BCPC 13 confirms that there is no need to show a material change in circumstances in anapplication to replace a child support agreement with a court order. However, clause 5.4(

a) of the Agreement requires a material change of circumstances in order for there to be a review of the child support payable at a time different from May 20th of each year. The partieshave therefore agreed that a material change is required to allow a review of child support at other than the scheduled time. [47] R.C.’s position is that the Agreement allows for an adjustment of child support each year.

She says that P.V.’s drop in income in2020 would be taken into account at the May 20, 2021 review, allowing for reduced child support starting June 2021. [48] R.C. also does not believe that a material change in circumstances has occurred because it would not be in the best interests of thechildren to reduce support.

If I accept this position, then any reduction in child support would be contrary to a child’s best interests, andno argument of a material change in circumstances would ever succeed. [49] P.V. submits that there has been a material change in circumstances due to his long-term disability and reduced income. [50] The Agreement contemplates an adjustment of the child support in May 2020, based on P.V.’s 2019 income of $198,429. Thiswould result in an increase in the child support payable starting June 2, 2020, to $2,730, according to the Child Support Guidelines.

P.V.argues that it is unfair to base his child support on his 2019 income when he will be paying support after his 2020 income dropped to$137,099 and then further dropped to $103,443.84. [51] I note that because P.V. resides outside Canada and R.C. resides in British Columbia, the applicable Child Support Guidelinetable is for British Columbia, according to s. 3(

b) of the Child Support Guidelines. [52] P.V. also argues that the calculation of the top-up under clause 5.2 of the Agreement should be based on his current income andnot his 2019 income. [53] To answer whether there has been a material change of circumstances, I refer to

section 14 of the Child Support Guidelines,which reads: Variation of Child Support Orders Marginal note: Circumstances for variation 14 For the purposes of subsection 17(4) of the Act, any one of the following constitutes a change of circumstances that gives rise to themaking of a variation order in respect of a child support order: (

a) in the case where the amount of child support includes a determination made in accordance with the applicable table, any change incircumstances that would result in a different child support order or any provision thereof; [54] I also refer to the decision Earle v Earle, (BC SC), which states: MAINTENANCE -

SUMMARY [46] These basic principles can be summarized this way: 1. Maintenance Generally a. Parents have a joint and ongoing legal obligation to support their children. b. It is the child, not the other parent, who has the right to maintenance. c. The payment of maintenance is based on not just what a parent does earn but what a parent can earn.

2. Variation a. There has to be a material change of circumstances, a change that is significant and long lasting. b. A change to the Guideline amount is not automatic. [ 55 ] A material change in circumstances is one that is significant and long lasting, and is one that would result in different child support order. [ 56 ] I am satisfied that P.V. has undergone a material change in his circumstances as a result of being on long term disability as of May 2020, the same time as the first review of child support was due. The lack of medical evidence is a concern but is not fatal to this claim.

Medical evidence of an inability to work is not always required, as shown in the decisions M.C.D. v. D.A.D. , 2017 BCSC 1832 at paras. 62 to 64 , Turpin v. Clark , 2009 BCCA 530 at para. 19 and Leskun v. Leskun , 2006 SCC 25 at para. 28 . [ 57 ] Given my finding that the material change of circumstances occurred in May 2020, I will not set aside clauses 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4 of the Agreement as requested by P.V., since those clauses deal with the child support payable in 2019. [ 58 ] The effect of COVID-19 on P.V.’s employment is not relevant. It may have been a consideration if P.V. was working but he is not.

CAN A S. 148 ORDER BE MADE RETROACTIVELY? [ 59 ] R.C. cites the decision Chutter v. Chutter , 2016 BCSC 2407 for the proposition that an application under s. 148 to replace all or part of an agreement with a court order can only be made prospectively. In other words, any such court order would only take effect from the date P.V. filed the amended application to deal with child support, which was in October 2020. [ 60 ] Chutter v. Chutter followed the decision in M(

R) v. M(N) , 2014 BCSC 1755 for the proposition that s. 148 cannot be applied retroactively. Later cases have held that the reasoning in M(

R) v. (M(

N) was not binding on other courts (a legal term called obiter ). This decision was rejected in cases such as A(T.L.) v. R(M) 2015 BCPC 151 , D(S.J.) v. G (S.A.) 2015 BCPC 370 and LEH v. YMT , 2019 BCPC 146 . The Supreme Court decision G.J.L. v. M.J.L. , 2017 BCSC 688 gave approval to the decision in A(T.L.) v. R(

M) and agreed that s. 148 can be applied retroactively. I am therefore satisfied that I can apply s. 148 retroactively. WHAT ORDER SHOULD BE MADE ABOUT CHILD SUPPORT? [ 61 ] P.V. went on short-term disability in April 2020. In May 2020, he went on long-term disability. I find that it is only at this point when a material change of P.V.’s circumstances occurred.

This finding does not affect the support due before May 2020. [ 62 ] Both parties agree that clause 5.2 of the Agreement, which was intended to calculate the top-up, did not properly describe method of calculation, and so that clause clearly needs to be corrected. [ 63 ] I will calculate the top-up amount based on the child support that P.V. should have paid according to his 2019 income of $ 198,429. According to the Child Support Guidelines , that amount was $2,730 a month. The child support set out as due under the Agreement was $2,433, a difference of $297.

The amount of the top-up for the period January 1, 2019 to May 2020, a period of 17 months, is therefore $5,049 ($297 x 17 month). [ 64 ] Accordingly, I order that clause 5.2 of the Separation Agreement filed December 30, 2019 , be set aside. [ 65 ] I further order that the arrears of support payable by P.V. to R.C. for the period January 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020, is $5,049. [ 66 ] I turn now to the support payable as of June 2020. [ 67 ] The Agreement contemplates that I set the amount of support based on P.V.’s 2019 income. Given the significant drop in income from 2019 to now, I am not prepared to do so.

The reality is that P.V.’s income in 2020 was $137,099 and that his current income is $103,443.84. [ 68 ] For 2020, I find that P.V.’s income is $137,099 . P.V. owed to R.C. child support of $2,000 per month based upon the Child Support Guidelines . This will be for the period June 1, 2020 up to and including December 2020. [ 69 ] For the year 2021, I impute income to P.V. of $103,443.

P.V. will owe to R.C. child support of $1,568 per month starting January 1, 2021, and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter for so long as the Children remain “children of the marriage” as defined by the Divorce Act (Canada ) . This is subject to any further review and adjustment pursuant to this order and the terms of the Agreement. [ 70 ] The extent of P.V.’s medical disability is uncertain. Therefore, the requirement for an annual review of child support as set out in the Agreement will continue, although I find that a review in May 2021 is too soon.

As such, the next review will be in May 2022. [ 71 ] The Family Maintenance Enforcement Program will adjust their records of the amount of support arrears, which will take into account any payments made, and provide the parties with an updated statement of the arrears. The Program will also deal with how the support arrears will be paid. [ 72 ] P.V. will pay to R.C. the ongoing support in two equal instalments on the 2 nd and 18 th day of each month.

The next payment will be due March 18, 2021, and continue on the 2 nd and 18 th day of each month thereafter. [ 73 ] The amount of child support will be reviewed pursuant to clause 5.1 of the Separation Agreement filed December 30, 2019, commencing May 18, 2022, and will continue each subsequent year in accordance with the terms set out in the Agreement. The May

2022 review will be based on the line 150 income as set out in the parties’ tax returns for the 2021 taxation year as contemplated by the Agreement. REQUEST FOR INTERSPOUSAL TRANSFER DEED [ 74 ] P.V. asks for an order that R.C. sign the interspousal transfer deed document so that he can obtain mortgage financing on his California home. [ 75 ] This request is set out in P.V.’s affidavit and not in his application.

For that reason alone, the request is dismissed. [ 76 ] The type of order requested is in the nature of a conduct order, which is governed by s. 222 of the Family Law Act. [ 77 ] P.V. first requested R.C. to sign the deed so that he could qualify for a mortgage to buy a home in California. P.V. said that his lender wanted R.C. to sign the document to acknowledge she had no claim to the property. Under the Family Law Act, the Provincial Court has no jurisdiction over any property claims, nor the authority to say that R.C. lacks a claim to property.

Any jurisdiction over property is held by the BC Supreme Court. [ 78 ] For these reasons, I will not order R.C. to sign an interspousal transfer deed. TERMINATION DATE FOR SUPPORT [ 79 ] P.V. anticipates that the daughter will enter university in September 2021, and asks that his child support obligation for the daughter end at that time. He also anticipates that their son will enter university in September 2024, and he asks that the child support obligation end at that time.

P.V. says there are RESP funds set aside to support the children when they are in University. [ 80 ] P.V.’s request is based on circumstances that have not occurred and I am not prepared to make an order founded on speculation. Furthermore, child support can still be required even if a child is attending post-secondary education. Clause 4.8 of the Agreement deals with when child support ends and there is no reason to set aside that term of the Agreement. [ 81 ] Accordingly, I will not order an end date for the payment of child support.

SHARING OF EXPENSES [ 82 ] R.C. seeks an order to adjust the share of expenses based on the 2019 incomes of R.C. ($95,426) and P.V. ($198,428). Based on these amounts, R.C.’s share of the expenses for 2020 would be 32.5% and P.V.’s share would be 67.5% [ 83 ] R.C. did not file any financial information substantiating her claim of income at $95,426. At the same time, P.V. did not seriously dispute her claimed income amount. I accept that R.C. has income of $95,426. [ 84 ] R.C.’s affidavit filed December 4, 2020, sets out expenses totalling $1,101.74, an amount that P.V. did not dispute.

These expense amounts are from the period May 2020 to November 21, 2020. [ 85 ] I previously held that P.V.’s income for 2020 was $137,099. I will calculate the sharing of the expenses on that basis given my earlier finding of a material change of circumstances. P.V. will be responsible for 59% of the expenses for the period June 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021, based on his income of $137,099. R.C. will be responsible for 41% of these expenses based on her income of $95,426. [ 86 ] With the children’s expenses totalling $1,101.74, P.V.’s share is $650.03 which is payable forthwith.

Any other expenses incurred during the period June 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021, will be shared on the same basis, with P.V. paying 59% and R.C. paying 41%. [ 87 ] I have no information about R.C.’s income for the year 2020 or her anticipated 2021 income. I considered not dealing with the issue of expenses starting June 1, 2021, but the parties have been in dispute for many months now and I do not wish to leave this issue unresolved.

For that reason, I will impute income to R.C. for the years 2020 and 2021, of $95,426, based on an assumption that she will earn the same level of income as she did in 2019. [ 88 ] As a result, for the period June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, P.V.’s share of expenses is 52% based on his 2021 income of $103,443, and R.C.’s share is 48% based on my imputation of her income at $95,426. [ 89 ] The parties shall review the sharing of the expenses no later than May 18, 2022, in accordance with clause 5.1 of the Agreement, which will be based on the line 150 amount set out in the parties’ tax returns for the 2021 taxation year, as contemplated by the Agreement. [ 90 ] As with the child support, the parties will review the expenses each year thereafter in accordance with the Agreement.

SUMMARY OF ORDERS [ 91 ] My order is as follows:

a) The application of P.V. to set aside clauses 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4 of the Separation Agreement filed December 30, 2019, is dismissed.

b) Pursuant to s. 148(3) of the Family Law Act , clause 5.2 of the Separation Agreement filed December 30, 2019, is set aside.

c) The arrears of support payable by P.V. to R.C. for the period January 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020, is $5,049.

d) For the year 2020, the income of P.V. is found to be $137,099.

e) P.V. owes R.C. child support of $2,000 per month starting June 1, 2020, and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter up to and including December 31, 2020.

f) For the year 2021, the income of P.V. is imputed to be $103,443.

g) P.V. owes R.C. child support of $1,568 per month starting January 1, 2021, and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter for so long as the children remain “children of the marriage” as defined by the Divorce Act (Canada) , subject to any further review and adjustment pursuant to this order and the terms of the Separation Agreement filed December 30, 2019.

h) The Family Maintenance Enforcement Program will adjust their record of the support arrears owing by P.V. to R.C. based upon this order and the payments made by P.V., and provide the parties with an updated statement of the arrears.

i) Subject to any further orders of the court, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program will deal with the collection of the support arrears so long as this matter is enrolled with the Director of Maintenance Enforcement.

j) P.V. will pay to R.C. the ongoing monthly support in two equal instalments payable on the 2 nd and 18 th day of each month starting March 18, 2021, and continuing on the 2 nd and 18 th day of each month thereafter.

k) The income of R.C. is imputed to be $95,426 for the years 2019 to 2021.

l) The expenses currently owing pursuant to clause 4.11 of the Separation Agreement filed December 30, 2019, total $1,101.74. P.V. will pay to R.C. 59% of those expenses, or $650.03, based on his income of $137,099. R.C. will be responsible for 41% of those expenses based on her income of $95,426.

m) For the period June 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021, P.V.’s share of any other expenses owed pursuant to clause 4.11 of the Separation Agreement filed December 30, 2019, is 59% and R.C.’s share is 41%

n) For the period June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, P.V.’s share of expenses owed pursuant to clause 4.11 of the Separation Agreement filed December 30, 2019, is 52% based on an income of $103,443, and R.C.’s share is 48% based on an income of $95,426.

o) The amount of child support and expenses will be reviewed pursuant to clause 5.1 of the Separation Agreement filed December 30, 2019, commencing May 18, 2022, and continuing each subsequent year in accordance with the terms set out in the Separation Agreement. The review of May 18, 2022, will be based upon the line 150 income of the parties as set out in their filed tax returns for the 2021 taxation year.

p) The application for an order that R.C. sign the interspousal transfer deed document is dismissed. [ 92 ] Ms. Dhillon will draft the order for filing with the court. Rule 18(4) of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules do not require P.V. to sign the order. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge W. Lee Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM - Released March 16, 2021 In the Reasons for Judgment dated March 16, 2021, the following change has been made: [1] Paragraph [12] should read: The initial amount of support payable under the Agreement was based on an estimate of P.V.’s income at $176,000.

Clause 5.2 provided that for the May 2020 review, P.V. was to provide a “top-up” … _____________________________ The Honourable Judge W. Lee Provincial Court of British Columbia