CPL Applicant And: MBL Respondent Corrected Judgment: The text of the original judgment was corrected on December 16, 2019 v. a description of the correction is, 2019 NLSC 224

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR FAMILY DIVISION Citation : CPL v. MBL , 2019 NLSC 224 Date : December 13, 2019 Docket : 201702F0130 Between: CPL Applicant And: MBL Respondent Corrected Judgment: The text of the original judgment was corrected on December 16, 2019 and a description of the correction is appended Before: Justice Alexander MacDonald Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: December 11 and 12, 2018 and October 7, 8 and 9, 2019 Appearances: Christine Casey Appearing on behalf of the Applicant December 2018 Susan M.

Day Appearing on behalf of the Applicant October 2019 Tamara L. Drover Appearing on behalf of the Respondent Authorities Cited:

CASES CONSIDERED: Gordon v. Goertz, (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, 134 D.L.R. (4th) 321; Whelan v. Pretty, 2011NLTD(F) 38; T. (N.) v. P. (W.), 2011 NLCA 47; Whalen v. Whalen, 2005 NLCA 35; Moge v. Moge, (SCC), [1992] 3S.C.R. 813, 99 D.L.R. (4th) 456 (SCC); Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63; Lavie v. Lavie, 2018 ONCA 10; S.(D.B.) v. G.(S.R.),2006 SCC 37 STATUTE’S CONSIDERED: Children’s Law Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c.

C-13; Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) Income andEmployment Support Regulations, NLR 144/04 RULES CONSIDERED: Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175; Income and Employment Support Regulations, NLR144/04 TEXTS CONSIDERED: Rollie Thompson, The TLC of Shared Custody: Time, Language and Cash (2013), 32 Canadian Family LawQuarterly 315 OTHER: Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MacDonald, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] This is about where a little girl named B will live.

She was born in 2013 and is now six. [2] Her parents MBL and CPL met in March 2009, moved in together in October 2009 and married in June 2012. They separatedfrom each other in February 2017. [3] B now lives in St. John’s with both her parents on a rotating two-week shared parenting schedule. B’s mother wants her tomove with her to a new town. She seeks child and spousal support.

Her father opposes her move and wants me to offset any liability forspousal support against MBL’s obligation to reimburse him for her share of post-separation matrimonial expenses. [4] If I do not allow B to move, MBL would only like incidental changes to the existing Parenting Order to allow for holidayscheduling and better communication. CPL wants a weekly 50/50 rotating 2-3-2 parenting

schedule as I have described in paragraph [96].He also wants changes to the current parenting right of first refusal. [5] CPL pays MBL interim child support of $440.00 a month. The court estimated his annual income at $50,000.00. MBL wantsCPL to pay future child support. The parents want me to adjust the child support paid by using his actual income rather than an estimate. issues [6] The parents asked me to decide: Issue 1: Is it in B’s best interests to move to the new town? Issue 2: If B moves to the new town, what access should she have to her father?

Issue 3: If B does not move to the new town, what is the appropriate Parenting Order? Issue 4: Is MBL entitled to spousal support and, if so, for how long and for what duration? Issue 5: Can CPL offset costs he incurred to pay MBL’s post-separation matrimonial expenses against spousal support?

Issue 6: What child support should each parent pay the other? DISCUSSION Issue One: Is it in B’s best Interests to Move to the New Town? [7] I have decided that B will not move to the new town. I will now explain why I made this decision. [8] The Supreme Court of Canada guides me on how I make this decision in the case of Gordon v. Goertz, (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, 134 D.L.R. (4th) 321. Butler, J.A., applied the law in Whelan v.

Pretty, 2011 NLTD(F) 38, and I will followher outline. [9] I will consider the importance of B living with her mother in the new town against her access with her father who lives in St.John’s. I will consider B’s best interests. I will consider her needs and her parents’ ability to satisfy them. I will consider all of thecircumstances, both old and new. [10] I am not concerned about what is best for her parents. I am concerned what is best for her. I am not to punish or reward theparents for the past behaviour unless that behaviour affects their ability to be a parent.

I will consider the factors in section 31(2) of theChildren’s Law Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. C-13. [11] There is no legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent although that parent’s views are entitled to great respect. MBLmust show a material change in the circumstances affecting B. I find there is a material change in circumstances. B spends a significantamount of time with each parent. MBL’s move will mean that she will spend less time with one of them. [12] Finally, I cannot order MBL to live in any particular place.

I can only allow MBL to move B to a new place. [13] MBL testified spontaneously that she would not move without B. Her counsel suggests that, I need not consider a scenariowhere MBL moves to the new town without B. I will deal with both her testimony and counsel’s request in paragraphs [48] to [53]. [14] I now consider each of the relevant factors. The Existing Parenting and the Relationship between B and her Parents [15] In Week 1, B lives with her parents on a 2-3-2

schedule and lives with mom from 12 noon Sunday until 12 noon Tuesday, withdad from 12 noon Tuesday until 12 noon Friday, and with mom from 12 noon Friday until 12 noon Sunday. In Week 2, B lives with herparents on a 2-4-1

schedule and lives with her dad from 12 noon Sunday until 12 noon Tuesday, with mom from 12 noon Tuesday until12 noon Saturday and with dad from 12 noon Saturday until 12 noon Sunday. [16] Both parents agree that B loves them both. I accept that they both look after her needs. Both parents support their daughter’srelationship with the other parent. The parents did not submit evidence that the other parent was incapable of parenting their daughter orthat their time with her should be restricted. [17] I would not characterize B’s mother as her custodial parent.

B’s mother certainly was the primary child caregiver parent duringthe marriage. Since separation, B’s father is actively involved and parents her for a significant amount of her life. [18] Both parents agree that CPL took B to her doctor and dental appointments when he was off work. CPL testified that when hetook her to the dentist he would

schedule the next visit when he was off. WG, a close family friend testified that, before separation, CPLcooked and parented B when he was not at work. [19] MBL says that CPL registered B for school, attended parent-teacher meetings and attended the first day of kindergarten. CPLtestified that he has been on play dates with his daughter. She states in her trial brief that he has been a more active parent sinceNovember 2018. [20] I consider this a shared parenting arrangement.

Under the current Order, CPL would have parented B about 43 percent of thetime based on a calculation of the nights she would spend with each parent. However, both counsel agree that B’s father actually parentedher between 33.5 percent and 35 percent of the time. MBL’s counsel suggests that I should consider that under the new Divorce Act (notyet in force), the burden would shift to CPL to prove that the relocation is not in B’s best interests.

I cannot apply this provision until it isin force. [21] However, if I did consider the principles reflected in the Divorce Act, the burden would shift to CPL only if B spends “the vastmajority of time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child.” This is not the case and both parents bear the burden ofproving what is in B’s best interests. Maximizing Contact between B and Both Parents [22] It may be in B’s best interests to allow her to move even if that makes maximum contact with her father impossible.

However, Imust maximize contact between the parents and their daughter, if I permit the move. [23] I am concerned about MBL’s proposal for B’s access to her father. She says B can spend every second weekend from Fridayafter school until 3:00 p.m. Sunday with her father. She would also spend half of the Christmas and Easter holidays and three to fiveweeks during the summer holidays with CPL. MBL says she will try to share in the transportation to and from St. John’s. MBL has nodriver’s license. Her mother has no driver’s license. Her father lives three out of every six weeks out of the new town.

MBL did not nameanyone who could assist transporting B to facilitate CPL’s access.

[ 24 ] The new town is about 360 kilometres from St. John’s. MBL’s proposed

schedule requires B’s father to travel 1440 kilometres every second week [1] . It would require B to travel 720 kilometres every second week [2] . If B’s father avoids travelling in the dark in the winter months, he would see his daughter in St. John’s for less than 24 hours every second weekend. [ 25 ] MBL’s mother testified that CPL was welcome to stay in her house when he came to the new town. Given that she qualified this offer by saying she felt she could “forgive him” for hurting her daughter, I do not consider this to be a realistic option. [ 26 ] MBL’s

schedule is simply unworkable. This travel is not in B’s best interests. Access to her father cannot be as frequent as her mother suggests. B is six. I do not consider that it is in her best interests to be away from her father for the extended periods a more reasonable

schedule would require unless there are very compelling reasons to allow it. I find no such compelling reasons. B’s Views [ 27 ] B’s maternal grandmother says B wants to move to the new town. I will not accept this hearsay evidence as B is only six. I will not ask for her views [3] . MBL’s Reason for Moving, only if relevant to her Ability to Meet B’s Needs [ 28 ] MBL tells me that she wants to move to the new town for five reasons. (

i) Family Support [ 29 ] The first reason is that she wants to raise B in close proximity to extended family. Her mother, her father and extended family live in or near the new town. She wants B to grow up with this family. She says she has no family in St. John’s. This reason can be relevant if it helps her meet B’s needs. [ 30 ] She says that her mother and extended family can assist her with B’s daily activities. She says that she only has one friend in St. John’s, WG, who can assist. [ 31 ] MBL’s immediate family is her mother and her father.

Her sister and B’s first cousins live 65 kilometres away in a nearby community. MBL’s father spends three out of every six weeks working outside of the new town. MBL says she will live with her parents temporarily after she moves to the new town. She says they may assist her in buying a home. [ 32 ] Practically speaking her “extended family” means aunts, uncles and second cousins. However, MBL could not identify anyone who would help her transport B to see her father.

This is especially important because her paternal grandfather lives away for extended periods, and neither MBL nor her mother can drive because they do not have driver’s licences. Furthermore, she identified only one second cousin who could help with B’s care. [ 33 ] MBL may want her parents to help her raise B. However, this assistance means that B loses parenting time with her father and her paternal grandparents. In my view that trade-off is not in B’s best interests. (ii) Better Job Prospects [ 34 ] Her second reason is that she believes it would be easier for her to find a job in the new town.

She says she will have easier access to transportation. This reason can be relevant if it helps her meet B’s needs. [ 35 ] She says that a businessperson in the new town who owns two food establishments offered her a job if one is available. She believes she can negotiate flexible hours with this employer but acknowledges that there are no jobs at this time. She also believes she might obtain seasonal employment in the tourist industry but gave no details about these employment opportunities. [ 36 ] She has not applied for jobs in St. John’s. She is experienced in the retail food industry.

She was the assistant manager of retail food shop in the Avalon Mall. She admitted she is about one kilometre from Topsail Road and Centennial Square business and food establishments. She says she would not feel safe walking to these establishments. She says she is only capable of obtaining part-time work because of her childcare obligations to her daughter. However, she did not ask any employer whether they would accommodate her parenting schedule. [ 37 ] I do not accept that her move to the new town will help her get a job. She provided no evidence that she intends to work.

In fact, she admitted that part-time work would not be worth her while since she receives income support benefits. I do not accept her evidence that she is moving to facilitate employment and, thereby provide means to raise her daughter and help her meet B’s needs. (iii) Cheaper Daycare [ 38 ] Her third reason is that daycare is cheaper in the new town. This can be a relevant reason if it helps her meet B’s needs. [ 39 ] She did not establish this assertion. Daycare is available in St. John’s. B’s father has an obligation to contribute to the cost.

While she receives income support benefits, she may be entitled to obtain financial assistance for daycare. Furthermore, she has not provided any evidence that this daycare is available in the new town other than saying that it cost $25.00 a day. [ 40 ] MBL’s mother testified she and her husband could assist in daycare but not when either is working. She works 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., July 1 through October 31, and her husband works three weeks out of every six away from home. MBL also said second cousins and aunts could help.

She identified only one second cousin who agrees to help but she did not tell me the terms of the help. [ 41 ] I accept that daycare may be easier for MBL in the new town. However, I must take into account that she gave me no evidence of any efforts to obtain daycare in St. John’s or to obtain employment or schooling, both of which are prerequisites to MBL needing daycare. Therefore, I do not accept that her move to the new town will help her meet B’s needs.

(iv) Help with Education [ 42 ] Her fourth reason is that she would like to return to the College of the North Atlantic to take accounting training. This reason can be relevant if it helps her meet B’s needs. [ 43 ] She says that she could complete this education at the campus in a nearby community. She says that travelling the 65 kilometres to that campus accommodates her parenting obligations better than travelling 10 kilometres from her current residence to the St. John's campus. She says this because the bus

schedule to and from the new town better accommodates her parenting than does the St. John’s schedule. [ 44 ] I do not accept that advancing her education would be more difficult in St. John’s. Furthermore, she made no concrete efforts to pursue this education in the nearby community or in St. John’s. She did not make any inquiries about the financial assistance available to her. (

v) Driver’s License [ 45 ] Finally, she says that it would be easier to obtain her driver’s license in the new town. This reason can be relevant if it helps her meet B’s needs. She says if she has a driver’s licence, it will help her obtain work or attend school. She says this is easier in the new town because she has family in the community who would teach her to drive. [ 46 ] I find that she does not need to move to the new town to learn to drive. She frequently spends time in the new town. Her parents visit her often in St. John’s. She took no steps to learn to drive.

Accordingly, she can get a license while living in St. John's and this reason does not help her meet B’s needs. [ 47 ] Accordingly, I find that MBL’s five reasons to move do not help MBL meet B’s needs. Disruption to B of a Change in Custody [ 48 ] MBL and her counsel told me that she would not move to the new town without B. I told them that I would not have allowed anyone to ask MBL this question. Thus they ask me to consider the so-called “double bind” question described by our Court of Appeal in T. (N.) v.

P. (W.) , 2011 NLCA 47 . [ 49 ] The Court of Appeal concluded that it is “problematic to rely on representations by the custodial parent that he or she will not move without children should the application to relocate be denied”. [ 50 ] This same restriction does not appear to apply to a non-custodial parent. In Whalen v.

Whalen , 2005 NLCA 35 , the court considered evidence from a noncustodial parent and found that given the non-custodial parent’s “stated intention to move to Ottawa if the children moved, it would be possible for him to proceed in a manner that could accommodate the custodial parent’s plan”. [ 51 ] An unanswered question is whether I can consider the answer to the double bind question by a shared parent. There is an argument that I should. [ 52 ] When a shared parent asks to relocate, children will suffer disruption no matter the answer. If the parent moves alone, the parents cannot share parenting.

If a parent moves with the children, the effect is the same. In either case, one parent will become the primary parent. [ 53 ] Given the uncertainty on whether I can consider the double bind in shared parenting, I will assume I cannot. I will consider the effect on B if her mother moves without her and her father becomes her primary parent in St. John's. [ 54 ] Both parties agree that B loves them both. Both parties agree that the other is a good parent.

Both parties agree that except for some communication issues, the current parenting arrangement has been working well. [4] The parties agree that her mother is more responsible for her medical needs. MBL parents B during CPL’s parenting time until he is home from work. CPL works one and sometimes two jobs to support his family. I find it important that at least one of B’s parents work to support her. [ 55 ] I consider both of these parents to be good parents. There is no reason why I would not continue shared parenting.

I am satisfied that if one parent no longer lives in the same location as B, either could act as the primary parent. I find that neither parent can be considered ‘better’ that the other [5] . [ 56 ] I am sure B will find loss of time with the other parent difficult. However, the evidence is that she is a resilient girl who will adapt. She will continue to see the other parent at regular intervals but not nearly as frequently as she does now. However, a parent who moves must make, and live with the consequences of, this choice. [ 57 ] If CPL becomes B’s primary parent, it will be a difficult transition for him.

I find he will be able to handle the additional responsibility, especially since B will continue to live with her grandmother and father in the city where she has always lived. Disruption to B and Consequence on Removal from Family, Schools and the Community she has come to Know [ 58 ] B is six and her life is her parents, her friends in St. John’s and her paternal grandmother who lives with her. She sees her maternal grandparents at least six and sometimes twelve times a year. She has school friends and at least two of these she sees outside of school.

She is a member of a Sparks group. [ 59 ] WG is an important person to both B and her mother [6] . Depending on her work schedule, WG saw the family almost every day prior to separation. Since separation, she sees B frequently. WG testified that when she visits she helps parent B. [ 60 ] Both parents agree B is a smart happy and resilient child. She is in her second year at school near her mother’s house and eight

kilometres from her father’s house. By all accounts, she thrives at school and is in a grade one-grade two class. Bright grade one children in the split class can take grade two courses. B is such a child. Her mother says her teacher told her B is a “smart cookie”. [ 61 ] In 2019, B visited the new town three times. Perhaps this is not surprising given there is a Court order allocating parenting time. She also sees her maternal grandparents when they visit St. John’s at least four times a year. In past years, B and her mother went to the new town every second month and her grandparents came to St.

John’s on the alternate months. [ 62 ] If B moves to the new town, she would move to a new school and new community where she has not lived before. Her mother’s evidence focused on how the move would benefit her. Her counsel argued that if her mother was happier this would benefit her child. [ 63 ] I accept it may be more convenient for MBL if she lives in the new town. She may be happier there. I accept that her daycare (which is yet unneeded) would be more convenient. I accept B would also have more contact with her maternal grandparents and second cousins.

I accept she might have more contact with her first cousins even though they live 65 kilometres away. [ 64 ] The trade-off for these benefits is that B will not see her father and paternal grandparents as much as she does now. I find that parenting time with her father is more important than any increased time she may spend with her maternal grandparents and cousins. Furthermore, she may lose frequent contact with WG who has been a constant presence in her life. MBL’s Relocation Plan [ 65 ] I now turn to whether MBL provided me with an adequate plan for B’s move to the new town [7] . I find that she has not.

I now explain why I made that decision. [ 66 ] She presented me with a written plan. [ 67 ] I know that B will initially live with her mother at her grandparents’ house, after which she will live with her mother in a yet to be acquired house in the new town. [ 68 ] She provided me with her application to Newfoundland Labrador Housing Corporation for rentals in the area. The rentals are no longer available and she has not heard from the Corporation whether there are others available.

She provided me with a list of houses for sale but did not provide me with any evidence on whether she could afford these houses. [ 69 ] I know she wants B to attend the local school in the new town.

I have no evidence if the new town school has an advanced program for gifted children like B. [ 70 ] I have no evidence on whether daycare spaces are actually available in the new town but I do know that her grandparents and a second cousin will assist her with daycare. [ 71 ] I am satisfied B can attend Sparks in the new town and that her mother can find her a family doctor. [ 72 ] Finally, I do not believe that MBL’s proposed plan for B’s access to her father is in her best interests for the reasons set out in paragraphs [22] to [26]. [ 73 ] In short, I conclude that her plan is not in B’s best interests.

I find that in all the circumstances, it is not in B’s best interests to move to the new town. CPL’s Parenting Plan [ 74 ] CPL presented a written parenting plan [8] . His parenting plan essentially is to maintain the status quo with changes to the parenting time and right of first refusal. I discuss these changes in paragraphs [80] to [101]. [ 75 ] He provided me with details of the house he shares with his mother eight kilometres from B’s school. MBL lives between CPL’s residence and the school. [ 76 ] His home is a condominium with three bedrooms and two bathrooms.

The third bedroom is on a different floor than the living areas and other bedrooms. MBL’s counsel suggested that the multiple levels of the condominium make this home an unsatisfactory environment in which to parent B. I disagree. I find the home adequate and B has been living there for almost two years. Furthermore, the maternal grandparent’s home, to which her mother wants to relocate, also has the third bedroom on a different floor. [ 77 ] CPL says that B will continue to live in the condominium and attend her current school. He proposes his father and mother act as caregivers when he is not available.

I discuss these issues in paragraphs [88] to [94]. He describes how B visits her grandfather’s cabin in the summer and how she spends time with her two cousins when they are in Canada. [ 78 ] I consider his plan satisfactory, which is not surprising since B lives under most of these conditions today. I dealt with the changes required if MBL moves without B in paragraphs [53] to [57]. Issue 2: If B moves to the New Town, what Access should B have to her Father? [ 79 ] Because of my decision on Issue 1, I will not deal with this issue.

If MBL moves to the new town without her daughter, she has leave to apply for access if the parties cannot agree on it. Issue 3: If B does not move to the New Town, what is the Appropriate Parenting Order? [ 80 ] The parents have operated under the existing

schedule for some time. Both agree that it has been working relatively well. They disagree on whether they should be required to offer the other a parenting right of first refusal. B’s mother wants this arrangement to

continue. Her father wants the option to allow his mother or father to parent B if he is not available. [ 81 ] I will first discuss the right of first refusal. [ 82 ] I find that a right of first refusal is in B’s best interests. Each parent will offer the other a right to parent B if the offering parent cannot do so for more than three consecutive hours.

A parent need not make this offer for periods of up to three and one-half consecutive hours after the end of B’s school when B’s grandparents can parent her. [ 83 ] I now explain why I made this decision. [ 84 ] I believe a right of first refusal can be in B’s best interests provided her parents communicate well and are not high conflict parents. [ 85 ] The parents’ evidence suggests that these parents are not high conflict parents. Their communications improved since the early days after separation.

I believe these parents are good candidates for a right of first refusal and I believe it is in B’s best interests that I allow it. [ 86 ] The right of first refusal now operates so that B is with her mother on CPL’s parenting time from when she gets off school until her father finishes work. Her mother also parents her when her father is working summer night shifts. B’s mother believes the current parenting

schedule works only because of this right of first refusal. [ 87 ] CPL has a new work

schedule and says that until May 24, 2020, he will work 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday one week, and then 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday the next week. He says he will have no on-call night work except in the summer. [ 88 ] MBL has no difficulty with CPL’s mother parenting B during the after school period but she now works full-time and is not available to do so. CPL would like his father to have the same opportunity. B’s mother objects to this request for two reasons. [ 89 ] The first is that B’s grandfather lives with a cat. B is allergic to cats.

CPL testified that his father took steps recommended by B’s physician to minimize her reaction to the cat. He installed air filters and has no rugs in his home. He encased mattresses and pillows with anti-allergen devices. Her father says that if B has an allergic reaction she can mitigate her symptoms by taking over-the-counter medicine. [ 90 ] The second is that CPL’s father and mother do not communicate well. In fact, his father is not welcome at CPL’s home.

CPL says that his parents’ relationship is a “work in progress” and that he will pick up B at his father’s home. [ 91 ] B already spends time with her grandfather. She spends overnights at his house and visits his cabin.

Her parents know this and her mother often administers B’s allergy medication when she knows she is going to be in the house. [ 92 ] CPL has no objection to B’s maternal grandparents parenting her in her mother’s temporary absence. [ 93 ] I am satisfied that this right of first refusal is in B’s best interests. [ 94 ] Based on the evidence before me I can see no reason why I would restrict any of B’s grandparents from parenting her after school to the end of her father’s work day.

Furthermore, I will not require a parent to offer a right of first refusal for short periods when a baby sitter might be more convenient for the parent than arranging B’s transport to and from the other parent’s home. These changes may also give MBL more flexibility in finding a job

schedule that meets her needs. [ 95 ] I will now turn to the issue of the parenting schedule. [ 96 ] B’s mother wants me to maintain the existing parenting schedule. Her father wants me to alter the

schedule so that the second week is a mirror of the first. The result will be a rotating 2-3-2 weekly schedule. [ 97 ] I order the following schedule: Week 1: Mom will parent B from 12 noon Sunday until 12 noon Tuesday, dad from 12 noon Tuesday until 12 noon Friday, and mom from 12 noon Friday until 12 noon Sunday. Week 1 will start on the first week after December 31, 2019 when CPL’s workday ends at 4:30 p.m. on Friday [9] .

Week 2: Dad will parent B from 12 noon Sunday until 12 noon Tuesday, mom from 12 noon Tuesday until 12 noon Friday, and dad from 12 noon Friday until 12 noon Sunday. [ 98 ] I will now explain why I made this decision. [ 99 ] B’s mother wants no changes to the existing schedule. Her father wants an additional Friday overnight every second week. [ 100 ] B’s mother conceded that she does not consent to the Friday night request because this is their “girl time” and she does not want to give it up. This is not a sufficient reason.

I find that an additional Friday night with her father is in B’s best interests. [ 101 ] Her parents shall parent B pursuant to the parenting plan attached to this decision as

Schedule A.

Issue 4: Is MBL entitled to Spousal Support and, if so, for how long and in what duration? [102] I find that MBL is entitled to spousal support. CPL shall pay MBL a total of $73,526.00[10] in spousal support payable inmonthly installments as I will describe in paragraphs [130] and [137]. [103] I now explain why I made this decision. [104] I find that MBL is entitled to spousal support on a compensatory basis. The parties lived together for seven and half years. MBLstayed home with B, while CPL did not. CPL continued to work while his wife cared for B. Some of this work was at night. MBL tooktime off to do so.

This conferred a benefit on him and a disadvantage on her [105] The marriage is relatively short but B is only six. Therefore, I consider MBL’s compensatory entitlement supports an amount andduration of spousal support between the mid and high range. [106] I also find that MBL is entitled to spousal support on non-compensatory basis. The parties’ income in the two years afterseparation is set out in Table 1: Table 1: Parents Incomes Year CPL MBL2017 $54,473 $ 6,319[11]2018 $54,819 $10,058[12] [107] A difference in income alone does not automatically lead to entitlement. Non-compensatory claims involve need.

Need means asignificant decline in standard living from the marital standard. Non-compensatory support reflects the economic interdependence ofmarried couples summed up in the phrase ‘merger over time’. [108] The Supreme Court of Canada discussed this concept in paragraph 85 of Moge v. Moge, (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R.813, 99 D.L.R. (4th) 456 (SCC). It directs me to keep in mind the doctrine of equitable sharing.

It observes that the doctrine of equitablesharing does not guarantee either party the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, but this standard is far from irrelevant forsupport entitlement. [109] I should regard marriages “…as a joint endeavour, the longer the relationship endures, the closer the economic union, the greaterwill be the presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon its dissolution” (Moge, paragraph 85). [110] The authors of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAG”) observe that judicial principles emphasize that incomedisparity does automatically mean entitlement to support.

In practice, however, a court will find entitlement where there is significantincome disparity at the time of the application. [111] MBL provided a budget to the Court to show her total monthly expenses of $2,124.00. I find the budget reasonable. She,therefore, has a deficit of about $15,430.00 based on her 2018 income, or about $1,286.00 a month.

This is not surprising as she receivesincome support benefits. [112] I find that given the length of the marriage and MBL’s needs, she has established non-compensatory entitlement and the amountand duration of spousal support should be between the mid and high range. [113] The parties asked me to calculate spousal support for 2017, on 2017 income, for 2018, on 2018 income and 2019 and later, on2018 income. I will do so. I will calculate retroactive spousal support based on B living more than 60 percent her time with her mother.

Iwill calculate future spousal support based on shared parenting of 40 percent or more for each parent. [114] In argument in the trial, both counsel submitted DivorceMate calculations supporting the positions on spousal support. MBL’scounsel asked that I award monthly spousal support totalling $72,268.00[13] over the duration. Counsel submitted that the mid-range isappropriate, and asked for $966.00 a month for the 10 months in 2017 and $728.00 for the 22 months in both 2018 and 2019. She alsoasked that I award $728.00 a month for an additional 64 months so that the duration of spousal support is 8 years.

This duration is nearthe middle of the 3.75 and 12 years recommended duration. She calculated support assuming the parents shared parenting and thatMBL’s income was employment income, not income support benefits. [115] I adjusted her calculations to take into account the actual parenting arrangement until January 1, 2020 set out in this decision. The2017 mid-range is $681.00, the 2018, $548.00 and the 2019 up to December 31, 2019, $442.00. From January 1, 2020, the mid-rangeremains at $728.00 a month.

Therefore, her claim was actually $67,258.00[14]. [116] CPL’s counsel asked that I award total spousal support of $13,720.00[15]. Counsel submits that the low range is appropriate andasks for $588.00 a month for 10 months in 2017 and $392.00 for 20 months in both 2018 and 2019. She asked I award the minimumduration, or two and half years, based on a five-year marriage. She too assumed MBL’s income was employment income rather thanincome support benefits. [117] Both counsel assumed that MBL derived her income from employment. She, in fact, derives her income from income supportbenefits.

The SSAG do not treat income support benefits as income for the purposes of spousal support[16]. After the trial, I informedboth counsel of this error. I allowed them both to submit new DivorceMate calculations. I asked them to make submissions for theappropriate range and duration of spousal support. [118] MBL’s counsel provided me with revised DivorceMate calculations. CPL’s counsel did not. [119] MBL’s counsel now asks that I award total spousal support of $131,420.00[17]. Counsel still submits that the mid-range is

appropriate, and asks for $1,360.00 a month for the 10 months in 2017 and $1,370.00 for the 22 months in both 2018 and 2019. She also asked that I award $1,370.00 a month for an additional 64 months so that the duration of spousal support is still 8 years. She calculated support assuming MBL’s income was income support benefits and shared parenting [18] . [ 120 ] I adjusted her calculations to take into account the actual parenting arrangement set out in this decision until January 1, 2020. The 2017 mid-range is $1,022.00, the 2018, $1,092.00 and the 2019 up to December 31, 2019, $1,092.00.

From January 1, 2020, the mid- range remains at $1,370.00 a month. Therefore, her claim was actually $121,368.00 [19] . [ 121 ] I do not accept these submissions. I order that CPL pay MBL spousal support that results in an equal division of net disposable income for a duration of five years. I will now explain how I made this decision. [ 122 ] The SSAG suggest a duration of 3.75 to 12 years with the range set out in Table 2 [20] . The ranges are sensitive to B’s age and whether her parents share custody.

Table 2: Guideline Ranges Year Low mid high 50%-50% NDI 2017 [21] $ 886 $1,018 $1,158 $1,056 2018 $ 894 $1,032 $1,174 $1,070 2019 [22] $ 950 $1,087 $1,226 $1,120 2019 [23] $1,236 $1,374 $1,506 $1,411 [ 123 ] I find that where spouses neither re-partner nor have new children, the starting point for spousal support should be an amount that leaves each household with equal net disposable income [24] . [ 124 ] The DivorceMate calculations are a guide. I am entitled to consider other factors. I may consider whether MBL has made any effort to become self-sufficient.

If I conclude she has not, I may reduce the amount of spousal support or its duration. [ 125 ] MBL testified she has no medical condition that would prevent her from working. She did work prior to separating. She made no efforts to find a job even though she has background in retail sales. She lives about a kilometre from numerous retail operations. She says she did not apply for jobs because they would not accommodate her parenting

schedule and she cannot get transportation. She gave evidence to support these claims. She did not attempt to find a job that would meet her needs. I find she can work but does not. [ 126 ] CPL’s counsel asked that I not impute income to MBL under the SSAG. However, I find the Ontario Court of Appeal observations in Lavie v. Lavie , 2018 ONCA 10 , useful. They conclude “There is no requirement of bad faith or intention to evade [child] support obligations inherent in intentional underemployment: …The reasons for underemployment are irrelevant.

If a parent is earning less than she…could be…she is intentionally underemployed” (at paragraph 26). I find that a similar principle applies to spousal support. [ 127 ] There is no evidence that MBL cannot work. I find she is earning less than she could have earned. Accordingly, she has made no efforts to become self-sufficient. As she did not, I will reduce the duration of support to near the lower end of the range, or five years. [ 128 ] I will now calculate the retroactive spousal support CPL owes to MBL. [ 129 ] The retroactive spousal support payable by CPL to MBL is set out in Table 3 .

He shall set off from this retroactive support the amount I describe in paragraphs [133] to [137]. Table 3: Retroactive Support Year support months total 2017 $1,056 10 [25] $10,560 2018 $1,070 12 $12,840 2019 $1,120 12 [26] $13,440 Grand Total 34 $36,840 [ 130 ] CPL is liable for the arrears of $36,840.00 due until December 31, 2019. He shall also pay MBL an additional 26 months of spousal support of $1,411.00 a month beginning on January 1, 2020, for a total payment of $73,526.00 [27] . This results in a total duration for spousal support of five years. CPL paid expenses he can offset against these arrears.

In paragraphs [136] and [137], I will explain the arrears he owes after this offset. [ 131 ] I compare this award to one based on a 50/50 division of net disposable income for 12 years and an imputed a minimum-wage income to MBL. I would have awarded monthly support totalling $55,372.00 [28] . My total award of $73,526.00 [29] is higher and MBL receives money earlier. I consider this reasonable in all the circumstances.

My award should allow MBL time to achieve self-sufficiency and protect B’s standard of living until she does. [ 132 ] Both counsel asked that I not undertake a DBS analysis for the retroactive spousal support award prior to this decision (see S. (D.B.) v. G.(S.R.) , 2006 SCC 37 ). However, had they asked for such review I find:

a) MBL promptly claimed spousal support in her reply to CPL’s claim;

b) MBL circumstances support a retroactive award. She has a deficit in her monthly living expenses. She received income support in 2018 and 2019; and

c) Although payment of the spousal support award will be difficult for him, CPL will not suffer undue hardship. His living expenses are less than MBL’s. He lives in his mother’s condominium. He testified he pays $400.00 a month rent when he can. I ordered

he pay his arrears at the end of MBL’s five-year entitlement. Issue 5: Can CPL offset costs he incurred to pay MBL’s Post-Separation Matrimonial Expenses against Spousal Support? [ 133 ] CPL is entitled to offset $14,228.00 from MBL’s $36,840.00 of retroactive spousal support, being MBL’s share of post-separation of matrimonial expenses. [ 134 ] I will now explain why made this decision. [ 135 ] CPL testified he paid, pursuant to an Order Fitzpatrick, J., $14,668.00 of MBL’s matrimonial post-separation expenses. He included $440.00 in child support he says he paid in December 2017.

He provided no evidence that this amount was paid. MBL says he paid $14,228.00 and she did not receive the child support payment. [ 136 ] I find that CPL paid $14,228.00 of MBL’s matrimonial post-separation expenses. He may offset these expenses against the amount he owes MBL for retroactive spousal support.

After this offset is applied, CPL owes MBL $22,612.00 in retroactive spousal support up to including December 31, 2019. [ 137 ] He shall pay MBL the $22,612.00 in sixteen monthly payments of $1,411.00 per month beginning March 1, 2022, the end of the five-year duration of spousal support, and ending with the June 1, 2023, and a payment of $36.00 on July 1, 202 3.

Issue 6: What Child Support should each Parent pay the Other? [ 138 ] The parents agreed during the trial that CPL owes MBL $694.05 in additional child support to October 31, 2019 based on his Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) line 150 income (less union dues) [30] . He owes an additional $36.00 for November [31] , for a total of $730.05. They ask I determine future child support. [ 139 ] Starting on December 1, 2019, CPL will pay MBL child support of $476.00 a month based on his CRA 2018 line 150 income of $54,819.00 less union fees of $ 648.00. [ 140 ] The parents shall share B’s 2018

section 7 expenses, including daycare costs, 61.7 percent by CPL and 38.3 percent [32] by MBL. This calculation accounts for payment of spousal support. The parties will agree on B’s

section 7 expenses before they incur such costs. [ 141 ] I will now explain why I made this decision. [ 142 ] Counsel for CPL asked me not to impute income to MBL pursuant to

section 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175 [33] (“ Guidelines ”), because she is deliberately underemployed. Unlike spousal support, child support is B’s right. I accept counsel’s suggestion and I will not impute income to MBL. [ 143 ] From January 1, 2020, the parties each have 40 percent or more of the parenting time for B. Accordingly, I must calculate child support due from each. CPL’s CRA 2018 line 150 income, less union dues, is $54,171.00. MBL has not worked since the birth of B. She currently receives income support benefits. Her CRA 2018 line 150 income in 2018 was $10,058.00.

She does not pay child support when she earns this income. [ 144 ] The parents shall recalculate basic child support and sharing of

section 7 expenses annually starting on December 1, 2020, based on their previous year’s CRA Notices of Assessment. The parents’ income shall be their Notice of Assessment line 150 income, less union dues. For convenience, the parents may offset any amounts due to each other pursuant to these recalculations. The parties will provide each other their CRA Notices of Assessment before June 30 of each year. DISPOSITION [ 145 ] I hereby order that:

a) B shall not move to the new town.

b) CPL shall pay MBL $730.05 in child support due from March 1, 2017 to November 30, 2019 within 60 days of this decision.

c) CPL shall pay child support of $476.00 a month from December 1, 2019, the amount set out in the Guidelines , based on his 2018 income of $54,819, less union fees of $648.00.

d) The parents shall share

section 7 expenses for childcare, dental and health insurance, medical and dental expenses, and extraordinary activities. CPL shall pay 61.7 percent and MBL shall pay 38.3 percent.

e) The parents shall recalculate basic child support and sharing of

section 7 expenses annually starting on December 1, 2020 based on their previous year’s CRA Notice of Assessment. The parents’ income shall be their Notice of Assessment line 150 income, less union dues. For convenience, the parents may offset any amounts due to each other pursuant to these recalculations. The parties will provide each other their CRA Notices of Assessment before June 30 of each year;

f) CPL shall pay MBL spousal support of $1,411.00 a month from January 1, 2020 up to and including June 1, 2023 and $36.00 on July 1, 2023;

g) CPL shall pay all amounts due under the Order through the Support Enforcement Agency; and

h) The parents shall parent B pursuant to the Parenting Order described in

Schedule A unless they otherwise agree in writing. [ 146 ] Each party shall bear their own costs.

___________________________ _ Alexander MacDonald Justice PARENTING ORDER Parenting 1) B’s mom, MBL, and B’s dad, CPL, shall have joint legal custody of B who was born on April 1, 2013. Both parents shall consult with the other prior to making major decisions, such as those related to B’s health, education and extra-curricular activities. 2) The parents shall make major decisions regarding B’s medical care in consultation with B’s physician, dentist or other healthcare provider. Each parent will reasonably consider the other’s views.

If the parents are unable to agree on major decisions about B’s medical care, the parents will follow the recommendation of B’s health providers. Schooling, Daycare and Babysitting 3) The parents shall make major decisions affecting B’s educational program, including psychological assessments or testing, school choice or tutors, in consultation with B’s homeroom teacher. If the parents are unable to agree on major decisions related to B’s education, the parents shall follow the recommendation of school personnel. 4) The parents shall consult and agree on B’s daycare provider.

If the parents cannot agree on a daycare, she will attend the one closest to her mother’s home. Either parent, with notice to the other, may look after B instead of a daycare doing so. If both parents are available to do so, the parent who drops B off at daycare on that day will have the first choice to do so. 5) Each parent shall give the other a right of first refusal to parent B if the offering parent cannot do so for more than three consecutive hours. A parent need not make this offer for periods of up to three and one-half consecutive hours after the end of B’s school when B’s grandparents can parent her.

It is in each parent’s sole discretion whether to accept such an offer. If a parent does not accept the offer, it shall not be an indication that that parent is not interested in B or her welfare. 6) The parents shall share, and cause any school, daycare or provider of extra-curricular activities to share, any material prepared by B during these activities. Parenting

Schedule 7) The Parents shall parent B according to the following

schedule Week One Mom will parent B from 12 noon Sunday until 12 noon Tuesday, dad from 12 noon Tuesday until 12 noon Friday, and mom from 12 noon Friday until 12 noon Sunday. Week 1 will start on the first week after December 31, 2019 when CPL’s workday ends at 4:30 p.m. on Friday [34] . Week Two Dad will parent B from 12 noon Sunday until 12 noon Tuesday, mom from 12 noon Tuesday until 12 noon Friday, and dad from 12 noon Friday until 12 noon Sunday.

Special Occasions 8) Dad will parent B during Christmas 2019 from 2:00 p.m. on December 23 to 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve. Mom will parent her 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve until 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day. Dad will parent her 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day to 2:00 p.m. on Boxing Day. Parenting will alternate each year after. Each year when B returns to her mother on December 25 or 26, her mom shall parent her until 2:00 p.m. on New Year’s Eve when she shall return to her father, dad will parent her until January 6. The parents will then revert to the usual schedule.

The parents will agree on who picks up B and where. 9) During Easter of 2020, B’s mom will parent her from close of school until 12 noon on the Wednesday following Easter Sunday. B’s dad will parent her for the remainder of the 2020 Easter school holiday. She will then alternate each year after. The parents will agree on who picks up B and where. 10) If B is with her father on her birthday, Mother’s Day, or her mother’s birthday, her mother shall parent her from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

If B is with her mother on her birthday, Father’s Day or her father’s birthday, her father shall parent her from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The parents will agree on who picks up B and where. 11) On Halloween, if B is with her mother, Dad shall parent B from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and if with her father, Mom shall parent her from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The parents will agree on who picks up B and where. 12) The parents shall cooperate with each other to facilitate B’s attendance at other important family milestone events.

Extra-Curricular Activities 13) Each parent shall inform the other of all school or extra-curricular activities. 14) Each parent shall use best efforts to ensure that B’s extra-curricular activities will not interfere with the other’s parenting time. 15) Each parent may attend any extra-curricular activities open to the public, including practices, games, competitions, concerts, performances and recitals. The parents shall remain cordial during those occasions and will not use them as an opportunity to discuss parenting or their relationship.

The parent who would normally parent B shall assume responsibility and control over B. The other parent may briefly greet or encourage B, but shall otherwise observe from a reasonable distance. 16) Both parents shall be at liberty to attend scheduled school events and extra-curricular activities whenever they occur.

On these occasions, the parents will be civil with each other and not discuss any matters unrelated to B. 17) The parents shall consult on whether B should attend other children’s birthday parties held during each other’s parenting time but the custodial parent shall have the final decision on which B is to attend. Each parent may attend her party. 18) The parents recognize that these type of events may create tension for B, and they will use their best efforts to defuse that tension and act civilly and appropriately towards each other.

Other Conditions, Missed Visits, Activities and B’s Belongings 19) The parents may change any part of this Order in writing. A court may order changes. If B suffers a medical emergency, her parents shall follow the advice of B’s medical professional.

20) The parents shall have no make-up time for missed parenting time unless a parent breaches provisions of “Parenting Schedule” or the parents both agree in writing. 21) The Parenting

Schedule will not change if B is suffering from a common childhood illness or ailment (which includes headache, colds, flu, sniffles, stomach or intestinal discomfort or irregularity, infections, measles or chicken pox), unless B is too sick to travel. 22) The parents shall not object to the other’s plans for their parenting time. They will respect each other’s ability to care for B appropriately. 23) B can take personal items and toys between the residences of her parents, without interference by the other parent. The parents shall return clothes and items that B brought with her.

Communication 24) Both parents shall provide the other, by text, with a current address and a phone number. Both parents shall advise the other, by text, if B will be somewhere other than in the parent’s home for overnights and they shall provide details of where B is as well as a phone number where she can be reached. 25) Absent an emergency, the parents shall not text each other more than twice per day. The parents may send texts relating to delays in pickups. 26) The parents shall communicate about B by text. The child shall not read the texts. Each parent will respond promptly to the texts of the other.

The parents shall exchange information regarding B’s care, developmental milestones, food likes and dislikes, scheduled activities and appointments, medical and otherwise, and any requests for changes in the parenting schedule. 27) The parents shall not delete or forward texts about B, without the other parent’s consent.

Texts shall be brief, respectful and related solely to B, with no reference to either of the parents or their activities. 28) The parents shall not, in the presence of B, speak in a disparaging or negative manner about the other parent, or that parent’s family, friends or pets, nor allow or encourage others to do so. 29) The parents shall not discuss with any person who is in B’s presence, or with daycare or school personnel, legal proceedings or issues between the parents relating to parenting or relationship issues.

Each parent may respond briefly, in a reasonable manner, to questions with respect to these matters initiated by B. 30) The parents shall not allow B access to information about her parents’ separation or their parenting plans. The parents shall share all documents pertaining to B by scanning the document and then sending it to the other parent by text or email. The parents shall not ask B to transport documents between them. 31) Other than texts relating to delays in pickups, if one parent requests information by text, the other parent shall respond within 24 hours.

If there is an emergency or time-sensitive matter, the parents shall telephone each other. If a reply requires more time than 24 hours, the receiving parent shall send a text advising the other when they will respond. 32) Any discussions between the parents at transition times, activities or other special events where B is nearby shall be limited to brief and cordial interchanges. If one parent considers that the discussion is not courteous, both shall discontinue the conversation and shall take up the issue later by text.

33) If one parent is concerned about what B has said about the other parent, that parent shall ask the other parent, by text, what actually happened. If B makes a complaint to one parent about the other, B shall be encouraged to talk directly to that parent. 34) The parents may install and use a parenting app. 35) The parents shall not post pictures of B to Facebook or other social media, or allow others to do so, without the consent of the other parent. Electronic Access 36) Each parent shall be entitled to make one electronic FaceTime type call to B on any day that she is out of their care for a 24-hour period.

The call will occur for dad at 8:00 p.m. and for mom at 7:45 p.m., and may last up to ten minutes. The calling parent shall not question B about parenting methods or activities of the other parent, nor have any discussion with the other parent. The receiving parent shall answer the call promptly and facilitate the call and will hold the device if necessary. The parents shall make efforts to ensure the call does not exceed 10 minutes. The parents will not

schedule an electronic call on travel days when B’s leaves or returns to the island of Newfoundland. 37) After B is ten years old, she may contact her parents by telephone, email or text. However, both parents agree that they will not do anything to encourage or influence B to make such contact. Notice Issues 38) Each parent will receive copies of B’s medical, dental, school and other reports. Each may consult with B’s teachers, caregivers, physicians, dentists and other healthcare providers. The parents shall ensure that, on all documents about B, both parents are entitled to information.

Each may attend any of B’s scheduled appointments. Both parents will execute consents or authorizations to all persons, including teachers, doctors, dentists and others involved with B, to allow them to speak with both parents. 39) Each parent shall be responsible for making day-to-day decisions for routine emergency medical care while B is in their care.

They shall keep the other parent fully informed, by text, of any minor illnesses, emergencies, treatments and medications administered or prescribed while B is in their care. 40) The parent who has B in their care shall immediately notify the other parent if B has a serious illness, accident or other misfortune. During any period of illness or recovery, each parent shall have generous and reasonable contact with B, consistent with the conditions of this order and B’s welfare and happiness.

Travel with B 41) A parent shall not take B out of school to travel without reasonable notice to the other parent and the written consent of the other parent. 42) If a parent wants to take B outside of the island portion of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for vacation purposes, they shall first advise the other parent in writing of the dates of travel, location, transportation details, address and telephone numbers where the parent can contact B. 43) The parents shall cooperate with each other in providing the necessary information for issuance and maintenance of B’s passport.

The parent who last travelled with B will keep her passport. The parent shall provide the passport to the other when travelling with B. Both parents shall provide necessary authorizations to allow the other parent to travel with B outside of Canada.

44) The parents shall not remove B from Canada without the written consent of the other parent or a further Court order. The parent will not unreasonably refuse consent. 45) The parents shall each be entitled to parent B for a two-week block in during B’s summer holiday. Her mother will choose her holiday blocks first in even numbered years and her father in odd numbered years. Each parent with provide the time for these blocks to the other not later than May 31. 46) Either parent may travel with B within the island portion of Newfoundland and Labrador during their parenting time without the consent of the other.

If the parents are travelling more than two hours from their home, they shall notify the other parent of their departure and safe arrival. They will do the same upon the leaving to return home. The parents so travelling shall have the sole authority make the decision on how and whether it is safe to travel. Resolving Future Disputes 47) Both parents agree that they will act reasonably as regards with respect to any requests or issues relating to the care and well-being of B.

If they cannot agree on an issue, they will seek mediation before seeking the assistance of the Court. 48) The parties may agree in writing to change any part of this Parenting Order. A P P E N D I X Correction made on December 16, 2019: 1. On page 30, paragraph 143 on the first line, the words “November 1, 2019” are removed and the words “January 1, 2020” have been inserted. [1] Two round trips [2] One round trip [3] See Children’s Law Act , Section 31(2)(b). [5] See Children’s Law Act , Section 31(2)(

a) and (d). [6] See Children’s Law Act Section 31(2)(a)(iii). [10] nominal [11] Income Support Benefits [12] Ibid note 1 [14] Nominal (10 months @ $681) + (12 months @ $548) + (12 months @ $728) + (62 months @ $728) [16] See also

section 8 (c)(vi) of the Income and Employment Support Regulations , NLR 144/04 issued under the Income and

Employment Support Act, SNL2002 c. I-0.1 [17] Nominal. (10 months @ $1,360) + (12 months @ $1,370) + (10 months @ $1,370) + (64 months @ $1,370). [18] B ≥40 percent of the time with each parent. She provided alternate spousal support ranges assuming that MBL was the primary parent ≥60 percent with MBL. [19] Nominal (10 months @ $1,022) + (12 months @ $1,092) + (12 months @ $1,092) + (62 months @ $1,370). [20] The Guidelines treat income support benefits attributable to a dependent child differently than benefits attributable to the parent.

For 2018 I deducted the differential between rate single person (adult not living with relatives with a dependent children $694) and a single adult ($534) and multiplied the difference of $160/month by 12 months for a total of $1,920 attributable to B. I took the ratio for 2018, being $1,920 ÷ $8,138, and multiplied it by the total 2017 benefit of $6,319. Therefore $1,491 was attributable to B.

I assumed that Government of Newfoundland and Labrador claws back spousal support but not child support from income support benefits. [21] B >60 percent with her mother [22] January 1 to October 31, 2019 B > 60 percent with her mother [23] From November 1, 2019 B ≥ 40 percent with each parent [25] Starting on March 1, 2017. [27] Nominal. [28] Nominal (10 months @ $87) + (12 months @ $164) + (12 months @ $87) + (110 months @ $459). [30] MBL’s counsel in response to my invitation to file revised spousal support calculation asked that I award an additional $5,200.00 in retroactive child support.

I did not ask for submissions on child support and counsel were clear in both their prior submissions that their clients agreed on $694.05 I will not accept this late submission. [31] $476.00 a month as described in paragraph [139] less $440.00 a month he pays now. [32] DivorceMate.