Knezevich v. Curtis, 2013 BCSC 432

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Knezevich v. Curtis, 2013 BCSC 432 Date: 20130314 Docket: 20633 Registry: Fort St. John Between: Brandi Shannae Knezevich Claimant And: Zachary Nathan Curtis Respondent Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Watchuk Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Claimant: N. Bauder Appearing on his own behalf: Z.N. Curtis Place and Date of Trial: Fort St. John, B.C. September 26-27, 2012 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. March 14, 2013 I.

Introduction [ 1 ] Brandi Knezevich and Zachary Curtis are the parents of Logan James Knezevich-Curtis who was born December 27, 2009 and is now three years old. They lived together in a common-law relationship for 3½ years and separated in January 2010 when Logan was one month old. For ease of reference throughout these Reasons, I will refer to the parties as the mother and the father respectively. [ 2 ] At this trial in Fort St.

John, the issues to be decided were the child’s access to the father, child support and s. 7 expenses payable by the father, retroactive child support, spousal support payable by the father, and the division of property. [ 3 ] To the great credit of the parties, at the beginning of the trial, a consent order was spoken to which resolved all aspects of property division. At the conclusion of the trial, I gave Oral Reasons with regard to child support,

Section 7 expenses and access of the father. [ 4 ] The decision was reserved with regard to retroactive child support and spousal support. These are the Reasons on those issues. II. History of Court Orders [ 5 ] On November 30, 2010, Master Baker made a number of orders. On an interim basis, the primary residence of Logan was to be with the mother. The parents were to have joint guardianship of Logan under the Joyce Model.

The father was to have reasonable and liberal access to Logan, including at least three visits of at least two hours per week, and the right of first refusal for care of Logan with the mother providing not less than 24 hours notice to the father with regard to that opportunity for care.

In that Order, the father’s income was imputed at $62,000 per year and the mother’s income was imputed at $21,216 per year with support to be retroactive to July 2010. [ 6 ] On January 24, 2011, Master Baker made a subsequent order that the father was to pay interim child support for Logan in the amount of $580 per month from July 1, 2010. He was also ordered to pay interim spousal support to the mother in the amount of $346 per month from July 1, 2010. Arrears of child and spousal support for the period from July 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010 were fixed at $5,556. III. The Evidence

[ 7 ] The facts are, for the most part, not in issue. The area where the parties differ is the role of the mother in the father's trucking business, Curtis Transport ("the business"). [ 8 ] The parties met in 2006 in Nanaimo. The mother was then 19 years old, and the father was 26 years old. At the time, the mother was living in a rented apartment while working at a bar and in catering at BC Ferries. [ 9 ] The mother’s job at BC Ferries was full-time for two summers and casual off-season for approximately 20 hours per week. She earned between $16 and $18 per hour as a catering attendant.

She worked in the bar 3 to 5 nights per week for 8 hour shifts at minimum wage of $8 per hour on and off for two years. [ 10 ] The father was living in Fort St. John with his parents and had just started a trucking company called Curtis Transport. He went to Vancouver Island for three months while waiting for his first truck to be built. [ 11 ] The parties moved to Fort St. John in September 2006 where the mother worked in hairdressing which had been her training.

She worked for two months as an apprentice 6 hours a day for 5 days a week at approximately $10 per hour. [ 12 ] When the father became busy in his trucking business, it was decided that the mother would quit her job and assist him with Curtis Transport. The business owned a tanker truck that hauled products to oil rigs. As the mother did not enjoy hairdressing, she was not unhappy to quit. [ 13 ] The mother testified that she assisted with the business of Curtis Transport by picking up parts, invoicing, doing logbooks, travelling to the rigs, offloading the truck and paying bills.

She helped out in the shop and generally assisted for 2 to 6 hours per day. She was not paid initially because she did not ask as they were trying to build a business and start a life. [ 14 ] In January 2007, the parties moved to Fort Nelson as the business had a good contract there and the couple was able to have free rent. They lived in a trailer owned by the company for which they contracted and paid no rent for almost a full year.

In December 2007, they first rented and then bought a house. [ 15 ] The mother testified that she agreed to move to Fort Nelson as it was a good opportunity to build the business and buy another truck. Her view was that they discussed the business every day and that she did as much as possible to assist it to expand and grow. [ 16 ] Curtis Transport grew from one truck to two trucks and from one employee to five employees. [ 17 ] From January 2007 to January 2010, the mother worked part-time at Curtis Transport. She spent less time working there in the summer and more in the winter which is the busy season.

In 2008 and 2009, she also had other part-time jobs. [ 18 ] The mother learned from her aunt how to do the books for the business. She stated that she started doing bookkeeping, including payroll, income tax deductions, WCB accounting, filing, and inputting. The company’s accountant assisted her. [ 19 ] From the end of 2008 to 2009, the mother was paid a wage of $913 per month by Curtis Transport. That decision was made, in her view, because she was working part-time at Boston Pizza, another restaurant, and a bank. The father wanted her to quit one of those jobs as she was overloaded with three jobs.

As they had just purchased a Jeep, the amount of her wage from Curtis Transport equalled the amount of the Jeep payment. [ 20 ] The mother had access to the funds in the business bank account and from that paid household and other expenses. At home, by mutual agreement, she did the housekeeping, laundry and cooking while the father did the lawn work and outside maintenance. [ 21 ] The mother’s education is high school and post-secondary hairdressing where she completed 10 of the 11 months of the course before she got an apprenticeship. She has not returned to hairdressing since Fort St.

John. [ 22 ] Logan was born in December 2009 in Nanaimo as there were no maternity facilities in Fort Nelson. The parties separated in January 2010, and the mother moved with the baby to a rented apartment a couple of blocks away from the family residence. The father has remained in the family residence. [ 23 ] At the time of the separation, the mother wrote a cheque to herself for $4,500 for vacation pay from Curtis Transport.

In order to support herself she also relied upon her savings account of approximately $10,000, employment insurance during maternity leave, and some loans from her sister and father. [ 24 ] After her maternity leave ended, the mother returned to work at the bank part-time. She has recently been promoted to a full- time position at the bank with a salary.

The mother now earns $36,400 from employment and receives the child tax benefit of $3,240 per year. [ 25 ] The mother no longer works at Boston Pizza, and has not worked there since January 2012. [ 26 ] Logan has daycare and is enrolled in a variety of activities. [ 27 ] Regular child support payments were not made by the father before December 2011. He had made only one child support payment of $600 in the summer of 2011, and has not paid spousal support. [ 28 ] The parties disagree on the mother's contribution to Curtis Transport.

From the father’s point of view, the mother did not assist with the business to any great extent. In the early days of living in Fort Nelson, she sometimes travelled with him when he was on the road as he often was. [ 29 ] His evidence is that the mother spent at most one hour per week on the paperwork as he had an accountant who did that function for Curtis Transport. The father also did much of the paperwork as the mother was busy with her other jobs. According to him, they did

not speak of growing the company together. [30] After the separation and partly due to a poor economy, Curtis Transport was not getting much work, and was going under. Thefather decided to sell rather than declare bankruptcy. The business ceased in 2010, and in May or June 2010 the trucks were sold.

Fromthe approximately $300,000 received from the sale of the trucks, he owed a debt of approximately $248,000 for one truck as well asother outstanding debts such as Visa. [31] In cross-examination, the father agreed that in 2009 his income was $74,000 per year from the business, and that his usualincome from the business was approximately $80,000. However, as the business records were not available to be produced, there is littlecertainty as to his income in these years. [32] The father did not file tax returns for 2010 or 2011. Financial disclosure was minimal. He has paid nothing towards spousalsupport.

He has paid child support as a result of the mother’s registration with Family Maintenance. The father testified that he receivednothing from the equity in the company, and that he now owes his parents for their assistance. [33] The father returned to work in September 2011 when he was hired by Tervita Corporation. He was out of work for about a yearafter the dismantling of Curtis Transport as a result of the poor economy, stress, and difficulty obtaining a job with his Grade 10education. [34] The father testified that he is still doing poorly financially.

He has not been able to pay spousal support because he could notafford to. He has defaulted on the payments for his pickup truck and without his parents’ assistance, he would not have transportationfor his time with Logan. The father wishes to stay in the family residence where Logan has a room and a play area. [35] The father was told at the time he was hired by Tervita that his salary would be approximately $86,000 per year and that someovertime would be normal. In 2012, the father expects to earn approximately $96,000 with overtime. [36] This is a job in which the father hopes to stay.

It requires time at a camp and allows him time in Fort Nelson with Logan; it is agood career with a good employer. He looked for work during the period he was unemployed and pursued opportunities. He wantedthis particular job, waited for it and is very happy to be employed with this company. IV. Position of the Parties [37] On behalf of the mother, it is submitted that she is entitled to spousal support as because of the relationship, she has suffered aneconomic disadvantage. She is therefore not in a position to support herself. Counsel argues her move from Nanaimo to Fort St.

Johnand then Fort Nelson has resulted in a disadvantage. [38] It is submitted by the mother that the father’s capacity to earn is greater than her capacity—approximately $100,000 comparedto approximately $37,000. [39] The father submits that with child support and high s. 7 expenses, as well as his debt payments, he is unable to pay muchspousal support. V. The Law [40] The claims of the mother are for both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support. Those headings of spousal supportwere discussed in the context of the Divorce Act in the case of Chutter v. Chutter, 2008 BCCA 507 at paras. 45-55: [45]

Section 15.2 of the Divorce Act is the main provision governing entitlement to spousal support. Subsection 15.2(6) provides thata spousal support order should meet the following objectives: (

a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; (

b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above anyobligation for the support of any child of the marriage; (

c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and (

d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time. [46] In order to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of resources, all four of these objectives should be examined: Moge v. Moge, (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 at 850-853, 43 R.F.L. (3d) 345. Having regard to these policy objectives, courts mustconsider the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including the factors set out in s. 15.2(4): (

a) The length of time the spouses cohabited; (

b) The functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and (

c) Any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse. [47] Based on the statutory provisions and the case authorities, the Supreme Court of Canada has identified three grounds forentitlement to spousal support: (1) compensatory support, which primarily relates to the first two objectives of the Divorce Act; (2) non-compensatory support, which primarily relates to the third and fourth objectives; and (3) contractual support (Bracklow v. Bracklow,

(SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420 at paras. 15, 41-42, 44 R.F.L. (4th) 1). […] (ii) Compensatory support [50] Compensatory support is intended to provide redress to the recipient spouse for economic disadvantage arising from the marriageor the conferral of an economic advantage upon the other spouse.

The compensatory support principles are rooted in the “independent”model of marriage, in which each spouse is seen to retain economic autonomy in the union, and is entitled to receive compensation forlosses caused by the marriage or breakup of the marriage which would not have been suffered otherwise (Bracklow, at paras. 24, 41). The compensatory basis for relief recognizes that sacrifices made by a recipient spouse in assuming primary childcare and householdresponsibilities often result in a lower earning potential and fewer future prospects of financial success (Moge, at 861-863; Bracklow, atpara. 39).

In Moge, the Supreme Court of Canada observed, at 867-868: The most significant economic consequence of marriage or marriage breakdown, however, usually arises from the birth of children. Thisgenerally requires that the wife cut back on her paid labour force participation in order to care for the children, an arrangement whichjeopardizes her ability to ensure her own income security and independent economic well-being.

In such situations, spousal support maybe a way to compensate such economic disadvantage. [51] In addition to acknowledging economic disadvantages suffered by a spouse as a consequence of the marriage or its breakdown,compensatory spousal support may also address economic advantages enjoyed by the other partner as a result of the recipient spouse’sefforts.

As noted in Moge at 864, the doctrine of equitable sharing of the economic consequences of marriage and marriage breakdownunderlying compensatory support “seeks to recognize and account for both the economic disadvantages incurred by the spouse whomakes such sacrifices and the economic advantages conferred upon the other spouse” (emphasis added). [52] The Court in Moge discussed the relevance of the parties’ standards of living in the context of compensatory support at 870: Although the doctrine of spousal support which focuses on equitable sharing does not guarantee to either party the standard of livingenjoyed during the marriage, this standard is far from irrelevant to support entitlement….

As marriage should be regarded as a jointendeavour, the longer the relationship endures, the closer the economic union, the greater will be the presumptive claim to equalstandards of living upon its dissolution. [Emphasis added, internal citations omitted.] […] (iii) Non-compensatory support [54] Where compensatory principles do not apply, need alone may be sufficient to ground a claim for spousal support (Bracklow, atpara. 43). Non-compensatory support is grounded in the “social obligation model” of marriage, in which marriage is seen as aninterdependent union.

It embraces the idea that upon dissolution of a marriage, the primary burden of meeting the needs of thedisadvantaged spouse falls on his or her former partner, rather than the state (Bracklow, at para. 23). Non-compensatory support aims tonarrow the gap between the needs and means of the spouses upon marital breakdown, and as such, it is often referred to as the “meansand needs” approach to spousal support. [55] The concept of “needs” in the context of non-compensatory spousal support goes beyond basic necessities of life and variesaccording to the circumstances of the parties.

As stated by Finch J.A. (as he then was) in Myers v. Myers (1995), (BCCA), 17 R.F.L. (4th) 298, 65 B.C.A.C. 226, at para. 10: “Need” or “needs” are not absolute quantities.

They may vary according to the circumstances of the parties and the family unit as awhole. “Need” does not end when the spouse seeking support achieves a subsistence level of income or any level of income abovesubsistence. “Needs” is a flexible concept and is one of several considerations which a trial judge must take into account in decidingwhether any order for spousal support is warranted. [41] As the parties here were not married, the mother's claim is brought under s. 89 of the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C., c. 128which states: Obligation to support spouse 89

(1) A spouse is responsible and liable for the support and maintenance of the other spouse having regard to the following: (

a) the role of each spouse in their family; (

b) an express or implied agreement between the spouses that one has the responsibility to support and maintain the other; (

c) custodial obligations respecting a child; (

d) the ability and capacity of, and the reasonable efforts made by, either or both spouses to support themselves; (

e) economic circumstances.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (1), a spouse or former spouse is required to be self sufficient in relation to the other spouse orformer spouse.

VI. Discussion A. Spousal Support [ 42 ] The mother seeks spousal support on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds. She argues that she suffered an economic disadvantage as a result of the relationship and is therefore not in a position to support herself. [ 43 ] The mother's submission is that the appropriate amount of spousal support to be paid is $986 per month which is at the mid- range, and for six years duration which is the low end of the range in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 2008) ("SSAG").

She also requests that the Court impute income of $80,000 to the father for 2010 and 2011 as a result of his intentional unemployment after the business ended. [ 44 ] The evidence does not show that the financial position of the mother has been negatively affected. She now earns $36,400 per year from a full-time salaried position with the bank, a position she rightly regards as a good job. The mother has a high school education and completed 10 months of an 11-month hairdressing course.

She did not complete the course as she obtained an apprenticeship in Nanaimo. [ 45 ] The income history of the mother since meeting the father in the summer of 2006 is as follows. [ 46 ] In the summer of 2006, she was earning between $16 and $18 per hour as a catering attendant on BC Ferries full-time in the summer and for about 20 hours per week as a casual employee in the off-season. In addition, she was working at a bar three to five nights per week for 8 hour shifts at minimum wage of $8 per hour. [ 47 ] When the couple moved to Fort St.

John in September 2006 and then to Fort Nelson in January 2007, the mother worked part- time at Curtis Transport. From January to December of 2007 she did not work at any other jobs. [ 48 ] The mother then worked for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”) part-time in customer service at $14 per hour until October 2008 when she started at ScotiaBank, also part-time in customer service at $16 per hour. In addition to working for the bank part-time and continuing to work at Curtis Transport, she worked as a waitress at Boston Pizza and a small restaurant, both also part-time.

The restaurants were busier in the summer, and Curtis Transport was busier in the winter. [ 49 ] Until the end of 2008 the mother was not paid for her work at Curtis Transport. At that time she was also working part-time at the CIBC and in two restaurants, so the agreement between the couple was that she would quit one job and be paid by Curtis Transport the amount of the Jeep payment in the amount of $913 per month.

The earnings are not therefore reflective of the amount or nature of her work in the business. [ 50 ] On the evidence, I find that the mother’s role in Curtis Transport from the fall of 2006 in Fort St. John and from 2007 to 2009 when the couple were together and living in Fort Nelson, was that she assisted the father with tasks which included company errands and some bookkeeping. I prefer the evidence of the father who testified that her hours were minimal. She was not a partner in the business and not a full-time employee.

That she was not a partner is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that none of the financial risk was hers when the company ceased its operations. [ 51 ] I would add that I accept the evidence of the father that the disposition of the trucking assets did not yield a net gain. [ 52 ] The mother's earnings in the three years from 2007 to 2009 were from part-time employment as a waitress, in the banks, and at Curtis Transport.

Her financial statement does not include a calculation of income earned in those years. [ 53 ] After the separation in January 2010 when Logan was one month old, the mother received employment insurance benefits for a year. She then worked at the bank and until January 2012, part-time at Boston Pizza. Her earnings in 2010 were $27,068 and in 2011 were $38,035. Her 2012 earnings were expected to be similar to 2011 earnings. [ 54 ] It is acknowledged that although the mother's present position at ScotiaBank is stable and good employment, her salary and salary expectations are limited.

However, overall her income is increasing. The relationship did not impair the mother's economic prospects. As a result of her determination and hard work, she now has a better job than prior to or during the relationship. Her career and ability to be self-sufficient were not curtailed or limited by her role in the relationship. [ 55 ] Further, I do not find that the father enjoyed economic advantages as a result of the mother's efforts. While he was operating Curtis Transport, the mother assisted on a part-time basis as described above. In 2008 and 2009 she had three and then two other part- time jobs.

For the years 2007 to 2009, she had full access to the business bank account to pay expenses. In the end, the business failed and the assets were sold for minimal value. [ 56 ] I must also consider the mother's childcare responsibilities. The mother is an energetic and committed parent. Until the order for access at the conclusion of the trial, the mother for many reasons took on too many of the childcare responsibilities.

The access order was intended to address the imbalance and give to the father, who was seeking more childcare responsibility, those responsibilities which he sought. [ 57 ] In determining spousal support, the mother's role in the care of Logan is an important factor. However, in this relatively short relationship of 3½ years, I do not find grounds for compensatory support.

This is not a case where a parent made sacrifices by assuming the primary role in childcare responsibilities which then affected her career prospects. [ 58 ] With regard to non-compensatory support, the mother has had financial hardship arising from the end of the marriage. The hardship was exacerbated by the father's non-payment or delayed payment of interim spousal and child support. There is a demonstrated

need. The mother to her credit is intent on achieving self-sufficiency. She is diligent and hardworking. The father’s ability to earnincome is, at this time, greater than the mother’s. [59] This short relationship is an example of a situation “where relatively few advantages have been conferred or disadvantagesincurred, transitional support allowing for full and unimpaired reintegration back into the labour force might be all that is required toafford sufficient compensation”. (See Moge v.

Moge, (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 at 861) In this case, the mothershould have that transitional support. [60] I find that the mother is entitled to spousal support on a non-compensatory basis. Having found entitlement, I must determinequantum and duration. The SSAG provides guidance. [61]

Section 8 of the SSAG contains "the with child support formula". In short marriages, the "age-of-children" test will usuallyapply for determining duration. The lower end of the range is the date the youngest child starts full-time school and the upper end of therange is the date the last or youngest child finishes high school. [62] The issue of short marriages is addressed in s. 8.5.5 of the SSAG. The comments apply equally to common-law relationships.

However, in some cases, of very short marriages, the age-of-children test has raised concerns that it sets the lower end of the durationalrange too high — i.e., that it establishes a "minimum duration" that is too long because it exceeds the length of the marriage. The kind ofcase that raises this concern is a fairly extreme set of facts: a marriage as brief as one or two years, with an infant less than a year old.

Inthis hypothetical case, assuming the child would start full-time school at age 6, the lower end of the range for duration under the age-of-children test would be five years, which some would suggest is too long for such a short marriage. In responding to this concern, we note that there are a number of other important dimensions to spousal support in these cases, inaddition to duration, that soften the impact of this lower end of the range for duration. First, the lower end of the range for duration doesnot guarantee any particular amount of support.

The formula range is driven by the number and age of the children, the spousal incomes,the child custody arrangements, child support amounts,

section 7 contributions and tax positions. Much will turn upon the employmentstatus of the recipient, and the recipient’s ability to return to the paid labour market. A recipient is always under an obligation to makereasonable efforts towards self-sufficiency, and, on particular facts, those efforts may be subject to scrutiny in a review scheduled wellbefore the youngest child starts full-time school. [63] I agree with counsel that the low end of the range of duration is appropriate.

I fix the duration at six years, the age in BritishColumbia of full-time attendance at school. [64] Quantum is also addressed by the SSAG. The formula provides for the division of the spouses' individual net disposableincome such that the recipient receives between 40% and 46% of the combined pool of net disposable income. [65] I have applied the formula and also take into account the short duration of the marriage, the high s. 7 expenses paid by thefather, and the mother's success at obtaining full-time stable employment. The quantum of spousal support is therefore set at $600 permonth.

It is payable at this amount retroactively to the month after the father commenced employment at Tervita, October 2011. I amsatisfied that this amount is appropriate from October 2011. [66] The duration of six years commences on July 1, 2010, the commencement of the interim support order. Spousal support ispayable until June 2016. [67] For clarity, the interim spousal support order made by Master Baker on January 24, 2011 provided that interim spousal support was to be paid in the amount of $346 per month effective July 1, 2010 and payable on the 1st of each and every month thereafter.

Idecline to make an order increasing the interim spousal support retroactively prior to October 2011 on the basis of increasing the father’simputed income. Although he cannot benefit from the failure to file income tax returns and provide full disclosure, I am not satisfied onthe evidence that his income from July 1, 2010 to the date of commencing employment was more than that imputed by Master Baker. That interim order continues in effect through September 2011. B. Retroactive Child Support [68] In this trial, the mother also claims for retroactive child support based on the increased income of the father.

Interim childsupport was also ordered by Master Baker on January 24, 2011 in the amount of $580 per month effective July 1, 2010. In his order ofNovember 30, 2010, Master Baker imputed the father's income at $62,000 per year for the purposes of child support retroactive to July 1,2010. [69] From the time the father sold the assets of Curtis Transport in 2010, he was unemployed for a year. I need not review thecircumstances in detail as income was imputed to him in the order of Master Baker. [70] In September 2011, the father commenced full-time employment for Tervita at a base salary of $86,000 per year.

His incomefor 2012 as indicated on his most recent payslips projects his 2012 income to be $96,000 including overtime. [71] Child support should be adjusted retroactively to an amount based on the increased income for the month of October,November and December 2011 and from January 1, 2012, based on the gross amount of employment income including overtime. [72] Therefore, child support payable for the three months from October to December 2011 is fixed at the Guideline amount of $790per month. Commencing January 1, 2012, child support is fixed at $873 per month.

As ordered at the conclusion of the trial, onSeptember 27, 2012, the parties will exchange financial information by June 30, 2013 so that child support and the allocation of s. 7expenses can be adjusted to take into account any changes of income reflected in the 2012 income tax returns.

[ 73 ] The amount of retroactive additional child support payable for 2011 by the father is $210 per month (the difference between $790 based on an $86,000 income, and $580 per month based on the imputed $62,000 income) for 3 months, or $630. [ 74 ] The order of September 27, 2012 at the end of the trial provided for child support of $890 per month commencing October 1, 2012. [ 75 ] The additional retroactive child support for the first nine months of 2012 (the difference between $890 per month and $580 per month pursuant to the interim order of January 24, 2011) is $310 per month for nine months which equals $2,790. [ 76 ] The total amount of retroactive child support owing is therefore $2,790 plus $630, or $3,420. [ 77 ] I leave it up to the parties to make arrangements for that amount to be paid on the basis of a payment schedule.

It is not ordered or expected that the father will pay the retroactive amount in a lump sum. It is likely that there will be some past spousal support arrears as well as the increased spousal support in this order. I encourage the father to set a realistic payment

schedule and adhere to the

schedule so that the mother has certainty and an ability to financially plan for the future. VII. Previous Orders [ 78 ] The orders made at the conclusion of the trial with regard to child support including s. 7 expenses and access to the father were made on an interim basis. At the time, since access had been sporadic, it was not known how access would proceed. [ 79 ] Since I am unaware of any subsequent applications regarding the interim order, one possible route would be to, in these Reasons, make the interim access order a final order. I am reluctant to do that without further information.

However, it is not appropriate at the conclusion of this trial to leave indefinite long-term interim orders. I therefore leave it to the parties to confirm within 30 days if they do not wish the interim order regarding access to be made permanent. Absent any information to the contrary, the interim order regarding access will become a final order. If the parties seek further adjudication of the access issue, I am not seized and that application can be brought before any judge. [ 80 ] Similarly, there was some uncertainty about the father’s income.

The order with regard to child support including s. 7 expenses will remain interim until disclosure of financial documentation as ordered on or by June 30, 2013. After any necessary adjustments are made, that order will be made as a permanent order. [ 81 ] I also note that the order of Master Baker dated November 30, 2010 regarding the primary residence of Logan with the mother was made on an interim basis. If no changes are sought, that order should be made a final order.

I leave that with the parties to determine if they seek any changes, again within 30 days. [ 82 ] With regard to costs, as there was mixed success at the trial, my tentative view is that each party should bear their own costs. If either party seeks a different cost result, submissions may be made in writing within 21 days with reply submissions 14 days thereafter. "The Honourable Madam Justice Watchuk"