Kuba v. Cambridge, 2021 NSSC 95

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Family Division) Citation: Kuba v. Cambridge , 2021 NSSC 95 Melissa Kuba v. Chase Cambridge February 25, 2021 SFSNMCA - 076701 • Melissa Kuba, Self-Represented • Chase Cambridge, Not Present Decision: 1 . Ms. Kuba filed a variation application on February 13, 2020. In it, she requested adjustments to the table amount of child support, special or extraordinary expenses, retroactive variation, and a recalculation clause. She requests that all changes date back to when the last court order was issued in 2012. 2 . A non-disclosure hearing was held on September 14, 2020. Mr.

Cambridge then filed an unsworn statement of income on September 21, 2020, with no supporting documentation. He later filed income tax returns for 2017 and 2019. Although he promised to file his 2018 tax return, it was never received. 3 . Mr. Cambridge also filed a handwritten document on September 21, 2020 in which he indicates he has no income and was waiting to apply for the Canada Emergency Recovery Benefit. He gives further information about his work opportunities and the reason for not filing his 2018 tax return. The letter is signed, but not sworn, and does not meet the requirements of an affidavit. 4 .

The matter was referred back to conciliation once Mr. Cambridge filed financial information. However, an agreement was not reached at conciliation and the matter was referred back to court. 5 . A conference was held on January 5, 2021, at which time Mr. Cambridge did not participate. An affidavit of service was not available to confirm that Mr. Cambridge was aware of the conference, so the matter was adjourned. 6 . On the next date, Mr. Cambridge advised that he dropped off his 2018 financial documents shortly after he filed the others (after the non-disclosure hearing).

There is no record in the court file or system that the 2018 financial documents were ever received. Mr. Cambridge was advised that he owed costs of $300.00 for the disclosure he failed to make. The hearing date of February 25, 2021 was confirmed with both parties. 7 . The hearing proceeded in Mr. Cambridge’s absence. Ms. Kuba gave evidence, including her affidavit, statement of income, statement of special or extraordinary expenses, MEP record of payments, a medical expenses printout, and evidence with respect to salaries earned by people with Mr. Cambridge’s skills and experience. 8 .

After the court reserved its decision and adjourned, Ms. Kuba contacted the court to advise that she misspoke during the hearing and wished to correct her evidence. Both parties were then advised by email that the hearing would resume on March 3, 2021. Mr. Cambridge did not participate. Ms. Kuba clarified the date when her daughter was diagnosed with Diabetes as February, 20 19 as opposed to February of 20 17 . 9 . In her affidavit, Ms. Kuba asserts that Mr. Cambridge has been employed out west. She further asserts that he has not helped with

any medical expenses for their daughter’s Type 1 Diabetes, nor provided her or MEP with any income tax statements since 2012. With her statement of special or extraordinary expenses, she attached a medical expense report from her daughter’s pharmacy confirming the amounts she paid. That printout also shows amounts paid by an insurance company. Ms. Kuba clarified that she had coverage when she was on income assistance, and later when she was employed in a term position, but she does not have benefits as a casual employee. 10 . Ms. Kuba testified that Mr. Cambridge has been employed locally by a roofing company.

She also confirmed that Mr. Cambridge worked out west in the oilfields’ camps through a local union. 11 . She asks the court to impute income to Mr. Cambridge, based on work as a tower technician, a labourer, or as a rigger. The minimum she seeks to impute is $38,709.00, which is what a unionized labourer would earn in Alberta. Her income in 2019 was $30,489.00 less union dues. She is asking the court to order Mr. Cambridge to pay 50 per cent of their daughter’s uninsured medical expenses. 12 . Ms. Kuba tendered exhibit #4 which is an updated medical expense print out for two years, starting February 1, 2019.

That is when their daughter was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes. The total amount she paid is $1,195.73. Her plan paid $2,266.22. That amounts to an average uninsured payment of $49.82 monthly. 13 . When the last order was issued in 2012, Mr. Cambridge was ordered to pay $322.00 per month based on his 2011 income of $38,415.50. That is almost exactly the amount a labourer would make in Alberta, according to exhibit #6. 14 . Ms.

Kuba filed her variation application after completing a workshop with Maintenance Enforcement, in which she was provided information suggesting that she might be entitled to increased child support. She never asked Mr. Cambridge for his tax returns after the 2012 order was issued, and she didn’t file a variation application until after she completed that workshop. The MEP records show that as of February 26, 2020, Mr. Cambridge owes arrears of $2,341.00. 15 . I have no evidence from Mr. Cambridge.

However, he did file his tax returns, which show that in 2017 his line 150 income was $51,152.49, and in 2019 it was $35,710.79. His income in 2017 is consistent with the figures provided for a tower technician’s hourly rate in Alberta. Therefore, for the year 2017, I am prepared to find that his income was $51,152.49 as reported to Canada Revenue. I am prepared to impute the same amount for 2018. In 2019, I find that his income was $35,710.79 as reported to Canada Revenue. In 2020, I will impute income of $29,000.00 to reflect minimum wage in Nova Scotia.

I am not satisfied that it is reasonable to impute income based on a labourer’s hourly rate in Alberta during the pandemic. 16 . I have no evidence from Mr. Cambridge to demonstrate any hardship should the court order him to pay a retroactive adjustment of child support. Ms. Kuba could use the money, as her daughter is still living at home and dependent. She has explained the reason for her delay in filing an application. I accept that she was not aware before the MEP workshop that she could file an application and seek an increase in child support. However, I am not prepared to go back beyond 2017.

She has not satisfied the court that it is appropriate, in the particular circumstances of her case. 17 . I therefore direct that Mr. Cambridge pay a retroactive adjustment of child support as calculated by MEP on the above incomes. MEP will collect those monies from him at a rate of $100.00 per month in addition to his ongoing child support obligation of $248.00 per month, based on imputed income of $29,000.00. 18 . In addition, Mr. Cambridge must pay Ms. Kuba $50.00 per month towards uninsured medical expenses for their daughter. That figure is retroactive to February 1, 2019. 19 .

I decline to grant a recalculation clause at this time, because Mr. Cambridge’s income for 2020 has been imputed. Each party will be required to provide their tax return to the other by June 1, 2022 and each year following, so long as there is dependent child. Should Mr. Cambridge fail to provide his income tax return with all attachments to Ms. Kuba by that deadline, she may seek variation and disclosure through the court process. If that becomes necessary, Mr.

Cambridge will be required to pay costs of $250.00 for failing to meet the deadline of June 1, 2022 and further costs of $50.00 per month until his prior year’s tax return is disclosed. 20 . Mr. Cambridge must also pay the costs assessed by the court for failure to disclose in the amount $300.00. Those costs relate to a child support proceeding and are therefore enforceable through MEP.

21 . In addition, Mr. Cambridge will pay costs of this proceeding in the amount of $250.00. Costs are payable through MEP at the rate of $50.00 per month until paid in full. 22 . Order to follow. MacLeod-Archer, J.