M.C.G. v. M.H.M., 2019 ONCJ 40

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: M.C.G. v. M.H.M. , 2019 ONCJ 40 DATE: 2019 01 24 Brampton 470/18 BETWEEN: M.C.G. Applicant — AND — M.H.M. Respondent Before Justice Philip J. Clay Heard on January 9, 2019 Reasons for Judgment released on January 24, 2019 Mr. A. Martin …………………………………………………………for the Applicant Mr. P. Buttigieg …………………………………………………….. for the Respondent CLAY J.: FINAL HEARING ON MOTION TO CHANGE [ 1 ] The Respondent father (“father”) brought a motion to change the final order of the Honourable Justice R. Spence dated November 15, 2014.

He sought to terminate child support for the two adult children effective on their respective 18th birthdays. The elder child V. was born on […], 1998 and the younger child M. was born on […], 2000. [ 2 ] The Applicant mother (“mother”) filed a Response to Motion to Change. She consented to a termination of child support for M. effective […], 2018, but opposed a termination of child support for V. She also sought a retroactive increase in table child support beginning January 1, 2015 due to an undisclosed increase in the father’s income.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND [ 3 ] At the first case conference on this Motion to Change, held on July 31, 2018, the issues were identified and on consent this matter was scheduled for a final hearing on all of the issues raised in the Motion to Change and Response to Motion to Change on the basis of affidavit evidence subject to cross-examination. Filing deadlines were set for a supplementary affidavit by both parties.

ISSUES [ 4 ] The outstanding issues are;

a) The eligibility of the child V. to be supported after her 18th birthday if she was not in full time attendance at an educational institution.

b) The retroactive adjustment of child support to be paid by the father to the mother and the calculation of the arrears.

c) The credit to be given to the father against arrears for the period of time in which M. resided with him. THE LAW [ 5 ] Motions to change child support are governed by s. 37 (2.1) of the Family Law Act which provides as follows; Powers of court: child support

(2.1) In the case of an order for support of a child, if the court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances within the meaning of the child support guidelines or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the court may, (

a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order, prospectively or retroactively; (

b) relieve the respondent from the payment of part or all of the arrears or any interest due on them; and (

c) make any other order for the support of a child that the court could make on an application under

section 33. 1997, c. 20, s. 6. The sub-sections of the CSG that are relevant to a determination of this matter are as follows; 3.

(2) Unless otherwise provided under these guidelines, where a child to whom an order for the support of a child relates is the age of majority or over, the amount of an order for the support of a child is, (

a) the amount determined by applying these guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority; or (

b) if the court considers that approach to be inappropriate, the amount that it considers appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child and the financial ability of each parent or spouse to contribute to the support of the child. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 3 (2) . EVIDENCE [ 6 ] I read all of the sworn material in the Motion to Change record. This included the supplementary affidavits of the father dated December 19, 2018 and the mother filed dated December 20, 2018. ELIGIBILTY OF V.

Positions [ 7 ] The evidence of both parties was that V. was a very intelligent young woman who was capable of excellent marks in high school when she attended her classes and completed her assignments. Her educational record showed those excellent marks and also

showed periods of time when she did not receive any high school credits. [ 8 ] Briefly stated it was the father’s position that after V. became 18 years of age he was not provided with any information on her educational progress from the mother and on the only occasion that V. talked to him about her schooling, in March 2018, she stated that everything was fine. [ 9 ] The father began this Motion to Change based upon the fact that he did not know whether V. was in high school or not. He said he kept paying child support for both children even though he was completely in the dark about their eligibility.

The mother admitted that she had not communicated with the father about V.’s educational plans. She said that it was very difficult for her to speak with him and in response to her questions her daughter told her that she had directly spoken to her father. [ 10 ] The mother said that V. had struggled with what she called “social anxiety” for all of her life. She said it had always been a struggle to get her to attend school.

She said that on those days when V. did leave the home to attend school she received frequent anguished calls at her place of work from V. as to the stress she was facing trying to get to, or stay in, the school. [ 11 ] The mother said that the father was aware that V. struggled with mental health issues. She said that V. had attempted suicide in 2013 when she was in Grade 10. V. overdosed on pills and was rushed to hospital. The mother called the father and he attended at the hospital.

The mother expressed regret that when both parents were there in this crisis that they did not talk to each other to determine how they could both support their daughter. The father said he was called but he felt he was left “out of the loop”. He wrote a long email to the mother to get more information and he said that she ignored it. The mother responded that she did write back at the time.

She said that the parties did not communicate after that and they were soon involved in a court proceeding that resulted in Justice Spence’s November 15, 2014 order. [ 12 ] The mother said that V. had been under the care of a psychiatrist since 2013. She attached a letter to her affidavit from Dr. M. Vukovic, director of the Shoniker clinic attached to the Rouge Valley Health System which confirmed that V. was under her care. The letter contained other information but it was not admitted for the truth of its contents.

At the case conference an order was made as follows; …The party’s affidavit shall contain…in the case of the A/M… (mother)…evidence of V.’s educational progress and if not in full time attendance, an affidavit from her psychiatrist as to her diagnosis, the treatment proposed, compliance with treatment and prognosis for full time attendance and/or employment. [ 13 ] The mother said that V. asked for an affidavit from her psychiatrist but then did not want to pursue it for fear that very personal information would be disclosed in this proceeding.

I note that there was no request made of the court to limit the disclosure of clinical notes or to restrict the potential cross-examination. The court did not have an opportunity to strike a balance between hearing relevant information as to whether there was a mental health diagnosis that could explain the educational record and not hearing more detailed personal information for which the adult child should have an expectation of privacy. However, given the order and the fact that the psychiatrist’s letter was not consented to I cannot rely on the letter.

I am left only with the mother’s evidence of the 2013 overdose, the poor attendance record, the fact that she saw a psychiatrist and the mother’s observations of her daughter’s behaviour. [ 14 ] Once the father obtained the educational record through the disclosure process in this proceeding he prepared a chart that he argued demonstrated that V. was not enrolled in a full time program of education and was not applying herself in a meaningful way to her studies.

The father noted that V.’s school attendance and success seemed to be tied to whether there was a child support proceeding before the court. [ 15 ] The father’s chart was very helpful in illustrating the somewhat confusing educational information released by the schools. The mother agreed that it was accurate but said it was incomplete. The father is, of course, required to pay child support to the mother for V. irrespective of her educational attainments until she was 18 which was […], 2018.

The chart begins with V.’s first year of high school on the basis that the earlier period might be helpful in the assessment of V.’s ability to be a full time student after she became an adult. [ 16 ] The chart showed the courses taken and the marks, if any, obtained during the 7 years that have elapsed since V. began high school. The father described the years as year one, year two and so on. In year one which was the 2012/13 academic year V. obtained all 8 of her credits with an average of 83%. In year two V. did not obtain any credits though she was registered for classes in a regular high school.

This was the year that V. had the drug overdose. She did not return to her regular high school after that.

[ 17 ] In year three V. was registered in an alternative school. She attended on a full time basis, obtained 8 credits and achieved an average of 85%. The father noted that in this academic year of 2014/15 the parties were involved in a court proceeding. Actually the final order was made just two months into that academic year. In the first semester of year 4, which was the 2015/16 academic year, V. withdrew from the four classes in which she was enrolled. She was not even enrolled in the second semester. [ 18 ] The next academic year 2016/2017 is an example of the evidentiary conundrum that is before the court.

V. only registered for one course in each semester. In the first semester she obtained 99% in her course and in the second semester she obtained 80%. In year six V. left the alternative school and registered in a program called the City Adult Learning Centre (“CALC”). In that program the academic year is divided into four periods called quadmesters. The students generally take three, but can take up to four, courses in each nine week period. In September to November 2017 V. obtained 98% and 99% in the two courses taken. From November to January she obtained 100% and 85% in her two courses.

From February to April she enrolled in four courses. She withdrew from one, obtained 4% on another and then got 96% and 74% in the final two courses. She did not take any courses in the April to June quad. [ 19 ] Finally, in year 7, the current 2018/19 year, V. registered for two courses in the September to November quad. According to the father’s chart she withdrew from both courses. The mother gave oral evidence that V. had strep throat in October and missed too much class time to be able to pass courses that are compressed into just nine weeks.

The mother said that V. withdrew from one course but obtained a credit in the other. The chart noted the courses in which V. was enrolled in the November to January quad but at the time of the hearing there was no record of the results. The mother said that V. would pass both courses. The father noted that V. is once again attending school when child support is put in issue. [ 20 ] The mother said that she was extremely proud of her daughter as it is very difficult for her to attend classes and she has persevered to the point that she anticipates that she will obtain her high school diploma in April 2019.

She said that V. had applied to three universities with a view to attending in September 2019. The mother said that despite enormous obstacles an educational path had been found in which V. could ultimately succeed. [ 21 ] The father noted the entire record and conceded that the high marks in courses finished and the high number from which V. withdrew was clearly indicative of a problem. He said he was not sure that it was a mental health problem.

He said that the mother had an obligation to provide him with information about the lack of progress in school after V.’s 18th birthday and since the court order at the case conference she had an obligation to provide admissible psychiatric evidence. [ 22 ] The father noted that V. was able to work during the period of time that she was not attending school. The mother filed V.’s T-4 statement that showed that she earned $5,748.97 as a cashier at V[…] in 2017. She started that work in May 2017 and it appeared finished in September when she returned to school. The mother said V. was always a part-time employee.

I note that in the academic semesters from January to June 2017 and from September to December 2017 V. earned a total of three out of a possible 8 high school credits and that she achieved high marks in all 3 courses. [ 23 ] The mother also noted that V. had received accommodations from her teachers at the alternative school and at CALC. One teacher in particular had allowed her to miss a lot of classes and allowed her to work at home.

That might suggest that the problem is the interaction with other students in a classroom setting yet V. did very well in some classroom settings and did not succeed when taking online courses at home. The mother said V. was not a social person and stayed at home. Her pattern is to do school work in the evening. The mother said V. is a very talented writer and she expected her to get a scholarship to university and to do very well. [ 24 ] With respect to the father being “out of the loop” regarding his daughter’s education the mother effectively said that lines of communication can run both ways.

She admitted not reaching out to the father but said that he did not reach out to her or their daughter either. Their post-separation relationship was dysfunctional. Analysis of V.’s eligibility [ 25 ] There is a significant amount of case law that addresses the issue of what constitutes full time attendance at an educational institution. [ 26 ] In Vohra v. Vohra, 2009 ONCJ 135 , Justice S.B. Sherr reviewed the case law. He stated at paragraph 14 that;

[14] Most courts have followed a flexible approach to the determination of what constitutes a full-time program of education. A full-time program does not necessarily mean full-time attendance at school. A child can be found to be enrolled in a full-time program ofeducation while taking less than a full course load, so long as his or her participation is meaningful and consistent with the program’spurposes and objectives. See Wilson v. Wilson, (ON SC), , 117 A.C.W.S. (3d) 945, [2002] O.J.No. 4308, [2002] O.T.C. 885, 2002 Carswell​Ont 3838 (Ont. S.C.); Lall v. Lall, 2009 ONCJ 96 , [2009] O.J.

No. 1273, 2009Carswell​Ont 1629 (Ont. C.J.); and Kapounek v. Brown, (ON SC), , 7 R.F.L. (5th) 144, [2000]O.J. No. 1301, 2000 Carswell​Ont 1406 (Ont. Fam. Ct.) (where the child received support while attending a two year course over threeyears). The court must examine the individual circumstances of each case when making this determination. [27] In Vohra Justice Sherr concluded that taking two night courses was not participating in a meaningful and consistent educationprogram. It was also noted though that the mother did not file details of the adult child’s educational progress.

In the case before methere was no communication prior to the Motion to Change about V.’s academic performance but full disclosure was available at thetime of the hearing and some explanation was provided albeit the explanation lacked the support of her treating psychiatrist. [28] I understand Mr. Buttigieg’s objection to the court admitting a letter from the psychiatrist not only because of the wording ofAugust 31 order but also because of the case law that he relied upon. In Osterlund-Lenahan v. Lenahan, 2014 ONSC 7074 at paragraph34, Justice R.A.

Lococo dealt with a similar situation to the case before me with respect to the proof of disability. In that case the adultchild in question had obtained a university degree and he had later onset of mental health issues. While deciding that the Family Law Actapplied Justice Lococo considered the broader Divorce Act test and his comments are relevant to the admissibility of evidence issue. Hestated at paragraph 34 that; [34] In any case, even if the Divorce Act were applicable in this case, I am not satisfied that Ms.

Osterlund has established thatJoey is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from parental charge or to obtain the necessaries of life. In thisregard, I note that there is no admissible medical evidence before the court to establish the extent of any illness or disability, or that anysuch illness or disability prevents Joey from withdrawing from Ms. Osterlund’s charge or obtaining the necessaries of life. In this regard,I note that certain medical reports and records were attached to Ms. Osterlund’s affidavit dated November 12, 2014, the contents ofwhich were adopted by Ms.

Osterlund during her testimony at trial. However, I agree with Mr. Lenahan’s counsel that medical opinionsand other information contained in those reports and records do not constitute admissible evidence of Joey’s medical condition since theyare not properly before the court in the absence of oral evidence by the authors or required prior notice relating to the records. As well, Ido not consider the fact that Joey is receiving ODSP benefits as sufficient proof of disability for this purpose. [29] I accept Mr.

Buttigieg’s submission that the court cannot rely upon what V. told her mother as to why she was not able to attendschool on a regular and consistent basis. The evidence of the mother though was not what V. said, but what the mother herself did andwhat she observed. She did ensure that V. was registered for an educational program every semester after her 18th birthday. She didfacilitate V. changing schools from a regular high school, to an alternative school, to the CALC in order to find some program by whichV. could succeed. She provided all of the records available from these programs.

As she lived with her daughter she was able to observeher daily. She saw that V. had difficulty in leaving for school, she received very emotional phone calls from her daughter from the bus orfrom the school. She knew that V. was regularly seeing a psychiatrist and taking medication. [30] There is no psychiatric opinion before me that speaks to why V. had such difficulty with school attendance. Given her excellentmarks when she did attend consistently it is clear that she has the academic ability to succeed.

The inconsistencies in V.’s ability tocommit to attending classes for some courses did require some explanation. The fact that V. did not succeed even when attending onlineclasses is curious given the mother’s observations that V.’s anxiety issues arose from social settings. [31] I find that there was a clear onus upon the mother to advise the father of V.’s academic progress after she became 18 years old.It is very unfortunate that litigation was required to obtain educational disclosure.

It is understandable why a parent would querycontinuing to pay child support when his daughter is not working or in post-secondary education at nearly age 20. [32] The mother’s explanation for the lack of disclosure accords with the father’s explanation as to why he did not provide hisNotice of Assessments after the final order (while income tax returns have been provided the Notices are still outstanding). Neitherparent wanted to communicate with the other. V. did not want to communicate with her father.

It took lawyers and litigation to get verybasic required information exchanged. [33] I do not fault the mother for the steps she took to try and assist her daughter in getting her high school education. In fact, when

cross-examined upon her affidavit the mother provided very compelling evidence of the struggle she has had over the years with respectto having both of her children attend school. I accept her evidence that she did her best to find a program that would work. I reject anysuggestion that V. was only encouraged to attend school when matters were before court. [34] Nevertheless the law is very clear that there must be a meaningful and consistent effort towards an educational program putforth by an adult child in order for that child to be eligible to be supported by her non-residential parent.

The academic record after V.became 18 shows that the effort was very inconsistent. [35] There is no doubt that V. had some mental/emotional health issue that led to the overdose in 2015. She did not obtain any highschool credits in the fall semester of 2015 or the spring semester of 2016. In the fall of 2016 she took one course at the alternative schooland received a mark of 99%. She turned 18 in December 2016 and this triggered an obligation upon the mother to prove to the father thattheir daughter was in full time education and if not why not.

The father now knows that in the spring of 2017 V. again took one courseout of a possible four and got a mark of 80%. [36] In the fall of 2017 V. took two courses out of three and obtained marks of 98% and 97%. In February to April she took threecourses and passed two. In April to June she did not attend school. In September to November 2018 the mother said V. dropped onecourse and passed another but there is no written evidence of this and the filing deadlines are such that there should have been evidencefiled.

The mother gave evidence that her daughter would pass her two courses taken between November and January but there is nowritten evidence of this albeit the courses were not finished at the time of trial. [37] This is an unfortunate situation in that the mother’s credible evidence is that she has shouldered the entire responsibility oftrying to help V. obtain an education. Despite the mother’s best efforts I find that for much of the time after she attained the age of 18 V.did not make a meaningful and consistent effort in her program of education.

V. was given opportunities for different learning styles andoptions but no option resulted in her obtaining more than two credits per term. [38] By any standard V.’s taking one course in the spring of 2017 does not qualify as full time. V. then transferred to CALC inSeptember 2017. In this intense nine week program V. obtained two high school credits in each quad in the fall of 2017 for a total of fourcredits. If she had been in a regular high school there is no doubt that obtaining four credits in five months would qualify as full timeeducation.

In the February to April quad she registered for four courses passing two, failing one and withdrawing from the other. Shethen withdrew from all courses in the April to June semester.

Summary [39] There is no doubt that an adult student can become eligible for child support after a period in which she was not eligible, see F. (S). (ON SC), 1997, 26 RFL (4th) 392 (Ont Gen. Div) and McNulty v. McNulty, (ON SC), 2005O.J. No. 5199, Aubert v. Cipriani, 2015 ONSC 6103 , 2015 O.J. No. 5088. I find that V. was not in a full time program ofeducation as that term is defined in the case law in the period January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017.

I find that I do not have the psychiatricevidence properly before me that might explain how a mental health condition might allow a student to excel in some courses, and workthroughout the summer, but not be able to even attend school at other times. Child support shall be suspended between January 1 andAugust 31, 2017. [40] I find that V. became eligible for child support again when she entered into the CALC program in September 2017 and obtainedfour high school credits in five months. I find that she was still eligible when she obtained the two credits in the February to March 2018quad.

Sadly, for some reason V. obtained no credits in April to June and possibly only one in the September to November quad. Childsupport will be re-instated for the period September 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. Given the failure to obtain two credits in a quad afterthat child support will be suspended again on March 31, 2018. [41] V. is still only 20 years old and is clearly a very intelligent young woman. With the availability of the CALC program she couldstill finish her high school diploma by April 2019 and even be in university by September 2019.

If V. obtains at least two high schoolcredits in any quad taken on or after November 2018 child support shall be retroactively re-instated to the start date of that quad. If V.has not obtained a high school diploma by June 30, 2019 child support shall be terminated. RETROACTIVE ADJUSTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT

Positions [ 42 ] Both counsel conceded that the child support order needed to be adjusted both for changes in income and for the fact that M. stopped being eligible for support on February 15, 2018. [ 43 ] The final order made on November 5, 2014 required the father to pay to the mother the sum of $600 per month for the two children.

It provided that the annual income of the father was $50,000 and that; The amount of child support payable deviates from the Child Support Guidelines as the respondent has to support his disabled spouse who is presently not working due to a high risk pregnancy. [ 44 ] The evidence was that the father’s child was born on April 1, 2015 and that the father and the mother of that child separated in May 2015. The father did not provide his Notices of Assessment to the mother after the November 15, 2014 order until he was required to do so in this proceeding. [ 45 ] Mr.

Buttigieg, for the father, took the position that the $600 a month reduced payment should continue until June 30, 2015. He said that the order just having been set a few months before it should not be adjusted until the time required to make further disclosure. Mr. Buttigieg said that the father was not claiming undue hardship for any period after July 1, 2015. [ 46 ] Mr. Martin, for the mother, said that the child support payment should be based upon the correct amount of income actually earned in a given year. He said that it did not make sense to base child support on the income in the previous year.

Had disclosure occurred and the child support been adjusted without a return to court the Notice of Assessment for the last tax year could have been used. However, in the absence of disclosure it was artificial to use a different income for a given year than the amount that the court now knew was earned. [ 47 ] The father produced a chart showing the child support he thought he should pay. He lost his job in 2015 and he proved that he only earned $10,000 from June to December 31, 2017.

He argued that he should pay the court ordered $600 per month until June 30, 2015 and then the table amount upon $20,000 for the balance of the year (calculated by taking the $10,000 in the second half of the year and imputing $10,000 for the first half). [ 48 ] Mr. Martin said that beginning January 1, 2015 the father should pay the full table amount on his income for both children until […], 2018 and for V. on an ongoing basis. The father’s income was as follows; 2015 - $35,576 2016 - $78,530 2017 - $94,457 2018 - $88,566 M.

LIVING WITH FATHER [ 49 ] The father sought a credit against any child support he might owe for the period of time that M. came to reside with him. The parties agreed that M. left his mother’s home on or about August 17, 2017 and moved in with his father until on or about December 29, 2017. The mother says that M. then moved back into her home where he resided until May 2018 when he left her home. She concedes that as M. was not in school at the time of his 18th birthday that the father’s obligation for child support should end no later than […], 2018.

The mother is prepared to give the father a credit for the months of August to December inclusive. She stated that the father should pay child support to her for January and February 2018.

[ 50 ] The father stated that when M. did not return to his home on or about December 29, 2017 he believed that he had not returned to reside with his mother but was staying with friends. He takes the position that his obligation to pay child support to the mother for M. should end in August 2017. He also stated that the mother should pay table child support to him for the said period based upon her 2017 income of $31,107.90.

Analysis of child support owed [ 51 ] I find that as the parties agreed to an order of child support on November 5, 2014 based upon an imputed income of $50,000 and a reduction for undue hardship that this agreement and the court order based upon it should be respected. The order provided that financial disclosure was due on June 1, 2015. Neither party was able to bring a motion to change for six months after the order. Both parties assert that there was a material change in circumstances that occurred in 2015.

The father lost his employment but at the same time he failed to provide evidence that the undue hardship of a disabled spouse still existed. We now know that the father and his spouse separated one month after their child was born and we now know that in all of 2015 he only earned $35,536. [ 52 ] I accept part of each party’s position. The child support should remain at $600 per month until June 30, 2015.

Had the income and continuing hardship disclosure been made when due the mother would have realized that the father was unemployed but also that he no longer directly supported his now separated spouse. (No undue hardship is being asserted post June 30, 2015). The court must encourage compliance with court orders. The mother cannot assert today that she should not have agreed to what she agreed to on November 5, 2014.

A new amount of child support should begin on July 1, 2015 as the father submits. [ 53 ] I accept the mother’s submission though that a new amount of child support should be based upon the actual income earned throughout 2015. Applying the 2011 CSG tables that amounts to a payment by the father to the mother for two children in the amount of $516 per month in the period July 1 to December 31, 2015. This totals $3,096 for this period.

As the father paid $600 per month totaling $3,600 this leads to an overpayment of child support of ($504). [ 54 ] I find that the father should pay child support on his actual income each year and this means that he would pay the sum of $1,153 for twelve months of 2016 again on the 2011 tables. This is a total of $13,836. The father paid $7,200 and so he owes the sum of $6,636. [ 55 ] I have found that child support for V. should be suspended effective December 31, 2016 and that the father should pay child support for M. until M. came to reside with him in August 2017.

Therefore, in 2017 the father should pay the sum of $867 per month on his income of $94,457 for one child for seven months which is $6,069. Neither party should pay support to the other for August 2017 as M. went to live with the father halfway through the month and V. was not eligible for child support. [ 56 ] In the period September 1 to December 31, 2017, the father should pay to the mother for V. $867 per month or $3,468. The mother should pay to the father the sum of $265 per month for M. based upon her income of $31,107.90.

This total of $1,060 must be deducted from the father’s total leaving a net amount owing by the father of $2,408. The father paid $7,200 in 2017 so he should have a credit of ($4,792.) [ 57 ] I find that after M. left the father’s home he returned to the mother’s home and the father was required to pay child support for him for the months of January and February 2018 based upon his 2018 income of $88,566. He was also required to pay support for V. until March 31, 2018. Therefore, the father had to pay $$1,333 for two months and $823 for one month which totals $3,489.

The father paid $600 per month for the 13 months between January 1, 2018 and January 31, 2019 for a total of $7,800. He is entitled to a credit of ($4,311). [ 58 ] The net overpayment by the father to the mother is after this retroactive adjustment of child support $2,971 as at January 31, 2019. I will not order that the amount be repaid. I will leave it to counsel as to how to deal with the current overpayment given that child support for V. is only suspended not terminated.

It may make some sense to leave the credit in place pending information as to whether V. obtained two credits in the November to January quad. I note that if she did the retroactive reinstatement of child support would mean that $1,646 would come off of the credit. COSTS

[ 59 ] There was divided success in this matter and both parties failed to make proper disclosure prior to this litigation, father as to income and mother as to proof of education. I will not order costs unless a party made an offer to settle which had better terms than the terms the other party received by way of this decision. In the event that that may have occurred I will provide some time to make a costs submission. FINAL ORDER 1. The Respondent’s obligation to pay child support for the adult child M. terminates on February 28, 2018. 2.

a) The Respondent’s obligation to pay child support for the adult child V. is suspended effective March 31, 2018.

b) Child support in the amount of $823 per month may begin again upon the Applicant providing to the Respondent, and the FRO, proof that the said child obtained two high school credits in any nine week block of time (“a quad”) after November 2018. If the said child obtains two credits in a quad then the said child support shall be reinstated as of the first of the month in which the child began that quad.

c) Child support may be retroactively suspended again if the said child fails to obtain two credits in the next quad. In that event the suspension will be effective on the last day of the month of the previous quad. 3. The Respondent’s obligation to pay child support for the adult child V. shall be terminated if the said child has not earned a high school diploma or equivalent by June 30, 2019. 4. The FRO shall adjust their records to rescind all arrears and give the Respondent a credit of $2,911 towards child support as at January 31, 2019. 5. The parties may seek costs as follows;

a) A party seeking costs shall serve a submission on costs limited to three double spaced pages and a bill of costs and offer to settle.

b) The said costs submission shall be served and file by February 8, 2019.

c) A responding submission limited to three double spaced pages shall be served and filed by February 20, 2019. Released: January 24, 2019 _____________________ Justice Philip J. Clay