A.D. Applicant v. M.E., 2022 NBKB 249

FDSJ-339-2019 2022 NBKB 249 COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK FAMILY DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAINT JOHN BETWEEN: A.D. Applicant -and- M.E. Respondent DECISION BEFORE: Madam Justice Danie Roy AT: Saint John, New Brunswick DATE OF HEARING: July 26, 2022 DATE OF DECISION: December 20, 2022 APPEARANCES: Jasmine Buchanan, for A.D. M.E. per se, not present Roy, J. OVERVIEW 1 ) The Applicant (the mother) requests a parental order and support with regards to the children S., and J.

She also requests that income be imputed for the purposes of calculating child support. 2 ) She filed an original Application on July 3, 2019, and an Amended Application on December 13, 2021, where she seeks relief under the Family Law Act , SNB 2020, c. 23 . 3 ) The Respondent (the father) has not filed an Answer or any responding documents. He has not provided any financial disclosure and he did not attend the trial. 4 ) The parties are the parents of 3 children:

a) L.J., born […]. He is 17 years old.

b) S., born […]. He is 14 years old.

c) J., born […]. He is 6 years old. 5 ) The parties were in a common-law relationship from May 2003 until April 30, 2019, when the mother and the children moved into the Sussex Vale Transition House. 6 ) The mother then sought an Emergency Intervention Order under the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act , S.N.B. 2017, c.5 which was granted and confirmed by a Judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench on May 10, 2019. The Order remained in force until July 5, 2019. 7 ) The mother was thereafter granted primary residential care of the children on July 5, 2019, by Interim Order.

The two youngest children, S. and J. have been in her care since then. 8 ) L.J., the oldest child, has transitioned between his father and his mother until June 1, 2020, when Protective Care of him was taken. The Minister of Social Development has since been granted guardianship.

The mother does not request any relief be granted in regard to L.J. 9 ) This Application is in regard to the youngest children, S., and J. 10 ) The father has had no contact with either S. and J. since February 2020, other than on May 29, 2022, when he met J. and his cousin, who were out for ice cream. 11 ) The father has never paid any support for the benefit of the children. ADJOURNMENT REQUEST 12 ) The trial in this matter was heard on July 26, 2022. The father requested an adjournment of the trial by sending an email to the Court administrator on July 25, 2022, the day prior to the hearing.

He was provided with a conference call number but did not join the call.

He therefore did not make any submissions in support of his adjournment request. 13 ) The father did not file an Answer and had received notice that this matter may proceed in his absence pursuant to Rule 81.06 (10) by Orders dated August 28, 2020, and January 13, 2022. 14 ) After hearing submissions from the mother, who opposed the requested adjournment on the basis of the late notice being unfair and that the children deserve some resolution, particularly given that this matter was originally filed in 2019, three years ago and the father, not having made submissions on his own behalf, the requested adjournment was denied.

The hearing proceeded as scheduled. ISSUES 15 ) The issues in this matter are:

a) What parenting arrangements are in the best interests of the children S. and J.?

b) What amount of child support and special expenses are payable? LAW AND ARGUMENT

Parenting arrangements 16 ) The mother requests exclusive decision-making responsibility with respect to S. and J., pursuant to subsection 52(2) of the Act and also that their primary residence be with her. Further, she requests that there be no order for parenting time between the father and the children S. and J.

Alternatively, she asks that any parenting time be at her discretion, be supervised and in a public setting and for S., given his age, that it be determined having consideration for his wishes. 17 ) The Court does not have the position of the father as he did not file any responding documents and he did not appear at the trial. He has not requested parenting time with the children. 18 ) Section 52 (2) of the Act gives jurisdiction to this court to make a parenting order.

Further, in accordance with section 52(4), in a parenting order, the Court may allocate parenting time in accordance with subsection 53(1) and allocate decision-making responsibility in accordance with

section 54. 19 ) In making a determination of the appropriate parenting arrangement, the governing consideration is the best interests of the children. It is the only consideration in making a parenting order. (Subsection 50(1) of the Act ; P.R.H. v.

M.E.L., 2009 NBCA 18 at paragraph 10 .) And, in determining the best interests of the child, the Court must consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including the factors listed at subsection 50(2) of the Act . 20 ) When considering the factors referred to in subsection 50(2) of the Act , the Court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being (subsection 50(3) of the Act ). 21 ) In determining what is in the best interest of the child, the Court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order (subsection 50(5) of the Act ).

And, in allocating parenting time, the Court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each person in respect to whom the order would apply as is consistent with the best interests of the child (subsection 50(6) of the Act ). Best interest analysis 22 ) I now turn to the best interest analysis by reviewing factors listed at subsection 50(2) of the Act . The child’s cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including First Nations upbringing and heritage. 23 ) I have not considered this factor in my analysis. It was not raised by the parties.

The child’s needs, including the need for stability, given the child’s age and stage of development, and The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child. 24 ) S. is 14 years old. He attends high school and is doing well. He was diagnosed with ADHD and ODD. His ADHD is treated with medication. He receives counselling services from mental health at school as needed.

J. is six years old and is also doing well in school. 25 ) The father has not had any contact with S. and J. since the month of February 2020, that is more than two years, except for once on May 29, 2022, when he saw J. who was out having ice cream with his cousin. 26 ) Tanya Copp, who is the supervisor of the child protection team in Sussex, N.B., testified with regards to her involvement with L.J., the oldest child, leading up to the Application for guardianship. The father has maintained some contact with L.J., although inconsistently.

He had primary care of him for a while, but it is during that time that protective care was taken. According to Ms. Copp, the father is believed to currently be residing in the province of Nova Scotia, but he has refused to provide his current address. 27 ) S. and J. have been in the primary care of their mother since the date of separation. She has attended to their care and needs without any interruption. They have resided in Sussex, in the same dwelling for the past three years. They each have their own bedroom.

She provides stability and she wishes to continue to care for them. 28 ) I am satisfied that S. and J.’s needs, including their need for stability, are being met while in the care of their mother and that she will continue to do so.

The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life. 29 ) The father has not maintained a relationship with S. and J. The last contact he had with them was in February 2020, except for one interaction with J. on May 29, 2022. S. and J. have been in their mother’s sole care for a significant period of time. 30 ) The maternal grandparents have moved to Quispamsis from the province of Ontario. They are very close with their daughter and their grandchildren, and they provide support.

The mother says they also have a good relationship with the paternal grandparents, although they have recently moved to the province of Newfoundland. 31 ) The mother’s extended family lives in the province of Ontario. She hopes to travel there as she would like for her children to know her family. 32 ) L.J., the oldest of the children, does have a relationship with his brothers. Although his relationship with S. was strained, the mother says that it is getting better. 33 ) It is the mother, and the children’s grandparents, who play an important role in S. and J.’s lives.

The history of the care of the child 34 ) S. and J. have been in the primary care of their mother since separation, that is since April 30, 2019. The father has had little parental time with the children after separation. He has not exercised any parental time for more than two years and has not requested any time with S. and J. either. 35 ) Prior to the separation, the father had little involvement with J., the youngest child.

Each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent, and The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child 36 ) The mother requests that there be no parental time between the father and the children, S. and J. 37 ) The mother says she was the victim of domestic violence from the father for 14 out of the 16 years they were in a relationship. She testified that the father was also abusive towards the children.

She remains fearful for her safety and is also afraid that the father would abduct the children. I have found the mother credible and I accept her evidence. I also note that I have no evidence to the contrary. It is against this backdrop that the mother requests no parental time between the father and the children. 38 ) Not surprisingly, in the circumstances, the parties do not communicate and do not cooperate.

Plan to care for the children. 39 ) The mother wants to continue to care for the children as she has been doing. 40 ) She is receiving assistance from the Department of Social Development, and lives in subsidized housing. Now that the youngest child, J., is in school, her plan is to return to school herself or to find work.

41 ) The mother has presented a realistic plan. 42 ) The father has not presented a plan. The child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained. 43 ) J. is 6 years old. The Court has no information as to his views. According to the mother, he does not remember his father. 44 ) S. is 14 years old. He did not testify at trial. While the mother has testified that he has expressed views to her, recognizing his age, she requests that any parental time with the father be determined having consideration to his wishes.

I find this reasonable and appropriate, and I am satisfied that the mother will respect S.’s wishes.

Any family violence and its impact on, among other things, (i)the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child. 45 ) For this factor and pursuant to subsection 50(4) of the Family Law Act , I must consider a number of factors when assessing the impact of any family violence, and these factors include:

a) the nature, seriousness, and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

d) the physical, emotional, and psychological harm, or risk of harm to the child;

e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child;

h) any other relevant factor. 46 ) I recognize that in determining what is in the best interests of the child, I cannot take into consideration the past conduct unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of parenting time and decision-making responsibility. I do find the father’s past conduct relevant in making a parental order. 47 ) The mother described how the father was controlling and verbally abusive on a daily basis and also that he was physically and verbally abusive to the children. She describes how he was screaming at her all the time and that it was always her fault for everything.

She never had access to any money. She could not even buy her own personal hygiene products. He also limited her access to the car. They resided in a rural area, twenty minutes from the nearest town. During the 2019 winter, with her youngest child, they were home for two months without leaving the house. 48 ) The father was especially physically abusive towards their oldest child, L.J., who tried to commit suicide in 2019, prior to the separation. The father has beaten L.J. with a belt on more than one occasion and has left a handprint on J.’s bottom.

The father’s behaviour had a significant impact on S. as well, who isolated himself in his bedroom as soon as he arrived home from school. L.J. and

S. have been diagnosed with ADHD, ODD, and anxiety. 49 ) I have found the mother credible, and I accept her evidence. 50 ) I conclude there was family violence, which has had a significant impact on the mother and also on the children. There is a history of domestic violence by the father towards the mother. The father has also been abusive towards the children. The mother is still fearful of him. The evidence before me leads me to conclude that the father is not able and unwilling to care for the children. In the circumstances, the parties are simply unable to cooperate on issues affecting the children.

Any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security, and well-being of the child. 51 ) I am not aware of any current proceedings. Conclusion-Parental Order 52 ) I conclude that it is in the best interests of S. and J. that their mother have exclusive decision-making responsibility pursuant to subsection 52(2) of the Act . 53 ) The primary residence of S. and J. shall be with their mother. 54 ) The mother has cared for the children and has been the primary caregiver since separation.

I am convinced that she will continue to do so with the help and support from her parents, and that she will continue to provide a stable and safe environment for the children. 55 ) I do not make any order for parenting time between the father and the children S. and J. I do not arrive at this determination lightly. 56 ) I recognize that in allocating parenting time, I need to give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with both parents as is consistent with their best interests. Here, in the circumstances, it is not in the best interests of the children to have parenting time allocated.

The father has not asked for any relief. He did not file any responding documents. And importantly, the father has been absent from S. and J.’s lives for a significant period of time and has not maintained a relationship with them. He has not had any parental time for over two years. 57 ) The mother requests an order that allows her to obtain passports and that she be free to travel outside of the Province of New Brunswick and Country of Canada. I also make that order. Child support 58 ) The Applicant is seeking prospective and retroactive child support to October 1, 2021.

As the father has failed to provide any financial disclosure, she requests the Court impute him a gross annual income based on the minimum wage. She also requests that he pay his pro-rata share of the expenses. 59 ) The mother is the recipient of social assistance benefits and receives $985.00 per month.

She resides in subsidized housing and pays $171.00 per month in rent. 60 ) The mother’s Notices of Assessments indicate the following total income for the years 2018, 2020 and 2021: 2021 $11,316.00 2020 $11,370.00 2018 $0 61 ) The father has not provided any financial disclosure and there is very little information with respect to his past or current employment status and income. 62 ) Each parent has an obligation, to the extent the parent is capable of doing so, to provide support for their children.

In a child- support order, the support to be provided shall be an amount determined in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the

Guidelines) (sections 10, 11 and 12 (1) of the Family Law Act). 63) A parent’s obligation to provide support for their children takes precedence over the parent’s own interest and choices (K.B.v. M.A., 2019 NBQB 90, at paragraph 52). 64) In a support order, the Court may order the payment of support to be made in respect of any period before the date of theOrder (section 21 (2) (

i) of the Family Law Act). 65) The father is obligated to pay child support for the benefit of the children, S. and J. pursuant to the Guidelines. 66) Generally, the amount of a child support order is the amount set out in the applicable table and according to income and tothe number of children under the age of majority. The applicable table is the table for the province in which the payor habitually residesat the time the application for child support is made (sections 3 and 16 of the Guidelines). 67) Child support is income driven. In Colucci v.

Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, the Court described adequate, accurate and timelyfinancial disclosure as the linchpin on which fair child support depends. 68) It is an error of law to calculate child support based on outdated financial disclosure, absent where income is average orimputed. (S.A.H. c. K.A.H. 2022 NBCA 17, paragraphs 38 and 39.) 69) In situations where a party fails to provide income information, the Court may then impute such amount of income as itconsiders appropriate in the circumstances, pursuant to section 19 (1) of the Guidelines.

The circumstances include the situation wherethere is a failure to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so (section 19 (1) (

f) of the Guidelines). 70) When imputing income, the Court cannot stipulate. It requires a rational basis and it cannot be done arbitrarily. (SeeChiasson v. Doucet, 2014 NBCA 49 and M.R. v. J.R. 2018 NBCA 12.) 71) The authors Payne & Payne in their text Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2020, at page 175, explain this well:

Section 19 of the Guidelines does not require a court to impute income; it confers a discretion on the court to do so incircumstances where the court finds it appropriate. The onus is on the person requesting an imputation of income to establish anevidentiary basis for such a finding but this does not relieve the parent against whom the imputation of income is sought frommaking full and complete financial disclosure so as to ensure that the information required to make a decision on the issue isbefore the court.

Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie casefor imputation of income, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position he is taking. Imputation of incomemust be based on evidence and not speculation. A court cannot arbitrarily select an amount as imputed income. Income should notbe imputed on the basis of suspicion where relevant evidence is lacking. The court cannot assume facts; facts must be proven. 72) The Court may draw an adverse inference when there is failure to provide financial disclosure.

Section 23 of the Guidelinesprovides as follows: [23] Where the court proceeds to a hearing on the basis of an application under paragraph 22(1)(a), the court may draw an adverseinference against the spouse who failed to comply and impute income to that spouse in such amount as it considers appropriate. 73) Justice Broad in the Belanco v. Grummett, 2022 ONSC 206 provides a helpful

summary of the law in that respectat paragraphs 24 and 26: [24] Some of the principles which apply where a party seeks to impute income to the other party for the purpose of determining thequantum of child support pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines (“CSG”) were usefully reviewed by Dennison, J. in therecent case of Saeed v. Khalid, 2020 CarswellOnt 1809, 2020 ONSC 939 at paras. 96 and 98-102 as follows: Sections 15-20 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines are the starting point for the calculation of child support. The goal is toascertain current income of the payor spouse.

Section 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines permits the court to impute income that the court thinks is appropriate in thecircumstances, including circumstances where the spouse has failed to provide financial disclosure when under a legal obligation to doso: s. 19(1)(f). Determining the amount of income to impute to a party is a matter of discretion for the trial judge. The only limitation on the discretionof the court is that there must be some basis in the evidence for the amount that the court has chosen to impute: Drygala v.Pauli (2002), (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 43.

Although the onus is on the party seeking to impute income, once the party has established a prima facie case, the onus shifts to theperson seeking to defend the income position the payor takes. The reason for this is that the information that can actually determine theperson's income is in their possession and no one else's. It is not fair to expect the person seeking to impute income to bear the entireonus of proving the imputation of income: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 57.

Where a party fails to provide income information, s. 23 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines allows the court to draw an adverseinference and to impute an income to the spouse that the court considers appropriate based on the evidence available: Jassa v.Davidson, 2014 ONCJ 698 (Ont. C.J.), at para. 35; Smith v. Pellegrini [2008 CarswellOnt 5475 (Ont. S.C.J.)], , atpara. 34; Sharma v. Sharma,2018 ONSC 862 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 71.

Providing disclosure is especially important where a party is self-employed because the lack of disclosure may prevent the recipient andthe court from fairly assessing their income. That is why the failure to provide complete disclosure may result in the court drawing anadverse inference: Khan v. Parlee, 2012 ONCJ 60 (Ont. C.J.), at para. 38; Meade v. Meade (ON SC), [2002CarswellOnt 2670 (Ont. S.C.J.)], , at para. 81; Henderson v. McClean, 2015 ONCJ 244 (Ont. C.J.), at para. 49; Galeav. Galea, 2017 ONSC 6335 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 55 … [26] In the case of Michaud v.

Kasali, 2016 ONSC 443 McGee, J., noted at paras. 49 and 51 that, although the amount to be imputedmust be grounded in the evidence, the evidentiary basis may be less than satisfactory, provided that it is sufficient for a court tojudicially exercise its discretion. [28] In the case at bar, I find that there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for the court to judicially exercise its discretion to impute incometo the father. 74) The father is 39 years old. According to the mother, he was mostly not employed during the relationship and as a family,they were largely living on social assistance benefits.

Still, the mother’s evidence is that the father worked at some point at cardealerships, both in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia. It is also her evidence that, throughout their relationship, he received money for criminal activities. 75) There is no evidence that would lead me to conclude the father is unable to work. 76) The father has not provided any income information. The mother requests that I impute income based on the minimumwage.

I find that is a reasonable and appropriate approach. 77) The father’s place of residence is unknown and it appears that he transitions between the provinces of New Brunswick andNova Scotia. He was served in the province of New Brunswick with the Notice of Application and the Amended Notice of Application. He has refused to provide an address to the Minister of Social Development in another proceeding.

In the circumstances, I determinethat the applicable table under Guidelines is the one from the province of New Brunswick. 78) The father is obligated to pay support and he has not paid any support for the benefit of the children. There are accumulatedarrears. As of October 1, 2021, receiving child support in New Brunswick while receiving social assistance benefits is no longersubrogated to the Government. The mother requests retroactive support to October 1, 2021. I also find this reasonable and appropriate. 79) Since October 1, 2022, the minimum wage in the province of New Brunswick is $13.75 per hour.

I estimate gross annualincome based on $13.75 per hour, working 37.50 hours a week at $26,792.00. I impute income on that basis from October 1, 2022,forward. 80) Prior to October 1, 2022, the minimum wage was $12.75 per hour. I estimate gross annual income based on $12.75 per hour,working 37.50 hours a week at $24, 843.00.

I impute income on that basis from October 1, 2021, to October 1, 2022. 81) Therefore, based on an imputed income of $26, 792.00, the father shall pay support for the children, S. and J., in the amountof $389.00 a month commencing October 1, 2022. 82) Also, based on an imputed income of $24, 843.00, the father shall pay support for the children, S. and J., in the amount of$362.00 for the months of August 2022 and September 2022. 83) I also order the child support payments shall be retroactive to October 1, 2021.

Based on an imputed income of $24, 843.00,the arrears shall be set in the amount of $3620.00, that is monthly child support of $362.00 for 10 months (October 1, 2021 until July 31,2022). 84) The parties shall exchange their T-1 General income tax returns and Notices of Assessment or Reassessment no later than June 1st of each year, commencing June 1, 2023, and support shall be adjusted accordingly on a yearly basis and according to theGuidelines.

85 ) The support payments shall be payable through the Office of Support Enforcement. 86 ) The parties shall share the cost of special or extraordinary expenses pursuant to

section 7 of the Guidelines . The pro-rata sharing of the expenses incurred in 2021 based on each parties’ gross income (using the $12.75 hourly wage to impute income) is 31.3% to the mother and 68.7% to the father. 87 ) The mother has paid the following medical expenses:

i) S.’s prescription of Biphentin for ADHD for one month at a cost of $58.36. S. has changed medication and there is no longer a cost associated. ii) J. required dental surgery in October 2021. The Applicant’s expenses after insurance is $515.61. 88 ) Therefore, the father’s share of those expenses is $394.32 (68.7% of $58.36 and $515.61). 89 ) The prospective pro-rata shares based on the mother’s gross annual income of $11, 316.00 is 29.7% and the father’s imputed gross annual income of $26, 792.00 is 70.3%. DISPOSITION 90 ) The Order of the Court is as follows: a.

The Applicant shall have exclusive decision-making responsibility with respect to the children, S., born […], and J., born […], pursuant to subsection 52(2) of the Family Law Act , SNB 2020, c. 23 . b. The children S. and J.’s primary residence shall be with the Applicant. c. There shall be no order for parenting time between the Respondent and the children S. and J. d. The Applicant shall be free to travel outside of the Province of New Brunswick and Country of Canada with any or all of the children for the purpose of vacation without the consent of the Respondent. e.

The Applicant shall be permitted to obtain passports and renewals thereof for the children without the participation or consent of the Respondent. f. The Respondent shall be imputed an income of $24, 843.00 for the period of October 1, 2021, to October 1, 2022, and $26, 792.00 from October 1, 2022, forward, pursuant to section 19(1) (

a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. g. Based on his imputed income of $24,843.00, the Respondent shall pay prospective support for the children, S., born […], and J., born […], payable monthly in the amount of $362.00 for the months of August 2022 and September 2022 and, based on his imputed income of $26,792.00, in the amount of $389.00 monthly commencing October 1, 2022, and continuing each month thereafter. h. The child support payment shall be retroactive to October 1, 2021, pursuant to paragraph 21(2) (

i) of the Family Law Act , S.N.B. 2020, c. 23 and the Respondent owes child support arrears in the amount of $3620.00 . i. The parties shall share the cost of special or extraordinary expenses pursuant to

section 7 of the Guidelines . Based on the Applicant’s gross annual income of $11, 316.00, her share is 29.7% and based on the Respondent’s imputed gross annual income of $26,792.00, his share is 70.3%. j. The Respondent owes arrears for medical and dental expenses incurred by the Applicant in 2021 and 2022, in the amount of $394.32. Based on a gross income of $24,843.00, the mother’s share then being 31.3% and the father’s share then being 68.7%. k. The Respondent’s total arrears owing to the Applicant are set at $4014.32 ($3620.00 + $394.32 ).

In the event the Respondent wishes to have a payment plan determined for the arrears, he may request a one-hour hearing and such request shall be made within 30 days of the date of this decision. Otherwise, the total amount of arrears is payable immediately. l. All monies payable pursuant to this Order shall be paid to the Office of Support Enforcement, for the benefit of the children, pursuant to paragraph 21(2) (

h) of the Family Law Act , SNB 2020, c. 23 . m. The Respondent shall immediately advise the Director of Support Enforcement, of any change in civic and mailing address, telephone number, and change in employment status and the name and address of their current and every subsequent employer, as the case may be . n. The parties shall exchange with one another and provide to the Director of Support Enforcement their respective income tax returns and Notices of Assessment no later than June 1 of each year, commencing on June 1, 2023.

At the request of either party, the Director of Support Enforcement shall provide to the requesting party a copy of the other party’s income information, pursuant to section 14(2) (

c) of the Support Enforcement Act, SNB 2005, c. S-15.5 . o. All child support payable pursuant to this Order shall be paid through the Office of Support Enforcement. DATED at Saint John, NB the 20 th day of December, 2022.

______________________________ Danie Roy Judge of the Court of King’s Bench New Brunswick