Ritcey v. Miller, 2018 NSSC 154

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Ritcey v. Miller , 2018 NSSC 154 ENDORSEMENT June 27, 2018 Sydney Ritcey and Christopher Lee Miller, SFHMCA-090396 Susan Young (as of January 2017) on behalf of Sydney Ritcey (previously Shelley Hounsell-Gray) Noelle Yhard (as of September 22, 2016) on behalf of Christopher Miller (previously Brian F. Bailey, then Tandiwe Nyajeka, then Raymond Kuszelewski) Application, in May 2017 by the payor, Mr. Miller to reduce the amount he must pay. Decision: Evidence was heard regarding ongoing maintenance. 1 . I dismiss Mr. Miller’s undue hardship claim. I order Mr.

Miller to pay monthly child maintenance of $521.00 starting September 1, 2017 pursuant to

section 3 of the Nova Scotia Child Maintenance Guidelines . 2 . To account for the increase between September 1, 2017 and June 1, 2018, Mr. Miller will pay an extra $20.00 per month until his arrears are paid off in total 3 . The parties will be subject to the recalculation program. The recalculation program will be Annually, starting on June 1, 2018 and by June 1 of every year, Sydney Ritcey and Christopher Miller shall provide each other with a copy of his or her personal income tax return and all attachments. Reasons The parties 4 . Lily and Ava are Christopher Miller’s and Sydney Ritcey’s children.

They live with their mother, Sydney Ritcey. Ms. Ritcey lives with her partner Travis Hiltz. Every second weekend Mr. Hiltz’s three sons reside with the family. Ms. Ritcey and Mr. Hiltz were expecting their first child together in November 2017. 5 . Mr. Miller resides with his partner Laura Horne, with their son, Carter and Ms. Horne’s daughter from another relationship, Lyla. In his Affidavit sworn July 7, 2017 Mr. Miller indicated “I presently reside with my partner, Laura Horne, and our son Carter Miller.” History of the proceeding 6 .

A Notice of Application was filed by Christopher Miller on March 20, 2014, seeking a court order dealing with custody and access under the Maintenance and Custody Act . He discontinued his application on April 17, 2014. A Notice of Application was filed by Sydney Ritcey on August 27, 2014 to address custody, access and child maintenance. A further Notice of Application was filed by Mr. Miller on September 2, 2014 to address custody and access. Interim Parenting Issues 7 . Interim Consent Orders dealing with parenting arrangements were issued on January 22, 2015 (Family Proceeding), and on October 21, 2015.

Child Maintenance 8 . On June 5, 2015 Ms Ritcey advised the court child maintenance was not being paid. Ms. Hounsell-Gray confirmed she had received Mr. Miller’s Tax Returns for 2011 (line 150 $25,534.35), 2012 (line 150 $32, 880.63) and 2013 (line 150 $20,850.96). Mr. Kuszelewski indicated Mr. Miller was working for Dexter’s Construction in 2014, and his total income was $20,000.00. In June 2015 Mr. Kuszelewski indicated his client was not receiving income, and was living with his grandparents. 9 . Ms. Hounsell-Gray asked that the issue of child maintenance be dealt with retroactive to August 2014. Mr.

Miller subsequently filed his financial information and his line 150 income for 2014 was $26,049.08. I note the address listed on Mr. Miller’s financial information was 12 Oakwood Court and in his Parenting Statement signed September 2, 2014 he indicated he was working “14 days out

of Nova Scotia and 7 days back in Nova Scotia”. 10 . An Interim Consent Order, issued November 3, 2015, dealt with both paternity and child maintenance. Mr. Miller filed a Statement of Income indicating that between January 1, 2015 and June 29, 2015 (filed June 29, 2015) had earned $0.00. After filing his Statement of Income, the parties agreed Mr. Miller’s income would be set at $21,000.00 to determine child maintenance payments, Mr. Miller was ordered to pay $297.00 to Ms. Ritcey for the benefit of Lily and Ava. Counsel for the parties at that time, Shelley Hounsell-Gray for Ms.

Ritcey, and Ray Kuszelewski for Mr. Miller, indicated that only parenting arrangements were left to be resolved. They indicated the maintenance issue had been finalized. Settlement Conference November 19, 2015 11 . A settlement conference took place on November 19, 2015, following which an Interim Consent Order was issued on January 27, 2016 dealing with interim parenting arrangements only. The Interim Consent Order arising from the settlement conference refers to the previous Interim Consent Order issued November 3, 2015 as addressing the issue of child maintenance. Additional parenting issues were adjourned.

Settlement Conference June 1, 2016 12 . A further settlement conference took place on June 1, 2016 and an Interim Consent Order was issued August 8, 2016. Interim parenting arrangements were consented to by the parties, and final parenting arrangements were set over for trial. The Interim Consent Order issued August 8, 2016 refers to the Interim Consent Order issued November 3, 2015 (paternity and child maintenance). Ms. Ritcey agreed that upon receipt of Mr.

Miller’s 2015 tax information, and his Notice of Assessment and pay stubs for 2016, she would consider his request to have her forgive his child maintenance arrears. 13 . On September 22, 2016 Ms. Yhard filed a Notice of New Counsel. 14 . In October 2016, the parties appeared (Mr. Miller had new counsel, Ms. Yhard) before me, and asked to have the trial dates which were set for November 2016 removed from the docket. They agreed to review the parenting arrangements in the New Year. 15 .

Based on the consent of the parties in October 2016, on December 22, 2016 a further Interim Consent Order was issued, it was signed by Shelley Hounsell-Gray and by Mr. Miller. It allowed for a review of “access, child maintenance, including child maintenance arrears.” Mr. Miller agreed and was ordered to continue paying $297.00 in child maintenance per month for Lily and Ava, until the issue of child maintenance, including child maintenance arrears, could be reviewed. 16 . In January 2017 Mr. Miller was seeking to have child support arrears suspended. He argued his arrears were not true arrears.

He explained he wasn’t working and money was being garnished. Mr. Miller stated that $21,000.00 was never his income. He explained he was finishing an unpaid work term. Mr. Miller had not filed any financial information which could persuade the court to vary the previous Interim Consent Orders (issued November 2015 and on December 2016). The matter was adjourned to May 2017. 17 . On May 1, 2017, the parties advised they were unable to resolve the issue of holiday access, and concerns were raised about the issue of custody and the issue of decision making. In addition, Mr.

Miller advised he would be filing an undue hardship application which he subsequently filed on May 19, 2017. 18 . Ongoing child maintenance, retroactive variation and a request for forgiveness of arrears remained outstanding and were to be addressed at a hearing in August 2017. In June 2017, the parties consented to address all outstanding issues, including parenting in August 2017. Arrears set at $0.00 by agreement of the parties 19 . The parties agreed to set Mr. Miller’s child maintenance arrears at $0.00, as of August 23, 2017.

The Maintenance Enforcement Program of Nova Scotia Record of Payments for the period between December 1, 2015 and July 10, 2017 indicates the total arrears owing on July 10, 2017 were $4,771.039. 20 . Without the parties’ agreement to forgive arrears, Mr. Miller would have arguably owed $380.00 per month from August 2014 to December 2014, for a total of $1,900.00 in child maintenance for 2014.

21 . On an interim basis, in October 2015 Mr. Miller agreed to begin interim child maintenance payments of $297.00 starting March 1, 2015. The amount of child maintenance was based on Mr. Kuszelewski’s representation that Mr. Miller had an income of $20,000.00 in 2014 and had been working for Dexter Construction. Mr. Miller’s 2014 line 150 income was $26,049.08. 22 . In 2015 and 2016 Mr. Miller claimed not to have earned an income. 23 . Mr. Miller’s Statement of Income sworn June 30, 2015 indicates that between January 1 to June 29, 2015, he earned $0.00.

He does not provide a Statement of Income for the period after June 29, 2015. He states in his Affidavit sworn July 7, 2017 that “In 2015, I grossed $7,063.00”. Presumably, he earned that money after June 30, 2015. He does not provide an updated Statement of Income 2015. I have reviewed Mr. Miller’s Notice of Assessment for 2015, filed in May 2017, and it indicates a total income of $7,063.00. No T1 General was filed. 24 . After filing his Statement of Income at the end of June 2015 indicating he earned $0.00, Mr.

Miller agreed to have his income determined at $21,000.00 for child maintenance purposes, with a start date for payment of March 1, 2015. Mr. Miller later claimed he agreed to his income being determined at $21,000.00 because he misunderstood the advice of his legal counsel at the time (Mr. Kuszelewski). I give no weight to that evidence. Mr. Miller provides no documentary evidence about why he was unable to work in 2015. 25 . Ms. Ritcey does acknowledge she and Mr. Miller were both at the Nova Scotia Community College when he attended a four-month course to complete his oil burner mechanic training, and Ms.

Ritcey was completing her two-year course. 26 . In his Affidavit sworn June 28, 2017 Ms. Ritcey’s partner, Mr. Hiltz also talks about helping Mr. Miller obtain employment with Best Burners after he (Mr. Miller) finished his course in 2016. 27 . Mr. Miller provides no information about any job search he may have completed during that time. Mr. Miller signed the Interim Consent Order at about the same time Carter was born, October 2015. He was aware of his financial situation. 28 . Mr.

Miller’s Affidavit sworn July 12, 2017 indicates he started his employment with Best Burners in January 2016 (this was possibly intended to be 2017) but remains unclear to me. 29 . Mr. Miller stated that in 2016 he grossed $188.62. In his Affidavit sworn in July 2017 he swears he was actively looking for employment, but he could not find any. He provides no corroborating evidence regarding his search for employment. He states that he applied at construction companies but had a lack of experience. However, his previous counsel had advised the court that Mr. Miller had worked with Dexter’s Construction in 2014.

No record of employment was ever filed from Dexter’s Construction. 30 . Mr. Miller goes on to state that he “completed a few cash jobs to survive, however, I was never paid any significant money doing this”, referring to 2016 (and possibly 2015) but he fails to explain exactly when he was in school, when he worked, who he worked for, how long he worked and what he meant by not being “paid any significant money”. 31 . He says, “during that year”, “my partner and I relied on her student loans to pay our bills”. 32 . Laura Horne’s Tax Return

Summary for 2016 indicates she earned $8,092.52 in 2016, $5,132.52 from Bayshore Healthcare Ltd. Mr. Miller does not specifically state whether he was living with Ms. Horne at that time. Ms. Horne did not swear an Affidavit or provide evidence. Mr. Miller’s and Ms. Horne’s son, Carter was born in October 2015. There is reason to believe Ms. Horne may have taken time off between October 2015 – October 2016. It does not necessarily follow that the two were living together during that period. 33 . Mr.

Miller states in his Affidavit sworn July 12, 2017 “presently I reside with my partner, Laura Horne, and our son, Carter Miller. Ms. Horne is a patient attendant through the company Bayshore”. He also stated, “I presently work for Best Burner”. He indicated, “Ms. Horne does not earn a significant amount of money. Accordingly, our family is supported entirely on my income.” His Statement of Expenses filed May 19, 2017 reflects that he shares some expenses with Ms. Horne.

34 . The Maintenance Enforcement Program of Nova Scotia Record of Payments for the period between December 1, 2015 and July 10, 2017, reflect the arrears back to March 2015, per the Interim Consent Order and do not reflect any possible retroactive award to August 2014 as per Ms. Ritcey’s request in the application. Mr. Miller admitted he did not provide financial assistance for Lily or Ava until his wages were garnished. He argues that he was spending money on Lily and Ava when they were visiting him. 35 . Mr. Miller states “I have not included Mr.

Hiltz’s children as members of his household, as they are only present in the home every second weekend”, implying that the cost is minimal for Mr. Hiltz’ three children to visit Ms. Ritcey and Mr. Hiltz on the weekends. However, he argues that one of the reasons he cannot afford to pay Ms. Ritcey child support is because Lily and Ava visit him every second weekend. 36 . As noted above, total arrears owing on July 10, 2017 were $4,771.39. The Maintenance Enforcement Program garnished, or they received money from Mr. Miller in July, August, September and December 2016 and additional money in 2017.

In total between August 2014 (date of Application), and mid-June 2017 (34 months) they received $2,405.61. 37 . Between August 2014 and mid-June 2017 (34 months), Mr. Miller essentially contributed about $70.00 per month for two children, $35.00 per child, which needed to be garnished from him. He claimed Undue Hardship in May 2017, I would further note that he did manage to upgrade his car in or around 2017, he purchased a Honda Civic. 38 . According to the Maintenance Enforcement Program and Mr. Miller’s Affidavit sworn July 7, 2017, further income was garnished in late June 2017.

In July 2017, he argued that not only was he being garnished $297.00 per month but also 25% of his gross pay was going toward arrears and he could not afford to pay more than $300.00 per month. 39 . A final Order regarding parenting and child maintenance arrears was issued October 3, 2017. There was agreement between the parties to set Mr. Miller’s child maintenance arrears at $0.00, as of August 23, 2017. Ongoing child maintenance 40 . A decision in relation to the issue of ongoing child maintenance was reserved. Mr.

Miller’s obligation to pay ongoing child maintenance was continued pursuant to the Interim Consent Order issued November 3, 2015 and the Interim Consent Order issued December 22, 2016. Introduction 41 . I was left to determine how much child maintenance Mr. Miller will pay for the children, Lily and Ava. Ms. Ritcey wants the table amount calculated under

section 3 of the Nova Scotia Child Maintenance Guidelines NS Reg. 53/98 and a recalculation clause added to any order for maintenance. Mr. Miller says that he will experience undue hardship if he is ordered to pay the table amount of $495.00, and he can only pay $300.00 per month. 42 . Mr. Miller continues to be subject to an order to pay monthly child maintenance of $297.00 until the court considers his undue hardship application. Analysis 43 . I must address Mr. Miller’s undue hardship claim first before considering if the recalculation program applies. I must decide whether Mr. Miller would suffer undue hardship when paying child maintenance calculated under

section 3 of the Nova Scotia Child Maintenance Guidelines . First issue: would Mr. Miller suffer undue hardship if I ordered him to pay child maintenance calculated under

section 3 of the Nova Scotia Child Maintenance Guidelines ? 44 . Mr. Miller has the burden of proving he will suffer undue hardship if I order him to pay child maintenance calculated under

section 3 of the Child Maintenance Guidelines . 45 . Mr. Miller says that he must support two children in his new family, Lyla and Carter. 46 . There are two steps in deciding undue hardship claims. First, some circumstance capable of creating undue hardship must exist. Only when this circumstance exists can I consider the second step. Second , the standard of living in Mr. Miller’s household must be lower than the standard of living in Ms. Ritcey’s household.

47 . I dismiss Mr. Miller’s claim of undue hardship: he has not shown that a circumstance exists which would cause undue hardship if he was ordered to pay child maintenance under

section 3 of the Guidelines Is there a circumstance that might cause undue hardship? 48 . Mr. Miller claims that his support for his partner’s daughter Lyla, and the son they have together, Carter, are circumstances that would cause undue hardship if he was ordered to pay child maintenance for Lily and Ava under

section 3 of the Guidelines . 49 . On his Statement of Undue Hardship Circumstances filed May 26, 2017 he claimed a circumstance existed under “(

e) I have a legal duty to support a dependent child in my household (other than the child(ren) to whom this proceeding relates)”. In his pre-trial submissions he argued he falls under section 10(2)(

d) of the Federal (sic) Child Support Guidelines . 50 . I have reviewed the running court file and all documents in an attempt to answer outstanding questions I had in relation to Mr. Miller’s undue hardship application. For instance, Mr. Miller did not state when he and Ms. Horne began cohabitating. Also, I am unclear about Mr. Miller’s and Ms. Horne’s combined income on a go forward basis. 51 . It appears from the running file that as of October 2016, Mr. Miller did not yet have his own residence (as noted on the record at the appearance on October 17, 2016). In addition, on Ms. Horne’s Tax Return

Summary for 2016 her address is 5712 Hwy 7, Head of Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia. On Mr. Miller’s T1 General for 2016 he indicates his mailing address is 4136 Hwy 7, Porter’s Lake. I find it most likely that both Mr. Miller and Ms. Horne would have completed their 2016 tax documents sometime in early 2017. It is unclear from the evidence whether they cohabitated until early to mid 2017. 52 . In May 2017, Mr. Miller indicated to the court that his son Carter was residing with “his” (unclear whether with Carter’s or Mr. Millers’), grandparents. This also raises questions about Mr.

Miller’s financial circumstances at that time. 53 . Mr. Miller provides information indicating Laura Horne’s 2016 income is $8,092.52 in 2016 and attaches her Tax Return

Summary for 2016 with attachments. This does not help me decide prospectively whether there would be undue hardship. My understanding is she was or she is still a student? No evidence was provided with respect to when she would cease, or did cease to be a student. I’m uncertain when she did or when she is expected to finish her studies and what the expectations were with respect to her employment after August 2017. 54 . A printout was provided of Ms. Horne’s income for March 2, 2017 through June 15, 2017. Is this when she was a student? It showed Ms.

Horne worked an average of twenty-six hours per week in March 2017, nineteen hours per week in April 2017 and sixteen hours per week in May 2017. It is unclear whether she was working these hours as a student or not? It appears she was earning about $11.00 per hour. If working full time, arguably her annual income might be around $23,000.00 if she continued in that field. I was also directed to Ms. Horne’s Tax Return

Summary for 2016 indicating her Canada Child Tax Benefit was $16,979.96, for Lyla and Carter presumably. 55 . I must assess whether there is undue hardship prospectively, from August 2017 onward not retroactively as that issue was settled by agreement of the parties when Mr. Miller agreed to have his arrears set at $0.00 as of August, 2017. No documentary evidence was provided regarding Ms. Horne’s student status or employment status after the end of the school year in June 2017, and no explanation was provided by Ms. Horne. 56 . Specifically, clause 10(2)(

d) says that to qualify as a circumstance causing undue hardship, the obligation to support other children must be “a legal duty to support a child, other than” the two children who are the focus of this application. The duty must be a legal one, not merely a choice to support other children. 57 . There is no agreement or order requiring Mr. Miller to support Ms. Horne’s child from another relationship, Lyla. Mr. Miller has not adopted her. There is insufficient evidence to suggest Mr. Miller was or is either a parent or a guardian to Lyla, under the Parenting Support Act . Ms.

Ritcey in fact suggests that Lyla’s biological father pays child support to Ms. Horne for the benefit of Lyla. 58 . Mr. Miller’s counsel explained that at page 139 of the Respondent’s Exhibit Book, Mr. Miller intended to indicate at paragraph 8 that Lyla’s father pays $1,620.00 per year or approximately $135.00 and was included when making DivorceMate calculations. Ms. Horne did not provide any evidence to prove what amount was being provided to her by Lyla’s father and whether it was being provided pursuant to an Order or written agreement, or alternatively how Ms.

Horne and Lyla’s father decide on that amount on an ongoing basis.

59 . I have no basis for concluding that at the time of the application in May 2017, Mr. Miller stood in the place of a parent to Ms. Horne’s daughter, Lyla so as to have a legal duty to support her under either the Parenting and Support Act , or the Vital Statistics Act . 60 . I do note that if Mr. Miller and Ms. Horne began residing together in the summer of 2017, that pursuant to the Parenting and Support Act ,

section 2(m)(vi) Mr. Miller and Ms. Horne, “not being married to each other but having cohabited in a conjugal relationship with each other and having a child together (Carter), can be defined as spouses”. 61 . Mr. Miller does have a legal obligation to support Carter who was born in October 2015. I do accept he was residing with Carter, Lyla and Ms. Horne as of July 2017, and possibly earlier. However, I only have jurisdiction to determine the undue hardship application as of the date when arrears were determined to be $0.00, therefore after August 23, 2017. 62 . Mr. Miller’s circumstances are similar to those described by clause 10(2) (d)(

i) of the Child Maintenance Guidelines . This is not enough: Mr. Miller must prove that his obligation to support his son, Carter, would cause undue hardship if he was ordered to pay child maintenance calculated under

section 3 of the Guidelines for Lily and Ava. 63 . I heard testimony from Mr. Miller and Ms. Ritcey. 64 . Ms. Ritcey filed a sworn Statement of Income for the period prior to June 1, 2017 indicating she had earned $8,292.96 per year, and another Statement of Income indicating she had obtained employment with Irving Shipbuilding and was earning $54,962.64 per year. However, Ms. Ritcey indicated she and Mr. Hiltz were expecting a newborn in November 2017 and she would be on maternity leave. With due respect, I do not agree with the argument that I should not consider Ms.

Ritcey’s pending delivery of a newborn child. 65 . Mr. Hiltz did file an Affidavit and he confirmed he resides with Ms. Ritcey and he helps financially with Lily and Ava as much as he can (they live primarily with he and Ms. Ritcey). He also states that his three sons visit every second weekend and confirms they were expecting a child in November 2017. He provided evidence that he earns only $42,000.00 per year, and he pays approximately $700.00 per month to the mother of his three sons. He confirmed Ms.

Ritcey was only just hired at “Irving” in June 1, 2017 and would be taking maternity leave in November 2017. 66 . In August 2017 Mr. Miller indicated that six months previously he had purchased a 2013 Honda Civic, and that he had previously owned a 2012 Ford Fusion. I note that his new car payment was listed at $447.30. No satisfactory explanation was provided about the sale of the Ford car (how much?), or the purchase of the Honda car and how that may have impacted on his expenses. Based on Mr.

Miller’s testimony he would have purchased the car approximately two months before making his application for undue hardship and claiming he could not afford to pay table amount of child support for Lily and for Ava. 67 . Mr. Miller claims his household’s monthly expenses are $2,750.61. He also claimed he earns up to $3,018.70 per month before tax, which he states was an average of his year to date as of July 2017. He claims a deficit of $239.40, without paying child support for Lily and Ava. 68 . I will start by noting that Mr.

Miller is a smoker and it is unclear from his Statement of Income what he spends on cigarettes per month. However, he has stated that he spends $300.00 per month on “entertainment” for Lily and Ava while they visit. That expense is not a reasonable expense. 69 . Mr. Miller also references child care expenses which he reportedly shares with Ms. Horne. This evidence is not supported by any documentary evidence. Given that Ms. Horne has not provided any proof of her enrollment in an educational program, and it appears Ms.

Horne was previously working shift work and employed part time, then more explanation is needed to justify the expense. Not to mention that it would be Mr. Miller’s decision, not obligation to pay for Lyla’s portion of the child care. There is no explanation of why Lyla’s father is not paying for it. I would further note that Ms. Ritcey is not asking for Mr. Miller to assist with Lily or Ava’s child care or other possible extracurricular expenses. 70 . Mr.

Miller has not proven that his support for the child Carter in his home is a circumstance which would cause him undue hardship if I ordered him to pay child maintenance calculated under

section 3 of the Guidelines . 71 . My analysis can stop there: only if there is a circumstance which would cause undue hardship am I required to compare household living standards: see Gaetz , 2001 NSCA 57 at paragraph 15 .

72 . There is very little evidence before me regarding Ms. Ritcey’s financial or employment situation after November 2017. In addition, I have no sworn testimony before me from Ms. Horne to explain her situation. 73 . The Nova Scotia Child Maintenance Guidelines outline how to calculate and how to compare household living standards in

Schedule II. 74 . In his Statement of Income filed May 19, 2017 Mr. Miller suggests he was earning on average $36,224.40 per year. Ms. Horne did not swear an Affidavit explaining her circumstances. 75 . Mr. Hiltz’s annual income was $42,000.00 per year. As of June 1, 2017, Ms. Ritcey was employed by Irving Shipyard but was scheduled to deliver their newborn in November 2017 and be off work. 76 . Mr. Miller’s household is comprised of two adults and two children, Lyla and Carter. One of which he has a legal obligation to support. Lily and Ava have time with Mr. Miller every second weekend. 77 . Ms.

Ritcey’s household is comprised of two adults and as of November 2017 three children, Lily, Ava and the newborn. Ms. Ritcey does have a legal obligation to all three children. In addition, Mr. Hiltz’s three sons have time at their home every second weekend. 78 . A thorough analysis was not possible. Second issue: whether and, if so, how much Mr. Miller should contribute to the children’s special or extraordinary expenses? 79 . The guiding principle for sharing expenses is that they be shared proportionately: see subsection 7(2) of the Guidelines. 80 . Ms. Ritcey has not asked for Mr.

Miller to contribute to child care related expenses or other expenses. 81 . “Undue hardship must be more than awkward or inconvenient. It must be exceptional, excessive or disproportionate in the circumstances.” Hanmore, 2000 ABCA 57 at paragraph 17 . To fail to examine Mr. Miller’s expense and explain why and how they would justify him paying less than the basic support is an error of law. Conclusion 82 . I dismiss Mr. Miller’s undue hardship claim. I order Mr. Miller to pay monthly child maintenance of $521.00 pursuant to

section 3 of the Nova Scotia Child Maintenance Guidelines . Mr. Miller’s total monthly payment, beginning September 1, 2017 and continuing on every month thereafter. To account for the increase between September 1, 2017 and June 1, 2018, Mr. Miller will pay an extra $20.00 per month until his arrears are paid off in total. 83 . The parties will be subject to the recalculation program. Directions: Ms. Young shall prepare the order and forward it to me to be reviewed and endorsed. Costs: I counsel wish to file submissions on costs I would suggest they be filed by August 13, 2018. _____________________________ Cindy G. Cormier, J.S.C.(F.D.)