R.D.R. v. K.D.R. Date:, 2017 BCPC 284

Citation: R.D.R. v. K.D.R. Date: 20170920 2017 BCPC 284 File No: 8508 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: R.D.R. APPLICANT AND: K.D.R. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME Appearing on their own behalf: R.D.R. Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Jenna Walsh Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C.

Date of Hearing: June 26, 27 and 28, 2017 Date of Judgment: September 20, 2017 [ 1 ] There are four children impacted by this application: J.D.R., born [omitted for publication] S.L.R., born [omitted for publication] D.S.R., born [omitted for publication] J.J.R., born [omitted for publication] [ 2 ] This is the application of R.D.R. to terminate his child support obligations for S.L.R. (23) and D.S.R. (20) as well as to reduce the child support for J.J.R. (17).

K.D.R. has also brought an application to vary child support retroactively and prospectively based on the imputed income to R.D.R.; to reinstate J.S.R. (24) as a child from February 1, 2016 to July 15, 2016 while she attended the welding program at Thompson Rivers University; to apportion s. 7 post-secondary expenses retroactively; to increase the arrears payments under existing orders; to apportion prospective s. 7 expenses; and for penalties for non-compliance with disclosure orders. [ 3 ] The undisputed facts are that R.D.R. and K.D.R. entered into a relationship in 1992 and separated in November 2000.

While there is no issue that R.D.R. is the biological father of all the children, he has been estranged from them by his conduct in circumstances already addressed by Judges Cleaveley and Shupe in prior decisions. This application to reduce and cancel arrears was filed on May 13, 2016. [ 4 ] Ms. Walsh accurately described this litigious history as one riddled with R.D.R.’s persistent evasion of his child support obligations. [ 5 ] K.D.R. has worked hard as a single mother and is now also attending university while raising all four children.

This has had the added complication that three of the four children have cognitive disabilities. J.S.R. and D.S.R. have mild cognitive disabilities and J.J.R. has a severe cognitive disability. This has made school and post-secondary education a significant challenge. K.D.R.’s approach, however, has been to focus on what the children are able to do so that they can become independent and self-supporting in the future.

R.D.R. has expressed the view that the children should pursue Persons with Disabilities entitlements instead of pursuing post-secondary education he does not believe will result in meaningful employment. [ 6 ] The children fall into three different categories of dependents. J.S.R., the eldest, graduated from high school and became an adult. After she became an adult, she entered the welding program at Thompson Rivers University. J.S.R. had met the approval requirements for entering into the welding program in 2015 but was wait-listed for the program.

She entered on February 1, 2016 and was a full time student dependent upon K.D.R. until July 15, 2016. J.S.R. now has her Welding “C” certificate and is in the process of gaining experience for the 2700 hours she requires before she can enter Level “B” of the welding program. However, she continues to work at Walmart, having been unable to find an apprenticeship placement in order to complete those hours.

She will require a specific placement because of her permanent cognitive disability, which means she takes longer to learn. [ 7 ] R.D.R. does not dispute that J.S.R. entered the welding program but questions whether it was a practical course for her to follow. She would qualify for a Persons With Disability Pension and, as I have said, that is what he would prefer she do. [ 8 ] It may be true that J.S.R. will not get an apprenticeship placement but success in obtaining employment following a post- secondary education is not the determining factor to obtaining a diploma, degree or certificate.

Perhaps entering a trade is a more decided course but certainty of employment at the end is never a guarantee. That both J.S.R. and K.D.R. want more for her than a person with disability income even in the face of what R.D.R. believes are significant odds against J.S.R. pursuing a career in welding is a positive reflection. J.S.R. did pass the program and did obtain a sufficient grade level to obtain employment. Should she manage to receive a placement that will help her get her 2700 hours, she may well return to university.

If she does not get that placement or earn the 2700 hours required, she will be no different than the legions of university students who graduate and go on to careers entirely unrelated to their post-secondary education. The fact of it is, the prospect of employment in this field does exist and is not outside the realm of probabilities.

K.D.R. asks that J.S.R. be reinstated as a child retroactive to February 1, 2016 and concluding on July 15, 2016, and that R.D.R. pay his proportionate share of J.S.R.’s education costs that she incurred. [ 9 ] S.L.R. is enrolled in full time post-secondary studies and is succeeding at those studies. Her education commenced with the human services program at Thompson Rivers University which qualified her for the social work program for the 2016/2017 year. Her post-secondary studies have been entirely successful. She is also working part time and contributing to her expenses.

S.L.R. remains dependent on her mother while she continues to go to university. She was to graduate from the social work program after she completed her practicum this past summer. She is almost certain to receive full time employment at her practicum placement. [ 10 ] D.S.R. is also registered in post-secondary education. She is also working part time to contribute toward her studies. D.S.R. is now in the second year of her Bachelor of Arts program. She has taken three courses per semester instead of five, which will require her to take six and a half years to complete her degree, instead of four.

She will graduate in 2021. She is taking this lighter course load on the recommendation of the university psychologist to ensure success in her program. While the recommendation had been for D.S.R. to take two courses, she has persisted in taking three, passing all of them.

She works part time at McDonald’s. [ 11 ] K.D.R. asks that D.S.R. and S.L.R. maintain their status as children as defined by the Family Law Act for so long as they remain full time students in a post-secondary program with the specific provisions that, if a child is not registered for school for six or more months, their deemed post-secondary education is terminated; and if the child ceases to reside with K.D.R. for at least three

continuous months, that child will cease to be dependent on K.D.R. and child support will be terminated. [ 12 ] J.J.R. is 17 and still in high school.

It is unclear whether he will have post-secondary studies given his cognitive challenges. [ 13 ] K.D.R. also asks that the order granted by the Honourable Judge Cleaveley on May 1, 2015 be varied pursuant to s. 19 and s. 17 of the Guidelines requiring R.D.R. to pay child support on an imputed Guideline income taking into account R.D.R.’S income earning abilities, qualifications, skills, experience and historical income. [ 14 ] K.D.R. also seeks an order that R.D.R. pay the full arrears of $13,230.61 not later than July 7, 2017; that he pay the table amount of support for two children, being J.J.R. and D.S.R. from June 1, 2015 to August 1, 2015; that he pay the table support for three children, being J.J.R., D.S.R. and S.L.R. from September 1, 2015 to January 1, 2016; that he pay the table amount of support for all four children from February 1, 2016 to July 1, 2016; and commencing August 1, 2016 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter he pay the table amount of child support for three children, being J.J.R., D.S.R. and S.L.R. [ 15 ] K.D.R. also asks that the parties share the balance of the children’s post-secondary expenses in proportion to their relative incomes after deducting a one-third contribution from each child. [ 16 ] K.D.R. seeks an order that R.D.R. advise her forthwith if he resumes full-time employment as an oil driller, such notice to be in e-mail or writing and to disclose a copy of his first two pay stubs from that employment forthwith upon receipt. [ 17 ] Finally, K.D.R. asks that R.D.R. be required to pay legal fees incurred by her as a direct result of R.D.R.’S incomplete disclosure pursuant to s. 213(d)(i), or, in the alternative, that a penalty be applied against R.D.R. for his ongoing failure to comply with the disclosure. [ 18 ] There is no question that R.D.R. has resisted disclosing his financial circumstances.

This has been highlighted by decisions prior to this hearing. Despite repeated requests for financial disclosure and repeated orders leading up to this trial, R.D.R. has failed, without any proper excuse, to make that financial disclosure. [ 19 ] R.D.R. has a pattern of applying to reduce or cancel his child support obligations during periods of unemployment which are not persistent periods of unemployment. As a result, he has not only obtained orders reducing his arrears but setting the time and amounts for payment at a low rate. For instance, R.D.R. projected his annual income in 2015 at $45,000.

His notice of assessment reflects income of $61,582. [ 20 ] R.D.R. also persistently denies he has assets when in fact he had a considerable mutual fund. His explanation for lying about the existence of this mutual fund not only to Judge Cleaveley but on this hearing is simply not credible. It raises the question of the reliability of his evidence as a whole. [ 21 ] On the other hand, K.D.R. has identified numerous cash transfers into R.D.R.’S accounts which sometimes align with flights to various locations which would coincide with his work.

He has worked for a number of companies for which he has not produced any T4s or any other proof of payments received. It leaves the court with the prospect that the numerous cash transfers into and out of his account are in fact transfers from various companies under contract for his drilling work. These transfers amount to up to $27,000 of possible - even probable - income when R.D.R. was receiving employment insurance benefits. [ 22 ] The most significant problem in this case has been that evidence about R.D.R.’S income remains elusive. It may well be that he was receiving payments under the table.

It is more unlikely that he was working for the tow truck company but it is not beyond possibility that he did. What is clear is that R.D.R. knew he was coming to court to seek to reduce his arrears, even though he has now abandoned that pursuit. He knew that K.D.R. was seeking to increase his child support to reflect his actual income and to contribute toward the special or extraordinary expenses of their four children. Despite this and despite the repeated cautions from the court and orders compelling him to produce the documentation that would enlighten the court, R.D.R. has failed to do so.

He had to know that he would have to support the source of all payments entering into his account. He had to know that each of the companies that he worked for, whether as a driller or an assistant, would have to provide through him documentation of each of the contracts he worked on to substantiate the payments he received. He ought to have known that he would have to produce all of his employment insurance benefits forms, mutual fund holdings, and sources of payment not received from employers. He had to know that it was extremely important to have Mr.

Menke attend from DNS Towing to give evidence about whether he ever worked for that company given the air of suspicion he created by his own failure to comply repeatedly with court orders. [ 23 ] At the end of the day, the court is still left without adequate evidence to establish R.D.R.’S true income. THE LAW [ 24 ] I have been provided with a number of cases which I have reviewed. Variation of Child Support [ 25 ] An application to vary child support falls under s. 152 of the Family Law Act : 152

(1) On application, a court may change, suspend or terminate an order respecting child support, and may do so prospectively or retroactively.

(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the court must be satisfied that at least one of the following exists, and take it into consideration: (

a) a change in circumstances, as provided for in the child support guidelines, has occurred since the order respecting child support was made;

(

b) evidence of a substantial nature that was not available during the previous hearing has become available; (

c) evidence of a lack of financial disclosure by a party was discovered after the last order was made. [26] Judge Cleaveley, in 2015, accepted R.D.R.’S evidence that he was unable to pay the arrears owing and reduced them, setting amodest rate of repayment despite R.D.R. violating disclosure orders since 2007. It is important to note that this was significant to R.D.R. K.D.R. argued that the decision was based upon a disclosed income of $65,000 while he was actually earning $100,000. Thisinformation was withheld from K.D.R. in breach of the 2007 disclosure orders.

K.D.R. argued that R.D.R. misled the court in order tonot only reduce his arrears but to underpay both child support and his arrears. [27] R.D.R. gave evidence again in June 2015 that his projected annual income would only be $45,000. In fact, it was $61,582. Thisis why child support is not necessarily reduced every time a payor encounters a period of unemployment. On the financial statementR.D.R. used at that hearing, he failed to disclose his mutual fund valued then at $49,927.05. He denied having any assets.

This wasblatantly untrue. [28] I am satisfied that R.D.R. is capable of earning more than his current income reflects. I am also satisfied that his current incomeis higher and has been higher all these years than he has disclosed. I find that the best evidence of R.D.R.’S income to date has been asfollows: a) 2011 - $99,400; b) 2012 - $100,014; c) 2013 - $103,600; d) 2014 - $55,600; e) 2015 - $61,582; and f) 2016 - $45,679. [29] However, I am equally satisfied that there is undisclosed income R.D.R. continues to conceal from K.D.R. and the court.

I amequally satisfied that R.D.R. is capable of earning a greater income when not faced with court proceedings that may result in higher childsupport. Given R.D.R.’S ongoing failure to make proper disclosure upon which I could properly assess his income, I am imputingincome to him in the sum $75,000 per annum, effective June 1, 2015. Reducing or Cancelling the Amount of Arrears [30] Under s. 174, the court may reduce or cancel arrears under an order respecting child support if satisfied that it would be grosslyunfair not to do so: 174

(1) On application, a court may reduce or cancel arrears owing under an agreement or order respecting child support or spousalsupport if satisfied that it would be grossly unfair not to reduce or cancel the arrears.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the court may consider (

a) the efforts of the person responsible for paying support to comply with the agreement or order respecting support, (

b) the reasons why the person responsible for paying support cannot pay the arrears owing, and (

c) any circumstances that the court considers relevant.

(3) If a court reduces arrears under this section, the court may order that interest does not accrue on the reduced arrears if satisfied that itwould be grossly unfair not to make such an order.

(4) If a court cancels arrears under this section, the court may cancel interest that has accrued, under

section 11.1 of the FamilyMaintenance Enforcement Act, on the cancelled arrears if satisfied that it would be grossly unfair not to cancel the accrued interest. [31] Earle v. Earle, 1999 B.C.S.C. 283 continues to be the seminal case for reduction and cancellation of child support. In thatdecision, the court determined that to vary an order there must be a material change of circumstances since the original order was made. It must be a significant and longstanding change, not merely temporary unemployment. In the decision of Carriere v.

Carriere, 2013BCSC 2357 , 2013 B.C.S.C. 2357, the court said this of the principles of child support at paragraph 21: [21] Earle sets out three principles upon which child support is based. The parents of a child have a joint and ongoing obligation tosupport their children. Child support belongs to the child.

The amount of child support is based, not only on the parents’ earnings, butalso on what the parent can earn - the latter of which is the imputing of income described in the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the“Guidelines”). [32] Even with R.D.R. now indicating that he is prepared to pay child support for J.J.R. based on his actual income, and not revisitthe arrears, I am satisfied that his application must fail anyway.

His failure to comply with court orders and make proper disclosure; hisfailure to tell the truth about his mutual fund; and his failure to disclose all sources of income fully and with transparency satisfy meentirely that it would be grossly unfair if I did reduce his child support obligations. Imputing Income

[33] The court may impute income in accordance with s. 19(1) of the Guidelines: 19

(1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstancesinclude the following: (

a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required bythe needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;… (

d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these Guidelines; … (

f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so; … [34] Under s. 17(1) the court may have regard to the spouse’s income over the last three years in determining what amount is fairand reasonable in light of any pattern of income or fluctuation in income. Since there continues to be inadequate disclosure in this case, itwould not be proper to use the average of the last three year’s income. [35] I can be certain that R.D.R.’S income was higher than he disclosed to the court either through his records or through histestimony in the past.

For those reasons, I have imputed his income at $75,000 per annum, effective June 1, 2015. Retroactive Child Support [36] The factors for consideration in retroactive child support are set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of D.B.S. v.S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37 , 2006 S.C.C. 37: (

a) the conduct of the payor party; (

b) the recipient’s delay in seeking a retroactive award; (

c) the circumstances of the recipient; and (

d) potential hardship to the payor. [37] R.D.R. is a classic example of why the conduct of a payor party is an important consideration in assessing retroactive childsupport. There is no blameworthiness in K.D.R.’s conduct from 2015 forward. She has worked hard to raise their four children withvery little assistance from R.D.R. R.D.R. has pleaded hardship to the court in the past and indeed to the court on this occasion. It is notcompelling. His persistence in failing to disclose his income and make a transparent disclosure of his records to K.D.R. and the courtbelie any potential hardship he might plead.

He cannot be believed. [38] I am therefore satisfied that it is appropriate to make the child support adjustment retroactive to June 1, 2015. It is alsoappropriate to prohibit R.D.R. bringing any further applications to reduce or cancel his child support until such time as he has madedisclosure of every document itemized in the orders over the years since 2007. There have been numerous orders detailing what R.D.R.is expected to disclose. He can be under no illusion that disclosure must be complete, including disclosure he ought to have made forthis hearing. Children over the Age of Majority [39]

Section 146 of the Family Law Act extends the definition of a child to a person who is 19 years of age or older who is unable to“withdraw from the charge of his or her parents”. Under s. 3(2) of the Guidelines, the approach to child support is set out as follows: 3(2) Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, where a child to whom a child support order relates is the age of majority orover, the amount of the child support order 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 spouse to contribute to the support of the child. [40] I am satisfied that each of the three oldest children on achieving the age of majority in pursuit of higher education has beenunable to withdraw from the charge of her parents. As the court established in the seminal case of Farden v.

Farden, (B.C.S.C.), the pursuit of higher education can be sufficient cause to render a child unable to withdraw from the parents’ charge. So it isin this case. In N.V. v. J.C., 2017 BCPC 110 , 2017 B.C.P.C. 110, at paragraph 47, the court said this: [47] The onus is always on the parent seeking child support for adult children. That said, there is a virtual presumption in favour ofsome form of support for adult children seeking their first post-secondary schooling degree or diploma. [41] The Court of Appeal in De Beck v.

De Beck, 2012 BCCA 465 , 2012 B.C.C.A. 465 noted that it was not a requirementthat all of the Farden factors be established. Nearly all of them are met in the case before me. [42] Dealing with the factors set out in Farden, supra: 1. Whether the child is in fact enrolled in a course of studies and whether it is a full time or part time course of studies: Each of thechildren has registered in what constitutes full time studies for their abilities. 2. Whether or not the child has applied for is eligible for student loans or other financial assistance: K.D.R. has ensured that any

funding available to her children be they student loans, disability benefits or otherwise has been pursued and obtained where they are eligible. 3. The career plans of the child, ie., whether the child has some reasonable and appropriate plan or is simply going to college because there is nothing better to do: It is important to bear in mind that it is a plan that must be reasonable - not a guaranteed expectation of employment. Each of the children has a degree or career goal in mind.

J.S.R. has pursued her welding certification and is working toward an apprenticeship that will allow her to complete that programming. S.L.R. has pursued social work, has worked in a practicum, and is certain of employment at the conclusion of her studies. D.S.R. has completed her second of what is expected to be six years of her Bachelor of Arts program. Her degree goal is clear, although her career goals are not yet solidified. 4. The ability of the child to contribute to his or her own support through part time employment: Each of the girls works part time and contributes to her own expenses. 5.

The age of the child: K.D.R.’s attempts to have R.D.R. contribute to the post-secondary education of these children is not a new effort. The children are now 24, 23, 20 and 17. J.J.R. remains in high school and so his post-secondary intentions, if any, are not yet identified. 6. The child’s past academic performance: Apart from S.L.R.’s success in her program, there is not much evidence on the performance of the other two adult children. The undisputed evidence is that they are achieving passing grades without academic suspension.

They continue to attend university and have programs designed to see their success. 7. Plans the parents have made for the education of their children: R.D.R. and K.D.R. were not in a relationship for a very long period of time. She has struggled to support the children and has not had the ability to save for their education. R.D.R. has not saved for the children’s education. He has never contributed to their post-secondary expenses. While K.D.R. has provided the children with a place to live, they have relied upon student loans and disability benefits in addition to their part time earnings.

While R.D.R. and K.D.R. had started contributing to an R.E.S.P. early on in their relationship, they did not continue to do so, preferring to put the money toward family expenses. 8. Unilateral termination of a relationship from a parent from whom support is sought: The children have not unilaterally terminated their relationship with their father. Their estrangement has come about by reason of R.D.R.’S conduct which has already been identified by Judges Cleaveley and Shupe.

Penalties for Non-Compliance [ 43 ] Penalties for non-compliance for the disclosure order are encompassed in s. 213 of the Family Law Act , which provides as follows: 213

(1) This

section applies if a person (

a) fails to comply with (

i) an order for disclosure made under

section 212 [orders respecting disclosure] , or … (

b) provides information that is incomplete, false or misleading.

(2) In the circumstances set out in subsection (1), the court may do one or more of the following: (

a) make an order under

section 212; (

b) draw an inference that is adverse to the person, including attributing income to that person in an amount that the court considers appropriate, and make an order based on the inference; (

c) require a party to give security in any form that the court directs; (

d) make an order requiring the person described in subsection (1) to pay (

i) a party for all or part of the expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred as a result of the non-disclosure of information or the incomplete, false or misleading disclosure, including fees and expenses related to family dispute resolution, (ii) an amount not exceeding $5 000 to or for the benefit of a party, or a spouse or child whose interests were affected by the non- disclosure of information or the incomplete, false or misleading disclosure, or (iii) a fine not exceeding $5 000; (

e) make any other order the court considers appropriate. [ 44 ] This has been a long and protracted affair for K.D.R. She has obtained disclosure orders from as far back as 2007. There have been repeated orders compelling R.D.R. to make that disclosure. He has been indifferent toward those orders. His disclosure has been incomplete, at best. K.D.R. has gone to considerable time and expense to obtain the documentation necessary to pursue her applications.

Even up to the time of this trial, R.D.R. has yet to make the disclosure required. [ 45 ] There have been a number of decisions dealing with the importance of a remedy in cases where a party fails to make disclosure. I am satisfied that it is appropriate that R.D.R. pay the legal fees incurred by K.D.R. as a direct result of R.D.R.’S incomplete disclosure. ORDERS

[ 46 ] I make the following orders in these proceedings: 1. I dismiss R.D.R.’S application to reduce or cancel arrears. 2. I dismiss R.D.R.’S application to vary child support prospectively to reduce his child support obligations for J.J.R. 3. I dismiss R.D.R.’s application to terminate child support for S.L.R. and D.S.R. 4. I find that R.D.R. is a resident of British Columbia with an annual income of $75,000 for 2015, 2016 and 2017. I fix R.D.R.’s child support obligation based on $75,000 per annum. His income shall remain at $75,000 per annum until such time as his income increases. 5.

R.D.R. shall provide to K.D.R. not later than May 30 th of each year commencing 2018 a copy of his income tax assessments, income tax return and documentation supporting all sources of income. R.D.R.’s child support is subject to review on K.D.R.’s application in the event that his annual income is higher than $75,000. 6. R.D.R. shall provide to K.D.R. not later than October 15, 2017 all documentation related to the mutual fund including its balance, maturity date and penalties related to early withdrawal. 7.

R.D.R. shall pay to K.D.R. for the support of J.J.R. and D.S.R. the sum of $1,136 per month from June 1, 2015 to August 1, 2015. 8. R.D.R. shall pay to K.D.R. for the support of J.J.R., D.S.R. and S.L.R. the sum of $1,483 per month from September 1, 2015 to January 1, 2016. 9. R.D.R. shall pay to K.D.R. for the support of J.J.R., D.S.R., S.L.R., and J.S.R. the sum of $1,768 from February 1, 2016 to July 1, 2016. 10.

Commencing August 1, 2016 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter, R.D.R. shall pay to K.D.R. the sum of $1,483 for the support of J.J.R., D.S.R. and S.L.R. so long as each remains a child as defined by the Family Law Act , for so long as they remain full time students in secondary or post-secondary programming. In the event that D.S.R. or S.L.R., and J.J.R. upon attaining the age of majority spend six months or more not enrolled in school, their post-secondary education will be deemed terminated.

In the event that D.S.R., S.L.R., or J.J.R. upon attaining the age of majority cease to reside with K.D.R. for a period of at least three continuous months, that child will discontinue his or her status as a dependant on K.D.R. and child support will be terminated. 11. After deducting all scholarships, bursaries or benefits received, the post-secondary expenses for each child shall be shared proportionately between K.D.R. and R.D.R. in accordance with their relative incomes after deducting a one-third contribution from each child. According to her financial statements, K.D.R.’s annual income is $49,096.22.

R.D.R. shall pay 60% and K.D.R. shall pay 40% of the balance of post-secondary costs both past and going forward after deducting all benefits, scholarships and loans received, and deducting the respective child’s one-third contribution. 12. K.D.R. shall provide to R.D.R. a statement with attached receipts of the post-secondary costs incurred to date by each of the four children with all deductions reflected by October 31, 2017. R.D.R. shall pay his proportionate share of those costs not later than June 1, 2018.

R.D.R. shall have until November 30, 2017 to dispute the amount claimed in writing to K.D.R. stating what he assesses the costs to be. Failing any dispute in the time allowed, the statement will be deemed final and owing. In the event that R.D.R. provides a notice of dispute to K.D.R. in the time allowed, and the parties are unable to agree on that amount, either party has liberty to set this matter back before me to assess the final amount.

For the future post-secondary expenses, upon K.D.R. providing a statement and supporting documents to R.D.R., he shall have thirty days to dispute the amount in writing to K.D.R. Failing any dispute in the time allowed, the account will be deemed final and owing. 13. R.D.R. shall advise K.D.R. by e-mail or in writing forthwith upon any change of employment and shall disclose a copy of the first two pay stubs from that employment within seven days of receipt of same. This proof of employment must include work as a contractor and all other sources of income from employment. 14.

Pursuant to s. 213(d)(i), R.D.R. shall pay to K.D.R. full compensation for the legal fees and disbursements incurred by her as a direct result of R.D.R.’s failure to make disclosure. K.D.R. shall provide an account of those costs by October 31, 2017. R.D.R. shall have until November 30, 2017 to dispute that account in writing. Failing any dispute in the time allowed, the account will be deemed final and owing.

In the event that R.D.R. provides a notice of dispute to K.D.R. in the time allowed, and the parties are unable to agree on that amount, either party has liberty to set this matter back before me to assess the final amount. _______________________________ S.D. Frame Provincial Court Judge