Lindeman v. Desloges, 2020 ONCJ 41

CITATION: Lindeman v. Desloges , 2020 ONCJ 41 DATE: January 21, 2020 COURT FILE NO. D31277/19 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: ) ) BRITTANY LINDEMAN ) MARTINE ORDON, for the APPLICANT ) APPLICANT ) ) - and - ) MARK DESLOGES ) PAMILA BHARDWAJ, for the RESPONDENT RESPONDENT ) ) ) ) ) ) HEARD: JANUARY 17, 2020 JUSTICE S.B. SHERR ENDORSEMENT Part One – Introduction [ 1 ] The parties have both brought motions for temporary support. [ 2 ] The applicant (the mother) seeks temporary spousal support from the respondent (the father) in the amount of $2,100 each month, starting on January 1, 2020.

She asks that the father’s annual income be set at $102,884 for the purpose of the support analysis, and that her annual income be set at zero. [ 3 ] The respondent submits that his annual income is $50,000. He asks that if spousal support is ordered, that it be ordered at the low range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG). [1]

[ 4 ] He asks the court to impute a minimum wage income to the mother of $29,120 annually and order her to pay him the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) table amount of $248 each month for the parties’ 3-year old child (the child). The child is in his temporary care. He asks that support start on January 1, 2020. [2] He also seeks an order that the mother contribute to the child’s daycare expenses in proportion to the parties’ incomes, pursuant to

section 7 of the guidelines. [ 5 ] The issues to be determined on these motions are:

a) What income, if any, should be imputed to the parties for the purpose of the support analysis?

b) How much temporary child support, if any, should the mother pay to the father?

c) Is the mother entitled to spousal support?

d) If the mother is entitled to spousal support, how much support should the father pay to her on a temporary basis? Part Two – Background facts [ 6 ] The mother is 32 years old. The father is 35 years old. [ 7 ] The parties cohabited from the summer of 2015 until September 29, 2019. The parties initially lived together in Halifax and moved to Toronto in 2017. [ 8 ] The parties have the one child together. [ 9 ] The mother was the primary caregiver of the child prior to the parties’ separation. She has not worked since the child was born.

She stayed at home with the child and the father financially supported the family. [ 10 ] The mother was charged with assaulting the father on September 29, 2019. This matter is still before the criminal courts. [ 11 ] The mother issued her application on October 3, 2019 and brought an urgent motion for temporary custody of the child. [ 12 ] After hearing the contested urgent motion on October 7, 2019, the court placed the child in the temporary custody of the father, with specified parenting time with the mother. This decision was based on the mother’s declining mental health and functioning.

This was being exacerbated by her alcohol use. The father was awarded his costs of $3,000 for this motion, with payment suspended pending further order of the court. [ 13 ] On December 2, 2019, the mother amended her application to seek spousal support from the father. [ 14 ] A case conference was held on December 6, 2019. Both parties were given leave to bring these motions. The parties also consented on that date to an increase in the mother’s parenting time with the child. Part Three – Incomes of the parties 3.1 Positions and evidence of the parties [ 15 ] Both parties seek to impute income to the other.

The mother asks the court to fix the father’s annual income at $102,884 for support purposes. This was his declared 2019 income. She suspects that he earned even more than this in 2019. [ 16 ] The father deposed that he started a company providing automated rigging solutions for the live entertainment industry while the parties lived together in Halifax. While looking for investors, he was introduced to Huntly Christie, who was the sole proprietor of Christie Lites, which he says is the largest concert lighting company in North America. Mr. Christie invested in equipment the father used to start his business.

It was agreed that the father would move to Toronto and base his business out of one of Mr. Christie’s facilities. [ 17 ] The parties moved to Toronto in May 2017 and the father operated his company (Drifter Rigging). [ 18 ] The father deposed that by the end of 2017, he closed his company and started working for Christie Lites as an independent contractor. The father said that he also worked as an independent contractor for a company named Special Event Services for 18 days in 2017.

He claimed that his total income in 2017 was $36,966.31. [ 19 ] The father said that he continued to work as an independent contractor for Christie Lites during most of 2018. He said that in November 2018, he became an employee of Christie Lites at an annual salary of $75,000. The father claimed that his 2018 income was $79,210. [ 20 ] The father said that he took three months off from November 2018 until January 2019 to work on his relationship with the mother. [ 21 ] The father remained an employee of Christie Lites during 2019.

He said that he earned his salary plus a large bonus for going on a long concert tour, for a total 2019 income of $102,884. [ 22 ] The father said that he asked Mr. Christie for a change in position in October 2019 when he realized that he could no longer travel on concert tours due to the change in his parenting responsibilities. He said that his position changed as of December 1, 2019. His new position is “Show Manager”.

He said that he will now receive an annual salary of $50,000, with no bonus. [ 23 ] The mother believes, partly based on what the father has told her, that he has actually earned much more income than he has

claimed. She points to large deposits in the father’s bank accounts since 2018 that don’t align with his income claims. [24] The mother claims that the father has now structured his affairs in an attempt to avoid his support obligations. She also claimsthat if he is actually earning his stated income, that he is deliberately underemployed in an effort to avoid his support obligation to her. [25] The mother worked at a bank prior to the child’s birth and earned $35,000 annually. She has not worked since the child wasborn. She is now on social assistance and receives $860 each month.

She has also received some financial assistance from her family.The mother deposed that she won’t be able to work at any bank while her criminal charges are outstanding. She has not looked for worksince the separation. She said that has been seeing mental health professionals and has been dealing with her matters in both family andcriminal court. [26] The father claims that the mother is deliberately unemployed. He feels that she should be imputed a full-time minimum-wageincome for support purposes.

He believes that she can return to work at the bank, or at the very least, work as a barista. 3.2 Legal considerations – imputing income [27] Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support theirchildren. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be foundto be intentionally under-employed. See: Drygala v. Pauli, (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. CA). [28] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v.

Pauli set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court inconsidering a request to impute income: 1. Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed? 2. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational, the needs of the childor reasonable health needs? 3. If not, what income is appropriately imputed? [29] The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionallyunemployed or under-employed.

The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which thisfinding can be made. See: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322 , [2009] O.J. No. 1552. (Ont. C.A.). However, in Graham v. Bruto,2008 ONCA 260, the court inferred that the failure of the payor to properly disclose would mitigate the obligation of the recipient toprovide an evidentiary basis to impute income. [30] Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts tothe individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking. See: Lo v.

Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC4719. [31] The court stated in Drygala that there is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income isimputed; the payor is intentionally under-employed if he or she chooses to earn less than what he or she is capable of earning. The courtmust look at whether the act is voluntary and reasonable. [32] Once under-employment is established, the onus shifts to the payor to prove one of the exceptions of reasonableness.

When anemployment decision results in a significant reduction of child support, it needs to be justified in a compelling way: See: Riel v. Holland, (Ont. C.A.), at paragraph 23. The decision must be reasoned, thoughtful and highly practical: See: Hagner v.Hawkins, (ONSC) at paragraph 19. [33] As a general rule, separated parents have an obligation to financially support their children and they cannot avoid thatobligation by a self-induced reduction of income. See: Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137 . [34] The payor cannot just present the income they are earning, when they have left a job for less money.

The payor’s previousincome is a rational basis on which to impute income, as it is the amount that the payor would have continued to earn but for theirdecision to leave their job. See: Olah v. Olah, (ONSC); Zagar v. Zagar, 2006 ONCJ 296; Laing v. Mahmoud, 2011ONSC 4047. [35] A party’s child care responsibilities to other children can be a legitimate reason for a reduction in income. See: J.C.M. v.K.C.M., 2016 ONCJ 475, par. 171; Black-Johnson v. Black, 2016 ONCJ 736. However, the choice to reduce income for this reason mustbe reasonable. See: H.A. v. M.M., 2016 ONCJ 246 ; Reece v.

Thomas, 2017 ONCJ 311. [36] The third question in Drygala v. Pauli, supra, is: “If there is no reasonable excuse for the payor’s under-employment, whatincome should properly be imputed in the circumstances?” The court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn income in light ofsuch factors as employment history, age, education, skills, health, available employment opportunities and the standard of living enjoyedduring the parties’ relationship. The court looks at the amount of income the party could earn if he or she worked to capacity. See:Lawson v.

Lawson, (ON C.A.). [37] The court will usually draw an adverse inference against a party for his or her failure to comply with their disclosureobligations as provided for in

section 21 of the guidelines and impute income. See: Smith v. Pellegrini, (ON SC),[2008] O.J. No. 3616, (Ont. S.C.); Maimone v. Maimone, (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 2140, (Ont. S.C.). The parentmust make full and complete financial disclosure to ensure that the information required to make a decision on the issue is before thecourt. See: Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719. 3.3 Should income be imputed to the mother at this time?

[ 38 ] The father did not meet his onus to impute income to the mother at this time for the following reasons:

a) The mother has been out of the workforce since the child was born.

b) The mother has gone through a very difficult emotional period. Her declining mental health and functioning, and alcohol use, led to the child being placed in the temporary custody of the father.

c) The mother has been focusing on addressing her mental health issues since the separation. She has been seeing a psychiatrist and advised the court that she is complying with her medication. She is about to start a psychological assessment.

d) The mother does not believe that she can return to work at any bank while her criminal charges are outstanding. It is likely that revealing these charges to a prospective employer will impair her ability to find employment. The court is not prepared at a temporary stage to apply the case law that imputes income to persons who are unable to work or who have lost employment due to their own misconduct. [3] The mother has not been convicted of the charges against her and the court cannot find at this stage that any impairment in her ability to work is her own fault. The trial judge will be in a much better position to assess this factor.

e) The court accepts that the mother will need a little more time to get back into the workforce. [ 39 ] The mother has a legal obligation to use her best efforts to become self-sufficient. The court expects her to start looking for employment and keep a job-search list.

However, it is premature to impute income to her at this time. 3.4 Imputing income to the father [ 40 ] The father deliberately left his position with Christie Lites for a lower paying position with that company. [ 41 ] The issues are whether his decision was reasonable and whether he is really only earning $50,000 annually. [ 42 ] The court finds that it was reasonable for the father to restructure his job because of his new child care responsibilities so that he does not have to travel.

It is a reasonable expectation that his annual income would be reduced as a result of this decision. [ 43 ] However, based on the evidence provided, the court is skeptical that the father’s income has been reduced by more than half – and if it has, whether this is a reasonable reduction. [ 44 ] The father provided inadequate financial disclosure and as a result, the court will draw an adverse inference against him at this stage. In particular, the father did not provide his 2017 to 2019 income tax returns and notices of assessment.

This is because he has never filed his income tax returns. [4] The father asks the court to accept his self-reporting and an unsworn letter from Mr. Christie about his income. The court is not prepared to do that. [ 45 ] The father’s explanation for not filing his tax returns made little sense. He said at this hearing that someone from CRA recently told him that he couldn’t file his tax returns because CRA first needed to clear up why the mother had claimed on her tax returns that she was a single person for the purpose of obtaining the Canada Tax Benefit.

The father provided no evidence of this direction. [5] It does not explain why he has not been filing annual tax returns in a timely manner for several years. [6] He should have filed his tax returns a long time ago. [ 46 ] The logical inference the court draws at this stage is that the father has been avoiding paying his income taxes. This casts some doubt on the father’s credibility about his financial affairs. If he is avoiding his income tax obligations, is he also trying to avoid his support obligations to the mother? [ 47 ] The father didn’t even provide the court with draft income tax returns.

He also did not provide the court with any T4 statements. [ 48 ] The mother provided evidence that between June 2018 and December 2018 the father deposited over $63,000 into their joint bank account. [7] This was well in excess of the income the father claimed that he was earning in 2018. He did not explain why these deposits were so large. [ 49 ] The mother also filed a text the father sent to her that said he only has to work 7 months each year to earn $75,000. [ 50 ] The evidence also indicates that the father may not have an arm’s length relationship with Mr. Christie.

There have been many changes in the structure of their relationship. Mr. Christie started as an investor in the father’s business. The father then became a contractor for Christie Lites. He then became an employee of Christie Lites and recently, an employee with a restructured position. At the motion, it was revealed that Mr. Christie has advanced significant money to the father for his legal fees. [ 51 ] The mother also filed a web search of a company called NVC Entertainment that says that the father is the president. She says that he also listed this position on his Linkedin Profile.

She suspects that he is or will be earning additional income from this source. This will need to be explored further as the case progresses. [ 52 ] The court, at this stage, is not prepared to accept that the father’s income should drop to $50,000 annually. Some reduction is reasonable though, due to his new child care responsibilities. The court will impute the father’s income at $80,000 annually for support purposes on this temporary motion.

This can always be readjusted at trial with more complete evidence and the benefit of the examination of witnesses. [ 53 ] For the purpose of the temporary support analysis, the father’s annual income will be fixed at $80,000 and the mother’s annual income from social assistance will be set at $10,320, with a full claw back. [8] Part Four – Temporary spousal support

4.1 Entitlement [54]

Section 30 of the Family Law Act (the Act) states that every spouse has an obligation to provide support for himself or herselfand for the other spouse, in accordance with need, to the extent that he or she is capable of doing so. Subsection 33 (8) of the Act sets outthe purposes of spousal support and subsection 33 (9) of the Act sets out how to determine the amount of spousal support. The court hasconsidered these provisions in making this order. [55] Spousal support is not merely a consideration of needs and means.

In determining the appropriate amount of spousal support,compensatory and non-compensatory considerations should be taken into account in an effort to equitably alleviate the economicconsequences of the breakdown of the relationship. See: Rioux v. Rioux, 2009 ONCA 569 . Entitlement can be based oncompensatory, non-compensatory or contractual grounds. See: Bracklow v. Bracklow, (S.C.C.). [56] On a temporary motion the support claimant is required to establish a prima facie case for entitlement: See: Politis v.

Politis,2015 ONSC 5997 at paragraph 15. [57] The court in Politis reviewed the principles applicable to an interim motion for spousal support at paragraph 14 as follows:[9] 1. On applications for interim support the applicant's needs and the respondent's ability to pay assume greater significance; 2. An interim support order should be sufficient to allow the applicant to continue living at the same standard of living enjoyedprior to separation if the payor's ability to pay warrants it; 3.

On interim support applications the court does not embark on an in-depth analysis of the parties' circumstances which is betterleft to trial. The court achieves rough justice at best; 4. The courts should not unduly emphasize any one of the statutory considerations above others; 5. On interim applications the need to achieve economic self-sufficiency is often of less significance; 6. Interim support should be ordered within the range suggested by the SSAG unless exceptional circumstances indicateotherwise; 7.

Interim support should only be ordered where it can be said a prima facie case for entitlement has been made out; 8. Where there is a need to resolve contested issues of fact, especially those connected with a threshold issue, such as entitlement,it becomes less advisable to order interim support. [58] It must be kept in mind that an interim support award is a temporary order only and inevitably imperfect. See: Cardoso v.Cardoso, 2013 ONSC 5092. It is meant to provide “a reasonably acceptable solution to a difficult problem until trial”: See: Chaitas v.Christopoulos, (ON SC), [2004] O.J.

No. 907 (S.C.J.). [59] The father did not seriously contest that the mother was entitled to support – just the amount that she should be paid. [60] The mother established her entitlement to temporary spousal support on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. [61] The mother has a compensatory claim for spousal support based on the roles she assumed during the parties’ relationship. Shewas the primary caregiver for the child prior to the separation. She left the workforce to care for the child. She moved with the fatherfrom Halifax to Toronto so that he could start his business.

All of this enabled the father the time and the flexibility to increase hisincome-earning ability. He took full advantage of that opportunity and has been very successful. [62] The mother also has a non-compensatory claim for spousal support based on her need for support and the father’s ability topay it. She was fully financially dependent on the father during their relationship. There has been a significant discrepancy in theirlifestyles since the separation. The mother has had to rely on social assistance.

She has been significantly disadvantaged due to thebreakdown of the relationship. 4.2 The amount of spousal support [63] The Court of Appeal in Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11, stated that the SSAG, while only advisory, are a useful startingpoint to assess the quantum of spousal support once entitlement is established. They have been endorsed as ideal for use on temporarysupport motions. See: D.R.M. v. R.B.M., 2006 BCSC 1921 , [2006] B.C.J. No. 3299.

Both parties presented the court withSSAG software calculations. [64] There were two significant flaws in the mother’s software calculations. [65] The first was that she inputted that she had shared custody of the child. This is not the case. The child is with the mother eachweek from Saturdays at 2 p.m. until Sundays at 5 p.m. (27 hours) and from Tuesdays at 4 p.m. until Wednesdays at 8 p.m. (28 hours) fora total of 55 hours each week. There are 168 hours in a week. This means that the child is with her 32.7% of the time – well below the40% threshold for shared parenting as set out in

section 9 of the guidelines. [66] The second flaw was that the mother applied the SSAG with child formula on three of the four SSAG calculations that shepresented to the court.[10] She should have used the SSAG custodial payor formula on each of the scenarios.[11] [67] These flaws significantly and incorrectly increased the amounts payable by the father under the SSAG ranges. [68] The SSAG software calculation presented by the father also wasn’t of much assistance for the court as he inputted annual

incomes of $50,000 for himself and $29,120 for the mother. The father (and the mother) also didn’t input the

section 7 daycare expense. [ 69 ] The court recognizes that the mother is still receiving the Child Tax Benefit, although she hasn’t been entitled to it since the child was placed in the father’s custody in October 2019. She will undoubtedly have to pay back the money she has received since the temporary custody order was made once the father files his income tax returns.

She is essentially treating these funds as a loan to survive, although she should be contacting the government and advising them that the child is no longer in her primary care. [ 70 ] The father will be entitled to the Child Tax Benefit and likely retroactively, if he files and pays his taxes. The court is not going to reduce his spousal support because he has chosen not to file his taxes. The court will conduct its analysis by assuming that the Child Tax Benefit will be adjusted and paid to the persons entitled to them.

If these adjustments are not made, this can be addressed and adjusted by the trial judge. [ 71 ] The court inputted annual incomes of $80,000 for the father, $10,320 social assistance payment for the mother, with full auto claw back and the

section 7 expense with the tax credit related to the expense in doing the SSAG software analysis. The SSAG formula indicates that the low range of support is $362 per month. The mid-range of support is $422 per month and the high range of support is $482 per month. [ 72 ] However, the SSAG are about more than just the ranges.

Chapter 12 of the SSAG sets out a number of exceptions to the ranges that the court should take into consideration, if relevant. The relevant exceptions in this case are: a) 12.1 – Compelling financial circumstances at the interim stage; b) 12.4 – Illness and disability; and c) 12.7 – Basic needs/hardship. [ 73 ] The Spousal Support Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide (the guide), by Carol J. Rogerson and D.A.

Rollie Thompson, sets out that the exception for compelling financial circumstances at the interim stage is based on the recognition that the amount may need to be different – either higher or lower – during the interim period while parties are sorting out their financial situations immediately after their separation.

The SSAG amounts may be too low during the interim period, particularly in shorter marriages under the without child formula or the custodial payor formula, where the amounts generated by the formula are relatively low. [12] [ 74 ] The guide goes on to say that the interim exception may also cover cases involving hardship/inability to meet basic needs in the transitional period in the immediate aftermath of separation. There may thus be some overlap with the basic needs/hardship exception in

section 12.7 of the SSAG and even the disability exception in

section 12. 4 of the SSAG, but it is preferable to use the interim exception for short-term, transitional needs. [ 75 ] The guide sets out that the illness and disability exception will generally be relevant where the marriage is short-to-medium length and there are no children in the care of the recipient, but the disability is long-term. These will be cases that fall under the without child support formula or the custodial payor formula.

The formulas produce ranges for amount and duration that may seem “too low’ or “too short”, certainly to recipients. [13] [ 76 ] The guide explains that the basic needs/hardship exception recognizes the specific problem with shorter marriages (1-10 years) under the without child support formula (and the custodial payor formula which is built around the without child support formula) where the recipient has little or no income and the formula is seen as generating too little support for the recipient to meet his or her basic needs for any transitional period that extends beyond the interim exception.

The exception allows for awards higher in amount than the SSAG ranges, enough to meet basic needs, but does not allow for an extension of duration. This exception has been primarily applied on temporary support motions. [14] [ 77 ] Justice Mark Shelston conducted a thorough review of case law applying these exceptions in Dunleavy v. Comeau , [2019] ONSC 4535 at paragraphs 71 to 75.

Each case is dependent on its particular circumstances, but courts have not hesitated to order support well in excess of the SSAG ranges when the exceptions apply. [15] In Dunleavy , Justice Shelston ordered temporary spousal support of $3,500 each month when the upper SSAG range was $1,999 each month. [ 78 ] The compelling financial circumstances at the interim stage, and basic needs/hardship exceptions are applicable in this case.

To a lesser extent, so is the illness/disability exception as the mother has been working on her mental health issues that led to the child being placed in the father’s temporary custody and that has impacted her ability to earn income since the parties separated. [ 79 ] At the highest SSAG range, the father would have over 84% of the family’s net disposable income and the mother would only have about 16% of the net disposable income. The high range SSAG payment of $482 each month would result in the public still having to support the mother – an unacceptable outcome given the resources of this family.

The court finds that on a temporary basis, the SSAG ranges do not result in an appropriate level of spousal support. This is an exceptional case where the court should deviate from the SSAG ranges on a temporary basis. [ 80 ] This leads to the question of what amount of temporary spousal support is appropriate in these circumstances. [ 81 ] An examination of the parties’ respective financial statements indicates very disparate lifestyles since they separated. The mother had to apply for social assistance and has had to severely limit her expenses. She is spending only $1,030 each month.

She has very little money to spend on the child when she sees her twice each week, or even for the transportation expenses to exercise her parenting time, as she has no car. She only spends $200 monthly for food and $20 monthly for grooming. She has no clothing expense. She has kept her rent expense down to $500 monthly by living with a family member. She has assets of $65 and debts of $1,589. [ 82 ] By comparison, the father is spending $600 each month for food, $880 monthly for vehicle expenses, $275 monthly for internet and phone, $120 monthly for alcohol, entertainment and gifts and $125 monthly for clothing.

He claims monthly expenses of

over $4,800 (almost 5 times the mother’s expenses), not including his automatic payroll deductions. The father says he has assets of $2,400 and debts (not including CRA debt) of $24,000 (including the $7,500 loan for his legal fees). [ 83 ] The court has taken into consideration that the court will not be ordering the mother to contribute to the child’s eligible

section 7 special expense. The father will solely assume the monthly daycare cost of $280. [16] [ 84 ] Balancing all of these factors, the court will order the father to pay the mother monthly spousal support of $1,350 each month. The court recognizes that this award is about 2.8 times higher than the high range of the SSAG but finds that this amount is necessary for the mother to meet her basic needs on a temporary basis. It will let her spend some additional money on the child during her parenting time.

The father can afford to make this payment, although he may have to make some adjustments in his spending. [ 85 ] The SSAG software analysis that will be attached to this decision indicates that this monthly payment will still leave the father with about 76.6% of the family’s monthly net disposable income. [17] Part Five – Conclusion [ 86 ] A temporary order shall go on the following terms:

a) The father’s claim for temporary child support is dismissed.

b) The father shall pay the mother temporary spousal support in the amount of $1,350 each month, starting on January 1, 2020.

c) These orders are without prejudice to the parties’ ability to claim a different amount and start date for their support claims at trial.

d) A support deduction order shall issue. [ 87 ] If either party finds a mathematical error in this decision, or an inputting error in the software calculations attached to this decision, they may serve and file written submissions by January 29, 2020. The other party will then have until February 6, 2020 to serve and file a written response. Any submissions should be delivered to the trial coordinator’s office on the second floor of the courthouse. [ 88 ] If either party seeks their costs, they shall serve and file their written costs submissions by February 12, 2020.

The other party will then have until Feb19, 2020 to respond (not to make their own request for costs). The costs submissions shall not exceed 3 pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs. The costs submissions should be delivered to the trial coordinator’s office. [ 89 ] The court thanks counsel for their excellent presentation of these motions. Released: January 21, 2020 _____________________ Justice S.B. Sherr [3] See for example: Brooks v. Brooks , 2016 ONSC 1806 ; Rogers v. Rogers , [2013] O.J. No. 1616 (S.C.J.) .