C.A.B. v. A.T.B. Date:, 2012 BCPC 396

Citation: C.A.B. v. A.T.B. Date: 20120927 2012 BCPC 0396 File No: F56399 Registry: Nanaimo IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY RELATIONS ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 128 BETWEEN: C.A.B. APPLICANT AND: A.T.B. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.P. MacCARTHY Counsel for the Applicant: Karla Shupe

Counsel for the Respondent: Trent A.B. Vining Place of Hearing: Nanaimo , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 5, 2012 Dates of Written Submissions: June 22 and 25, 2012 Date of Judgment: September 27, 2012 Introduction [ 1 ] C.A.B. (the "Mother") and A.T.B. (the "Father ") are the parents (the “Parents”) of J.J.B. born August 12, 2003 ("J.J.B.") who was approaching 9 years of age at the time of the hearing and D.B. born September 15, 2007 ("D.B.”) who was approaching 5 years of age at the time of the hearing.

J.J.B. and D.B. are collectively referred to as "the Children". [ 2 ] The Father seeks an order for joint custody of the Children with the Mother pursuant to an Application to Change or Cancel an Order filed October 4, 2010. The Mother opposes the application on the basis that there has not been a material change since the December 1, 2009 order was made by consent. [ 3 ] The Father further seeks directions regarding paragraph 2 of the Consent Order made by the Honourable Judge Gould on November 4, 2011, (the “November 4, 2011 Consent Order”).

That application is before me pursuant to a Notice of Motion filed May 17, 2012. Paragraph 2 orders shared care and control of the Children by the Parents upon a week on/week off schedule. [ 4 ] The Mother has also applied for an order settling the terms of paragraphs 2 and 7 of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. That application is before me pursuant to a Notice of Motion filed May 25 th , 2012. Paragraph 7 deals with payment by each of the Parents of special or extraordinary expense of the Children as defined under

section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines . Background of Court Proceedings and Court Orders [ 5 ] A final Consent Order of this court was made by the Honourable Judge Cowling on December 1, 2009 (the "December 1, 2009 Consent Order") which granted the Mother sole custody of the Children. It granted joint guardianship of the Children to the Mother and the Father. The Mother was granted primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of the Children. It imposed an obligation on the Mother to discuss significant decisions regarding the Children with the Father. Paragraph 2 (

e) specifically provides as follows: e. In the event that the parents cannot reach an agreement with respect to any major decision, despite their best efforts, C.A.B. will have the right to make such decision, and A.T.B. will have the right under

section 31 of the Family Relations Act , to seek a review of any decision which he considers contrary to the best interests of the Children; [ 6 ] Pursuant to the December 1, 2009 Consent Order, the Father was granted reasonable and generous access to the Children including every second weekend from Friday at 6 PM to Sunday at 5 PM commencing December 11, 2009 and alternating each weekend thereafter.

The issue of child support was adjourned to a further hearing at a later date. [ 7 ] An interim Consent Order of this court was made by the Honourable Judge Saunders on May 18, 2010 (the "May 18, 2010 Consent Order"). It ordered the Father to pay the Mother the sum of $500 commencing June 1, 2010 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter for the support of the Children.

It further required the Father to pay to the Mother the sum of $300 per month for the Children's day care expenses commencing June 1, 2010 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter. [ 8 ] The Father's Application to Change or Cancel an Order sought changes to the December 1, 2009 Consent Order and the May 18, 2010 Consent Order which may be summarized as follows: 1. the Mother and the Father to have joint custody of the Children. 2. the Mother and the Father to have joint guardianship on a modified form of the Master Joyce model of guardianship order which will impose upon both of the parents an obligation to advise each other of significant matters affecting the Children, discuss significant decisions and to try to reach an agreement with respect to those significant decisions and in the absence of such an agreement to apply under

section 32 of the Family Relations Act for Court direction concerning the major decisions; the form of order sought eliminates the Mother’s right to make the final decision, subject always to a review by the court under

section 31 of the Family Relations Act. 3. the Mother and the Father to have shared care and control of the Children on a week on week off basis with shared holiday access. 4. the Father to have reasonable and generous access to the Children for the purpose of having them participate in extracurricular activities. 5. the child support payable pursuant to the May 18, 2010 Consent Order be varied to reflect a shared custody regime. 6. the provisions of the May 18, 2010 Consent Order regarding special or extraordinary expenses of the Children be shared between the

Mother and the Father in proportion to their respective incomes. 7. an order that all arrears of child support owing by the Father to the Mother be canceled. [ 9 ] The Father pleads that since the making of the aforementioned orders circumstances have changed as follows: “since the pronouncement of the orders, the applicant's living arrangements have stabilized and he has established a new business as a source of income.” [ 10 ] In opposing the application the Mother denies a material change in circumstances since the time that the December 1, 2009 Consent Order was made and further pleads that the May 18, 2010 Consent Order was made by consent. [ 11 ] On November 30, 2010 the Honourable Judge Dohm ordered that a

section 15 Custody and Access Report be prepared by a Family Justice Counsellor in relation to the Children (the “Section 15 Report"). A Family Case Conference was ordered to be held on March 4, 2011. The

Section 15 Report was prepared by Janille Michell and submitted June 30, 2011. It was admitted into evidence in the hearing before me. [ 12 ] A further final consent order of this Court was made by the Honourable Judge Gould on November 4, 2011 being the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. Both parties were represented by legal counsel at the time the parties sought that consent order. [ 13 ] The November 4, 2011 Consent Order varied the terms of the December 1, 2009 Consent Order and the May 18, 2010 Consent Order such that: 1.

In paragraphs 1 through 3 of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order, the Mother and the Father are granted joint custody of the Children and shared care and control of the Children on a week on/week off

schedule with transfers to occur on Fridays after school and with the Mother and the Father equally sharing care and control of the Children during holidays, "as to be agreed upon between the parties". 2. Paragraph 4 provides as follows: “4. Based upon C.A.B. and A.T.B. having similar guideline incomes and sharing care of the Children on an equal basis, no child support will be payable by either party to the other.

This order will take effect on July 15, 2011 such that no further arrears of child support owing by A.T.B. to C.A.B. will accumulate pursuant to the terms of the May 18, 2010 order following that date." 3. Paragraph 5 provides as follows: “5. C.A.B. and A.T.B. will exchange copies of their full Income Tax Returns, including all attachments, and Notices of Assessment by July 1 st of each year commencing July 1, 2012 and every year thereafter for so long as the Children remain eligible for child support pursuant to the Family Relations Act .

Upon receipt of each other's income tax information, the parties will make adjustments to the level of child support payable as may be appropriate." 4. Paragraph 6 orders the Father to pay monthly payments of $100 to the Mother towards the arrears of child support owing pursuant to the terms of the May 18, 2010 Consent Order until the outstanding amount is paid in full. 5. Paragraph 7 orders as follows: “7. C.A.B. and A.T.B. will each pay 50% of the net of subsidy costs of the special or extraordinary expenses of the Children as defined under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines .

The special or extraordinary expenses of the Children will specifically include day care, childcare, and, medical expenses, all of which the parties will pay their share of directly to the care provider." 6. Paragraph 8 prohibits the Mother and Father from relocating the residence of the Children from the Greater Nanaimo area without the written agreement of the other party or further order of the Court. 7. Paragraph 9 adjourns the Father's application for joint guardianship of the Children to January 16, 2012.

The Application for Variation of Provisions for Joint Guardianship [ 14 ] A full-day hearing was held with respect to the application for the variation of the existing provisions for joint guardianship and for the other relief and directions being sought. Viva voce evidence was presented by the Father and his spouse E.T. (the "Step- Mother") in support of the Father’s applications and the other matters before me.

[ 15 ] The Mother provided viva voce evidence in opposition to the application for variation of the existing joint guardianship provisions and with respect to the other matters before me. [ 16 ] The following reports were admitted into evidence: 1. The

Section 15 Report 2. A Psychological Report Parenting Capacity Assessment for E.T. assessed by: Dr. Larry W. Waterman May 24, 2012 (the "E.T. Parenting Capacity Assessment"). The Family Background The Father, the Step-Mother and the Mother [ 17 ] The Mother and the Father met at Camosun College, started a relationship and commenced to cohabit around 2001. They were married July 5, 2003, separated in February 2009 and were divorced July 26, 2010.

There were periods of separation after the birth of J.J.B. and a reconciliation during which time D.B. was conceived and born. [ 18 ] The Father and the Step-Mother knew each other in high school. After they had separated from their respective partners in early 2009, they started a relationship which led to them residing together starting in the period around February to March of 2010. They were married on January 1, 2011. [ 19 ] The Father is a qualified electrician.

Poor economic and employment circumstances on Vancouver Island have required him to seek work out of province or in other parts of British Columbia, away from his home in Nanaimo. Therefore he is away for extended periods of time before returning home to Nanaimo. [ 20 ] At the time of the hearing, the Father was working for P. Corporation in Fort Nelson British Columbia. His present work

schedule requires him to be away 14 days at a time and then he returns home for 7 days of leave. The project in Fort Nelson is behind schedule. The Father is uncertain as to when his job will be finished and to where he will be assigned following completion of the existing project. [ 21 ] Last year in an effort to earn income without leaving home for extended periods, the Father established a sole proprietorship tile setting business. Although he had 5 employees, he earned a personal income amount after payment of expenses of only $11,000.00.

The business was based out of Nanaimo but he was required to travel throughout Vancouver Island and was away from home, the longest period being for about 9 days. That was the situation existing both at the time and prior to an agreement reached by the Parents in or around August of 2011 that was reflected in the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. [ 22 ] The Father was out of work for the period from September 11, 2011 to February 2012 when he sought and obtained work off of Vancouver Island. [ 23 ] At the date of hearing, his current wage working out of town is $38.00 per hour for a 140 hour working period.

He was uncertain what his projected annual income will be, with a possible lay-off pending. He was able to say that his take home pay for the last month working out of town was $7,000.00. [ 24 ] Furthermore, he is uncertain as to the location of his next job and whether or not it will necessitate him to continue to work away from home. [ 25 ] The Step-Mother manages a Vancouver Island family transportation business founded by her own mother. She is steadily employed and earns an annual income of $60,000.00.

Given her husband’s challenges in obtaining steady employment, she has been contributing financially to maintaining their family home in Nanaimo, in which the Children reside when they are in the care of the Father. She has no children from any previous relationship. [ 26 ] The Mother is a residential and commercial flooring estimator and has been so employed for 5 years, working from 8 am to 5 pm, Mondays through Fridays. She earns an annual income of $35,000.00. [ 27 ] She works and resides in Nanaimo.

She is engaged to be married to W.W. who resides in Edmonton, Alberta and who has plans to relocate to Nanaimo, such that they can cohabitate once his business in Edmonton is established. [ 28 ] The Mother has applied and qualified for a child care subsidy under the British Columbia Child Care Subsidy Act and the regulations thereto for the purposes of subsidizing part of the cost of D.B.’s child care at Sonlight Christian Childcare Centre and also for part of the cost of the before and after school child care that J.J.B. receives.

I understand that care is at a facility known as Imagination Station. [ 29 ] The gross childcare expenses for D.B., both before and after all subsidies received by the Mother, each month and for the total six month period from December of 2011 to May of 2012 are as follows:

Child: D.B. Before Subsidy Available Paid Subsidy Net Due After Paid Subsidy Childcare per month $625.00 per month $275.00 per month $350.00 per month Childcare for total six month period $3,750.00 ( 6 x $625) $1,650.00 ( 6 x $275) $2,100.00 ( 6 x $350) [ 30 ] The gross childcare expenses for J.J.B., both before and after all subsidies received by the Mother, each month and for the total six month period from December of 2011 to May of 2012 are as follows: Child: J.J.B.

Before Subsidy Available Paid Subsidy Net Due After Paid Subsidy Childcare per month $254.17 per month $31.96 per month $222.21 per month Childcare for total six month period $1,525.02 (6 x $254.17) $191.76 (6 x 31.96) $1,333.26 (6 x $222.21) [ 31 ] The gross childcare expenses for both Children, both before and after all subsidies received by the Mother, each month and for the total six month period from December of 2011 to May of 2012 are as follows: Both Children Before Subsidies Available Paid Subsidies Net Due After Paid Subsidies Childcare Per Month $879.17 per month ($625.+ 254.17) $306.96 per month ($275 + $31.96 per month) $572.21 per month ($350 +$222.21 per month) Childcare for total six month period $5,275.00 (6 x 879.17) $1,841.76 (6 x 306.96) $3,433.26 (572.21x 6) [ 32 ] All subsidies are paid by the Ministry of Children and Family Development directly to the childcare provider in accordance with section 15(2)(

b) of the Child Care Subsidy Regulation because the child care setting is outside of the home of each of the Children. [ 33 ] The amount of the subsidy that the Mother may have been entitled to receive if D.B. were with her on a full time basis, rather than on the agreed shared basis, would have been $550.00 per month. There is a suggestion in the evidence that the day care provider incorrectly applied for and received the higher subsidy amount for the months of November of 2011 through to February of 2012 on the basis that the D.B. was still with the Mother on a full time basis.

This was not in fact the situation since the shared custody arrangement had come into effect prior to this period and therefore D.B. was not with the Mother on a full time basis.

The Mother testified that she raised the concern that she was not entitled to receive the full subsidy and therefore the subsidy amount being paid to D.B.’s day care provider on her behalf was apparently reduced to $275.00 in March of 2012. [ 34 ] There is no clear evidence what steps have been taken by the day care provider to refund the overpayment of the subsidy amounts or what steps the ministry has or will take to obtain recovery for overpayments made during the time that the shared custody arrangement was in effect. [ 35 ] The Father has paid a total amount of $1,537.50 towards the total childcare expenses of $5,275.00 (before subsidies) payable during the period from December 2011 to May 2012 for both Children. [ 36 ] Based on his evidence, for the period between August 2011 and November 2011 inclusive (being 4 months) the Father paid $1,930 towards day care costs whereas he was only required to pay $1,200 for that period, resulting in an overpayment of $730 for that 4 month period.

The Mother has not either in her evidence or in submissions contested this assertion. [ 37 ] During the period from December 2011 to March of 2012, the Father has expended $978.22 on prescriptions and allergy serums for the Children prescribed by Dr. Edward G. Coates, who practices in the area of paediatric allergy and immunology, plus $110.00 for swim lessons for the Children through City of Nanaimo Parks, Recreation and Culture. He claims these amounts as a special expense totalling $1,088.22. The Mother has not made any contribution to these expenses.

The Father seeks reimbursement from the Mother for half of these amounts being $544.11. [ 38 ] The Mother pays the monthly medical premiums for herself and the Children. She is eligible for coverage under the British Columbia Fair Pharmacare Plan. Therefore after her global deductible amount of $700 per annum is paid by her for herself and the Children, she then obtains 80% coverage for prescriptions for herself and the Children. There is no evidence before me as to what the exact amount that she has paid for medical premiums to cover the Children or what exact amounts she has paid on account of the global

deductible portion for prescriptions. There is no evidence that the Father has made any contributions to these amounts paid by the Mother. The Children [ 39 ] The

Section 15 Report was completed June 30, 2011 at which time J.J.B. was seven years of age and in grade 2. D.B. was age 3 and was attending day care at Sonlight Christian Childcare Centre. [ 40 ] The

Section 15 Report describes J.J.B. as "an artistic, outgoing and dramatic child". That report also goes on to say that he has "a lot of behavioural challenges while attending at a before and after School Care Program” as well as at school. He struggles socially in making friends and interacting appropriately with his peers. He has been diagnosed as having ADHD but according to the Father’s evidence, J.J.B. is presently wait-listed for formal assessment at Vancouver’s Children’s Hospital. [ 41 ] The

Section 15 Report goes on to say that he has been seeing a therapist who identifies J.J.B. as having an “amazing imagination". [ 42 ] According to sources contacted by the author of the

Section 15 Report, J.J.B. struggles with impulsivity and has difficulty controlling his actions. Based upon the evidence of both the Father and the Mother, J.J.B. is presently and since December of 2011 been receiving medication for his ADHD and thereafter reports have been received from J.J.B.’s teachers that his behaviour has greatly improved. The Father was initially reluctant to have J.J.B. medicated when medical advice was initially received about the diagnosed ADHD condition but the Father is now is more accepting of this approach.

Dosage levels of the medications remain a concern for the Father and have been a source of conflict with the Mother. The Father testifies that he would not unilaterally change the medication regime if he had the authority to do so, notwithstanding that he has concerns about it. [ 43 ] The

Section 15 Report notes that: "J.J.B. has made some statements of violent actions from his parents where his story changed. J.J.B. began saying one parent hit him, then changed his story to the other parent. The Ministry of Children and Family Development has been involved on a few occasions and they have no further concerns. J.J.B. has threatened to kill himself, telling his mom afterwards, he was not going to hurt himself, but wanted to get a reaction from his teacher." [ 44 ] Notwithstanding the matters of concern raised above by the

Section 15 Report’s author, under the heading "Summary and Recommendations" the following somewhat positive statement appears: "J.J.B. is clearly a very impressionable child. His challenges with his behaviour are a concern for his teachers and care providers. J.J.B. is a smart, sweet, creative boy. It will be essential for J.J.B.'s development to have structure, routine and consistency from his parents and all the supports in his life." [ 45 ] The

Section 15 Report describes D.B. in the following manner: "D.B. appears to be a healthy, happy and energetic and enthusiastic three year old boy. Both parents report that there are no concerns about his emotional or developmental well-being." [ 46 ] He is reported to be doing well socially and developmentally. [ 47 ] However, based upon the evidence of the Father and the Mother there are more recent concerns that D.B. is evidencing some behavioural issues including impulse control, inability to sit still, biting and hitting adults.

At the time of the hearing, D.B. was not receiving ADHD medication for these symptoms. Formal assessment of D.B. will occur at age five. Based on his discussions with the allergist, the Father is of the view that this behaviour may be caused by allergies rather than symptomatic of ADHD.

The Mother is concerned that it may in fact be ADHD and that the Father will demonstrate the same reluctance about medications that he did when the medical diagnosis of ADHD was presented to the Parents with respect to J.J.B. [ 48 ] The Father’s suggestion is that D.B.'s issues should be addressed through parenting courses, exercise, structure and routine, and activities for D.B. to assist in burning off excess energy. [ 49 ] The

Section 15 Report describes the relationship between J.J.B. and D.B. as “a good, loving relationship”. It further states that despite their age difference of four years, “they seem to get along and play well as brothers”. [ 50 ] According to the evidence of the Father, both Children have been diagnosed as having a variety of allergies and asthma. There is a suggestion that some of the symptoms may be caused by anxiety. Further testing and medical consultations are planned. [ 51 ] The

Section 15 Report indicates that J.J.B. and D.B." are not in extracurricular activities at this time." This report notes the recommendation of J.J.B.'s teacher, therapist and day care provider to the effect that such activities would be very beneficial and allow him to "burn some of his disruptive energy in a positive way.” [ 52 ] The Father and the Step-Mother have in recent months taken proactive steps to enrol the Children in extracurricular activities including such things as swimming programs, karate, ice skating, hip-hop dancing, winter childcare camp and the Rainbow Child

Development Program for D.B. While the Mother has agreed to these initiatives she appears to be less favourable to this approach for the Children and at times has been somewhat inflexible and uncooperative in assuring the Children’s attendance. The Mother and Father have jointly decided upon enrolling the Children in summer camp. Interpersonal Family Relations [ 53 ] During the period of time that the Mother and the Father were together, the relationship was unstable, tense and conflicted. This has continued subsequent to their separation.

At the hearing of this matter, they appeared quite guarded and reluctant to acknowledge the parenting strengths of each other. They had previously been more prepared to acknowledge each other’s strengths to the author of the

Section 15 Report. [ 54 ] They have historically at times had difficulty reaching a timely consensus on some important issues relating to the Children. [ 55 ] They do not verbally communicate well and have moved from direct discussions to communication by means of email and text messaging. [ 56 ] There have been historical disputes regarding selection and appropriateness of day care facilities and certain medical diagnoses and proposed medical treatments for the Children. [ 57 ] Notwithstanding these challenges, they have both been able to provide a safe, warm and loving environment for the Children in each of their respective homes on a sustained basis.

As is often the case, their respective parenting styles appear to be different. Based upon the evidence, it appears that the Father favours a more strict discipline and structured approach centred around organized activities than the approach utilized by the Mother. [ 58 ] The

Section 15 Report indicates that the Children enjoy a positive and loving relationship with both of their parents. It also indicates that the separation of the parents and their continuing conflict has had some adverse consequences for J.J.B. [ 59 ] The Mother was the primary care giver for the Children both during the time she and the Father were together and immediately following separation. As reflected in the various court orders, the Father's involvement with the day to day care of the Children has increased significantly over the past three years, such that a shared custody arrangement was implemented.

As a result of the shared custody arrangement, the Step-Mother has also become increasingly involved with the day-to-day care of the Children. [ 60 ] This increased involvement of the Step Mother has proven to be a source of increasing conflict between the Mother and the Father. The Father has encouraged increasing involvement by the Step-Mother as a supportive role in the lives of the Children and encourages her input into various issues relating to the Children.

The Step-Mother’s increased involvement partially relates to the absences of the Father due to his work commitments away from home. [ 61 ] The Mother is opposed to the Step-Mother's increased involvement especially if the Father is away from his home for work.

The Mother has taken active steps to attempt to limit the Step-Mother’s involvement in such things as picking up from school and day care and transporting the Children to activities. [ 62 ] The Mother has on at least two separate occasions raised concerns about alleged inappropriate treatment of the Children while under the care of the Father and the Step-Mother. One of her concerns was reported to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the “Ministry”) and then investigated by the RCMP. It related to an alleged pinching of D.B.'s penis by the Step-Mother in the summer of 2010.

Following on this was an investigation completed by the Ministry. No action was taken by either the RCMP or by the Ministry. Following these decisions of the Ministry and the RCMP, the Mother insisted on picking up the Children from day care and inspecting them for any apparent injuries before allowing the Father access. [ 63 ] In February 2012, the Mother observed bruising on D.B. and texted the Father as he was about to depart out of province for work.

When he dismissed her concerns, she then raised those concerns with the Ministry apparently suggesting that D.B.’s bruises resulted from pinching by the Step-Mother (or possibly the Father) while D.B. was in the care of the Father. On February 22, 2012 the Ministry wrote to the Father and indicated that there did not appear to be sufficient reason to proceed with a child protection investigation. The Ministry closed its file.

In her testimony the Step-Mother denied that she pinched D.B. and indicated that she did not know the source of the bruising. [ 64 ] Thereafter from February 2012 to May of 2012, the Mother significantly restricted any access by the Step-Mother to the Children in the absence of the Father who was then working away from home for an extended period of time.

Although she did not initially object to such access and permitted the Children to continue living at the Father's residence with the Step-Mother in his absence and in keeping with the agreed schedule, the Mother’s altered position was that if the Father was away from home and unable to exercise his scheduled shared care and control, then it would not occur. In other words, if one parent was not able to care for the Children then the other parent should do so.

In her view, this is in keeping with the provisions of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. [ 65 ] She gave no specific factual reason in her evidence as to why this

interpretation should prevail. She did mention that she would not expect that the Father should accept that W.W. should look after the Children in her absence or expect that the Father would be obliged to converse with W.W. about matters relating to the Children. It appears that at this time Mr. W.’s relationship with the Children is far less developed than that achieved by the Step-Mother. [ 66 ] The

Section 15 Report provides some possible insight into the Mother’s

interpretation of this particular aspect of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. The Mother is reported to have said that she is concerned by how the Children are dealing with transitions between the homes and that they are not adjusting well, coming to her home “stressed out and acting up.” Notwithstanding this comment, the

Section 15 Report’s recommendation for a shared joint custody arrangement on a week on, week off rotation has been adopted by the Mother and the Father and is confirmed in the November 4, 2011 Consent Order.

[ 67 ] The Step-Mother testified that she has attempted to maintain open lines of communication with the Mother and to cooperate with her in connection with the Children. She does not feel that this has been reciprocated by the Mother on a consistent basis. [ 68 ] The Mother testifies that she has attempted to communicate with both the Father and the Step-Mother and to be cooperative on important issues such as day care and extra curricular activities, all for the benefit of the Children.

However, she indicated in her testimony that she has encountered resistance from the Father with respect to her views and opinions about the Children and on occasion, a dismissive attitude about her concerns. [ 69 ] The Mother testifies that notwithstanding the challenges in the relationship between the Mother and the Father, they have been able to resolve important issues relating to the Children such as choice of schools, without her invoking her right to a “final say” or resorting to court applications.

In that regard she cites the issue of their disagreement over the day care arrangements and extracurricular activities. She says that she has not ever blatantly indicated to the Father that she has the "final say” with respect to major decisions. [ 70 ] However, she testifies that she is concerned that there may be significant disagreements between her and the Father about proposed medical treatment for the Children in the future.

She is concerned that disagreements will result in court applications and even without court applications, there will be resulting delays in reaching a timely decision if she does not have a “final say”, that is her right to make such decisions in accordance with the December 1, 2009 Consent Order. [ 71 ] The Father disputes the Mother’s assertion that the Mother has not exercised her “final say” and in that regard points to the issue of medications and attendance of the Children at summer and winter camps.

The Father expresses the view that it will not lead to court applications or a failure on the part of the Parents to reach timely decisions on important matters, in the absence of either Parent having a “final say” on disputed matters. [ 72 ] The evidence supports the conclusion that the Step-Mother has very much been involved in both the care and the activities of Children over an extended period of time and has become an important part of their lives. Given some flexibility in her work schedule, she is able to assist in arranging appointments and investigating and arranging for the Children’s activities.

She keeps in contact with their educators and outside care and medical providers. In 2010, she looked after the Children for a two week period pursuant to an agreement reached with the Mother. [ 73 ] The E.T. Parenting Capacity Assessment Report is very positive. The seven conclusions set out in that report may be summarized by the following passage: "In conclusion, based on the results of this assessment, no concerns about E.T.’s ability to appropriately and effectively parent J.J.B. and D.B. were identified. E.T. appears to have a warm and loving relationship with the boys as they do with her.

The boys responded equally well to E.T. both when they were with her by themselves and when A.T.B. was present.” [ 74 ] Similar conclusions about the Step-Mother are contained in the

Section 15 Report. Positions of the Parties With Respect to Variation of the Terms of Joint Guardianship and With Respect to Shared Care and Control Issues under the November 4, 2011 Consent Order The Father’s Position Amending the Joint Guardianship Order [ 75 ] It is submitted by the Father that a number of material changes have occurred since the original order was made for joint guardianship pursuant to the December 1, 2009 Consent Order. The Mother and Father have agreed to joint custody with equal shared responsibility for the Children on a week on/week off basis.

In addition, the fact that the Father has established a new stable relationship with the Step-Mother who is significantly involved in the lives of the Children amounts to a material change in circumstances. [ 76 ] The existing “final say” right held by the Mother is an unnecessary point of conflict and which causes problems. Since it is in the best interest of the Children for there to be equal joint custody it is in the best interests of the Children that there be an equal guardianship arrangement without the Mother’s “final say”.

Directions on Shared Care and Control Under the November 4, 2011 Consent Order [ 77 ] The Father submits that the Mother’s narrow

interpretation which restricts the Step-Mother from having access to the Children during the Father's alternating scheduled weekly periods of care and which prevents the Children from living at the Father's home with the Step-Mother during his absences is not in keeping with the intentions of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. Accordingly, he seeks directions with respect to the

interpretation of that order but not a variation of it. [ 78 ] It is the Father’s position that in light of the positive conclusions contained in the E.T. Parenting Capacity Assessment Report and the fact that the Father and Step-Mother are providing one of the two households contemplated by the November 4, 2011 Consent Order, the narrow

interpretation followed by the Mother should not apply.

[ 79 ] Furthermore, it is not in the best interest of the Children that such a narrow

interpretation should prevail since it interferes with consistency of the week on/week off arrangement and provides an unnecessary disruption in the lives of the Children and also disrupts the status quo of co-parenting contemplated by the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. Furthermore, it gives an unwarranted preference to the Mother. [ 80 ] I am urged to accept a broader

interpretation of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order which will permit the Step-Mother to provide care for the Children and for them to live with her at the Father’s residence when the Father is not available.

The Mother’s Position Amending the Joint Guardianship Order [ 81 ] The Mother opposes the amendments sought by the Father to the existing provisions of the joint guardianship arrangements contained within the December 1, 2009 Consent Order and seeks it to remain in force in its present form with her having a “final say”. [ 82 ] Of concern to the Mother are the past and future disagreements about medical decisions for the Children. The deterioration of their communication and the increased conflict between the Mother and the Father also raise concerns for her.

She submits that the ability for them to come to an agreement on major decisions in the future will likely be under increased strain. [ 83 ] The pattern of the Father being out of town for extended periods of time is also concerning with respect to making timely decisions. Overall, she submits that she should retain a “final say” as part of the decision making and dispute resolution process.

While on one hand she is concerned about future conflict, on the other hand she points to the fact that to date there have not been any requirements for court applications in order to resolve disagreements between the parents. Directions on Shared Care and Control Under the November 4, 2011 Consent Order [ 84 ] In submissions, made on behalf of the Mother, her counsel indicates that the Mother's position is that while she does not dispute the Step-Mother's parenting capabilities, the raising of the Children should be undertaken by the Parents and not by a step-parent in the absence of either Parent.

By inference, I take it that this is the basis for the more narrow

interpretation adopted by the Mother and forms the basis for her restricting access to the Children by the Step-Mother during the Father's absence. [ 85 ] Although it was not specifically stated, I am presuming that it is the Mother’s position that this is more in keeping with the best interests of the Children.

Analysis with Respect to Variation of the Joint Guardianship Order [ 86 ] There is no doubt, that since agreeing to the joint guardianship provisions contained in the December 1, 2009 Consent Order, there have been significant material changes in the circumstances of both the Mother and the Father as well as the Children. [ 87 ] These are identified by the Father’s counsels in his submissions which are noted above.

In my view there is another material change that I must take into account, namely the deterioration in the effective communication between the Father and the Mother and in their relationship as it centres around the Children. [ 88 ] It is very unfortunate that neither Parent has demonstrated on an ongoing basis a reasonable level of respect for the concerns and opinions of the other Parent, on some very important issues as they relate to the Children. That is not to say that they have been unable to come to some resolutions on all major decisions.

But the evidence clearly establishes that their approach to each other on these issues has been more adversarial rather than collaborative. A collaborative approach would be far more beneficial for the Children and certainly in their best interests at present and in the future. [ 89 ] However, this is not a situation where the parental relationship is beyond repair.

But, it will require sincere best efforts from each of the Parents to establish a positive working and child centred relationship with each other. [ 90 ] Neither Parent believes that mediation or the engagement of a parenting coordinator will be very useful for them. [ 91 ] From a very practical perspective, the existing joint guardianship arrangement now does not reflect the reality of the equal co- parenting arrangement, with the agreed shared care and control. [ 92 ] I have weighed various alternatives including retaining the existing form of joint guardianship order, selecting the form of order sought by the Father, or crafting a hybrid form of order which will alternate the “final say” on disputed decisions between the parents on a regular basis. [ 93 ] I have fully considered the various factors relating to the bests interest of the Children as set out in

Section 24 of the Family Relations Act , R.S.B.C. 1996,

Chapter 128. [ 94 ] I am satisfied that the continuing ability of only one Parent to exercise a “final say” on a disputed major decision does not encourage or result in a collaborative approach to decision making between the Parents.

[ 95 ] Similarly, continuous and numerous court reviews under either Sections 31 or 32 of the Family Relations Act as a regular method of resolving disputes are not desirable nor particularly practical. Arguably these may act as the ultimate incentive to resolve disputes between the Parents. However, I am of the view that resorting to court does not necessarily provide the most positive incentives for the Parents to recognize the advantages of adapting a more collaborative approach to their decision making or to assist in achieving it.

Conclusion With Respect To Variation of the Joint Custody Order [ 96 ] Having regard to the evidence before me and the considerations noted above, I am of the view that a hybrid form of order will provide the necessary level of an immediate incentive for the Parents to be collaborative in their decision making and to achieve it on a long term basis.

I believe this to be in the best interests of the Children. [ 97 ] Accordingly, there will be a variation to the joint guardianship provision contained in paragraph 2 of the December 1, 2009 Consent Order by its deletion and the insertion of a provision on the following terms as a final order: THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that C.A.B (the “Mother”) and A.T.B. (the “Father”) shall share joint guardianship of the Children, namely, J.J.B (“J.J.B.”), born August 12, 2003, and D.B. (“D.B.”), born September 15, 2007, with guardianship including the following rights:

a) the parents are to be joint guardians of the estate of the Children;

b) in the event of the death of either parent, the remaining parent will be the sole guardian of the person of the Children;

c) both parents will have the obligation to advise the other parent of any matters of a significant nature affecting the Children;

d) both parents will have the obligation to discuss with the other parent any significant decisions which have to be made concerning the Children, including significant decisions concerning the health (except emergency decisions), education religious instruction, and general welfare of the Children and each parent will have the obligation to try to reach an agreement with respect to those major decisions;

e) in the event that the parents cannot reach agreement with respect to any significant decision despite their best efforts, then the following named parent shall have the right to make such decisions for the following named child in the following years:

i) for J.J.B. in 2012 and in each even numbered year thereafter, the Mother shall have such right ii) for J.J.B. in 2013 and in each odd numbered year thereafter the Father shall have such right iii) for D.B. in 2012 and in each even numbered year thereafter, the Father shall have such right iv) for D.B. in 2013 and in each odd numbered year thereafter the Mother shall have such right

f) the parent who does not have the right of decision with respect to a child in any particular year shall have the right to seek a review by the Court of any decisions made by the other parent having such right of decision, which the parent who does not have the right of decision considers contrary to the best interests of the child;

g) each parent will have the right to obtain information concerning the Children directly from third parties, including but not limited to teachers, counsellors, medical professionals, and third party care givers. Analysis Regarding Directions with Respect to Shared Care and Control under the November 4, 2011 Consent Order [ 98 ] The specific provision of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order that I am asked to both settle and provide directions with respect to is the shared care and control provision that is found in paragraph 2, and which reads as follows: “2. Commencing July 15, 2011, C.A.B. and A.T.B. will share care and control of the Children based upon a week on/week off

schedule with transfers to occur on Fridays after school." [ 99 ] The November 4, 2011 Consent Order is a desk order. It came before the Court without a hearing. It was made by consent. The parents were independently represented by legal counsel. This desk order confirms the agreement reached by the parents inter alia with respect to the matters set forth in paragraph 2. [ 100 ] Paragraph 2 reflects the first recommendation contained within the

Section 15 Report. [ 101 ] Paragraph 2 is plain and unambiguous. On a plain reading, in no way does it place limitations upon either the Father’s or Mother's shared care and control of Children. In particular, it does not place any limitations upon who will actually provide care for the Children during any of the week on/week off time frames. For example, it does not limit the use of babysitters or day care providers. It does not specifically say that the Step-Mother can or cannot provide a type of support or assistance to the Father in meeting his obligations or exercising his rights under paragraph 2.

[ 102 ] Clearly the Mother was aware from the information contained in the

Section 15 Report and based on her own personal observations that at the time she entered into the agreement evidenced by paragraph 2 that the Father and the Step-Mother were both instrumental in providing a home for the Children in order that the Father could both fulfil his responsibility for the care and control of the children and exercise his rights to do so. [ 103 ] I see nothing in the evidence that suggests that enlisting the assistance of the Step-Mother amounts to an unacceptable delegation of responsibility on the part of the Father.

Notwithstanding that the Father may not be physically present in his home on various occasions due to work commitments, the evidence suggests that he maintains a sufficient degree of contact and control over the Children in order to meet his obligations under the provisions of paragraph 2. [ 104 ] Both parents are aware of the importance of a positive and non-disruptive transition between the two homes. Interference with the agreed

schedule for the Children will not assist in this process. Such interference and disruption in the week on/week off is not in the best interests of the Children. However, it is also important that there be some flexibility to the agreed

schedule to accommodate the temporary circumstances of both Parents from time to time. I leave it to the Parents to address this flexibility concern in a collaborative way. [ 105 ] Based on the evidence before me, the Step-Mother is capable of looking after and nurturing the Children during the present periods of the Father's absence and it is appropriate for her to do so. There may be a future change in circumstances where such an arrangement might not be as appropriate.

For example, if the Father chose to take employment overseas resulting in him being absent for several months at a time and out of contact with the Children, then such a delegation of responsibility for day to day care to the Step- Mother, in my view, may not be appropriate and may go beyond any reasonable notion of shared care and control of the Children by the Father and the Mother.

Conclusion Regarding Directions with Respect to Shared Care and Control under the November 4, 2011 Consent Order [ 106 ] Therefore, I direct that with respect to paragraph 2 of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order the Father is permitted to utilize the Step-Mother to provide care and supervision of the Children in accordance with the week on/week off

schedule set out in paragraph 2 or any agreed variations of it, during his temporary absences for employment purposes. Furthermore, without limitation, the Father may utilize the Step-Mother to assist with the transfer of care and control of the Children between the Mother and the Father as contemplated by paragraph 2 and with the transportation of the Children to and from school, child care and extracurricular activities, whether or not the Father may or may not be absent for employment purposes at such times.

Position of the Parties Regarding Directions with Respect to Sharing of Special or Extraordinary Costs under Paragraph 7 of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order [ 107 ] The parties also seek both directions and to settle paragraph 7 of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. The provision is set forth in its entirety in paragraph 13 above under the heading “Background of Court Proceedings and Court Orders”. [ 108 ] For ease of reference it reads as follows: “7.

C.A.B. and A.T.B. will each pay 50% of the net of subsidy costs of the special or extraordinary expenses of the Children as defined under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines . The special or extraordinary expenses of the Children will specifically include day care, childcare, and, medical expenses, all of which the parties will pay their share of directly to the care provider." Father's Position [ 109 ] The Father submits that the correct

interpretation of paragraph 7 is that the parties are to each pay 50% of the net of subsidy costs of the child care and day care expenses of the Children, that is to say after the subsidies have been applied. [ 110 ] Based upon this

interpretation and based upon the following presumptions: 1. that he overpaid by $730.00 for his share of the child care expenses for the 4 month period from August to November 2011 inclusive (the “4 Month Period”); 2. the lower monthly subsidy of $275.00 is applied to D.B.’s day care expenses in a manner consistent with this

interpretation for the 6 month period between December of 2011 and May of 2012, inclusive, (the “6 Month Period”); and 3. the Father has therefore underpaid by a total amount of $179.12 for the 6 Month Period. then the Father submits that he has overpaid by the amount of $550.88 for the entire 10 month period from August 2011 to May 2012 inclusive, (the “10 Month Period”). [ 111 ] Alternatively based upon the aforementioned presumptions, except that the higher subsidy of $550 for D.B.’s day care is to be applied for four months of the 6 Month Period, then Father submits that his overpayment for the 10 Month Period is the amount of $963.38. [ 112 ] It is urged upon me to apply the higher subsidy amount since it is argued that there is no evidence to support the contention that

there is any money owing back to the ministry for the subsidy overpayment to the childcare provider based on the Mother’s actual subsidy entitlement during the period that there was shared custody. [ 113 ] In conclusion he argues that the Mother should reimburse him for 50% of the amount that the Court finds has been overpaid by the Father for childcare expenses. [ 114 ] In addition the Father says that paragraph 7 requires the Mother to pay 50% of the total medical receipts and the extracurricular activities for which he has paid, totalling $1,088.22 and to which the Mother has not contributed.

Accordingly, the Mother owes him $544.11 for these items. [ 115 ] The Father says that pursuant to the Child Care Subsidy Regulation only the Mother's monthly income and that of the Children is relevant since she is the parent who is applying for the subsidy. No regard should be given to the Father’s financial circumstances and his entitlement (or lack thereof) for the child care subsidy since it has no impact on her eligibility.

He further submits that nothing in the Child Care Subsidy Act or the Child Care Subsidy Regulation restricts the benefit of a child care subsidy to only the recipient of the subsidy. [ 116 ] Therefore, as I understand it, the conclusion of his argument is that as between the Mother and Father, the Father can take advantage of the child care subsidy amount by only paying one half of the net child care expenses after the application of the Mother’s child care subsidy even if the Father is not entitled to receive the child care subsidy. Mother’s Position [ 117 ] The correct

interpretation of paragraph 7 that is urged upon me by the Mother is that given that it is an equal shared custody arrangement, each parent is responsible for paying half of the day care costs for the Children. Since it is an equal arrangement each parent should pay directly to the day care provider their costs (whether or not they are subsidized) of using the day care for the required 10 days during the period each month when the Children are with them.

As I understand the argument, the Mother should receive a credit against her equal share for the entire amount of the child care subsidy to which she is entitled and the Father should pay his share without any subsidy. [ 118 ] The Mother argues that the child care subsidy is not a general benefit available to parents in separate households, since it is restricted to an eligible applicant. A parent who has not applied for the child care subsidy or who is not eligible upon application, may not receive benefits from the program.

The eligibility criterion is income-based, and only lower income applicants receive the benefit. [ 119 ] The Mother further states that the main purpose of the child care subsidy program is to subsidize lower income households such that low income parents can work. It is not to subsidize higher income households whose income suggests that they can otherwise afford their own day care costs. [ 120 ] The Mother notes that her limited income makes her eligible for the childcare subsidy for which she has applied and been approved.

The day care provider can only submit a claim and receive a subsidy for the 10 days each month during the period that a child is in the care of the Mother. [ 121 ] On the other hand, the Father has not applied for the child care subsidy benefit. Having regard for the requirement of the Father to include his spouse’s income along with his own income in any application, their combined household income of $71,000 in 2011 would exclude him from obtaining the child care subsidy. [ 122 ] The Mother therefore opposes the Father's

interpretation of paragraph 7 of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. She argues that his

interpretation results in her subsidizing the Father from the childcare benefit that only she is entitled to receive. It is argued that this

interpretation is contradictory to the purpose of the child care subsidy program. [ 123 ] Based on this argument, I understand that the Mother disputes that the Father has overpaid his share of the total childcare expenses for the 6 Month Period from December 2011 and May 2012 inclusive, since his calculations presume that he is entitled to pay his share on the basis of the net cost of the childcare after applying the subsidy amount. [ 124 ] With respect to the Father's claim for reimbursement for medical expenses, the Mother argues that both parties are currently paying for medical expenses for the Children.

She further contends that the annual global deductible amount of $700.00 under the Fair Pharmacare program will soon be reached. Once this occurs, the bulk of the Children's prescription expenses will be covered by the Mother’s Fair Pharmacare plan.

Once that occurs, then the Father will benefit from the fact that a bulk of the Children’s prescription expenses will be covered by the plan for which the Mother qualifies but the Father does not. [ 125 ] As I understand her argument, the Mother is saying that she should not be required at this time to reimburse the Father for 50% of the Children’s expenses he has incurred for prescriptions since she has also incurred similar type expenses for which the Father is 50% responsible and accordingly these expenses will be set off against each other.

In the alternative she questions why any reimbursement should be necessary in light of the fact that the Father will benefit financially when the Fair Pharmacare plan starts providing coverage at the 80% level. Analysis Regarding Directions with Respect to Sharing of Special or Extraordinary Costs under Paragraph 7 of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order [ 126 ] Based upon my review of the Child Care Subsidy Act , RSBC 1996

chapter 26 (the “Act”) and the Child Care Subsidy Regulation (the “ Regulation ”) I agree with the Mother’s general characterization and description of the childcare subsidy regime.

[ 127 ] The purpose of the childcare subsidy regime created by the Act and implemented by the Regulation is to provide a monthly payment to assist an eligible single-parent family or a two parent family with the cost of child care. [ 128 ]

Section 2 of the Regulation indentifies the type of childcare that may be subsidized.

Section 3 sets out the circumstances in which the child care subsidy may be provided. To be eligible for a child care subsidy, a parent must comply with the application provisions contained within

Section 4 of the Regulation . The applicant must also comply with the citizenship requirements contained within

Section 5 and the residency requirement contained within

Section 6. [ 129 ] The applicant is not eligible for a child care subsidy if the applicant does not meet the income test set out in the

Section 7 and as determined by other sections of the Regulation including

Section 8 (Amount of Subsidy), and

Section 9 (How monthly net income is calculated). [ 130 ] The Mother has qualified for and receives the child care subsidy and accordingly I can presume that she met all of the requirements of the statutory regime. Based upon my review of the Act and Regulation and on the evidence I have heard, even if the Father did apply it is unlikely that he would qualify based on the income test set out in the Regulation and in particular having regard for

section 9 of the Regulation which requires the inclusion of the Step-Mother’s income into calculation of the monthly income of a family. [ 131 ] The childcare subsidy application form requires the applicant to stipulate the time of day and days care is required. Section 5 (2) of the Act and

Section 14 of the Regulation requires a person to or for whom a childcare subsidy is paid to notify the minister within specified times of any changes in circumstances affecting their eligibility under the Act . The Mother appears to have arranged for notification of her change of circumstances to be sent to the minister after the shared care and custody arrangement came into effect. [ 132 ]

Section 10 of the Act creates offences for supplying false or misleading information on an application or where directed under the Act or the Regulation . [ 133 ]

Section 7 of the Act creates a liability to repay any child care subsidy amount that was paid to or for persons not entitled to receive it. Whether or not the minister has taken active steps to recover any overpayment of child subsidy in this case is irrelevant in light of this statutory liability provision. In the usual course, it is reasonable to presume that the ministry will take steps to recover any overpayments upon becoming aware of the overpayment.

The Father is therefore absolutely incorrect when he suggests that there is a basis for applying the higher subsidy for D.B.’s day care because the ministry has not recovered the overpayment. [ 134 ] Based upon my review of the Act and the Regulation, I can find nothing that would permit this Court to order the minister that the child care subsidy being received by the Mother pursuant to a statutory scheme with specific qualification requirements is to be shared with the Father.

In determining a special or extra-ordinary expense under section 7(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines , the Court must take into account any subsidies, benefits or income tax deductions or credits relating to the expense and any eligibility to claim a subsidy benefit or income tax deduction or credit relating to the expense (see section 7(3)) but must not take into account any universal child care benefit or any eligibility to claim that benefit (see section 7(4)). [ 135 ] Given that such a statutory scheme has numerous qualification requirements which the applicant must meet, I am of the view that a qualifying applicant cannot assign their benefit to a non-qualifying person.

I see nothing in the Act or Regulation that would permit the Mother to assign the whole or any part of her childcare benefit to the Father. [ 136 ] However, there is nothing in the Act or the Regulation that would disallow the Mother and the Father from agreeing, as between themselves, how the resulting benefit of the child care subsidy may be applied to their respective or mutual obligations for childcare. [ 137 ] As with paragraph 2 of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order, paragraph 7 reflects an agreement purportedly reached by the parties prior to the application being made for the desk order. [ 138 ] Notwithstanding that the parents believed that they had reached an agreement with respect to the sharing of special or extraordinary expenses of the Children, as defined under

section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines , it is now obvious that they disagree on what was intended by the wording of paragraph 7 of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. [ 139 ] The wording in paragraph 7 is somewhat ambiguous as to who is to have the benefit of any subsidies, and in particular, in this case, the child care subsidy. [ 140 ] The parties may be in a position to agree as between themselves how the resulting benefit of the subsidy may be applied to their respective or mutual obligations for child care.

But in view of the fact that it is a statutory benefit and that the legislative intent of the child care subsidy is to assist families who are financially qualified for the subsidy and the fact that only one of the Parents in this case qualifies, the agreement language must be clear and unequivocal if the non-qualifying Parent is to have the benefit of the child care subsidy. [ 141 ] In my view the words used do not stipulate clearly, that the Mother has agreed to share the resulting benefit of the childcare subsidy with the Father.

If that was intended by both parties, then clear language to that effect could and should have been used. [ 142 ] The correct

interpretation of paragraph 7 is that the Mother will pay 50% of her net of subsidy cost for child care expenses. Similarly under the wording used in paragraph 7, the Father will be paying 50% of his net of subsidy cost. The difference in this situation is that the Mother presently has a subsidy and the Father presently does not. If the Father had intended that he should have the benefit of a subsidy for which he is not qualified and the Mother had agreed to that arrangement, he should have insisted on wording to reflect that agreement in clear and unequivocal terms. Conclusion

[ 143 ] Therefore based on the foregoing, I have concluded the Father is not entitled to a reduction from paying a full 50% of the child care expenses before the application of the Mother’s child care subsidy. [ 144 ] Based on this finding and on the evidence before me, the Father should have paid one half of the total gross day care expenses for the 6 Month Period between December 2011 to May 2012, inclusive, which total $5,275.00. His 50% share equals $2,637.50.

He has paid $1537.50 leaving a deficiency of $1,100.00. [ 145 ] He also has overpaid by $730.00 for the 4 Month Period between August 2011 and November 2011 inclusive. This $730.00 overpayment should be applied to the existing deficiency leaving the balance owing by the Father for the 6 Month Period of $370.00 for his share of the child care expenses. [ 146 ] I am satisfied that the Father has proven as a

Section 7 special or extraordinary expense the amount that he is claiming with respect to the prescription expenses and extracurricular activity costs totalling $1,088.22. The Mother is responsible for reimbursing him 50% of these expenses equalling $544.11. [ 147 ] However the Mother is also entitled to be reimbursed by the Father for 50% of the Children’s prescription costs and extracurricular activities that she may have incurred during the period in question. She is also entitled to be reimbursed by the Father for 50% of the monthly medical premiums that she has paid and are attributable to the Children as a

Section 7 special or extraordinary expense (see Section 7(1) (

b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines ). [ 148 ] The Mother did not prove these exact amounts at the hearing of this matter. I am mindful that this was an application to seek directions and to settle the form of the November 4, 2011 Consent Order. [ 149 ] The Father took the opportunity without objection from the Mother to quantify the special or extraordinary expenses to which he was entitled to receive a 50% share from the Mother.

The Mother did not use the opportunity to do the same. [ 150 ] Given the nature of the applications before me and given the fact that I heard nothing that would indicate that the Father disputes the Mother’s evidence that the Mother has also incurred special or extraordinary expenses, she is still entitled to present these amounts to the Father as part of an overall reconciliation of the amounts that each owes to the other with respect to special or extraordinary expenses. [ 151 ] If the parties are unable to agree as between them on a reconciliation of the amounts each owes the other, then the matter is to be brought back before me for further directions.

I suggest that this can be done most efficiently by way of affidavits.

Further Orders [ 152 ] I will direct that the solicitors for the Father be responsible for preparing a formal order arising from these reasons with respect to the applications before me and will submit it to the solicitors for the Mother for approval as to form. [ 153 ] Having regard for the efficient administration of justice and to the limited amount of judicial resources available in North Vancouver Island Judicial District and having further regard that I have heard an extensive amount of evidence and I am therefore very familiar with the background of issues that may be in dispute as between the Mother and the Father, I am ordering that I will be seized of any further applications with respect to this court file which may arise during the next 18 months from the date of the filing of these of these reasons for judgement in the Nanaimo Court Registry, unless otherwise ordered by this Court.

BY THE COURT ________________________________ The Honourable Judge J.P. MacCarthy