Bannick v Trodden, 2023 ABCJ 203

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: Bannick v Trodden, 2023 ABCJ 203 Date: 20230926 Docket: FF026000412 Registry: Lethbridge Between: David Bannick Applicant - and - Stacy Trodden Respondent Memorandum of Judgment of the Honourable Justice J.N. LeGrandeur Nature of the Proceedings [ 1 ] In this matter, Mr.

Bannick seeks an Order retroactively varying his child support obligations as specified in the Child Support Order filed November 23, 2020, which Order specified the child support obligations of the Parties as set out in detail in the Memorandum of Judgment issued by this Court on the 23 rd day of October, 2020; see: Memorandum of Judgment, Bannick v Trodden , 2020 ABPC 241 ( Bannick ). [ 2 ] That Order retroactively varied the previous order of child support issued by this Court October of 2018 and specified what child support Mr.

Bannick was liable to pay going forward, including payment towards arrears. [ 3 ] Mr. Bannick asked the Court to go back to 2020 and vary the Child Support Order, specified as payable in the years 2020 and 2021, as well as variation of the ongoing child support for 2022 and to specify child support for 2023. He asks for this variation given the availability of accurate information as to his income for 2020, 2021 and going forward into 2022 and 2023 which was not available at the time the Judgment of October 23, 2020, was issued.

Child Support Order, November 23, 2020 [ 4 ] The Memorandum of Judgment in Bannick , particularly paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 , outlined Mr. Bannick’s financial history

for 2019 and going into 2020. He had lost his employment in November 2019 and regained employment in May 2020, however at the time the application was made, there was no clear understanding as to how much money he would be making on an ongoing basis with his new employer. Accordingly, as shown in calculations set out in paragraph 5 of the Bannick Memorandum, the Court used the income information that was available at the time to extrapolate what his income was likely to be over the course of the 12 months including May 2020.

By the time the Memorandum of Judgment and the Order reflecting the Memorandum came out, Mr. Bannick had more precise information as to his income for that year, and he thereafter approached Court Resolution Services with the idea of getting advice as to what steps could be taken to vary or change the Judgment. This occurred at the beginning of COVID and he left with the apparent understanding that nothing could be done at that point. He contacted the Child Support Recalculation Program who advised that they could be of no assistance given the form of the Order that had been issued.

It was his evidence in that regard that COVID slowed everything up and that he decided to just bide his time until that problem was gone and get the matter back before the Courts. In the interim he continued to pay, and still continues to pay, the child support directed in the Order of November 23, 2020, which is based upon him having a guideline income of $94,376 and which translates into a s3 Child Support payment of $817 per month. Offset against that amount was the sum of $202 payable by Ms. Trodden as child support to Mr. Bannick, which left a net child support payable by Mr. Bannick of $615 per month. Mr.

Bannick was also required to continue paying $150 per month towards previous arrears of child support which sum he has continued to pay as well. [ 5 ] Mr. Bannick now provides evidence that his income from May 2020 going forward was not $94,376, but was, for the 2020 year, the sum of $56,511.87; and that his income for 2021 was $79,248.82 and his income in 2022 was $85,443. These are exact amounts and not an estimate which was the foundation of the 2020 Child Support Order as described in the Memorandum of Judgment, issued on October 23, 2020. [ 6 ] Ms. Trodden’s income for 2022 was reduced to $12,167.47.

She filed her T1 return showing that amount. Using $12,167.47 as a guideline income for 2022, Ms., Trodden would be liable for no child support for that year and therefore there would be no set off reducing Mr. Bannick’s child support obligation. Ms. Trodden asserts that her 2023 income is expected to be approximately the same as 2022. Variation application of August 16, 2022 [ 7 ] Mr. Bannick formally applied for retroactive variation of his child support obligations for the period of 2020 going forward on August 16 th of 2022.

There is a substantial gap between his query about changing the Order of November 23, 2020, and his contact with Child Support Recalculation Services in early 2021, and when he formally filed the application to vary child support which is the subject of these proceedings. Nothing appears to have been done during that period. As noted, he explains that not much was happening because of COVID, and he felt he just had to bide his time until he could get it back into court. [ 8 ] With respect to providing Ms.

Trodden with any form of notice that his income for 2020 and thereafter did not support the Order of November 23, 2020, he suggests there may have been something said in passing between them, however she has no recollection of being told anything about a change of income or provided with any particular information in that regard. [ 9 ] Mr. Bannick did not provide Ms. Trodden with any form of disclosure with regard to his change of income for 2020, 2021 or 2022 until he filed a formal application for retroactive variation in August of 2022.

Retroactive Variation [ 10 ] There is a presumption in favor of a retroactive decrease in support to the date the payor gives the recipient “effective notice” of intention to seek a decrease in child support, up to three years before formal notice is given by an application to vary; Colucci v Colucci , 2021 SCC 24 ( Colucci ). [ 11 ] Because child support is tied to income and income tends to be flexible, a child support order reflects a segment of time and is never final.

The Family Law Act , SA 2003, c F-4.5 provides a mechanism to periodically change child support orders to bring them into line with the financial circumstances existing (see: s77(2), Family Law Act ). [ 12 ] In this case, the Court is asked to decrease the child support payable by the applicant on the basis that his guideline income for the years 2020-23 was not $94,376, but rather in fact, $56,511.87 in 2020; $79, 248 in 2021; and $85,443 in 2022. Income for 2020 and 2021 is reflected in assessment documents filed by Mr. Bannick.

For purposes of identification and reference I direct the clerk to enter the Bannick tax assessment for 2020 as Exhibit 1 and the Bannick tax assessment for 2022 as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 shall be the 2022 tax return of Ms. Trodden. [ 13 ] The Applicant’s guideline income of $85,443 in 2022 year is based on the testimony given under oath by the Applicant on May 23 based upon his tax information, although no documentation has been provided in support of that.

The Court is provided no information that would suggest that the income level of 2022 has varied up or down in 2023. [ 14 ] I am satisfied that the Applicant has established a change in circumstance with respect to his guideline income for the years 2020 through 2023 going forward. Having established a change in his circumstances, that generates the question as to what remedy may be provided to the Applicant related to that change of legal circumstance ( Colucci ). I am also satisfied that Ms.

Trodden has established that her guideline income for the years 2022 and 2023 has been reduced to $12,167.47 respectively. [ 15 ] Under the guidelines a parent is always liable for child support based upon his/her income; but as is stated by Martin J in Colucci ; … a retroactive reduction in support means a disruption to the certainty enjoyed by the child and the recipient. The recipient is entitled to

expect that the existing order will be complied with unless they are in receipt of reasonable proof that a relevant change in the payor’s circumstances has occurred. Again, the payor holds the relevant information and knows where there has been a decrease in income.

It is in the payor’s own best interest to use his knowledge to notify the recipient of the change in circumstances and take steps to formally vary a child support order. [ 16 ] In retroactive decrease cases the interest in certainty lies with the recipient parent and child while the interest in flexibility lies with the payor parent, Colucci , at para 78 . [ 17 ] The Court in deciding the issue of retroactive decrease must weigh the equities and seek a fair balancing of certainty and flexibility in the child’s right to support, based on income ( Colucci , at para 79 ). [ 18 ] The presumptive date of retroactivity, as described aforesaid, aims to reach a preliminary balancing of the competing interests of the payor and payee and the child.

In retroactive decrease cases the presumptive date based upon “effective notice” properly reflects the recipient’s informational disadvantage and a fair balancing of certainty and flexibility. Once the payor indicates a change in circumstance, a presumption arises in favor of varying support to the date of “effective notice”, up to three years before formal notice; Colucci , at para 80 . [ 19 ] To provide “effective notice” in these decrease circumstances, it is not enough that the payor simply broach the subject of reduction of child support with the recipient.

The payor must be encouraged by the law to communicate with recipients on an ongoing basis and move with reasonable dispatch to formalize a decrease through a court order or change to a preexisting agreement; Colucci , at para 87 . [ 20 ] In decrease cases, to achieve “effective notice” the payor must provide “reasonable proof” that is sufficient to allow the recipient to “independently assess the situation in a meaningful way and respond appropriately” ( Corcios v Burgos , 2011 ONSC 3326 at para 55 ).

This allows the recipient to adjust expectations, make necessary changes to lifestyle, and to make informed decisions. [ 21 ] What would qualify as “effective notice” however, is ultimately dependent upon all the circumstances ( Colucci , at para 88 ). [ 22 ] In this case, the evidence does not indicate that “effective notice” was given to the recipient by the payor about his change in financial circumstances with respect to any of the years 2020 – 22 until the formal application was brought in August of 2022. [ 23 ] Where no effective notice is given before proceedings were commenced the start date of the variation will generally be the date of formal notice, although that result is not automatic; Colucci , at para 95 . [ 24 ] In this case, disclosure was provided as part of the formal notice given in August of 2022 by Mr.

Bannick. Ms. Trodden’s disclosure of her financial status in 2022 and 2023 did not occur until proceedings were commenced by Mr. Bannick. [ 25 ] The Court may depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity when the result would be unfair in the circumstance of the particular case, provided that the Court can still reach a fair balancing of the child’s interests and a fair standard of support having regard to the payor’s interest in flexibility and the interest of the child and recipient in certainty.

In this regard the Court may employ the factors described in DBS v SRG , 2006 SCC 37 at para 99 ( DBS ), to assist in determining whether a retroactive decrease may occur despite no “effective notice” prior to formal notice; Colucci , at para 96 . These four factors may be summarized as follows: (

i) Understandable Reason for Delay - an understandable delay in giving effective notice or seeking relief in the courts militates favor of extending the date of retroactivity to a time before the date of effective date or not applying the three-year limit.

These reasons may include health problems or other difficulties that prevent the payor from confronting the situation, or an unwillingness to disrupt a fragile parent-child relationship, or the payor may also lack the financial or emotional wherewithal to proceed with the matter ( Colucci at paras 97, 98 ). (ii) The Payor’s Conduct – the payor’s conduct is a relevant factor for consideration, blameworthy conduct is conduct that has “the effect of privileging [the payor’s] interests over the right of the child ( DBS , at para 106 ).

The court may also consider whether the payor made voluntary payments against the arrears, continued to pay in accordance with their ability to pay, cooperated with enforcement agencies, and showed a willingness to support the child rather than evading child support obligations ( Colucci , at para 103 ). In this case it is to be noted that the applicant continued to make his child support payments despite the change in circumstances. (iii) Circumstances of the Child – has the child experienced hardship or is currently in need, this factor would militate in favor of a shorter period of retroactivity.

Included in this consideration is whether or not the retroactive decrease should result in an order requiring the recipient to repay support to remedy an overpayment. The payor should not be penalized for having continued to pay the full amount of support under an order after they experience a drop in income, however, reimbursement or set-off may cause hardship for the child and recipient ( Colucci , at para 105 ).

Accordingly, it is even more important for the payor to give the recipient prompt notice of the decrease complete with disclosure enabling the recipient to meaningful assess the extent of any potential future repayment and move with reasonable diligence to seek a formal variation… If the child will experience hardship as a result of a reduction or is currently in need, this factor will militate in favor of a shorter period of retroactivity. In Colucci , Martin J at paragraph 106 states;

In cases involving claims of overpayment, it will rarely be appropriate, given the recipient’s absence of knowledge, to retroactivelydecrease support to a date before the recipient could have expected that child support payments received from the payor might need to berepaid at some future date. This approach protects the child’s best interests and the recipient’s certainty interest, while allowing payorswho have overpaid to seek a retroactive decrease as long as the recipient has been given proper notice and disclosure.

In Gray v Rizzi, 2016 ONCA 152, Chappel J at paragraph 60 stated; If a retroactive order reducing child support would result in the child support recipient having to repay money to the child support payor,this may militate against making the order, particularly if the payor has not given the recipient notice of the change in theircircumstances, has not provided appropriate disclosure to support their claim for an adjustment to the child support, or has delayedinitiating court proceedings to change the order. (iv) Hardship – for the payor to establish hardship he or she must adduce evidence to establish real facts supporting a finding ofhardship, bald assertions are not enough.

A showing of hardship will not automatically justify a departure from the presumed date ofretroactivity whether it be the effective date or the date of formal notice. Hardship to the payor must also be viewed in the context ofhardship to the recipient and child if the court were to extend the period of the retroactive decrease.

The assessment in this regard is aholistic and relative one, Michel v Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 , [2019] SCJ No 102 para 100. [26] In this case, there is no evidence presented to the Court by the Applicant Payor that hardship was imposed upon him by hiscontinued payment of the child support ordered despite a change in his financial circumstances during the subject period of time. There isno evidence that his standard of living went down or that he was unable to do other specific things as a result of continuing to pay thechild support as per the previous order.

There is no indication that the applicant incurred debt in order to continue to pay the level ofchild support set out in the previous order or that he had to work harder or take on extra work in order to continue to provide at that levelfor the child. [27] With respect to hardship incurred or potentially incurred by the child or the recipient, there is no suggestion that any suchhardship occurred, given the continuing payment of the child support pursuant to the previous order. [28] The Recipient indicated in her testimony that her income in 2022 decreased from approximately $23,000 to approximately $12,000 as a result of loss of her employment, and so far as the Court understands given her testimony on May 23rd of this year, thatcircumstance still exists, although she is taking steps to re-educate herself in a particular area and hopes to achieve a higher income statusin the Fall of 2023.

The Court understands her loss of employment was COVID related. [29] Going forward from August of 2022 when the formal application for variation was issued, there is no doubt given theMother’s reduction in income that any reduction in the child support payments payable by the Father to the Mother would have aneconomic impact on the financial circumstances of the Child while in the Mother’s care. That is a factor for consideration with respect tothe issue of child support in circumstances of shared parenting.

Retroactivity [30] Ostensibly if the Court were to determine child support for the Applicant Bannick back to May of 2020 through to August of2022, the date of the formal application to vary child support using the financial information provided by the Applicant for the years2020, 2021 and 2022, the Applicant’s guideline income for each year would be $56,500 for 2020, $79,250 for 2021 and $85,500 for2022 which would establish guideline child support in the gross amount of $472 for 2020, $692 for 2021, and $751 for 2022 whichwould continue on through into 2023. [31] The 2020 set off for Ms.

Trodden, given her income of $23,904, would remain at $202 which would be set off against theApplicant’s obligation of paying $472 per month, leaving a net payment of child support by the Applicant to the Respondent in the sumof $270 per month for the period May through December 2020. [32] In 2021, Ms. Trodden’s child support would continue at $202 per month and would be set off against the Applicant’sguideline payment of $692, which would leave a net child support payment by the Applicant to the Respondent in 2021 of $490 permonth. [33] In 2022, Ms.

Trodden’s income was reduced to $12,170, with the result that she would have no obligation under theguidelines to pay child support; Mr.

Bannick’s obligation would be $751 per month without any reduction, and that amount wouldcontinue into 2023 given that his income for 2023 continued to match his income for 2022. [34] In 2020, if the Appellant’s obligation for child support was reduced retroactively to May of 2020, the total child supportpayable by him for the months of May through December would be $2,160. [35] Under the previous Order he would have paid 8 x $615, a total of $5,220, which would mean the retroactive decrease for thatperiod would show him as having overpaid child support in the amount of $3,060. [36] In 2021, he paid guideline support in the amount of $615 per month for a total annual payment of $7,400.

If retroactivelychanged based upon a guideline income of $79,200 to $691 again with the set off of $202 per month, he would be obliged to pay $489per month which over the course of the year would have resulted in a gross payment of $5,868 which would leave him having overpaidchild support for that period in the amount of $1,532. [37] In 2022, his guideline payment was $817 per month with a set off of $202 under the old Order, which would result in a totalchild support payment of $7,380 in 2022.

Based upon a guideline income of $85,450 retroactive variation would leave him with the legalobligation for child support in 2022 at $751 per month. Given Ms. Trodden’s meager income there is no set off and he would therefore

be required to pay under the retroactive regime a total of 12 x $751 = $9,012, which would mean as compared to what he did pay he would have underpaid by the sum of $1,632, thereby putting him into arrears for that year. [ 38 ] In 2023, his obligation under the previous Order would require him to pay $817 per month less the set of $202 from Ms. Trodden leaving a net payment of $615 for the period of January through August of 2022; he would have been obligated to pay $4,920 child support under the previous Order.

With the retroactive change to his guideline income for 2023 making it $85,450 the guideline child support payment would be $750 with no set off given Ms. Trodden’s reduced income. He would be obligated to pay $6,008 total child support during that period under the retroactive scheme.

He would have accordingly underpaid for that period in the amount of $1,088. [ 39 ] Accordingly, if child support was retroactively varied to May of 2020 using the new guideline income of the Applicant and the Respondent, the Applicant would have overpaid in 2020 in the sum of $3,060 and in 2021 in the sum of $1,532 for a total overpayment during that period of $4,592. [ 40 ] In the retroactive scheme he would have underpaid in the sum of $1,632 for 2022 and in 2023 for the period January through August he would have underpaid under the retroactive scheme in the sum of $1,088 for a total underpayment during that period of $2,720. [ 41 ] Accordingly, using those figures for the period May of 2020 through August of 2023 he would have overpaid child support by the net sum of $1,872. [ 42 ] Having considered what the actual impact on child support would be if the Application for retroactive decrease is granted to vary the Applicant’s child support obligation going back to May of 2020 as is illustrated aforesaid, would mean that for part of that period he has overpaid and for part of that period he has underpaid. [ 43 ] In terms of the dollar value of that decrease in child support and also increase in child support the net result again as described aforesaid is a net overpayment over that period in the sum of $1,872.

Going forward commencing January of 2022, the Applicant is obliged to pay $750 per month in child support with no set off given the Respondent’s lack of guideline income and that obligation will continue going forward until Ms. Trodden’s income reaches a guideline level and therefore provides some set off, the income of the Applicant changes, or the Court orders otherwise. [ 44 ] The question remains in that context whether a retroactive variation of child support should occur as per the application of Mr.

Bannick, and if so, for what period should the retroactivity apply. [ 45 ] The Applicant has shown that his income in fact decreased during the period of variation sought, but as shown aforesaid that did not mean a reduction in child support throughout the whole period sought because, when all circumstances are considered, including the decrease in the Respondent’s income in 2022 and 2023, the Applicant’s child support obligation did not decrease in those years, but rather increased slightly. [ 46 ] The presumption is that when no “effective notice” given, child support should generally be varied only back to the date of formal notice ( Colucci , at para 95 ), which in this case is August 10, 2022.

In this matter that would mean that the variation would result only in an increase in child support payments and none of the periods where variation would demonstrate an overpayment on the part of the Applicant would be considered. [ 47 ] The Court, however, retains the discretion to depart from the presumptive date whether that be the date of effective notice or the formal date of notice when the result would be unfair in the circumstances of the particular case. [ 48 ] In this case, I believe, considering the DBS factors holistically ( DBS , at para 99 ), that it would be unfair overall to not grant retroactive variation to the Applicant back to May of 2020. [ 49 ] As noted aforesaid, the Applicant did initially act to try and change the 2020 Child Support Order given his actual guideline income for 2020 once he became aware of what it was in the latter part of the 2020 year.

As the judgment in Bannick reflects that the guideline income for the period May through December 2020 was determined by the Court using a snapshot of the income he had made at his new employment to the point of the hearing of the application and the Court used that snapshot of financial information to extrapolate what his income would be for that period. That was not done because he failed to cooperate or provide information, but because that was the best information available at the time.

In the end, he did not make that kind of money and consequently set out fairly quickly to try and have the Order changed. [ 50 ] In that regard, he sought help from Court Resolution Services but achieved no success for his efforts, attributing it, in his mind, to the impact of COVID with respect to court proceedings. He tried the Recalculation Program but did not qualify and then decided that he would wait until things settled down with COVID and then bring the matter back before the Court.

It is to be noted that he did not then shirk his responsibility and stop paying or reduce his payments, but he continued to make his payments and so far as the Court is aware, has done so throughout the period right up to this date. He did not prioritize his circumstance over the Child’s right to support. [ 51 ] He did not give notice of his intention to seek a reduction, nor disclose any information to Ms.

Trodden in that regard, but certainly in that sense caused no harm during the period up to the formal application to the economic circumstances of the Child as nothing changed for the Child during that period of time. [ 52 ] Overall, although it would have been preferable that he advise the Respondent of his intention to seek a decrease in child support and provide the documents for the basis for such an intention, he did not cause any economic hardship to the Respondent or Child but rather continued to demonstrate his good faith having regard to his legal responsibility to the Child. [ 53 ] A retroactive variation that could result in the Respondent having to pay money back to the Applicant may speak against a

retroactive decrease in child support, given that it may cause hardship for the Child and Mother.

Notice of intention properly given would ostensibly allow the Respondent to meaningfully adjust for an anticipated reduction as opposed to being caught unawares so to speak. [ 54 ] The economic impact of the Respondent having to repay child support will depend upon a number of factors: how much is the payee obligated to repay, how will the payee make such a repayment, how will having to repay affect the economic circumstances and standard of living of the Child as compared to the circumstance with no repayment, how important the child support in maintaining the economic status of the Mother and Child, and how will a repayment obligation effect that. [ 55 ] In this case, the amount to be paid back if retroactivity is allowed for the full period is $1,872 which represents the net overpayment during the period May of 2020 through August 2023. [ 56 ] In this case, neither the Child nor the Mother suffered any hardship during that period given the Applicant’s continued making of his payments. [ 57 ] The amount of the prospective repayment is allowed is not significant, and could be paid back over a lengthy period of time with little impact upon the economic interests of the Mother or the Child. [ 58 ] This overpayment could be satisfied by the Respondent paying $100 a month commencing September of 2023, and continuing each and every month thereafter until the $1,872 is paid in full or until the Child ceases to be a Child under the Family Law Act for purposes of child support or until further Order of the Court. [ 59 ] The Applicant going forward must pay $750 per month s9 child support over and above any payment that he makes for arrears which accrued prior to May of 2020.

The $100 payment could be made by setting $100 off against the $750 payable which would mean the Applicant would pay $650 and retain the $100 not paid as a credit against the $1,872. That would leave the Applicant paying only slightly more than he was obligated to pay under the previous Order which was $615, and it would leave the Child and Mother in essentially the same economic circumstance as before the variation. [ 60 ] Overall, this is a fair result that recognizes the flexibility of the system to allow for variation of child support and the right of the Child to economic stability.

There are no real economic impacts for either the Applicant or the Respondent in this circumstance. Judgment and Order [ 61 ] For the reasons expressed in this Memorandum of Judgment; this Court Doth Hereby Order;

a) that the Applicant’s (Bannick) s9 Child Support Obligation is retroactively varied from August 31 st , 2022, back to May 1 st , 2020;

b) that for the year 2020, from May through December thereof, Bannick’s s9 Child Support, as previously ordered, shall be reduced from a net payment of $615 after setoff against Trodden’s s9 Child Support Obligation to a net payment after Trodden’s setoff of $270 per month;

c) that for the year 2021, from January 1 st through December 31 st thereof, Bannick’s s9 Child Support obligation as previously ordered shall be reduced from a net payment of $615 per month after setoff against Trodden’s s9 Child Support Obligation to a net payment of $489 per month;

d) that for the year 2020 and 2021, Trodden’s s9 Child Support obligation of $202 per month shall remain the same;

e) for that the year 2022, from January 1 st through to September 1 st thereof, Bannick’s s9 Child Support as previously ordered is varied from a net payment of $615 per month after setoff against Trodden’s obligations to $751 per month based upon Bannick’s guideline income of $85,450 with no Trodden setoff for 2022 given her guideline income of $12,170, which the Court concludes generates no guideline payment obligation;

f) that commencing on September 1 st , 2022, Bannick shall pay s9 Child Support in the amount of $751 based upon a guideline income of $85,450 with no Trodden s9 setoff given her guideline income of $12,170, which sum shall continue to be paid on the 1 st day of each and every month thereafter until otherwise ordered by the Court, or the child ceases to be a child for the purposes of child support under the Family Law Act or the Parties guideline income or incomes change thereby justifying a variation;

g) that for the period May 2020 through August 2023, Bannick as a result of the aforementioned variation of his child support s9 Child Support Obligations has overpaid s9 child support in the total amount of $1,872;

h) commencing September 1 st , 2023 and continuing on each and every month thereafter, Bannick shall be obligated to pay $751 per month s9 Child Support to Trodden, provided that to satisfy the overpayment, Trodden shall be obligated to pay Bannick $100 per month commencing September 1 st , 2023, until the overpayment of $1872 is paid in full or until further order of the Court, or until the child ceases to be a child for the purposes of child support under the Family Law Act , whichever shall first occur.

i) The $100 payments by Trodden to Bannick shall be achieved by the reduction of Bannick’s required payment of $751 to a payment of $651 per month effective September 1 st , 2023, the $100 difference being a credit towards Trodden’s obligation to repay Bannick for his over payment as described. Should the overpayment be satisfied by the $100 per month reduction in payment, the final month’s deduction shall be reduced to the remaining amount of the overpayment.

j) Bannick and Trodden must provide to each other no later than June 1 st of each year hereafter proof of their tax assessment for the previous year’s income so as to allow for any adjustment to be made if the guideline income for either or both parties should change. Once Trodden’s income returns to a level contemplated by the Guidelines , her child support obligation will be set off against the continuing child support obligation of Bannick as contemplated by s9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

k) Trodden must advise Bannick forthwith of any change in her economic circumstance that would result in her having to pay child support and the parties should immediately adjust the child support payment of the Applicant in accordance with any child support payment that the Respondent may be obligated to in the future. [ 62 ] This Judgment does not address any ongoing obligation of Bannick to make payments with respect to arrears of child support accruing prior to May of 2020 if such a circumstance exists.

This Court has proceeded on the basis that no arrears of child support payable under the previous Order accrued during the period May 2020 through August 2023. If in fact there were arrears which were not satisfied by payments during that time directed at arrears that could change the amount payable by the Respondent and accordingly the matter should return before the Court so as to make such adjustment. Heard on the 23 rd day of May, 2023. Dated at the City of Lethbridge, Alberta this 26th day of September, 2023. J.N. LeGrandeur A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: D.

Bannick for the Applicant S. Trodden for the Respondent