Galarneau v. Near, 2014 NSSC 26

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Galarneau v. Near , 2014 NSSC 26 Date: 2014-01-27 Docket: SFH MCA 024083 Registry: Halifax Between: Nathalie Marie Galarneau Applicant v. Derek John Near Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore Heard: January 21, 2014

Summary: Mother successfully applied for prospective and retroactive child maintenance and costs. Key words: Child Maintenance Guidelines , Costs, Family, Family Maintenance Act , Family- child support- prospective, retroactive, Maintenance and Custody Act,

Section 7 expenses Legislation: Civil Procedure Rule 59.35(7), Tariff C Child Maintenance Guidelines , NS Reg. 58/98, clause 3(1)(a), clause 7(1)(c), clause 7(1)(e), subsection 7(2), subsection 7(3) Maintenance and Custody Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 160,

section 9 THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOESN’T FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET . Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (FAMILY DIVISION)

Citation: Galarneau v. Near , 2014 NSSC 26 Date: 2014-01-27 Docket: SFHMCA-024083 Registry: Halifax Between: Nathalie Marie Galarneau Applicant v. Derek John Near Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore Heard: January 21, 2014, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Counsel: Steven G. Zatzman Q.C., for Nathalie Costello Derek Near, self represented By the Court: Introduction [ 1 ] Nathalie Costello (formerly Galarneau) has applied for child maintenance under

section 9 the Maintenance and Custody Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 160 and costs. Her application relates to Sarah Near who will turn fourteen in March. The maintenance claim includes both prospective and retroactive child maintenance. [ 2 ] Initially, Ms. Costello sought retroactive maintenance from 2004, when she and Derek Near took

part in a settlement conference. She says they reached an agreement. Her then-lawyer prepared an order. Mr. Near never signed the draft order and, in the absence of Mr. Near’s signature, Ms. Costello’s then-counsel did not finalize the order. The parties acknowledge that Mr. Near has paid some child maintenance but they disagree on how much he has paid. Litigation history [ 3 ] The parties participated in conciliation in July 2013. It was unsuccessful and they appeared before Justice Gass for a conference in November 2013. [ 4 ] In her conference memorandum, Justice Gass ordered Mr.

Near to file current Statements of Income and Expenses, copies of his income tax returns and notices of assessment or reassessment for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and confirmation of his year-to-date income for 2013. These were to be filed before December 24, 2013. [ 5 ] Mr. Near was also ordered to file his affidavit by that same date. Justice Gass identified the issues that Mr.

Near had to address in his affidavit: what he understood to be the agreement from the 2004 settlement conference, why he did not sign the draft order, his income for the last three years, and his child maintenance payments in the past three years.

[ 6 ] Mr. Near, who is self-represented, met none of the filing deadlines and filed little of the material that Justice Gass ordered him to file. Prospective child maintenance [ 7 ] The first issue is prospective child maintenance: how much should Mr. Near pay, both as his basic child maintenance payment and as a contribution to Sarah’s special or extraordinary expenses. Basic child maintenance [ 8 ] According to his 2012 notice of assessment, Mr. Near, who is a real estate agent, had total income of $37,271.00.

In the Statement of Income he filed in May 2013, he swore that his annual income is $46,764.00. [ 9 ] Mr. Near filed a collection of tax documents (his Canada Revenue Agency Statement of Account, his 2010 and 2011 Notices of Reassessment, his 2012 Notice of Assessment and a payroll statement from People Realty Advantage) on December 27, 2013. According to the payroll statement, he had gross commissions of $40,122.50 in 2013 and his last sale was on October 22, 2013. I don’t know if he sold any other properties in the latter part of 2013. Mr.

Near noted on this statement that funds are garnisheed from his earnings and that he pays business expenses of twenty percent. He attempted to explain the statement, saying that his income was “$40,000.00 plus HST less expenses”. According to the payroll statement, his commissions were $40,122.50 and the HST was $6,018.38, bringing his commissions plus HST to $46,140.88. Deducting his expenses at twenty percent would reduce these earnings to $36,912.70. [ 10 ] As a self-employed real estate agent, Mr.

Near is entitled to deduct his expenses from his gross business income when determining his total income which would appear at line 150 of his personal tax return. [ 11 ] My calculation of Mr. Near’s income is an estimate. There isn’t enough information to do more than make an estimate. Using the material I have, I find his income for child maintenance purposes to be $36,912.70. [ 12 ] Based on this, I order him to pay monthly child maintenance of $310.00 for Sarah. This amount is pursuant to clause 3(1) (

a) of the Child Maintenance Guidelines , NS Reg. 53/98. Special or extraordinary expenses [ 13 ] Sarah takes dance lessons which cost $3,000.00 each year and she has braces. Mr. Near has not challenged the necessity of either expense in relation to Sarah’s best interests or the reasonableness of these expenses.

He has been contributing to Sarah’s dance cost for the last few years and says that the only reason he has not contributed to her orthodontic cost was because he was awaiting proof of the actual cost. [ 14 ] Subsection 7(3) of the Child Maintenance Guidelines requires that I consider any subsidies, benefits, income tax deductions or credits when I determine the amount of an expense.

This is relevant both to Sarah’s dance cost and orthodontic expense. [ 15 ] Subsection 7(2) of the Guidelines says that the guiding principle for sharing an expense between parents is that it is to be shared in proportion to their income after deducting any contribution the child makes. Sarah makes no contribution. [ 16 ] I will deal first with Sarah’s dance expense. This costs $3,000.00 each year. Annually, Ms. Costello claims the Child Fitness Tax Credit for Sarah. Sarah also plays volleyball at school. Ms. Costello has not claimed a contribution to Sarah’s volleyball.

[ 17 ] Mr. Near has repeatedly suggested that after the “Healthy Living Tax Incentive rebate” Sarah’s dance costs $2,000.00 each year. [ 18 ] The Child Fitness Tax Credit enables the parent of a child under the age of sixteen to claim a credit of up to $500.00 per year. Sarah’s fitness activities cost well in excess of $500.00 each year, so Ms. Costello can claim the maximum amount. [ 19 ] The Child Fitness Tax Credit is a non-refundable tax credit. It reduces the amount of Ms. Costello’s tax by fifteen percent of the amount claimed. Where Ms. Costello has claimed $500.00, her taxes will be reduced by $75.00.

If I apply the entire amount of this credit against Sarah’s dance cost, it is reduced from $3,000.00 to $2,925.00. [ 20 ] Ms. Costello earns an annual income of $90,000.00. I have already found that Mr. Near’s income is $36,912.00. Using these figures, Mr. Near’s proportionate share of Sarah’s special or extraordinary expenses is twenty-nine percent. [ 21 ] Paying twenty-nine percent of the dance expense of $2,925.00 means contributing $848.23. Mr. Near will contribute $70.69 each month. [ 22 ] Mr. Near has agreed that he’ll contribute to Sarah’s braces.

I have a letter from the orthodontist letting me know that these cost $5,800.00. Ms. Costello obtained a predetermination of her claim for the braces from her insurance company. According to this, $2,000.00 of the expense will be covered by her insurance, reducing the cost to $3,800.00. [ 23 ] Considering the letter from the orthodontist, it appears this expense will be payable over three calendar years.

The account is to be paid by twenty-four payments of $210.00 each month starting in 2013, with a final payment of $60.00. (There were additional amounts payable for Sarah’s initial assessment.) [ 24 ] The insurance reimbursement is made as the accounts accrue, with each account for $210.00 being reduced by $83.33. [ 25 ] After the insurance reimbursement is considered, the amount paid for Sarah’s braces each year falls below the threshold that makes it eligible for the medical tax credit. [ 26 ] I do consider clause 7(1)(

c) of the Guidelines which provides that the health-related expenses which are to be shared are those which exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100.00 per year. [ 27 ] In 2013, Ms. Costello would have paid $1,960.00 for Sarah’s braces. She would have been reimbursed $500.00 from her insurance policy. As well, according to clause 7(1)(

c) of the Guidelines , this amount should be reduced by $100.00. As a result, I conclude that Sarah’s orthodontic expense for 2013 was $1,360.00. [ 28 ] In 2014, Ms. Costello will pay $2,520.00 for Sarah’s braces. Her insurance policy will reimburse her for $1,000.00 of this expense. Reducing the expense by $100.00 means that Sarah’s 2014 orthodontic expense, for the purposes of the Child Maintenance Guidelines , will be $1,420.00. [ 29 ] Finally, in 2015 Ms. Costello will pay $1,266.00 for Sarah’s braces. She will receive an insurance reimbursement of $500.00 and a further $100.00 must be deducted to consider clause 7(1)(

c) of the Guidelines . The 2015 expense for braces will be $720.00. [ 30 ] I’ve calculated Mr. Near’s proportionate contribution for 2013 to 2015 on the basis of the parents’ current incomes. For 2013, his proportionate contribution is $394.40. In 2014, it will be $34.32 per month. In 2015, I’ve allocated his proportionate sharing over seven months to match the payment schedule: Mr. Near will pay $29.83 for each month from January to and including July, 2015.

[ 31 ] Mr. Near shall pay child maintenance from the beginning of 2013. This means that for 2013 he owes $3,720.00 pursuant to the tables, $848.28 for Sarah’s dance and $394.40 for her braces, for a total of $4,962.68. According to Ms. Costello, Mr. Near paid her $2,100.00 in 2013, so he owes $2,862.68. He has until December 31, 2014 to pay this amount. Retroactive maintenance [ 32 ] Ms. Costello says that in 2004 there were two settlement conferences which, together, resolved her application for custody and maintenance.

Then-Justice Smith granted a custody and access order in August 2004 following a settlement conference dealing with parenting. This had been signed by Ms. Costello’s lawyer and by Mr. Near. [ 33 ] Child maintenance was discussed at a separate settlement conference at which Justice Dellapinna presided. Ms. Costello says the parties reached an agreement and her lawyer prepared a court order. She doesn’t know why the order was never issued. She says it took her a while to reach her lawyer. She called the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society and complained and her lawyer wasn’t very happy with her when this happened.

He said he’d do everything possible to pursue the order. Regardless, the order was never signed and there was no motion or request to confirm the terms of settlement without Mr. Near’s signature. Ms. Costello described herself as single and alone in Nova Scotia, without the money to pursue the matter. She says that Mr. Near paid child maintenance once in a while but it was inconsistent. She said she was very surprised to find the order wasn’t filed with the court. [ 34 ] Ms. Costello provided a copy of the 2004 draft maintenance order. According to it, Mr. Near had an annual income of $50,579.00 and Ms.

Costello had an annual income of $49,302.00. Mr. Near agreed to pay $419.00 per month pursuant to the tables and $179.86 per month toward Sarah’s daycare costs. At the time, Sarah was four years old. The after-tax cost of her childcare was $355.08 each month. The order also fixed child maintenance arrears at $2,269.42 and made them payable at the rate of $200.00 per month. [ 35 ] As I’ve noted, Mr.

Near’s affidavit did not address those issues identified by Justice Gass relating to the draft child maintenance order, such as what agreement he understood had been reached at a settlement conference and why he didn’t sign the order. With regard to child maintenance, he said he didn’t know what the agreement was: “it was ten years ago”. He said he didn’t remember either of the settlement conferences. He didn’t remember signing the parenting order. He didn’t remember meeting Justice Dellapinna. [ 36 ] Mr. Near said that he knew he had an obligation to pay child maintenance.

He said that he paid substantial amounts over the years and, in his affidavit, he said he has “made tens of thousands of dollars in payments to [Ms. Costello] for my daughters’ [sic] support.” He made more than one reference to “a big stack of receipts” proving his past payments. He brought no receipts to court. He provided no receipts with his affidavit or any other document that he filed. [ 37 ] The law with regard to retroactive awards of child maintenance is outlined in the reasons of Justice Bastarache in DBS v. SRG, LJW v. TAR, Henry v. Henry, Hiemstra v.

Hiemstra , 2006 SCC 37 , a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 38 ] In deciding whether to make a retroactive award, I am to balance the competing principles of certainty and flexibility, while respecting the core principles of child maintenance.

Those core principles are: child maintenance is the right of child; the child’s right to maintenance survives the breakdown of the relationship between the child’s parents; child maintenance should, as much as possible, perpetuate the standard of living the child experienced before the parents’ relationship ended; and the amount of child maintenance varies, based upon the parent’s income. [ 39 ] In deciding if a retroactive award is appropriate, I am to consider: the reason for Ms. Costello’s delay in claiming maintenance; Mr.

Near’s conduct; Sarah’s past and present circumstances; and whether a retroactive award would result in hardship. All of these factors must be considered and none, on its own, dictates what I should do, according to Justice Bastarache at paragraph 99 in D.B.S. v. S.R.G. , L.J.W. v. T.A.R. , Henry v. Henry , Hiemstra v. Hiemstra , 2006 SCC 37 . Ms. Costello’s delay [ 40 ] My first consideration is the reason for Ms. Costello’s delay in pursuing maintenance. She has a positive duty to seek child maintenance. According to Justice Bastarache at paragraph 103 of D.B.S. v. S.R.G. , L.J.W. v. T.A.R. , Henry v.

Henry , Hiemstra v.

Hiemstra , 2006 SCC 37 : “Recipient parents must act promptly and responsibly in monitoring the amount of child support paid”. [ 41 ] Ms. Costello retained a lawyer and applied for child maintenance in 2004. She attended two settlement conferences: one dealt specifically with child maintenance and she says this issue was resolved at the conference. According to her, she wasn’t able to reach her lawyer easily and she went so far as to complain to the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, but her complaint didn’t result in the order being finalized.

She was without a partner or family in Nova Scotia, and lacked the money to pursue the matter further, she says. [ 42 ] Ms. Costello married in 2006. Her husband has children of his own and, she says, it wouldn’t have been his responsibility to pursue child maintenance for Sarah. [ 43 ] Ms. Costello was at a loss to understand why the child maintenance order was not registered at the Maintenance Enforcement Program and was very surprised to learn it wasn’t finalized and filed at the court. [ 44 ] Ms. Costello says that she tried talking to Mr. Near about his payments many times.

She tried to explain to him why the payments were important. He, according to Ms. Costello, said he was “broke” and that he might have to find a new job because he wasn’t making any money. She did not return to a lawyer or to court until she retained her current counsel who attempted to have the draft order issued in 2012. When that failed, this application was filed. [ 45 ] Ms. Costello’s delay is reasonable. She pursued child support to the extent possible in 2004.

She expected, reasonably, that her lawyer fulfilled his obligations to her, especially after she filed a complaint with the Barristers’ Society. [ 46 ] She did not retain another lawyer to pursue her claim for child maintenance until two years ago. I appreciate that she was employed and earned a good income: by 2009 she was earning almost $67,000.00, however she was Sarah’s primary support, receiving child maintenance only irregularly, and nine year old Sarah was already involved in dance classes. Mr. Near’s conduct [ 47 ] My second consideration is Mr. Near’s conduct and whether it is blameworthy.

Blameworthy conduct promotes a retroactive award and the absence of blameworthy conduct militates against one. Blameworthy conduct is

an act or omission that puts the payor’s interests before the child’s right to an appropriate amount of support. [ 48 ] Mr. Near acknowledged that he has an obligation to pay child maintenance. He argues that he’s met this obligation. While Mr. Near asserted that he’d paid “tens of thousands of dollars” for Sarah and had “a big stack of receipts” for his payments, he provided no proof of any payments at any time. There’s no information about what payments, if any, he made prior to 2012. [ 49 ] The parties participated in conciliation in July 2013 where Mr.

Near said he’d attempt to obtain proof of the amounts he’d paid. They attended a conference before Justice Gass in November 2013 where he was ordered to provide verification of what he’d paid in the last three years. He’s provided no proof of any payments. [ 50 ] According to Ms. Costello, the parties’ 2004 agreement required Mr. Near to pay $419.00 per month as the table amount of child maintenance and to contribute $179.86 to Sarah’s childcare costs.

By no measure has he shown that he met the obligation to provide child maintenance of $598.86 per month or $7,186.32 per year for Sarah. [ 51 ] When asked to comment on the conversations that Ms. Costello says she had with him about the payment of child maintenance, Mr. Near said that he “didn’t know about conversations” though he remembered “there were several nasty emails”. He said he didn’t know if he responded to these. [ 52 ] Mr. Near made some payments of child maintenance. Ms. Costello says he paid $3,840.00 in 2012 and $2,100.00 in 2013. In 2012 and 2013 combined, Mr.

Near paid the equivalent of ten months’ support payments, at the rate fixed for these payments in 2004.

[ 53 ] In response to Justice Gass’ order, Mr. Near provided his 2010 Notice of Reassessment (showing an income of $13,095.00), his 2011 Notice of Reassessment (showing an income of $60,651.00) and his 2012 Notice of Assessment (showing an income of $37,271.00). [ 54 ] Ms. Costello relied on the parties’ Conciliation Record which, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 59.35(7), constitutes evidence at this hearing. According to the Record, Mr. Near’s income in 2008 was $39,018.00 and in 2009 it was $51,250.00. Mr. Near acknowledges that he gave this information to the conciliator. [ 55 ] Mr.

Near has lived with his partner for two years. Prior to this, he lived in an apartment and, before then, he lived his mother’s basement. [ 56 ] Mr. Near explained that he pays for his business expenses, such as his real estate board fees, gas, his cell phone, Internet and some groceries. He said that other than his debt to the Canada Revenue Agency, he has no debts “to speak of”, just his monthly payment to the real estate board. [ 57 ] His partner provides him with a car and they live in her home.

She has paid for their travel, which includes two trips to Florida, a trip to Jamaica and a Caribbean cruise. [ 58 ] Mr. Near owes a sizeable amount to the Canada Revenue Agency. His most recent Notice of Assessment shows a debt of $122,149.23. Mr. Near has said that he owes as much as $185,000.00 but he has provided no information from the Canada Revenue Agency which supports this amount. He admits this debt arose because he wasn’t paying his income taxes. He doesn’t know how long this debt has been accumulating. [ 59 ] Mr.

Near’s annual income tax assessments range between $10,000.00 and $33,000.00, so a tax debt of $122,000.00 could accrue in as little as four years or as many as a dozen, though the latter is unlikely considering the accumulation of interest and penalties. His notices of assessment and re-assessment from 2008 to 2012 comprise a debt of over $61,000.00. [ 60 ] If I consider the amount of maintenance that Mr. Near is shown to have paid in the context of his income level and his housing circumstances in the last half dozen or so years, Mr. Near has placed his interests before his daughter’s.

He has not made paying child maintenance any sort of priority. According to Ms. Costello, he has brushed aside her requests for child support. Mr. Near doesn’t know if he even responded to them. Sarah’s past and present circumstances [ 61 ] My third consideration is Sarah’s past and present circumstances. These include her needs at the time maintenance should have been paid. If needs were met and her lifestyle was comfortable (even without the maintenance which ought to have been paid), then it may not be appropriate to make a retroactive maintenance award. [ 62 ] Disclosure provided by Ms.

Costello indicates that Sarah has not missed dance lessons: I have receipts for dance expenses from 2008 to date. [ 63 ] According to Ms. Costello, for the past few years she’s had a good job. She says that before that when she was on her own it was very difficult. She says that she “always made the sacrifice” so Sarah would be spared. She says her husband helped but that it was not his responsibility. Sarah’s almost fourteen. She may have many years of school ahead of her if she goes to college or university and she participates in an expensive activity. A retroactive award would benefit her.

Creation of hardship by a retroactive award

[ 64 ] My final consideration is whether a retroactive award would result in hardship. I am to consider whether Mr. Near is able to satisfy a retroactive award. “Hardship” is to be considered broadly, not within the technical confines of

section 10 of the Guidelines . [ 65 ] It was Mr. Near’s position in conciliation that he couldn’t afford to pay retroactive child maintenance. He said that he paid Ms. Costello when he received income and that half his income is seized as the result of the Canada Revenue Agency garnishee. [ 66 ] I believe Mr. Near is able to satisfy a retroactive award. He is employed and is responsible for very few of his own expenses. He will not be able to make significant periodic payments toward a retroactive award and he certainly will not be able to retire it with a single payment.

However, he should be able to contribute modestly and retire a retroactive award while Sarah can still benefit from it. [ 67 ] Taken together, I have a situation where Ms. Costello initially pursued Mr. Near for child maintenance. After reaching an agreement that was to become a court order, she lost the benefit of the agreement when her lawyer failed to finalize the order. She approached Mr. Near directly but this wasn’t successful. She’s tried to ensure that Sarah has not been disadvantaged by Mr. Near’s failure to pay consistent and adequate maintenance. [ 68 ] Mr.

Near’s financial circumstances seem dire because he faces a federal income tax garnishee for over $120,000.00. The garnishee results from his failure to pay income tax, which means that Mr. Near had the benefit of his full income in those years when he didn’t pay his taxes (or his child maintenance). Mr. Near has a partner who provides for him. [ 69 ] Based on all the considerations outlined in D.B.S. v. S.R.G. , L.J.W. v. T.A.R. , Henry v. Henry , Hiemstra v. Hiemstra , 2006 SCC 37 , I find that it is appropriate to award child maintenance on a retroactive basis. Ms. Costello’s delay is reasonably explained, Mr.

Near’s conduct is blameworthy, Sarah will benefit from a retroactive award and Mr. Near can sustain a retroactive award without hardship if structured carefully. Calculation of retroactive award [ 70 ] Initially, Ms. Costello wanted the retroactive award to start in 2004. At the hearing, she revised her claim to date to January 1, 2008. Typically, a retroactive award would date to three years prior to the date of the application. Here, I am prepared to begin my calculation of a retroactive award in January 2008.

Of the factors I considered in deciding to make a retroactive award, none militated against such an award. In this case, certainty outweighs flexibility. Mr. Near may not now recall the settlement conference dealing with child maintenance, but the evidence provided by Ms. Costello proves that it occurred and a settlement was reached. [ 71 ] Ms. Costello provided a calculation of the retroactive award. It focuses entirely on child maintenance pursuant to clause 3(1)(

a) of the Guidelines , so I conclude she isn’t seeking a contribution to Sarah’s historic dance cost. [ 72 ] Based on the income Mr. Near disclosed in conciliation and in the documents filed for this hearing, my calculation of retroactive child maintenance pursuant to clause 3(1)(

a) is outlined in the table below. Year Mr. Near’s Income Table Amount Annual Amount 2008 39,018.00 340.00 4,080.00 2009 51,250.00 447.00 5,364.00 2010 13,095.00 85.00 1,020.00 2011 60,651.00 529.00 6,348.00 2012 37,271.00 314.00 3,768.00 Total 20,580.00 [ 73 ] The total amount calculated pursuant to the child maintenance tables is $20,580.00. I cannot lose sight of Mr. Near’s payment of $3,840.00 in 2012. This reduces the overall amount to $16,740.00.

[ 74 ] Once Mr. Near has finished contributing to the cost of Sarah’s braces in July 2015, he shall begin to pay the retroactive award, starting on August 1, 2015 making monthly payments of $200.00 toward retiring this debt. Costs [ 75 ] Ms. Costello has claimed costs. She has been successful in her claims for prospective and retroactive child maintenance. Mr. Near has failed to provide information that he was ordered to provide. [ 76 ] This application is scheduled for less than half the day and I award Ms. Costello costs of $1,000.00 based on a hearing of less than one-half day, applying Tariff C.

This amount is payable immediately. Conclusion [ 77 ] I do note that with the consent of the parties I ordered that Ms. Costello be able to travel to Cuba with Sarah for the March break this year. I asked her counsel to prepare a separate order providing for this to preserve some of the parties’ privacy if the order must be shown to authorities while Ms. Costello and Sarah are travelling. [ 78 ] In

summary, starting on January 1, 2014 and continuing on the first day of each month in 2014, Mr. Near shall pay monthly child maintenance of $415.01, comprised of $310.00 pursuant to clause 3(1)(

a) of the Guidelines ; $70.69 pursuant to clause 7(1)(

e) for her dance and $34.32 pursuant to clause 7(1)(

c) for her braces. [ 79 ] Mr. Near shall pay costs of $1,000.00 immediately. [ 80 ] He shall pay the child maintenance he owes for 2013 ($2,862.68) before December 31, 2014. [ 81 ] Starting on January 1, 2015 and continuing on the first day of each month from January to and including July 2015, Mr. Near shall pay monthly child maintenance of $410.52, comprised of $310.00 pursuant to clause 3(1)(

a) of the Guidelines ; $70.69 pursuant to clause 7(1)(

e) of the Guidelines for her dance and $29.83 pursuant to clause 7(1)(

c) of the Guidelines for her braces. As of his July 2015 payment, Mr. Near’s contribution to Sarah’s braces will be completed, so his ongoing child maintenance payment will be $380.69, comprised of the table amount and his contribution to Sarah’s dance cost. [ 82 ] I’ve calculated retroactive child maintenance for 2008 to 2012 of $16,740.00. Mr. Near shall begin to repay this, starting on August 1, 2015 (once his contribution to Sarah’s braces is done) when he will make payments of $200.00 each month toward retiring this debt. [ 83 ] Ms. Costello’s counsel shall prepare the order.

As I directed in court, he will provide a copy to Mr. Near. If Mr. Near does not respond, to consent to the order or to identify any deficiencies in it, within ten days of the date the order is sent to Mr. Near, the order may be sent to me. I will review the order and, if appropriate, endorse it. __________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C. (F.D.) Halifax, Nova Scotia