H.N.M. v. S.C.J.K.

2014 BCSC 231 H.N.M. v. S.C.J.K.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: H.N.M. v. S.C.J.K., 2014 BCSC 231 Date: 20140214 Docket: 36287 Registry: Penticton Between: H.N.M. Claimant And S.C.J.K., also known as S.C.J.K. Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rogers Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Claimant: D.M. King Counsel for the Respondent: M.A. Koochin Place and Dates of Trial/Hearing: Penticton, B.C. January 27-31, 2014 Place and Date of Judgment: Penticton, B.C. February 14, 2014 Introduction [1] The parties in this family proceeding are the parents of a 20-month-old daughter. Upon their separation a year and a half ago, Ms. M moved with the child from the parties' home town of Chetwynd, B.C. to the Okanagan Valley. The central issue in this case is whether the court should order that the child be returned to Chetwynd, as Mr. K wishes, or that the child remain in Kelowna, as Ms. M wishes. The Facts [2] Ms. M is 33 years old. She holds a bachelor of science and a master's degree in mathematics. She also holds a teaching certificate. She obtained her teaching qualification in 2007. By then her parents had settled in Penticton. She wanted to get a teaching job in the Okanagan, but none were to be had there. An advisor recommended that Ms. M take a full-time teaching job in some other district. His idea was for Ms. M to acquire some teaching experience which could perhaps enhance her

chance of getting a job later in the Okanagan. Ms. M acted on that advice. She took a job teaching mathematics at the Chetwynd high school. She arrived in Chetwynd in September 2008. [3] Ms. M was no stranger to the central and northern interior of B.C.: while she was growing up her family had lived in Golden, Kitimat, Tumbler Ridge, and Prince George. [4] Mr. K is 37 years old. He grew up in Inuvik, N.W.T. By 2008, Mr. K had earned a trade certificate as a journeyman commercial electrician. He lived in Campbell River and commuted to his job in Fort St. John. Mr. K's parents and younger sister lived in Chetwynd. Mr. K and Ms. M met at a Halloween party in 2008. By January 2009 they were dating. By September 2009 they had moved in together in Chetwynd. Ms. M worked at her job as a teacher at the Chetwynd high school and Mr. K commuted to his electrician's job in Ft. St. John. [5] The partied decided to marry. After a year of planning, they married one another on July 21, 2011. They planned to have a child together. They did not, however, wish to remain in Chetwynd forever. They had a mutual desire to raise their child elsewhere. Mr. K favoured Vancouver Island while Ms. M preferred the Okanagan. [6] The parties decided to have a child. Ms. M became pregnant in September or October 2011. She was often ill during her pregnancy. She tired easily. She did not welcome physical

intimacy with Mr. K. By the Spring of 2012 Mr. K was working as a planner rather than as an electrician. He made a good income but he did not enjoy his job. The parties' work schedules conflicted: Mr. K had to retire early in the evening so that he would rise in time to catch a ride to his work place; Ms. M had to stay up later to prepare teaching lessons or mark students' work. They had limited opportunities to interact. Friction developed between the parties. I will say more about that later. [7] The parties' daughter, KK, was born at the Dawson Creek hospital on May 18, 2012. Ms. M's delivery was not easy. In the result she received some treatment for the medical difficulty she experienced and she stayed in hospital for two days. [8] KK was a healthy baby but she had difficulty breast feeding. In the first few weeks of her life she lost rather than gaining weight. This was a source of worry for the parties, Ms. M in particular. More tension developed between the parties. Again, I will describe this tension in greater detail later in these reasons. [9] On July 1, 2012, Ms. M left the family home with KK. She traveled to Prince George and then to Penticton where her now widowed mother was living. She was firmly of the view that the parties' relationship was over. Mr. K did not see it that way. He was anxious to try to repair the rift between them. For that reason, he did not

seek an order that Ms. M return KK to Chetwynd. [10] As of their separation, Mr. K had a job as a planner and was earning on the order of $90,000 per year. Ms. M was on maternity leave from her job as a teacher for the South Peace School District. Her income was on the order of $69,000 per year. [11] Ms. M and KK arrived in Penticton in early July 2012. They stayed with Ms. M's mother. She subsisted on E.I. benefits and some savings. Ms. M later obtained some occasional employment as a teacher and tutor in the Penticton area. In September 2013, she was hired as an instructor at the Okanagan University College in Kelowna. She commuted from Penticton to Kelowna for her work. [12] In January 2014, Ms. M was hired by Okanagan University College as a coordinator of teaching assistant services. This is a full-time permanent position. She earns on the order of $40,000. Ms. M hopes to eventually get a position teaching mathematics at the College. She estimates that as a college instructor she would make roughly as much as she would have as a teacher in the South Peace School District. [13] Ms. M and KK live in a condominium that her mother owns in Kelowna. She cannot stay there in the long term. Ms. M hopes to buy a townhouse somewhere in Kelowna. KK is enrolled in a daycare facility in Kelowna. Ms. M has several relatives who live in and around Kelowna, and her mother still lives in

Penticton. [14] Ms. M is still on a leave of absence from the South Peace District. She could, if she wanted to, apply for a job posting in that District. She would most likely be hired again, but there is no guarantee that she would have a job teaching math nor is there a guarantee that she would be posted to Chetwynd. She could be posted to Dawson Creek or Tumbler Ridge. Those three communities form a rough triangle and are about one hour (longer in inclement weather) by highway from each other. If she did return to work in the South Peace area, Ms. M's income would be in the range of $70,000 and she would receive annual increases until her income tops out at around $80,000. [15] Mr. K quit his job shortly after the parties separated. He remained unemployed until late November 2012. He subsisted on savings. At the end of November 2012, Mr. K hired on as an electrician at a mine site some distance outside of Chetwynd. Currently, he has a one-hour commute to the mine each morning and evening. He leaves his house at 04:30, starts work at 06:00, leaves the mine at around 18:00 and he gets home around 19:00. He works 14 days in a row and then has 14 days off. Mr. K earns $44 per hour. His annual income, absent overtime, is on the order of $95,000. [16] Mr. K's sister lives in Chetwynd and he has several friends there. Mr. K's parents live about three highway hours away in Prince

George. [17] Mr. K still lives in the parties' family home. The parties have agreed that it should be sold and, indeed, on the last day of trial the parties advised that they had received an offer on the house. Mr. K did not testify as to what kind of accommodation he plans to acquire after the house is sold. That is because he is unsure of where he will live. He testified that if the court orders that KK return to Chetwynd, then he will stay in Chetwynd, will keep his job there, and would like to have KK in his care for some if not all of his 14-day rest periods. If the court orders that KK remain in Kelowna, then he plans to quit his job and move to the Okanagan, probably Kelowna, so that he can maintain his relationship with KK. Mr. K has no job prospects in the Okanagan. [18] Both parties are deeply attached to KK. [19] I will turn now to the reason that the parties separated. That reason has to do with spousal conduct. In my opinion, it is necessary in this case to discuss conduct because conduct impacts on parenting ability and on KK's best interests. [20] Mr. K has a temper. He has had a temper since childhood and he knows it. Mr. K's temper boils over under certain fairly predictable circumstances. He can be opinionated. When he develops an opinion on a topic his ideas tend to be quite fixed. Mr. K does not do well with opposition to what he believes to be correct. Mr.

K likes to talk. He feels it is necessary to expostulate in considerable extraneous detail. Mr. K especially does not like being interrupted. Nor does he like it when his interlocutors move on before he has finished telling them what he feels they need to hear. Mr. K puts this down to the others' failure to properly communicate with him. Mr. K really does not like it when he perceives that other persons do not give adequate credit to his way of thinking or to his beliefs. [21] Under these circumstances, Mr. K becomes frustrated. That is when his temper can flare up. When that happens he loses control over his emotions. Mr. K will shout and yell at whoever it is that he feels has paid insufficient attention to his needs. He will act precipitously - on one occasion he punched a hole in wall of the parties' house and several times he has stormed out of the house in a rage and disappeared for a day or so. [22] Early in the parties' relationship, Mr. K and Ms. M had little to disagree over. They loved one another, they enjoyed the same recreations and past-times, and they liked the company of their friends and family. They were happy as they participated in the construction of their house in Chetwynd. There was little in their relationship to frustrate Mr. K or to trigger his temper tantrums. [23] Unfortunately, the parties' relationship changed when Ms. M became pregnant. She was

often ill and usually tired. She withdrew from physical intimacy with Mr. K. Their sleeping patterns changed. Mr. K felt rejected by his wife. He became frustrated by this feeling of rejection. It was during one of these periods of acute frustration that Mr. K punched a hole in a wall of the parties' home. He knew that his wife was in the house at the time, and in retrospect he knew that the violence of that act would upset her. Mr. K would yell and shout at Ms. M, usually over the most mundane matters. He would become enraged and slam doors and storm out of the house. [24] Mr. K's feeling of rejection intensified after KK was born. Ms. M was a protective mother. She was concerned that Mr. K did not follow all of the post-natal baby care techniques that had been taught to them. Ms. M asked Mr. K to adhere to those techniques - things like not holding a baby by or over a cooking surface, and bathing a baby in a tub as opposed to with a spray wand in a kitchen sink. Mr. K was quite certain that he knew how to look after a newborn and was unwilling to give credit to Ms. M's concerns. Again, his frustration rose beyond his capacity to contain it and his temper flared. Several times he yelled and shouted at Ms. M and, again, he stormed out of the house for at least several hours and sometimes overnight. On one of these occasions, Mr. K became so angry that he had a confrontation

with his father who happened to be in the house at the time. He later admitted that had his father not backed down from that confrontation he could have hurt his father. [25] In the weeks following KK's birth Mr. K's outbursts of yelling, shouting, rage, and precipitous behavior increased in frequency and severity. By mid-June 2012, Ms. M was concerned for her safety in the house. As she said at trial, she never knew which Mr. K she would get: the nice Mr. K or the angry one. [26] Finally, on July 1, 2012, Ms. M had had enough of Mr. K's behavior. She packed up KK and, with the help of a friend, she travelled first to Prince George and then to her mother's place in Penticton. [27] Mr. K attended at counselling sessions for a short time before the parties separated and for several months after. He maintains that counselling has been helpful to him. Oddly, he gave no evidence that he has ever apologized to Ms. M for upsetting her, and, equally oddly, while Mr. K recognizes that he has difficulty controlling his temper, he persists in attributing to others, especially to Ms. M, fault for causing his temper to flare. More particularly, Mr. K maintains that it was Ms. M's failure to properly communicate with him that pushed him into his tantrums. [28] The parties attended a judicial case conference in December 2012. There, they consented to an interim order that Ms. M have

day-to-day care of KK, that Mr. K pay child support based upon an income of $90,000, and that he have parenting time with KK on a schedule to be arranged between the parties. [29] Since then, Mr. K has had care of KK for increasing periods of time. KK has been with him for as long as 5 days at a time. Mr. K has provided proper care and attention to KK during those periods. There was no evidence that he has had temper tantrums or has behaved badly toward KK during his parenting time. Issues and the Parties' Positions Property [30] The parties have agreed upon the disposition of their property. A separate consent order to that effect may be entered. Parenting [31] Ms. M maintains that KK should remain primarily in her care. She agrees that KK should have a meaningful relationship with Mr. K, but is concerned that his intolerance, susceptibility to frustration, and propensity for temper tantrums could put KK at risk while she is in his care. For that reason, she suggests that KK stay with Mr. K for not more than 5 to 7 days at a stretch. [32] Mr. K says that the court should order that KK be returned to Chetwynd. He acknowledges that he cannot provide daily care for KK while he is working. A necessary adjunct of the order he seeks is that Ms. M return to Chetwynd as well. If she does go back to Chetwynd, Mr. K says that she would have a teaching position paying her on the order of

$70,000 per year. That income, plus his $95,000 income, would ensure that KK's needs would be met. That, he argues, would serve KK's best interests. Support [33] Past child and spousal support issues were resolved with the parties' property agreement. Again, those issues may be dealt with in a separate consent order. [34] Ms. M seeks ongoing child support based upon Mr. K's 2013 income of approximately $128,000 and spousal support based on her income of $40,000. [35] Mr. K argues that in 2013 he worked a lot of optional overtime in order to catch up for his unemployment in 2012 and to, among other things, pay for this litigation and for travel for his parenting time with KK. He says that he does not intend to work so much overtime in 2014 and that, in any event, the price of his mine's product is falling so he predicts that his employer will be less willing to pay overtime in the coming year. He says that his obligation to pay child support should be based upon an income of $95,000. Mr. K maintains that Ms. M voluntarily left a $70,000 per year job and that, whether she returns to Chetwynd or not, her income for the purposes of spousal support should be fixed at $70,000. On that basis, he says that he should not have to pay spousal support. Discussion Divorce [36] The evidence at trial demonstrated that there is no prospect of reconciliation and that the parties have been

separated for at least one year. There will be an order for divorce that, subject to s. 12 of the Divorce Act, shall be effective on the 31st day following its pronouncement. Parenting [37] There are three realistic parenting regimes for KK. The first would have KK remain in Ms. M's day-to-day care in Kelowna with Mr. K having regular but relatively infrequent parenting time with her. The second scenario would have Mr. K moving from Chetwynd to Kelowna or the Okanagan Valley and KK moving between the parties' households on some schedule. The third scenario would have KK in Ms. M's day-to-day care but both of them moving to Chetwynd and KK spending time with Mr. K during some or all of his two-week respite from work. [38] I have rejected the concept of KK being in Mr. K's day-to-day care in Chetwynd. I have come to that conclusion because Mr. K's schedule completely forecloses his capacity to attend to KK's needs on the days that he works at his mine. [39] For each scenario I must assess the positive and negative factors that bear upon KK's best interests. I will do so with regard for the list of factors helpfully supplied by the B.C. Legislature in s. 37 of the Family Law Act and with regard to the more general but no less helpful factors that the courts have identified when considering the best interests of the child as that term is employed in the Divorce Act. In accord with

the principal of paramountcy, my decision on parenting will be made pursuant to the Divorce Act. [40] I will deal first with the Okanagan Valley and the South Peace as suitable locales for KK to spend her childhood. There was no evidence at trial that one location was preferable over the other. Geography is a neutral factor here. [41] KK has relatives in both the Okanagan and the South Peace. Ms. M's mother in Penticton is naturally attached to KK, as are Mr. K's parents in Prince George. In Kelowna, KK would have a closer relationship with her maternal grandmother but at the expense of her relationship with her paternal grandparents. Were she to live in Chetwynd, the situation would be reversed. KK is only 20 months old and I will take judicial notice of the proposition that at so young an age she cannot yet have developed particularly close ties with playmates or other non-related children. In my view, so far as connections to the community, relatives, and other caregivers are concerned, Chetwynd and Kelowna would have equal but opposing impacts on KK's best interests. Again, this is a neutral factor. [42] Given her age, KK's views need not be taken into account. [43] So far as economic factors are concerned, there can be little doubt that the parties will have more financial resources available to them if they both live and work in the South Peace. Mr. K would have his

$95,000 per year job and Ms. M would most likely have a teaching job and would earn on the order of $70,000 per year. There is some uncertainty about Ms. M's prospects in the South Peace, though. That is because a job as a math teacher may not necessarily be posted in Chetwynd, or in Dawson Creek or Tumbler Ridge either. Ms. M is not necessarily qualified to teach every subject that might be posted - industrial education, for example, would probably be outside of her qualifications. Further, it may be that she would get a job in Tumbler Ridge or Dawson Creek rather than in Chetwynd. The court heard nothing about what Ms. M's living conditions might be like in those communities. However, even with those provisos it is more likely than not that the parties' combined gross incomes would be higher if they both lived in the South Peace than if one or both of them lived in the Okanagan. It is not unreasonable to assume that their higher incomes would enhance KK's quality of life by some degree. [44] On the other hand, Ms. M does have steady employment at a reasonable salary. She might possibly enjoy pay rises and advancement at Okanagan University College. Mr. K earns a good income as well, and the child support he would pay based on that income would certainly go to enhance KK's quality of life in Kelowna. [45] The only significant cloud on the economic horizon is Mr. K's testimony

that if KK stays in Kelowna he will quit his job and, whether he finds a job in the Okanagan or not, he will move to the Kelowna area. If he were to be out of work for a significant period of time, the absence of financial support from him would probably negatively affect KK's best interests. Tempering that gloomy prediction is the fact that Mr. K has a solid history of steady employment, he has a good attachment to the workforce, and his trade qualification is relatively portable within the Province. There is no reason to assume that if he did move to the Okanagan he would be out of work for an extended period of time. Whether he would make as much money in the Okanagan as he does in Chetwynd is completely unknowable at present. [46] Overall, however, I find that to the extent that KK's best interests would be served by having well remunerated parents, it is more likely than not that those interests would be better for her to live with her mother in Chetwynd. [47] Nothing about KK's health favours the Okanagan or the South Peace as a place for her to grow up. I will discuss her emotional health in the context of my discussion of the parties' personalities and their capacities as parents. [48] KK is an infant. She adapts well to the different routines employed by her mother and her father. She is not susceptible to emotional or behavioral upset stemming from her transitions

between their households. That is to say, nothing about KK suggests that it would be in her best interests to be preserved from spending time in the care of each of her parents. [49] Mr. K has not been physically violent toward Ms. M. I note that on one occasion at a craft fair he held her arm too tightly but I would not characterize that incident as violence. It was rude, yes, but not violent. On the other hand, Mr. K does not brook disagreement with his fixed ideas. Further, despite taking counselling sessions, he appears to still have no insight into why he has temper tantrums - he continues to insist that Ms. M was at fault for having failed to properly "communicate" with him when in fact his frustration clearly arises from his rigid personality. That said, I accept that while KK has been in Mr. K's care during the past year he has taken proper care of her. He is a capable parent. I also accept Mr. K's evidence that he genuinely wishes to play a meaningful role in KK's life. [50] Ms. M does not suffer from Mr. K's temper. If anything, she tends to avoid conflict. Ms. M is not one to find difficult situations frustrating, and when she is frustrated she does not act out in a negative way. [51] I find that of the two parties, Ms. M is the one that is better able to deal with setbacks, challenging behavior or situations, and the vicissitudes of life. For that reason I find that

KK is less likely to be subjected to temper tantrums, yelling, shouting, door slamming, and stomping out of the house if she is primarily in the care of her mother. [52] The real conundrum in this case is not, therefore, with whom KK should primarily reside. Her mother is best able to carry out parenting responsibilities and is less likely to expose KK to negative acting out behaviors. KK should be primarily in Ms. M's care. The difficultly in this case is whether KK, and by necessary extension Ms. M, should be ordered to live in Chetwynd. [53] Mr. Koochin for Mr. K fairly and accurately pointed out that Ms. M moved to Chetwynd voluntarily and that she was there before Mr. K ever arrived. He went on to argue, again accurately and fairly, that apart from Mr. K's behavior, Ms. M liked living in Chetwynd. She had a high paying job, she enjoyed teaching at her school, her colleagues were friendly, and she has a social life outside of her career. The only thing that she did not like about Chetwynd, the only thing that drove her away, was Mr. K's behavior. Mr. Koochin argued that if the parties do not live together, if their interactions are limited, and if their parenting time is structured so as to leave them little to argue about, there is no reason to think that Ms. M could not have as satisfying a life in Chetwynd as she might have in Kelowna. [54] There is, in my opinion, a

great deal of merit in that argument. KK can have as good a childhood in Chetwynd as she can in Kelowna. It is more likely than not that if her parents live in Chetwynd they will have more disposable income and therefore more resources to devote to KK's care and well-being than if they both were to live in Kelowna. It is equally certain that KK would have a much greater opportunity to have a meaningful relationship with her father if she lived in the same community as he. [55] For her part, Ms. M's concern was focused on limiting her and KK's exposure to Mr. K's tantrums. Her concern is well-founded: it would not be in KK's best interests to regularly witness Mr. K's outbursts. Since the parties' separation, Mr. K has acted out at exchange times. The locale of the exchange, i.e.: Kelowna or Chetwynd, has not played an obvious role in whether Mr. K has kept his temper or lost it. For that reason, it seems that Kelowna offers no particular advantage over Chetwynd in preserving KK from exposure to Mr. K's outbursts. [56] After discarding the option of KK being in Mr. K's day-to-day care in Chetwynd, my assessment of the three realistic scenarios for KK's parenting is: KK remaining in Ms. M's day-to-day care in Kelowna, Mr. K remaining in Chetwynd [57] In this scenario, Ms. M would be making less money than she would in Chetwynd. Owing to the distance between the two communities,

KK's contact with her father would be quite limited. KK's time with Mr. K would either involve a day of travel each way from Kelowna to Chetwynd or spending time with Mr. K in a motel or hotel in the Okanagan. The latter would be artificial and would be less satisfactory than spending time in Mr. K's usual residence. KK would continue to have regular contact with her maternal grandmother but would have limited opportunities to see her paternal grandparents. KK remaining in Ms. M's day-to-day care in Kelowna, Mr. K moves from Chetwynd to the Okanagan Valley [58] In this scenario, KK would have a much greater opportunity to benefit from contact with Mr. K. Parenting time would not be complicated by lengthy travel and would be much less expensive to accomplish. KK would be able to spend parenting time with Mr. K in his own regular accommodation. Mr. K's income in the Okanagan is an unknown, but would probably be less than it is in Chetwynd. Ms. M's income would certainly be less than it could be if she were teaching in Chetwynd. Lack of parental financial resources could have a negative impact on KK's best interests. KK would continue to have regular contact with her maternal grandmother but would see less of her paternal grandparents. KK remaining in Ms. M's day-to-day care and Ms. M and KK relocating to Chetwynd [59] In this scenario, KK would see her maternal grandmother less

but would see her paternal grandparents more. KK would have a good opportunity to be parented by Mr. K during his rest from work. There was no evidence that Chetwynd would be a less satisfactory environment in which to raise KK than Kelowna. It is more likely than not that Ms. K would earn more as a teacher in Chetwynd than she would as a teaching coordinator in Kelowna. Ms. M would be a less happy parent owing to proximity to Mr. K. An order regulating contact between Ms. M and Mr. K could ameliorate her anxiety. Parenting Conclusion [60] After considering all of these factors that bear on these scenarios, I have come to the difficult conclusion that overall it would be in KK's best interests to live in the same community as both of her parents, and of the two communities in play, Kelowna or Chetwynd, KK's best interests would be served by living in the community in which both parents can have meaningful employment that they both enjoy and which would maximize their earning potential. That community is Chetwynd. [61] An order will go, therefore, that KK be in Ms. M's primary care and that KK take up residence in Chetwynd. The effect of this order will be suspended until September 1, 2014. The suspension period will afford Ms. M time to resign from her current employment and to secure a teaching position with the South Peace School District. [62] A further order will go that

the parties not have contact with one another except as may be necessary to attend to parenting arrangements for KK. Neither party will speak disparagingly of the other in KK's presence. In discourse with Ms. M, Mr. K will be enjoined from employing his voice in anything other than a calm and conversational manner. Ms. M will be at liberty to record Mr. K's behavior if, as, and when she sees fit. Mr. K may bridle at this stipulation, but he need only look in a mirror to see why I find it necessary. [63] While the relocation element of the order is suspended, Mr. K shall have parenting time with KK for five consecutive nights during each of his 14-day rest periods. If Mr. K choses to exercise parenting time in Chetwynd, then at Ms. M's option she may travel by air with KK to Prince George, Grande Prairie, or Dawson Creek where Mr. K shall collect KK and take her to Chetwynd. If Ms. M elects to not fly to those locations, it will be for Mr. K to fly to Kelowna to pick up KK. Mr. K shall not be at liberty to take KK to Chetwynd from Kelowna or return by road. In the event that Mr. K elects to not exercise parenting time during one of his rest periods, he shall not seek to make up time for that missed visit. Mr. K must provide Ms. M with not less than seven days' notice of whether he elects to exercise parenting time during a rest period. Mr. K may elect to exercise parenting time

in a location other than Chetwynd. In that case, Mr. K shall arrange to fly with KK from Kelowna to any destination that is further than 4 hours by highway travel from Kelowna. The cost of all travel for parenting time will be on Mr. K's account. [64] The parties will be at liberty to apply for an order fixing parenting time after Ms. M and KK relocate to Chetwynd. By then, a judge of this court sitting in Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, or Prince George will be much more accessible to the parties than a judge sitting in Kelowna. I would ordinarily seize myself of any parenting application so closely following a trial decision, but the geography of the situation militates against such an order in this case. Child Support [65] I find that for the purposes of child support, Mr. K's annual income is $95,000. He shall pay monthly child support of $878 to Ms. M commencing March 1, 2014. The parties shall share KK's Guidelines s. 7 expenses in the proportion that their incomes bear to one another. For the present, Ms. M's income is $40,000 per year. [66] The parties will exchange completed T1 personal tax returns not later than May 31, 2014 and not later than May 31st of subsequent years. Spousal Support [67] Ms. M has a short-term need for spousal support. Given these parties' data, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggest a range of spousal support from $456 to $1,159. Because

Mr. K will be incurring considerable extra expense for access visits, his ability to pay spousal support will be more limited than it would otherwise be. For that reason, I will fix Ms. M's entitlement to spousal support at $600 per month commencing March 1, 2014. The issues of entitlement and amount of spousal support shall be open for review September 1, 2014. Costs [68] The parties have leave to make submissions on costs. Absent a party making application for costs within 30 days of the release of these reasons, an order will go that the parties bear their own costs. "P.J. Rogers J." The Honourable Mr. Justice Rogers