Techere v. Techere

2023 BCSC 1130 Techere v. Techere

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Techere v. Techere, 2023 BCSC 1130 Date: 20230630 Docket: E57454 Registry: New Westminster Between: Ariana America Techere Claimant And Marius Techere Respondent Before: The Honourable Justice Kirchner Reasons for Judgment The Claimant, appearing on her own behalf: A.A. Techere The Respondent, appearing on his behalf: M. Techere Place and Dates of Trial: New Westminster, B.C. May 15-18, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. June 30, 2023 Table of Contents I. Introduction and Background. 4 II. Parenting.. 5 A. Guardianship and Decision-making. 5 B. Parenting Time. 7 1. General Parenting Time. 7 2. Summer Holidays. 9 3. Special Days. 10 Christmas and Winter Break. 10 Spring Break. 11 Other Statutory Holidays and Special Days. 11 C. Conduct Orders. 12 D. Romanian Citizenship and Passports. 13 III. Child Support. 15 A. Current and Ongoing. 15 B. Arrears of Child Support 16 C. Section 7 Expenses. 19 1. Child Care. 22 2. Summer Camps. 23 3. After School Programs. 23 4. Tutoring. 23 5. Other Extra-Curricular Activities. 24 6. Other Items. 25 7. Future Expenses. 26 IV. Children's Savings Accounts. 28 V. Family Property. 29 A. Expenses for the Port Coquitlam Home. 29 B. The Romania Apartment 32 C. U.S. Dollar Bank Account 35 VI. Divorce. 36 VII. Summary. 36 I. Introduction and Background [1] This is a family law claim

in which both parties are representing themselves. They have done an admiral job of resolving many of the issues between them but now seek a decision on some remaining matters. [2] The parties met while working on cruise ships in Europe. They started a relationship and, in 2006, began living together after they moved to Canada. The claimant, Ariana Techere, had previously lived for most of her life in Canada and is a Canadian citizen. The respondent, Marius Techere, is a citizen of Romania where he had been lived before meeting Ms. Techere. When they arrived in Canada they initially lived with Ms. Techere's parents but later rented an apartment in downtown Vancouver. They married in September 2009 and bought a house in Port Coquitlam (the "Port Coquitlam Property") with Ms. Techere's mother, Maria De Lourdes Martinez. This was on the understanding that Ms. Martinez would have 40% interest in the home and the parties would share a 60% interest. [3] The parties have two daughters: A. who is 9 years old and M. who is 7. [4] The parties separated in January 2018. For the first year or so after separation they lived separately in the Port Coquitlam Property and shared parenting largely on an equal basis. However, by April 2019 this arrangement became untenable and Mr. Techere moved out. Thereafter, the children have lived primarily with Ms. Techere and Mr. Techere has parenting time

on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Friday evenings from 5:30 to 9:00 (unless it is his parenting weekend), and every other weekend. Each party would like to make some relatively small adjustments to this schedule. The main issue with parenting relates to decision-making authority. [5] Mr. Techere has been paying child support since October 2019 but not always in the full amount required by the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Thus there is an issue of fixing the arrears of child support. Mr. Techere accepts his obligation to pay ongoing child support in the Guideline amount but there is some disagreement as to special and extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Guidelines. [6] In September or October 2020, Ms. Martinez bought out Mr. Techere's interest in the Port Coquitlam Property pursuant to an order made by Justice Marzari on September 16, 2020. That order gave judgment on a dispute between Ms. Martinez and the parties as to their respective contributions to the purchase of the home. There remains some disagreement over Mr. Techere's share of expenses for the upkeep of the property prior to Ms. Martinez buying out his interest. This issue requires a determination. [7] The other issues that require resolution relate to: a) an order that Mr. Techere seeks permitting him to apply for Romanian citizenship and passports for the children; b) a claim made by

Ms. Techere for small amount of money withdrawn from bank accounts in the children's names; c) division of a small bachelor apartment that Mr. Techere owns in Romania which he claims is excluded property but which Ms. Techere says is family property. Even if I find it is excluded property, I must still address any increase in value in the property during the relationship as family property; and d) a claim by Mr. Techere that Ms. Techere has failed to disclose a U.S. currency bank account against which he may have a claim. [8] At the conclusion of these reason, I set out all my orders in an appendix to assist the parties in preparing the final order. II. Parenting A. Guardianship and Decision-making [9] There is no order in place concerning the guardianship or parental responsibilities for the children. Ms. Techere presently exercises most of the decision-making responsibility and Mr. Techere seeks an order giving him more involvement in decisions, including having a say in decisions on important matters and making routine decisions for the children during his parenting time. He also wishes to have access to the children's school and medical records. Ms. Techere says he already has that access and she does not impede it. [10] It is apparent that the main difficulty between the parties with parenting and guardianship is their challenge to communicate with one another. During the

trial, they both candidly and constructively recognized this to be the case. It became apparent that there was little or no disagreement between them that both should be guardians of the children and when I suggested to them potential terms of an order respecting decision-making, they largely agreed with those terms. The real dispute is how significant decisions about the children should be made if the parties cannot agree. [11] Both parties have a strong relationship with the children and both have a history of caring for them. I find, however, that the bulk of that work has fallen to Ms. Techere. Having regard only to the best interests of the children, as I am required to do under s. 37(1) of the Family Law Act and s. 16 of the Divorce Act, and having regard to the factors set out in s. 37(2) of the Family Law Act and s. 16(3) of the Divorce Act, I make the following orders respecting guardianship and parenting. [12] I order that the parties shall be joint guardians of the children under s. 239(1) of the Family Law Act. With respect to decision-making and parental responsibilities, I find that the parties should be free to make routine, day-to-day decisions about the children while the children are in their care during their parenting time. For significant decisions affecting the children, the parties are to make best efforts to reach an agreement. If, after making those

best efforts, they still cannot agree on a significant decision, I order that Ms. Techere should make that significant decision. I make that order on the basis that Ms. Techere has been primarily responsible for the children's care during their lives, she has the majority of parenting time, and she is better acquainted with the children's medical and dental providers. However, Mr. Techere will be free to apply to the court to seek directions about the decision if he believes it is contrary to the children's best interests. [13] I therefore make the following orders under s. 40(2) of the Family Law Act: a) Each party will have the obligation to advise the other party of any matters of a significant nature affecting the children; b) Each party will have the obligation to discuss with the other party any significant decisions that have to be made concerning the children, including significant decisions about the health (except emergency decisions), education, religious instruction, and general welfare; c) The parties will have the obligation to discuss significant decisions with each other and the obligation to use best efforts try to reach agreement on those decisions; and d) In the event that the parties cannot reach agreement on a significant decision despite their best efforts, Ms. Techere, being the party with the majority of parenting time with the children, will be entitled

to make those decisions and Mr. Techere will have the right to apply to the court for directions on any decision he considers to be contrary to the best interests of the children. [14] With respect to accessing school records, while it appears Mr. Techere is not prevented from doing so, I will make an order to ensure his access to provide the parties with the certainty they have asked for. I therefore make this order: e) Each party will have the right to obtain information concerning the child directly from third parties, including but not limited to teachers, counsellors, medical professionals, and third party care givers. B. Parenting Time 1. General Parenting Time [15] The parties agree to the basic parenting schedule that is now in place. However, each seeks some minor adjustments to the schedule. [16] Ms. Techere wishes to extend Mr. Techere's return drop-off time from 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Mr. Techere wishes to move his parenting time to 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at least during the months when it is light later in the day. Mr. Techere works in construction and he is able to put in more hours in a day during the late spring and summer months when it stays light into the evening. [17] Ms. Techere's concern about this proposal is that the children go to bed at 8:30 p.m. and an 8:00 p.m. drop-off time gives them only half an hour after they arrive home before they need to be

in bed. She suggests more time is needed for the children to readjust to being at her home before going to bed. [18] Both parties make a compelling case. Mr. Techere showed some flexibility in suggesting that his later parenting time proposal could be in place for only a few months of the year since it is not necessary in the months when it gets dark earlier in the day. Ms. Techere also showed flexibility in agreeing that Mr. Techere proposal would be acceptable in the summer when the children are not in school. [19] The children's parenting time with Mr. Techere is important for them and Mr. Techere. At the same time, Mr. Techere feels he must work as late as he can when there is daylight to ensure he can best support the children financially. Ms. Techere makes a good point about the need for the girls to be well rested on school nights but, as they get older, I expect their bedtime will get pushed later than 8:30, particularly when it is still light out past 9:00. I accept, though, that on Sunday evenings before the school week starts, more time before bed to settle in at Ms. Techere's home after a weekend of parenting time with Mr. Techere may be important. [20] To balance these interests and having regard to what is in the children's best interests, I make the following orders for parenting time: a) The children will reside primarily with Ms. Techere. b) Mr. Techere will

have ordinary parenting time on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and every other weekend as follows: i. For the months of May, June, July, and August (and subject to other orders respecting holidays) Mr. Techere will pick up the children from Ms. Techere's home on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 6:00 p.m. and drop them off at 8:00 p.m. On Friday evenings, other than his parenting weekend, he will pick the children up at 6:00 p.m. and drop them off at 9:00 p.m. On every other weekend, he will pick up the children at 6:00 p.m. on Friday and return them at 7:30 p.m. on Sunday. ii. For the months of September through April, Mr. Techere will pick up the children at Ms. Techere's home on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 5:30 p.m. and drop them off at 7:30 p.m. On Friday evenings, other than his parenting weekend, he will pick the children up at 5:30 p.m. and drop them off at 9:00 p.m. On every other weekend, he will pick up the children at 5:30 p.m. on Friday and return them at 7:30 p.m. on Sunday.

2. Summer Holidays [21] For the summer school break, Ms. Techere seeks an order allowing each parent two uninterrupted weeks of parenting time so they can take trips or holidays with the children. Ms. Techere has family in Oaxaca, Mexico and California. She also anticipates that the children may wish to go to France someday as they are enrolled in French immersion and are very interested in French. [22] Mr. Techere agrees to the proposal for a block of parenting time for each party during the summer. I therefore make the following orders, the essential terms of which were agreed to by the parties during the trial: a) Each party will have up to two weeks of uninterrupted parenting time with the children during their summer break from school. b) On or before May 15 of each year, Ms. Techere will notify Mr. Techere of the two weeks she wishes to select for her uninterrupted summer parenting time. After Ms. Techere selects her summer parenting time and by no later than May 20 of each year, Mr. Techere will notify Ms. Techere of the two weeks he wishes to select for uninterrupted summer parenting time. c) If either party is unable to exercise the full two weeks of their uninterrupted summer parenting time, they will notify the other party of this not less then 30 days before the date that their selected uninterrupted summer parenting time was to begin. The notice must specify the

days that the parent is unable to exercise the parenting time as planned. If the other parent is unable to have the children during the days that the notifying parent is unable to exercise the planned parenting time, the notifying parent will be responsible for arranging care for the children during that time that is acceptable to the other parent. [23] I also order that if either party intends to take the children out of the country, they will give other party not less than two weeks notice of the intention to do so and will provide the other parent with a travel itinerary, contact addresses, telephone numbers and evidence of reasonable travel medical/health insurance coverage obtained for the child(ren) for the duration of the trip. The other party will not unreasonably withhold their written consent to the travel. Ms. Techere will hold the children's passports but must provide them to Mr. Techere upon request when Mr. Techere has given notice that he intends to travel outside of Canada with the children.

3. Special Days [24] During the trial, the parties came to agreement on parenting time for a number of holidays and other special days and I make the following orders based on that agreement: Christmas and Winter Break a) Ms. Techere will have the children on Christmas Eve. Mr. Techere will pick up the children at 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day at Ms. Techere's home and will return them to Ms. Techrere's home at 12:00 noon on December 26 unless that day falls within Mr. Techere's winter break parenting time as described below. b) Except for the order respecting Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, Ms. Techere will have uninterrupted parenting time during the first week of the Children's winter break from school and Mr. Techere will have uninterrupted parenting time for the second week of the winter break. Spring Break c) Ms. Techere and Mr. Techere will each have one week of uninterrupted parenting time during the children's spring break. By no later than February 1 of each year, Ms. Techere will notify Mr. Techere of which week during the children's spring break she chooses to exercise her uninterrupted parenting time during spring break. Mr. Techere will have the other week and will return the children to Ms. Techere's home by 7:30 p.m. on the last day of that parenting week. Other Statutory Holidays and Special Days d) If Mr. Techere's birthday falls on the Victoria Day long

weekend and if his regular weekend parenting time also falls on that weekend, his parenting time will be extended to include the Victoria Day holiday Monday and he will return the children to Ms. Techere's home at 7:30 p.m. on that day. e) Ms. Techere will have parenting time with the children on Easter Sunday regardless of whether Easter falls on Mr. Techere's parenting weekend. Mr. Techere will have parenting time on Easter Monday. He will pick up the children at Ms. Techere's home at 10:00 a.m. on Easter Monday and return them by 7:30 p.m. f) Except as otherwise specified in this order, Ms. Techere will have parenting time on all other statutory holidays unless that holiday falls within any of Mr. Techere's parenting time as set out in this order. g) Ms. Techere will have parenting time on October 31 regardless of whether that day falls within Mr. Techere's parenting time. C. Conduct Orders [25] Ms. Techere has asked for certain orders respecting how the parties will conduct themselves in front of the children. She is concerned about some comments the children have made about their grandmother - Ms. Martinez - after returning from parenting time with Mr. Techere. Mr. Techere says he has not disparaged Ms. Techere's mother or any of Ms. Techere's family to the children and does not know where their comments about Ms. Martinez might have come from. [26] I do not need to make a

specific finding on this point. I am satisfied that, while the parties are making efforts to have better communications with one another, they find it difficult to refrain from some level of confrontation. This can at least inadvertently spill over to discussions with or in front of the children. I find it is in the children's best interest to make the conduct orders sought by Ms. Techere for both parties to abide by. I therefore order that: a) The parties will: i. put the best interests of the children before their own interests; ii. encourage the children to have a good relationship with the other parent and speak to the children about the other parent and the other parent's family members in a positive and respectful manner; and iii. make a real effort to maintain polite, respectful communications with each other, refraining from any negative or hostile criticism, communication or argument in front of the children. b) The parties will not: i. question the children about the other parent or time spent with the other parent beyond simple conversational questions; ii. discuss with the children any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters; or iii. blame, criticize or disparage the other parent to the children; c) The parties will encourage their respective families to refrain from any negative comments about the other parent and their extended family, and from discussions in

front of the children concerning family issues or litigation. D. Romanian Citizenship and Passports [27] Mr. Techere is a citizen of Romania and he would like to obtain Romanian citizenship and passports for the children. He points to the fact that Romania is a member of the European Union and Romanian citizenship would open up opportunities for the children in Europe. [28] Ms. Techere is not opposed to the idea in principle but would like to know more about what is involved in the process of obtaining citizenship before agreeing to it. She is concerned, for example, that the children may need to travel to Romania or perhaps live there for a period of time to qualify for citizenship. [29] I agree with Mr. Techere that obtaining Romanian citizenship would be beneficial for the children. It not only connects them to that side of their heritage but, as Mr. Techere says, it will give them opportunities of being a citizen of a European Union country. [30] Mr. Techere has not led evidence of what is required to secure Romanian citizenship for the children. In light of that and Ms. Techere's concerns, I will make the following orders: a) Mr. Techere may prepare applications for Romanian citizenship and passports for the children. b) Mr. Techere must provide Ms. Techere all the application materials and an explanation of what is required to secure citizenship. He must also provide Ms.

Techere with contact information for the appropriate Romanian consular service so she can make her own inquiries about the process for the children obtaining citizenship and passports. c) If Ms. Techere has any reasonable concerns about the process or effects of the children obtaining Romanian citizenship, she will communicate those concerns to Mr. Techere. [31] A reasonable concern does not include a general concern that the children may want to make this choice for themselves when they are older. I will provide some explanation for what I consider to be a reasonable concern by giving examples. If the Romanian consular service confirms it is necessary for the children to travel to Romania to qualify for citizenship, this may be a reasonable concern depending on how difficult the travel might be for the children. If there is some requirement to live in Romania for a period of time to qualify for citizenship (which seems unlikely), that is certainly a reasonable concern that would justify Ms. Techere withholding her agreement to the children obtaining Romanian citizenship as this would require a change in their residence. [32] A reasonable concern would also include a demonstrated risk that obtaining Romanian citizenship would impede the children's ability to obtain Mexican citizenship should Ms. Techere wish to pursue that for the children. Ms. Techere was born in Mexico and

still has family there whom she visits. She did not seek an order that she may apply for Mexican citizenship for the children but questioned whether Romanian citizenship might impede that, should she or the children decide to pursue that in the future. If there is a demonstrated risk that obtaining Romanian citizenship will impede Mexican citizenship, this may be a reasonable basis on which to withhold consent for Romanian citizenship until the children are old enough to decide for themselves which, if either, citizenship they might wish to pursue. [33] When I say a "demonstrated" risk, I mean a risk that is based on evidence from the Mexican consular services that Mexico would not permit dual citizenship with Romania. It must not be just speculation. [34] I now continue with the terms of the order respecting the passports: d) Absent a reasonable concern, Ms. Techere will sign any necessary approvals for the children obtaining Romanian citizenship and passports and otherwise cooperate with Mr. Techere's efforts to secure the children's Romanian citizenship and passport. e) If Ms. Techere raises what she suggests is a reasonable concern and objects to the children obtaining citizenship as a result, Mr. Techere may seek directions from the court as to whether the concern is truly reasonable having regard to what is in the best interests of the children. [35] Lastly, I order that

if the children are issued Romanian passports, Ms. Techere will hold those passports on the same terms that I earlier ordered that she will hold the Canadian passports (see para. 23 above). Mr. Techere will deliver the Romanian passports to Ms. Techere within three days of receiving them. III. Child Support A. Current and Ongoing [36] The parties agree that Mr. Techere is to pay child support in the amount specified in the Federal Child Support Guidelines. His tax information shows a Guidelines income for 2022 of $72,115. [37] Ms. Techere's 2021 income, which is relevant to determining how special and extraordinary expenses should be shared, was $73,149. At the time of trial, she had not filed her 2022 tax return but based on her pay stubs, it appears her 2022 income was approximately $82,000. (Her December 10, 2022 paystub showed her 2022 income to that date to be $78,402 and her biweekly gross pay of $3,120. With approximately one more pay period in the year, I estimate her 2022 income to be $82,000.) [38] I make the following orders for child support under s. 15.1 of the Divorce Act. The amounts are based on the table amount in the Child Support Guidelines: a) Ms. Techere is a resident of British Columbia and is found to have a gross annual income of $82,000. b) Mr. Techere is a resident of British Columbia and is found to have a gross annual income of $72,115. c) Mr.

Techere will pay the sum of $1,118 per month for the support of the children commencing on July 15, 2023 and continuing on the 15th day of each and every month thereafter, for as long as the children are eligible for support under the Divorce Act or until further agreement of the parties or court order. d) For as long as either child is eligible to receive child support, the parties will exchange: i. copies of their respective income tax returns for the previous year, including all attachments, not later than June 1 each year; and ii. copies of any Notice of Assessment or Reassessment provided to them by Canada Revenue Agency, immediately upon receipt. e) The parties shall conduct a review of child support under the Child Support Guidelines and the children's special or extraordinary expenses on an annual basis and payments shall be adjusted as necessary effective July 1 of every year with the first adjusted payment due on July 15. B. Arrears of Child Support [39] Mr. Techere moved out of the Port Coquitlam home in April 2019 and the parenting arrangement cased being equal at that time. Mr. Techere did not then immediately start paying child support but starting in October 2019 he paid $900 per month. At the Judicial Case Conference ("JCC") held on January 20, 2020, Justice Shergill ordered, by consent, that Mr. Techere continue paying $900 per month. She also ordered that the

parties exchange income information annually by June 30 and adjust child support based on the Child Support Guidelines effective July 1 of each year. The order states that the $900 is "based on a child support guideline income for each of the parties at $68,000 per year." However, the actual Guidelines amount for that income is $1,055. (The discrepancy may relate to a hand-written change to Mr. Techere's income as stated in the order.) I infer from this and the fact the order was made at an interim stage at the JCC that these child support orders are without prejudice to setting a new amount, including retroactively, at trial once full financial disclosure was made. I will do that now. [40] For consistency and certainty, I will maintain the formula set by the JCC Order of adjusting the amount of child support to be effective on July 1 each year based on the income stated in the previous year's tax return. In other words, I will set the arrears as though income information for the previous year had been exchanged by June 30 and an adjustment was made effective July 1 as was ordered by consent at the JCC. I take this approach even though we now know what the parties' actual incomes were for each year since the child support obligation arose. However, since I only have Mr. Techere's income since 2019 and not before, I will use his actual 2019 income to calculate arrears for that

year as well as for all of 2020 and the first half of 2021. [41] Using this approach, the following table sets out the child support payments that Mr. Techere ought to have paid and the amounts that he actually paid for each month since he moved out of the house and the obligation to pay support arose. The difference is the amount of arrears now owing. In most months, Mr. Tehcere paid support in an amount less than the required Guideline amount. This is due in part to the fact he has only recently had his income tax returns completed for the applicable years and his Guidelines income is somewhat higher than previously believed. I note, however, that for five months in 2021 he overpaid each month. Those months are italicized in the table and the overpayments are credited to him in the calculation. Mr. Techere also paid $2,700 towards arrears pursuant to the JCC order and I have added a credit for that payment: Month/yr Income Amount Due Amount

Paid Shortfall 2019 May $66,224/yr $1,027 $0 $1,027 Jun $1,027 $0 $1,027 Jul $1,027 $0 $1,027 Aug $1,027 $0 $1,027 Sep $1,027 $0 $1,027 Oct $1,027 $900 $127 Nov $1,027 $900 $127 Dec $1,027 $900 $127 2020 Jan $1,027 $900 $127 Feb $1,027 $900 $127 Mar $1,027 $900 $127 Apr $1,027 $900 $127 May $1,027 $900 $127 Jun $1,027 $900 $127 Jul $1,027 $1,000 $27 Aug $1,027 $1,000 $27 Sep $1,027 $1,000 $27 Oct $1,027 $1,000 $27 Nov $1,027 $1,000 $27 Dec $1,027 $1,000 $27 2021 Jan 2021 $1,027 $1,000 $27 Feb $1,027 $1,055 +$28 Mar $1,027 $1,055 +$28 Apr $1,027 $1,055 +$28 May $1,027 $1,055 +$28 Jun $1,027 $1,055 +$28 Adjustment as per JCC Order Jul $79,997/yr $1,239 $1,055 $184 Aug $1,239 $1,055 $184 Sep $1,239 $1,055 $184 Oct $1,239 $1,055 $184 Nov $1,239 $1,055 $184 Dec $1,239 $1,055 $184 2022 Jan 2022 $1,239 $1,065 $174 Feb $1,239 $1,065 $174 Mar $1,239 $1,065 $174 Apr $1,239 $1,065 $174 May $1,239 $1,065 $174 Jun $1,239 $1,065 $174 Adjustment as per JCC Order Jul $74,944/yr $1,163 $1,065 $98 Aug $1,163 $1,065 $98 Sep $1,163 $1,065 $98 Oct $1,163 $1,065 $98 Nov $1,163 $1,065 $98 Dec $1,163 $1,065 $98 Jan 2023 $1,163 $1,143 $20 Feb $1,163 $1,143 $20 Mar $1,163 $1,143 $20 Apr $1,163 $1,143 $20 May $1,163 $1,143 $20 June $1,163 $1,143 $20 Subtotal $9,183 Credit for additional payment as per JCC order ($2,700) Total Arrears $6,483 [42] I therefore make an order fixing Mr. Techere's arrears of

child support at $6,483 and order that he pay that amount to Ms. Techere. C. Section 7 Expenses [43] Ms. Techere claims arrears of special and extraordinary expenses as well as an order for the payment of those expenses in the future. Both of these she seeks in proportion to the parties' respective incomes. Since their incomes have been relatively equal for the past several years, I order that the parties share past s. 7 expenses on an equal basis. For future claims, this may be adjusted depending on the parties' income as disclosed annually under the order I have made earlier. Based on their respective 2022 incomes, Ms. Techere will be responsible for 53% of the cost of any future special or extraordinary expense and Mr. Techere will be responsible for 47%. This may be adjusted effective July 1, 2024 and each year thereafter based on the exchange of tax and income information that is to done on June 1 of each year. [44] I turn then to which of the claimed past expenses are special or extraordinary. [45] Section 7 of the Guidelines gives the court discretion to order payment of amounts over and above the regular Guideline table amount for expenses that are found to be either special or extraordinary. The person claiming the expense must prove that it is a special or an extraordinary expense in some way. This is because the basic table amount of child support is designed to

cover all the "ordinary" costs of raising a child: Clarke v. Clarke, 2014 BCSC 824 at paras. 48 to 49. [46] Section 7(1) describes special expenses as follows: 7 (1) In a child support order the court may, on either spouse's request, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child's best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family's spending pattern prior to the separation: (a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment of the spouse who has the majority of parenting time; (b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child; (c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses; (d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child's particular needs; (e) expenses for post-secondary education;

and (f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. [47] Extraordinary expenses are defined by s. 7(1.1) as follows: (1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(d) and (f), the term extraordinary expenses means (a) expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse's income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or (b) where paragraph (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account (i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate, (ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities, (iii) any special needs and talents of the child or children, (iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and (v) any other similar factor that the court considers relevant. [48] In L.A.M. v. S.C.M., 2020 BCSC 67 at para. 29, Justice G.P. Weatherill laid out a two-pronged

approach to assess whether an expense qualifies as an extraordinary expense: a) First, the court should determine whether the expense claimed under section 7(1)(f) of the Guidelines is an extraordinary expense or extracurricular activity by considering the following factors: i. the combined income of the parties; ii. the nature and amount of the individual expense; iii. the nature and number of the activities; iv. any special needs or talents of the children; v. the overall cost of the activities; and vi. any other similar factor that the court considers relevant. b) Once the court determines that an expense falls within section 7(1)(f) of the Guidelines, a court must then determine whether the expenses are necessary in relation to the child's best interests and reasonable in the circumstances having regard to the following factors: i. the means of the spouses and those of the child; and ii. the family spending pattern prior to separation. [49] In M.D. v. B.D., 2022 BCSC 1707, Justice MacDonald summarized this analysis as follows: [146] Overall, for an expense to be considered a s. 7 expense it must meet the threshold of being necessary, reasonable, and affordable. The court must consider if the recipient of child support can reasonably cover the expense out of their income, including from the child support they receive. If so, the expense will usually not be considered an extraordinary expense: L.A.M. at para. 30. [50] Ms. Techere claims a number of past expenses as special or extraordinary and seeks reimbursement for half of them. I set them out with my findings as follows.

1. Child Care [51] Ms. Techere claims for half the cost of child care for times when she was at work and the children out of school. This is a valid claim under s. 7(1)(a) of the Guidelines and, as I explain, I find the amounts she claims are reasonable. I order that Mr. Techere pay half the claimed amounts subject to the following. [52] Ms. Techere claims half of $3,845.50 in child care costs for Caring Hearts Preschool in July through October 2019 and February 2020. However, the evidence shows that Mr. Techere had paid $1,185 directly to Caring Hearts which was half the cost for childcare in July and August 2019. Thus, Ms. Techere's share of those two months should be deducted from the total amount she claims. Excluding those two months leaves $2,660.50 paid by Ms. Techere with no corresponding contribution from Mr. Techere. I therefore order that Mr. Techere reimburse Ms. Techere for half this amount, being $1,330.25. [53] Ms. Techere claims half of $2,820 which she paid to her mother, Ms. Martinez who provided childcare for November 2019 through February 2020. Mr. Techere argues he should not be responsible for this because Ms. Martinez is a family member who would have or perhaps did provide this childcare without charge. I accept that Ms. Techere paid this money to Ms. Martinez as shown by the cancelled cheques she tendered as evidence. While this is a family

relationship, Ms. Martinez provided a service that in all likelihood would have cost much more than the claimed amount if the parties had to seek childcare through other means. I therefore order that Mr. Techere reimburse Ms. Techere for half this claimed amount, being $1,420. [54] Starting in December 2020 and ending in January 2022, Ms. Techere took on a live-in caretaker for the children. She provided housing, utilities, and food for this caregiver plus paid her an additional $650 per month to look after the children when they were not in school. She only claims the $650 monthly cost as a special expense and not any amount to cover the cost of putting the caregiver up in the home. Fourteen months at $650 per month totals $9,100. I find this claim is very reasonable for necessary childcare and I order that Mr. Techere pay one half this amount, being the $4,050 claimed by Ms. Techere. [55] Thus, the total arrears for child care as a s. 7 expense is $6,800.25.

2. Summer Camps [56] Ms. Techere claims half of $700 for summer camps in 2021. These are essentially a form a child care since the children needed care when out of school in their summer break but when both parents were working. I order that Mr. Techere pay half this amount, being $350.

3. After School Programs [57] Ms. Techere claims half of $585 for after school programs in 2022. These are extracurricular activities for the children and not a form a child care. In my view, these are not extraordinary expenses but rather are part of the ordinary costs of children's activities that are expected to fall within the Guidelines amount for the children. I make no order for these items.

4. Tutoring [58] Both children are in French immersion and enjoy it. However, Ms. Techere's French is limited as is her ability to assist the children with their homework in French. She has hired a student at $15.00 per hour to tutor the children for two hours a week each. For this past expense she claims half of $225 which is what she paid in November and December 2022. [59] In my view, this claim is reasonable and I am satisfied it is necessary to assist the children in their French immersion homework. Ms. Techere has offered a good explanation for the necessity of the expense and I find it is in the children's best interests to have access to this tutor. The cost is also very reasonable. I order that Mr. Techere pay half of this being $112.50. [60] I also find this should be a fixed extraordinary expense for the future. Mr. Techere states that his sister speaks French and she can probably help the children with their homework but he has offered no real plan for this. Taking into account the summer, winter, and spring breaks when there will be no tutoring, and considering there are bound to be some weeks where tutoring is less than twice a week or perhaps missed altogether, I estimate the annual cost will be equivalent to about 36 weeks of tutoring. The past tutoring cost $15 per hour but minimum wage in B.C. is now $16.75 per hour. Rounding this up, I estimate the cost for

tutoring at four hours per week (two hours for each child) to be around $70 per week. I estimate the total annual cost of this to be around $2,500 per year or $1,250 for each parent. This is a reasonable annual expense and in the children's best interest. I order that Mr. Techere pay his proportionate share of the tutoring as the expense is incurred and as Ms. Techere forwards invoices to Mr. Techere. It may be that the actual cost of the tutoring is somewhat above what I have estimated but provided the amount is within a reasonable range of what I have estimated, I order that Mr. Techere pay Ms. Techere his proportionate share of future tutoring costs as the expense is incurred. [61] If either child's tutoring needs become greater than what I have outlined here, Ms. Techere may claim it as an extraordinary expense and the parties should be guided by the principles I have set out earlier in determining if the additional cost qualifies as an extraordinary expense, having regard to the necessity of the additional tutoring and the reasonableness of the cost in relation to the parties' incomes and ability to pay.

5. Other Extra-Curricular Activities [62] Ms. Techere claims half of $1,021.50 for various extracurricular activities such as swimming lessons and gymnastics. These are mostly sporadic activities which is understandable at the children's young age. They have not yet found activities they wish to focus on and, at this point, prefer to try out a number of different things to see what they might like. Neither the number of activities nor their costs is particularly substantial. There is no evidence of any special need or talent. [63] The Guideline table amount of child support accounts for the cost of ordinary extracurricular expenses for children. It is only those expenses that fall out of what is considered ordinary for an "average child" that rise to the level of being "extraordinary" expenses beyond what was covered within the Guideline table amount: S.H. v. L.H., 2016 BCSC 353 at paras. 84-85. Recreational sports and other similar extracurricular activities such as ordinary gymnastics, dance lessons, community sports leagues, and ski trips are generally considered ordinary expenses: DLC v. FMC, 2010 BCSC 1312 at para.

67. If a child shows a particular talent in something like gymnastics or soccer that should be fostered at a more elite level for the child's benefit, which typically comes at a higher financial cost, it might be elevated to the level of an extraordinary expense. [64] In my view, the extracurricular activities that Ms. Techere claims for are not extraordinary expenses but are the kind of expenses that can be covered out of Mr. Techere's Guideline amount of child support and Ms. Techere's income. I make no order for the payment of these.

6. Other Items [65] Ms. Techere claims for half of the children's share of a One City Pass to access Port Coquitlam recreation centre, mostly for swimming. She also claims for some school clothing including a school logo t-shirt and sweatshirts and the cost of obtaining the children's passports. In my view, the One City Pass is not an extraordinary expense. Normal school expenses, including school t-shirts and sweatshirts are not special or extraordinary: Kneale v. Yausie, 2022 BCSC 1038 at para.

48. Nor, in my view, is the cost of obtaining a passport. I would not allow the claims for these items.

7. Future Expenses [66] As to future special and extraordinary expenses, I find that summer camps when needed during the children's summer break while the parties are working are reasonable and necessary special or extraordinary expenses, the cost of which the parties are to share in the future in proportion to their income. Before committing to a summer camp, however, Ms. Techere must provide Mr. Techere with some information about the program and its cost and provide him a reasonable amount of time (a week seems more than enough) to consider the program and its cost. However, if the cost is within the range of the camps in which Ms. Techere has previously enrolled the children, Mr. Techere must pay his share of that cost as a s. 7 expense which is necessary for childcare during the summer. [67] As I have said earlier, I also order that Mr. Techere pay his share of the reasonable tutoring expenses as they are incurred as a s. 7 expense. [68] At this point, the extracurricular activities such as swimming and gymnastics do not rise to the level of being extraordinary and I make no order that these costs be shared as an extraordinary expense. This could change in the future depending on the nature of the activity and the factors identified earlier in L.A.M. (see para. 49 above). I make the same comment with respect to the cost of ski lessons in which Mr. Techere is considering

enrolling the children. That is an activity he hopes to be able to do with them and it is certainly to be encouraged for their benefit and his relationship with them, but it is something he can bear the cost of as an ordinary expense. [69] Ms. Techere asks for an order that Mr. Techere pay for a number of special or extraordinary expenses that she believes could arise in the future. Some of these are quite speculative and, at this point, I am not inclined to make an order based on what Ms. Techere believes could arise. However, both parties have emphasized that they are looking to the court to assist them with some certainty around issues respecting the children and their support so I will make some comments on the kinds of expenses that Ms. Techere seeks to have covered. [70] Ms. Techere asks for half the cost of a computer for the each child at some point in the future when one might be required for school. Courts have held that costs for computers or similar technology are not generally considered to be extraordinary, as they are common items found in most homes: D.L.Y. v. J.A.P.Y., 2003 BCSC 1372 at para. 18 and Clarke at para.

54. However, these decisions are now somewhat dated and it is more common today for high-school aged children to require a laptop computer for their school work. In Rushworth v. Aleliunas, 2007 BCSC 1406 at para. 24 the court found the cost of a computer for university purposes was accepted as an extraordinary expense. I find that a computer is now frequently required at the high school level. If one of the children requires her own laptop computer for school purposes, Ms. Techere should advise Mr. Techere of this and the reason why it is considered necessary. She should also provide him with a description of the type of computer needed and the estimated cost. Provided the cost is reasonable (and recognizing that a child is unlikely to require anything more than a fairly basic laptop computer), Mr. Techere should pay his proportionate share of the cost of the computer as an extraordinary expense. [71] Ms. Techere believes that one or both children may require braces for their teeth but that is entirely speculative. Braces and orthodontics can constitute an extraordinary expense when the cost is reasonable and the treatment is necessary. If in the opinion of a medical or dental professional, either child requires orthodontics for a medical or dental purpose, Ms. Techere should relay that advice to Mr. Techere together with a cost estimate for the orthodontics and any ongoing

treatment. Provided the cost (above any amount covered by an existing medical or dental plan) is reasonable, having regard to the general costs of orthodontics for children, it should properly qualify as a special and extraordinary expense for which Mr. Techere should contribute in proportion to his income. [72] The same may be said for any further medical expenses for the children beyond those covered by existing medical plans. If the expense is reasonable having regard to the parties' combined income and medically necessary, it should count as a special or extraordinary expense. IV. Children's Savings Accounts [73] There is a dispute between the parties about withdrawals made from savings accounts they set up for the children. These savings accounts never had much in them and the amounts Ms. Techere claims are relatively small. The importance of this point is in the fact that the parties set the money aside for the children. [74] A.'s account had only $100 from 2015 when it was opened to March 2017 when another $675 was deposited. The balance remained at $775 until August 2017 when another $100 was deposited. The balance remained at $875 until December 2018 when $48 was withdrawn. Ms. Techere says that Mr. Techere withdrew this. Three days later, $24 was deposited, again by Mr. Techere according to Ms. Techere. On January 15, 2019 Ms. Techere withdrew $40 and another $20 on

February 18, 2019. Then on March 18 Mr. Techere is said to have withdrawn $619 and deposited $100 March 22. Also on March 22, 2019 Ms. Techere withdrew $100. The balance remained at $177 until July 18, 2022 when Mr. Techere is said to have withdrawn $77.37. On July 22, 2022 Ms. Techere withdrew $100 which brought the account balance down to $0. Ms. Techere said she did this so that Mr. Techere would not withdraw any more money. [75] M.'s account was opened in 2017 with a balance of $5.00. On August 3, 2018 Ms. Techere said she deposited $100 and another $25 on February 4, 2021 bringing the balance to $125. Ms. Techere says that on July 18, 2022 Mr. Techere withdrew $25 from the account so she withdrew the remaining $100 so he would not withdraw any more. [76] Mr. Techere does not recall withdrawing the $619 from A.'s account and believes that he did not do so. Ms. Techere has raised this issue and seeks an order that Mr. Techere reimburse the account for what he has withdrawn. She has the burden to prove that Mr. Techere withdrew this money. I am not satisfied that she has met that burden. I am also not able to reach any conclusion on who withdrew any of the money or for what purpose. The amounts are relatively small and, since I cannot make findings of who made the withdrawals or for what purpose, I decline to make any order on this issue. V. Family Property A. Expenses for

the Port Coquitlam Home [77] As noted, the parties together with Ms. Techere's mother, Ms. Martinez, bought a home in Port Coquitlam with the intent of Ms. Martinez having a 40% interest and the parties sharing a 60% interest. [78] However, in July 2020, Ms. Martinez sued Mr. Techere and Ms. Techere claiming she was entitled to a 72.45% interest in property based on a disproportionate share she claimed to have contributed to the cost of buying the home. In an order made September 16, 2020 following a summary trial, Justice Marzari declared that Ms. Martinez owned a 48% interest in property and Mr. and Ms. Techere jointly owned a 52% interest. Justice Marzari also declared the net equity in the home to be $580,000 as of the date of her order and ordered that Ms. Martinez could buy out Mr. Techere's interest in the home for $151,433.63 within 45 days after the date of the order or the property was to be sold. [79] Justice Marzari's order required that if Ms. Martinez bought out Mr. Techere's interest, $15,662 of purchase proceeds was to be paid into trust to protect a claim Ms. Techere has made against Mr. Techere in this proceeding for expenses for the house pending the sale. I will turn to that in a moment. [80] Ms. Martinez did buy out Mr. Techere's interest in accordance with Marzari J.'s order. She did not buy out Ms. Techere's interest but her name was removed from title.

Ms. Techere claims she was unable to qualify for a mortgage that would allow her to continue her ownership of the home because these family proceedings had not concluded. I gather potential lenders needed assurance that Mr. Techere would not make a claim against Ms. Techere's 26% interest in the home. Thus, she says, she could not keep her name on title to continue paying her share of the mortgage. Only Ms. Martinez's name now appears on title, although she has not paid Ms. Techere for a 26% interest in the home. [81] Mr. Techere suggests Ms. Techere and Ms. Martinez colluded to put the property in Ms. Martinez's name only, presumably to defeat a claim Mr. Techere might make to an increase in value of Ms. Techere's 26% interest following Ms. Martinez's September 2020 buy out of Mr. Techere's interest. However, apart from raising this suggestion of collusion, he did not pursue a claim against Ms. Techere for this. Essentially, the parties have treated the 2020 buyout as the date on which the Port Coquitlam Property ceased to be a family asset. [82] Ms. Techere says she hopes to work things out with her mother and have her name restored on title some day but says there are some difficult feelings over the matter. She currently lives in the home with the children and pays rent to Ms. Martinez who also lives there. She says that for now she is happy to have a place to live and a

home for the children that she can afford so she is not pressing the matter with her mother for the moment. [83] I agree with Mr. Techere that it is unlikely that Ms. Techere has relinquished entitlement to a 26% interest in the property or to some $150,000 or more in the equity in the home as of 2020. I do not accept that Ms. Techere has no expectation of either having her name restored as a registered owner of the property or to be compensated in some way from her mother for her 26% interest. However, since Mr. Techere makes no claim to that interest and since the parties treated the 2020 buyout as ending all matters respecting the Port Coquitlam Property, except for the expense claims I will address in a moment, I need say nothing more about this issue. [84] Ms. Techere claims against Mr. Techere for certain expenses for the Port Coquitlam Property that she incurred on his behalf before Ms. Martinez bought out his interest. These include property taxes, mortgage payments, home insurance, and the cost of replacing a hot water tank. For each of these items she seeks reimbursement of 30% of the total cost, based on the agreement with Ms. Martinez that the parties would together contribute 60% to the cost of the house. She said she paid that full 60% for all these items and thus claims half of that from Mr. Techere. She treats the day of Marzari J.'s order as the day of the

buyout, even though it appears the buyout happened in the weeks that followed. (Neither party could recall the specific date of the buyout and no evidence of it was tendered.) [85] In my view, Ms. Techere is entitled to compensation from Mr. Techere for these items but since Marzari J. found the parties together have only a 52% interest in the property, and since Ms. Martinez paid Mr. Techere for only a 26% interest in the home, I find the most he can be responsible for is 26% of the expenses. [86] Ms. Techere has provided proof that she paid all the amounts claimed. There was some issue respecting the cost of the hot water tank and whether the invoice reflected its true cost. Ms. Techere paid cash for water tank and its installation and the invoice is dated some months after the work was done. Regardless, there is no dispute the water tank was replaced and Ms. Techere paid for it. The invoice provided is the best evidence of its cost and it is not substantial for that type of work. [87] I therefore order that Mr. Techere pay 26% of the expenses claimed by Ms. Techere as follows: Item Total 30% (Claimed) 26% (Ordered) Property Taxes (July 2019-August 2020) $7,705 $2,311.70 $2,003.48 Mortgage Payments (August 5, 2019-August 31, 2020) $30,843.15 $9,253.80 $8,019.22 Home Insurance (July 2019-September 2020) $3,082.65 $924.27 $801.49 Water

Tank $1,200 $400 $312.00 Total $11,136.19 [88] I order that $11,136.19 of the $15,662 held in trust be paid out to Ms. Techere. B. The Romania Apartment [89] The next issue respecting property division concerns a 28.31 square metre (about 305 square foot) bachelor apartment in Romania which Mr. Techere claims as excluded property under s. 85(1)(g) of the Family Law Act. The apartment is located in the centre of Brasov, Romania. Mr. Techere obtained the apartment from his parents in 2010. Ms. Techere has produced a contract of sale that is written in Romanian but which Mr. Techere translated during his testimony. It provides, essentially, that Mr. Techere purchased the property for €11,000 from his parents on September 16, 2010, the year after the parties were married and four years after they began living together. Thus, Ms. Techere claims it as family property. She says she does not know where the money came from to buy the apartment but assumes it came from one of the parties' joint bank accounts because those are the only accounts Mr. Techere had at the time. [90] Mr. Techere testified that his mother bought the apartment in 1996 using money from an inheritance after her parents died. His sister lived in the apartment and as did her daughter (Mr. Techere's niece) who was born while the sister was living there. Mr. Techere testified that in 2003, while working on the cruise

ships in Europe, he and his then girlfriend (prior to his relationship with Ms. Techere) bought a one-bedroom apartment in Romania. That relationship ended in 2005 and the former girlfriend offered to sell the apartment and send Mr. Techere half the money. However, Mr. Techere's sister needed a bigger place to live so Mr. Techere proposed that his mother buy out the girlfriend's interest in the one-bedroom apartment so his sister could live there. Mr. Techere would take the bachelor apartment in exchange for his half interest in the larger one-bedroom apartment. However, since the value of the bachelor apartment was more than his half interest in the one-bedroom apartment, he also paid his mother some additional money to round out the transaction. Mr. Techere says he paid this using money he earned working on cruise ships before he and Ms. Techere started living together. [91] Mr. Techere says the €11,000 stated in the contract of sale was identified as a minimum value that had to be declared for tax purposes. He wanted to ensure the transaction was structured as a sale and would not appear to be a gift because he did not want his brothers asserting they had some interest in the apartment. He does not suggest they would have a good claim since he paid his mother for the apartment in money and through his half interest in the other apartment but he did not want to leave doubt

about that. [92] In short, Mr. Techere maintains that all the consideration that passed to his mother to buy the bachelor apartment from her was earned and paid to his mother before he began living with Ms. Techere. Thus he claims it as excluded property. [93] The documentary record for the transaction is scant at best. In fact, the 2010 contract is the only document in evidence relating to the acquisition of the apartment. That document describes Mr. Techere as unmarried even though he was married to Ms. Techere by 2010. Ms. Techere alleges this was done to try to shield the apartment from a potential claim by her. Mr. Techere says it was just an error. [94] In Higgs v. Lear, 2020 BCSC 194, Justice Fitzpatrick said that a failure to provide documentary evidence is not fatal to an excluded property claim under s. 81 of the Family Law Act. However, the court will expect the spouse claiming excluded property to testify and will generally require some explanation for the lack of documentary evidence. [95] In Shih v. Shih, 2017 BCCA 37 at para. 43, the Court of Appeal said that evidence of excluded property must be clear and cogent but acknowledged that documentary evidence may not always be available. It said that the party claiming the property is excluded will need to testify as to their recollection of the transaction in dispute and that evidence will be scrutinized by the

court for credibility. The court went on to say: [44] However, in balancing the evidence as a whole, the trial judge must be permitted to draw reasonable inferences from evidence that is less than certain or precise in order to do justice between the parties. [96] In my view, while Mr. Techere's explanation of this property is complex, I find his evidence credible on this point. It is significant, in my view, that Ms. Techere produced no banking records from the parties' joint accounts showing a substantial sum of money being withdrawn from the account around the time of the September 16, 2010 contract of sale. It is also significant that Ms. Techere did not notice any money leaving their joint account to pay for it. If Mr. Techere had withdrawn the Canadian equivalent of €11,000 from one of the parties' joint accounts to buy the property in 2010, Ms. Techere almost certainly would have noticed such a large sum being withdrawn. Also significant is Ms. Techere's evidence that Mr. Techere had no other accounts, at least that she was aware of. [97] I question why the transaction itself occurred in 2010 - some five years after Mr. Techere's previous relationship broke up and the apartment swap. Mr. Techere did not explain this in his evidence. On balance though, despite this concern and the scant documentary evidence, I accept Mr. Techere's explanation on how he acquired the

apartment and I find it is excluded property under s. 81 of the Family Law Act because Mr. Techere acquired it with money and another asset he had before his relationship with Ms. Techere. [98] However, that does not end the matter. Under s. 84(2)(g) of the Family Law Act, any increase in value in excluded property during the relationship is considered to be a family asset. There is no evidence of the value of the property at the time the relationship began. The stated value when Mr. Techere legally acquired it in 2010 was €11,000. Mr. Techere says this is the minimum market value they could state for the property for tax purposes but it is the only value I have and thus I propose to use it as a starting point. [99] As to its present value, Mr. Techere has tendered an appraisal report of a certified land appraiser in Romania who assessed the value of the property at €29,050 as of July 31, 2020. Evidently Mr. Techere commissioned this report believing a valuation close to the separation date would be appropriate. However, s. 87(b) of the Family Law Act provides that family property is to be valued as of the date of the trial, not the date of separation. This is subject to a potential reapportionment of the asset under s. 95 where an equal division would be significantly unfair. Mr. Techere did not argue that an equal valuation to the date of the trial would be significantly

unfair but ultimately that does not matter because I find the only reliable evidence of its current value is the 2020 appraisal. [100] Ms. Techere has tendered a number of real estate listings for apartments in the central area of Brasov that range from €42,900 for a 31 square metre apartment to €79,990 for a 56 square metre apartment. While these are more current than the 2020 appraisal and thus closer to the date of trial, they are just listings that Ms. Techere pulled from the internet. They are not sales and have not been analyzed by a land appraiser. Further, most of the listings are for bigger apartments. The 31-square-foot apartment is closest in size to Mr. Techere's apartment but from the photos it appears to be better quality than Mr. Techere's apartment and no professional assessment has been done comparing these two properties. [101] There is no other reliable evidence of value and no evidence of what has happened with real estate prices in Brasov since 2020. In these circumstances, I find the best evidence of value tendered at trial is the appraisal report. I therefore find the current value of the apartment is €29,050. I have assessed the value of the apartment at the start of the relationship to be the €11,000. Thus, €18,050, which in Canadian currency is around $26,475 (using the Bank of Canada currency conversion rates). I find that that amount is family

property and Ms. Techere is entitled to half that amount. I will make a compensation order that Mr. Techere compensate Ms. Techere $13,237.50 for her one half interest in the increased value of the Romanian apartment during the relationship. C. U.S. Dollar Bank Account [102] Ms. Techere had a U.S. dollar bank account, apparently with money she earned while working for Disney prior to the marriage. Mr. Techere suggested the details of this account have not been disclosed and there may be a basis to claim it, or some of it, as family property. [103] Ms. Techere says the account no longer exists. She says that whatever money was in the account before the parties were married was spent during the relationship on travel to the U.S. and other things. She explained the account has been closed for many years and she does not have records for it. I accept Ms. Techere's explanation and I dismiss any claims Mr. Techere has made in respect of this issue. VI. Divorce [104] The parties consent to a divorce. They have lived separate and apart from one another since 2018 and they have met the other requirements of the Divorce Act. With my orders for child support and arrears, adequate provision has been made for the children. I therefore order that the parties are to be divorced and the order will take effect on the 31st day after the order is made. VII. Summary [105] As the parties are

representing themselves, I have attached as an appendix to these reasons for judgment a list of the orders I have made. It is hoped this will assist them in preparing the form of order for entering with the court. For convenience, I briefly mention here the total payments Mr. Techere must make to Ms. Techere. [106] Mr. Techere is required to pay monthly child support in the amount of $1,118 due on the 15th day of every month, starting July 15, 2023. This will subject to an annual adjustment by the parties based on the exchange of tax and income information by June 1 of each year with the adjustment to be effective July 1. [107] In addition, Mr. Techere is to pay Ms. Techere the following amounts: Item Amount Child Support Arrears $6,483.00 Section 7 Expense Arrears · Child Care: $6,800.25 · Summer Camps: $350 · Tutoring: $125 $7,275.25 Nacht Road Property Expense (to be paid from money held in trust) $11,136.19 Brasov, Romania Apartment (one half of the increase in value during the relationship) $13,237.50 Total $38,131.94 [108] These and all the other orders are set out in the attached appendix. [109] The parties will bear their own costs of this proceeding. "Kirchner J." Appendix Statement of Orders Made THIS COURT ORDERS that: Subject to section 12 of the Divorce Act, the claimant, Ariana America Techere, and the respondent, Marius Techere, who were married at Vancouver, British Columbia on September 6, 2009, are divorced from each other, the divorce to take effect on the 31st day after the date of this order. THIS COURT ORDERS that: Guardianship and Parental Responsibilities 1. The claimant and the respondent shall be guardians of the children under s. 39(1) of the Family Law Act.

2. Under s. 40(2) off the Family Law Act: a. Each party will have the obligation to advise the other party of any matters of a significant nature affecting the children; b. Each party will have the obligation to discuss with the other party any significant decisions that have to be made concerning the children, including significant decisions about the health (except emergency decisions), education, religious instruction, and general welfare; c. The parties will have the obligation to discuss significant decisions with each other and the obligation to use best efforts try to reach agreement on those decisions; d. In the event that the parties cannot reach agreement on a significant decision despite their best efforts, Ms. Techere, being the party with the majority of parenting time with the children, will be entitled to make those decisions and Mr. Techere will have the right to apply to the court for directions on any decision he considers to be contrary to the best interests of the children; and e. Each party will have the right to obtain information concerning the child directly from third parties, including but not limited to teachers, counsellors, medical professionals, and third party care givers. Parenting Time - General 3. The following orders respecting parenting time are made under the Family Law Act.

4. The children will reside primarily with Ms. Techere.

5. Mr. Techere will have parenting time on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and every other weekend as follows: a. For the months of May, June, July, and August (and subject to other orders respecting holidays) Mr. Techere will pick up the children from Ms. Techere's home on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 6:00 p.m. and drop them off at 8:00 p.m. On Friday evenings, other than his parenting weekend, he will pick the children up at 6:00 p.m. and drop them off at 9:00 p.m. On every other weekend, he will pick up the children at 6:00 p.m. on Fridays and return them at 7:30 p.m. on Sunday. b. For the months of September through April, Mr. Techere will pick up the children at Ms. Techere's home on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 5:30 p.m. and drop them off at 7:30 p.m. On Friday evenings, other than his parenting weekend, he will pick the children up at 5:30 p.m. and drop them off at 9:00 p.m. On every other weekend, he will pick up the children at 5:30 p.m. on Fridays and return them at 7:30 p.m. on Sundays. Parenting Time - Holidays and Special Days Summer 6. Each party will have up to two weeks of uninterrupted parenting time with the children during their summer break from school.

7. On or before May 15 of each year, Ms. Techere will notify Mr. Techere of the two weeks she wishes to select for her uninterrupted summer parenting time. After Ms. Techere selects her summer parenting time and by no later than May 20 of each year, Mr. Techere will notify Ms. Techere of the two weeks he wishes to select for uninterrupted summer parenting time.

8. If either party is unable to exercise the full two weeks of their uninterrupted summer parenting time, that party will notify the other party of this not less then 30 days before the date that their selected uninterrupted summer parenting time was to begin. The notice must specify the days that the parent is unable to exercise the parenting time as planned. If the other parent is unable to have the children during the days that the notifying parent is unable to exercise the planned parenting time, the notifying parent will be responsible for arranging care for the children during that time that is acceptable to the other parent. Christmas and Winter Break 9. Ms. Techere will have the children on Christmas Eve. Mr. Techere will pick up the children at 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day at Ms. Techere's home and will return them to Ms. Techrere's home at 12:00 noon on December 26 unless that day falls within Mr. Techere's winter break parenting time as described below.

10. Except for the order respecting Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, Ms. Techere will have uninterrupted parenting time during the first week of the Children's winter break from school and Mr. Techere will have uninterrupted parenting time for the second week of the winter break. Spring Break 11. Ms. Techere and Mr. Techere will each have one week of uninterrupted parenting time during the children's spring break. By no later than February 1 of each year, Ms. Techere will notify Mr. Techere of which week during the children's spring break she chooses to exercise her uninterrupted parenting time during spring break. Mr. Techere will have the other week and will return the children to Ms. Techere's home by 7:30 p.m. on the last day of that parenting week. Other Statutory Holidays and Special Days 12. If Mr. Techere's birthday falls on the Victoria Day long weekend and if his regular weekend parenting time also falls on that weekend, his parenting time will be extended to include the Victoria Day holiday Monday and he will return the children to Ms. Techere's home at 7:30 p.m. on that day.

13. Ms. Techere will have parenting time with the children on Easter Sunday regardless of whether Easter falls on Mr. Techere's parenting weekend. Mr. Techere will have parenting time on Easter Monday. He will pick up the children at Ms. Techere's home at 10:00 a.m. on Easter Monday and return them by 7:30 p.m.

14. Except as otherwise specified in this order, Ms. Techere will have parenting time on all other statutory holidays unless that holiday falls within any of Mr. Techere's parenting time as set out in this order.

15. Ms. Techere will have parenting time on October 31 regardless of whether that day falls within Mr. Techere's parenting time. Conduct Orders 16. The parties will: a. put the best interests of the children before their own interests; b. encourage the children to have a good relationship with the other parent and speak to the children about the other parent and the other parent's family members in a positive and respectful manner; and c. make a real effort to maintain polite, respectful communications with each other, refraining from any negative or hostile criticism, communication or argument in front of the children.

17. The parties will not: a. question the children about the other parent or time spent with the other parent beyond simple conversational questions; b. discuss with the children any inappropriate adult, court or legal matters; or c. blame, criticize or disparage the other parent to the children; 18. The parties will encourage their respective families to refrain from any negative comments about the other parent and their extended family, and from discussions in front of the children concerning family issues or litigation. Travel 19. If either party intends to take the children out of the country, they will give other party not less than two weeks notice of the intention to do so and will provide the other parent with a travel itinerary, contact addresses, telephone numbers and evidence of reasonable travel medical/health insurance coverage obtained for the children for the duration of the trip. The other party will not unreasonably withhold their written consent to the travel.

20. Ms. Techere will apply for and hold the children's Canadian passports and Mr. Techere shall sign the Canadian passport applications for the children within five days of receiving those applications from Ms. Techere.

21. If Mr. Techere gives Ms. Techere notice under para. 18 that he intends to take the children out of the country, she will deliver the children's passports to Mr. Techere not less than seven days before the date of travel and Mr. Techere will return the passports to Ms. Techere within 48 hours of his return from travel. Romanian Passports 22. Mr. Techere may prepare applications for Romanian citizenship for the children.

23. Mr. Techere must provide Ms. Techere all the application materials and an explanation of what is required to secure citizenship. He must also to provide Ms. Techere with contact information for the appropriate Romanian consular service so she can make her own inquiries about the process for the children obtaining citizenship and passports.

24. If Ms. Techere has any reasonable concerns about the process or effects of the children obtaining Romanian citizenship, she will communicate those concerns to Mr. Techere.

25. Absent a reasonable concern, Ms. Techere will sign any necessary approvals for the children obtaining Romanian citizenship and passports and otherwise cooperate with Mr. Techere's efforts to secure the children's Romanian citizenship and passport.

26. If Ms. Techere raises what she suggests is a reasonable concern and objects to the children obtaining citizenship as a result, Mr. Techere may seek directions from the court as to whether the concern is truly reasonable having regard to what is in the best interests of the children.

27. If the children are issued Romanian passports, Ms. Techere will hold those passports on behalf of the children and Mr. Techere will deliver the passports to her within three days of receiving them. Child Support 28. Ms. Techere is a resident of British Columbia and is found to have a gross annual income of $82,000.

29. Mr. Techere is a resident of British Columbia and is found to have a gross annual income of $72,115.

30. Mr. Techere will pay the sum of $1,118 per month for the support of the children commencing on July 15, 2023 and continuing on the 15th day of each and every month thereafter, for as long as the children are eligible for support under the Divorce Act or until further agreement of the parties or court order.

31. For as long as either child is eligible to receive child support, the parties will exchange: a. copies of their respective income tax returns for the previous year, including all attachments, not later than June 1 each year; and b. copies of any Notice of Assessment or Reassessment provided to them by Canada Revenue Agency, immediately upon receipt.

32. The parties shall conduct a review of child support under the Child Support Guidelines and the children's special or extraordinary expenses on an annual basis and payments shall be adjusted as necessary effective July 1 of every year with the first adjusted payment due on July 15.

33. The arrears of child support owed by Mr. Techere to Ms. Techere are fixed at $6,483 and Mr. Techere is to pay that amount to Ms. Techere 34. Mr. Techere is to pay Ms. Techere $7,262.75 for special and extraordinary expenses that Ms. Techere has incurred to the date of trial. All other claims for past special and extraordinary expenses are dismissed.

35. Ms. Techere and Mr. Techere will share in all future special and extraordinary expenses in proportion to their income. For present purposes, Ms. Techere is responsible for 53% of the cost of any future special or extraordinary expense and Mr. Techere will be responsible for 47% and this is subject to an annual adjustment based on the review set out at para. 29 of this Order.

36. A party who intends to incur a special or extraordinary expense on behalf of one of the children will, before incurring that expense, advise the other party of the anticipated expenditure, the reason for it, and the expected cost. After the expense is incurred, the party will provide the other party a receipt for reimbursement. The parties are to be guided by section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the reasons for judgment given in this case as to what constitutes a special or extraordinary expense. Family Property Expenses for Port Coquitlam Property 37. Mr. Techere is responsible for $11,136.19 in expenses relating to the Port Coquitlam Property incurred on his behalf by Ms. Techere between July 2019 and September 2020. That amount of the funds held in trust pursuant to the order of Justice Marzari dated September 16, 2020 in British Columbia Supreme Court Action No. S207650 (Vancouver Registry) is to be paid to Ms. Techere with the balance of those trust funds paid to Mr. Techere. Romanian Apartment 38. The apartment owned by Mr. Techere in Brasov, Romania is excluded property under s. 85(1)(g) of the Family Law Act but the increase in value of that apartment during the relationship, which is declared to be $26,475 Canadian, is family property and is divided equally under s. 81 of the Family Law Act. Mr. Techere will retain ownership of the Brasov apartment and will pay Ms. Techere $13,237.50 for her one-half interest in the increased value of the apartment. Costs 39. The parties will bear their own costs of this proceeding.