IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]         V.M. brings an application to set aside child support arrears that accumulated between June 1, 2009 and December 31, 2019.  He claims that he overpaid all court ordered amounts for child support to T.V., the mother of his two sons, F.M. (“F”), born [OMITTED FOR PUBLICATION] and V.N.M. (“N”), born [OMITTED FOR PUBLICATION], and that there are no arrears owing. 

[2]         This dispute came about following T.V.’s re-enrolment with the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (“FMEP”) on May 24, 2019 to handle the enforcement of V.M.’s support payments and arrears.  On re-enrolment, T.V. reported to FMEP child and spousal support arrears owing by V.M. of $88,551.88 pursuant to a series of support orders of this Court. 

[3]         V.M. disputed the entirety of these arrears and brought three applications contesting the support orders and arrears.  The first application was filed on September 13, 2019 where he sought the following relief:  “change spousal support and child support order”.  The second application was filed September 14, 2020 wherein he sought the following relief:  “I ask that the attached order of October 17, 2017 be changed to the following:  spousal support is supposed to end according to the order made years ago never changed.”  He also sought a recalculation of his child support payments to reflect his reported earnings.

[4]         V.M.’s third application was filed March 31, 2021.  He sought the cancellation of arrears on the grounds that he “paid all child support and also overpaid $30,000 in payments to [T.V.]”.  In this application, he claimed that T.V. made a false report to FMEP about his arrears, which allegation T.V. denied in her Reply. 

[5]         V.M.’s first two applications were heard on November 16, 2020 by Judge Dossa and were granted in part.  Pursuant to Judge Dossa’s Order, V.M.’s spousal support payments were terminated retroactive to October 15, 2011.  Judge Dossa made no order that adjusted V.M.’s ongoing monthly child support payments. 

[6]         As a result of this Order, V.M.’s spousal support arrears of $35,100 were eliminated.  According to FMEP’s records, after the spousal support arrears were removed, V.M.’s child support arrears were retroactively adjusted for the period December 1, 2011 to May 24, 2019.  The re-adjusted balance owing for child support was thus $52,901.88 as of the date T.V. re-enrolled with FMEP on May 24, 2019. 

[7]         The third application was set before me.  The hearing took place over four separate days to allow for further document disclosure by both sides of banking records as neither party was fully prepared on the first and second days of the hearing.  The parties were both self-represented. 

[8]         Counsel for the Director of Enforcement of FMEP appeared on each day of the hearing as a friend of the Court.  FMEP’s enforcement authority to participate in this hearing is found in s. 4 of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, RSBC 1996, c. 127.

[9]         It is V.M.’s contention that he overpaid his child support to T.V.  T.V., on the other hand, contends that V.M.’s support payment history was spotty at best and that substantial child support arrears remain owing.

[10]      At the hearing, FMEP’s account summary for the parties (the “Account Statement”) was tendered in evidence for the period May 24, 2019 to November 2, 2022.  As stated in paragraph 6 above, the adjusted amount of child support arrears owing as of May 24, 2019 was $52,901.88.  V.M.’s monthly child support payments then continued and were recorded on the Account Statement.   

[11]      FMEP ceased recording monthly support for F.M. on [OMITTED FOR PUBLICATION], 2019 when he reached the age of majority.  V.M.’s monthly support payments continued for V.N.M. until he reached the age of majority on [OMITTED FOR PUBLICATION], 2021, and then ceased.

[12]      According to the Account Statement, between May 24, 2019 and November 2, 2022, V.M. made partial monthly child support payments and the arrears continued to accrue. 

[13]      During this time period, FMEP received total payments of $12,437.47 which were sent to T.V.  V.M.’s child support arrears increased by $6,423.53.  The total arrears owing according to the Account Statement as of November 2, 2022 was $59,325.41, plus statutory interest of $5,885.84, and default fees of $800, for a total amount owing of $66,011.25.

[14]      The Account Statement also shows that FMEP received $5,826.43 on behalf of V.M. during this time period.  V.M. reported that this was a tax refund.  This sum is held by FMEP pending the outcome of this application.

[15]      The central issue is whether V.M. met his child support obligation to F.M. and V.N.M. over the period of June 1, 2009 and December 31, 2019.  If not, then the question is what is the quantum of child support arrears that are owing?

[16]      V.M. bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that he met his support obligation and that no arrears are owing.  Simply put, the balance of probabilities means that the only “practical way in which to reach a factual conclusion” is to decide whether on “sufficiently clear, convincing, and cogent evidence”, it is more likely than not that V.M. met his support payments:  See, H. (F.) v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, at paras. 44, 45, and 46. 

[17]      Section 147 of the Family Law Act, SBC 2011 c. 25 (the “FLA”) imposes a statutory duty on each parent or guardian to financially support their children.  This duty applies regardless of whether there is a support order in place.  

[18]      A court, on application, has the discretion to change an order respecting child support pursuant to s. 152 of the FLA.  Under this section, the court may “change, suspend or terminate an order respecting child support, and may do so prospectively or retroactively”.

[19]      The relief sought by V.M. on this application does not fall neatly within s. 152 as this is not an application to change, suspend or terminate an order for child support.  What V.M. seeks is an order cancelling the child support arrears on the basis that there are no arrears owing.  Thus, he seeks a determination with respect to the total sums paid to T.V. over the 11 year period in question for child support. 

[20]      In my view, his application falls within s. 174 of the FLA which is the statutory authority for reducing or cancelling arrears.  This section reads in part:

[21]      The statutory authority for the relief sought by V.M. on this application is also found in s. 230(1) which is the broad enforcement provision for court orders.  That section provides:

[22]      The following legal principles apply to all child support applications, including applications to vary or change the support amounts, or to cancel or reduce child support arrears pursuant to these provisions: 

[23]      I have kept these principles in mind throughout my assessment of this case.

[24]      I will now turn to the facts.

[25]      I find on the evidence the following facts:

[26]      The parties were in a dating relationship in 2000 that led to T.V. becoming pregnant with F.M.  Soon after F.M. was born, T.V. became pregnant with V.N.M.  They lived together as a family in Coquitlam until 2004, when they separated, and then reconciled in 2005.  They separated for the final time in 2007.  They had a difficult relationship during the time they lived together.  Communication between the parties continues to remain strained.  This was apparent from the way they interacted during this hearing.

[27]      T.V. has an older daughter, A.V. (currently aged [OMITTED FOR PUBLICATION] years), from a prior relationship, who lived with them while the parties were a family. 

[28]      T.V. had the primary responsibility for the care of all three children prior to and following the parties’ separations.  A series of court orders were made in 2009 and 2010 which dealt with support issues and provided V.M. with specified access. 

[29]      In June 2016, T.V. relocated with the children to Summerland without V.M.’s prior approval.  This move became the subject of a contested application brought by V.M. in September 2016 prohibiting the move and seeking the return of F.M. and V.N.M.  At that time, both F.M. and V.N.M. were teenagers who attended a local high school in Coquitlam.

[30]       The trial of this application was heard and decided by Judge McQuillan who ultimately ordered that the children be returned to Coquitlam to live with V.M. by the end of January 2017.

[31]      V.M.’s child support obligations were suspended in accordance with Judge McQuillan’s Orders for the period February 1, 2017 until January 29, 2018.

[32]      T.V. remained in Summerland and then brought her own application for an order for relocation of her sons.  The trial of T.V.’s relocation application proceeded before Judge McQuillan in mid-October, 2017.  

[33]      On October 26, 2017, Judge McQuillan issued his Reasons for Judgment on the relocation application deciding that relocation of the children to Summerland was in their best interests.  He granted T.V.’s application.  The children moved back to Summerland on January 29, 2018 to coincide with the start of their next school term and V.M.’s child support payments then resumed:  See, T.V. v. V.M., unreported, October 26, 2018 (“McQuillan Reasons”), at paras. 70-72, and 78.

[34]      A.V. lives in the Okanagan, is currently employed full-time, and is self-sufficient. 

[35]      F.M. and V.N.M. have reached the age of majority.  Both sons are strong students academically.  They each received academic scholarships and are both pursuing post-secondary studies.  F.M. lives in Vancouver and attends UBC full-time.  He is enrolled in 4^th year of a Bachelor of Science program.  F.M.’s university education is funded by V.M.’s parents. 

[36]      V.N.M. resides with T.V. in Summerland.  He is taking his first year prerequisite courses at a community college with plans to enter a Bachelor of Science degree program in nursing at the University of British Columbia in Kelowna in second year.  V.N.M. also has a part-time job at a fast food restaurant and has taken out a student loan to fund his education.  T.V. covers V.N.M.’s room and board.  V.M.’s parents do not contribute to V.N.M.’s post-secondary studies at present. 

[37]      V.M. works “six days a week” as a barista at [OMITTED FOR PUBLICATION], a coffee shop owned by his parents and brothers in Vancouver:  McQuillan Reasons, at para. 12.  According to testimony of both parties on this application, V.M. continues to work in the coffee shop.  He testified that he also has other self-employed work as an actor, the details of which were unclear from his evidence. 

[38]      He reports annual employment income from the coffee shop of $19,200 on his Financial Statement filed September 20, 2020.  He appended notices of assessment for the years 2013-2015 and 2017-2018 to his Financial Statement. 

[39]      V.M. did not file an updated Financial Statement and did not produce his 2019, 2020, or 2021 T1 returns or Notices of Assessment in connection with this application.  I further note his Financial Statement is incomplete, as he did not include a statement of his assets, debts, and annual living expenses.    

[40]      According to V.M.’s 2013–2018 Notices of Assessment, he reported total gross employment and “other income” from all sources of:  $23,093 in 2012, $30,511 in 2013, $27,527 in 2014, $20,477 in 2015, $20,263 in 2016, and $20,032.27 in 2017.  The main source of his reported income was his employment income of $19,200 from the coffee shop in each of these taxation years. 

[41]      The only child support order that addressed V.M.’s annual income is Judge Dossa’s October 15, 2009 Order (discussed below).  This Order imputed income to V.M. of $50,000 for the 2009 taxation year. 

[42]      T.V. was self-employed as a hairstylist during the relationship and following the parties’ separation.  After moving to Summerland in 2016, T.V. returned to school to become a nurse.  She is currently working two jobs.  She works full-time as an acute care nurse at the regional hospital and she works part-time as a geriatric nurse at a long term care home. 

[43]      There is no requirement for T.V. to file a Financial Statement in response to this application as she has not made a counter-application in relation to ongoing child support or special expenses. 

[44]      There were no child and spousal support orders in place following the parties’ final separation until 2008.  V.M.’s child and spousal support obligations are found in a series of court orders which I summarize as follows: 

[45]      By interim Consent Order made by Judge Stone on May 26, 2009, V.M. was ordered to pay T.V. $800.00 per month for F.M. and V.N.M.’s support. 

[46]      This Order was varied by way of a Final Consent Order before Judge Dossa on October 15, 2009.  In this Order, V.M.’s income was imputed “for 2009” at $50,000.  V.M. was ordered to pay $673 per month for V.N.M. and F.M.’s support, as well as retroactive and ongoing spousal support for T.V. 

[47]      Under paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Order, V.M. was required to pay retroactive spousal support for the period June 1 to October 14, 2009 totalling $1,183.  Commencing October 15, 2009, V.M. was ordered to pay monthly spousal support to T.V. in the sum of $390 divided into two equal instalments.  T.V.’s spousal support was time limited for a period of two years under Judge Dossa’s Prder.

[48]      Judge Dossa’s Child Support Order was varied by Judge Pothecary on April 21, 2010 and increased to $759 per month payable in two equal instalments on the 1^st and 15^th of the month starting May 1, 2010.  No findings were made in this Order with respect to V.M.’s reported or imputed income.

[49]      V.M.’s child support payments were suspended from February 1, 2016 until January 31, 2018 pursuant to Judge McQuillan’s September 20, 2016 and October 26, 2017 Orders when the children were ordered to return to Coquitlam to live with him.  His support payments were reinstated after the children moved back to Summerland to live with T.V. on January 29, 2018 following T.V.’s successful relocation application.

[50]      T.V. was ordered by Judge McQuillan to pay monthly child support to V.M. of $534 for the two children based on her reported earnings of $34,680 for the eleven month period the children lived with V.M. in Coquitlam.  T.V. met her child support obligations to V.M. during this time period and there are no arrears owing.

[51]      After the children relocated to Summerland, V.M.’s monthly child support payments of $759 resumed on February 1, 2018 pursuant to Judge McQuillan’s and Judge Pothecary’s Orders.

[52]      As stated earlier in these Reasons, on November 16, 2020, V.M. successfully brought an application before Judge Dossa to terminate his spousal support payments to T.V.  This Order was made retroactive to October 15, 2011.  As a result of this Order, V.M.’s spousal support arrears were eliminated and his total arrears were reduced to $52,901.88 according to FMEP’s records. 

[53]      Director’s counsel prepared a helpful spreadsheet which summarized the Support Orders made during the relevant time period, as well as the payments received by FMEP, the amounts of arrears that accumulated, and the amounts claimed as paid by both parties. 

[54]      Following my review of the Child and Spousal Support Orders of this Court, FMEP’s Account Statement, and the spreadsheet, I find as a fact that V.M.’s total combined child and spousal support obligation was $94,896 for the 11 year period in issue on this application. 

[55]      V.M.’s combined support obligation under these orders is summarized in the following table:

[56]      As will be shown in Table 3 below, the amount reported by T.V. to FMEP at the time of re-enrolment as owing for child support was overstated.  This amount was corrected by T.V. during the hearing after she compared her bank statements to V.M.’s records and FMEP’s Account Summary.

[57]      Over the course of the hearing, V.M. tendered voluminous banking records, extracts from his monthly bank statements, hand written receipts, money order transaction receipts, cancelled cheques, bank drafts, and related documents to support his position that he paid a total of $105,698.80 in combined child and spousal support payments to T.V. between 2009 and 2019.   

[58]      V.M. never paid his support payments by personal cheque.  Instead, he utilized several different methods of payment.  These included cheques and bank drafts drawn on his Vancity business chequing account for [OMITTED FOR PUBLICATION] (his company for his film work) (the “Business Account”), cash payments, and Western Union/Money Mart money order receipts. 

[59]      V.M. testified that he kept detailed records of the support payments he made to T.V. to avoid future disputes over his payments.  He stated that he wrote T.V.’s name on the money order receipts to keep track of what was paid to her for support, and that he had a practice of requesting a signed receipt from T.V. when he gave her cash payments, or when he gave cash sums to the children to give to T.V. for child support. 

[60]      He explained he began using money orders to pay spousal support in 2012 when CRA disallowed his spousal support deductions because the payments were drawn on a Business Account.  Notably, he did not claim the spousal support deductions according to the notices of assessment he produced after 2012.

[61]      The only bank statements produced by V.M. in evidence were partial statements from the Business Account.  No personal banking records were produced.  He testified that he did not have a personal bank account and used the Business Account for personal and business spending. 

[62]      The partial bank statements were accompanied by images of cancelled cheques, and paperwork for the bank drafts and money orders that were drawn on the Business Account to make the support payments.  Table 2 summarizes the payments V.M. claims were made to T.V. between 2008 and 2019 through a combination of these different payment methods from these records:

[63]      T.V. produced in evidence a complete set of monthly BMO bank statements from her personal chequing account (“BMO Account”) for the period December 13, 2011 (which was as far back in time as she could obtain from BMO) through December 13, 2019.  She testified that the BMO Account is her sole bank account that she has used since her late teens. She further testified that her usual practice was to promptly deposit the support cheques, bank drafts and cash sums received from V.M. into her BMO Account. 

[64]      In order to determine what V.M. paid to T.V. in child support over this time period, she reviewed each payment claimed by V.M., together with his supporting records, and compared them to the amounts she received from V.M. that were deposited into the BMO Account according to the deposit entries on her bank statements. 

[65]      This was a hugely time consuming task that involved a matching exercise of each payment found in V.M.’s document briefs to T.V.’s corresponding monthly bank statements. 

[66]      Through this comparison/matching process, T.V. credited V.M. in having paid $64,128.30 in total support payments as of the date of re-enrolment with FMEP.  She testified that she arrived at this sum by matching the cancelled cheques, cash sums, and receipts produced in V.M.’s document briefs to the deposit entries found in her bank statements. 

[67]      T.V. claims there remains a shortfall owing to her by V.M. of $30,767.20 based on her review of the documents.  She produced a summary of the disputed payments (Exhibit 3) which she reviewed during her testimony.

[68]      The payments T.V. received from V.M. over this 11 year time period according to her analysis are summarized in Table 3 below: 

[69]      V.M. did not undertake a similar review or matching exercise to that described by T.V. in her testimony.  Instead, he responded to the disputed payments identified by T.V. in her summary (Exhibit 3) by producing a further binder of documents which he then reviewed in his evidence in chief to support his position that he overpaid his child support payments. 

[70]      The main reason for the $30,767.20 shortfall, as explained by T.V. in her testimony, is because these payments could not be matched to the deposit entries in her bank statements.  She testified that unless she was able to find a matching deposit entry, she disputed the payments and listed them as shortfalls in her summaries (Exhibit 3). 

[71]      The disputed amounts are totalled by year and are set out above in Table 3. 

[72]      In answer to the shortfall claimed by T.V., V.M. referred to a selection of cancelled cheque images he produced in his document briefs that showed a BMO transit and account number on the reverse side which corresponded to T.V.’s BMO account number as “proof” that these payments were made to T.V. and deposited into her BMO account. 

[73]      T.V. does not dispute these payments.  In fact, she credited V.M. in having paid the sums recorded on the cancelled cheques.  The reason she did so is because she was able to match them to the deposit entries on her bank statements.  These payments were included by T.V. in the yearly totals for the amounts claimed as received from V.M. in her summaries and are shown in Table 3.

[74]      V.M.’s document briefs also included the “member copy” portion of the bank drafts that were issued by Vancity from funds drawn on the Business Account.  These documents list T.V. as the “payee”.  The sums recorded on the member copies for these drafts correspond to some of the deposits recorded on T.V.’s bank statements. 

[75]      T.V. testified that she also credited the bank drafts she received from V.M. that she matched to the deposit entries on her bank statements.  These payments were also included by T.V. in the yearly totals recorded in her summaries and are shown in Table 3.

[76]      V.M. also utilized money orders through Western Union and Money Mart to pay his child and spousal support.  He testified that the source of some of the money orders came from his mother and that many of the money orders were paid from the Business Account.

[77]      The money order receipts include such information as the date of the money order, the amounts withdrawn, as well as the corresponding receipt numbers.  None of the money orders identified the payee in typed print, although some of the money order receipts contain the handwritten notation “T.V.”, or “T.V. maintenance” to signify a support payment. 

[78]      There was no consistent pattern from the records produced as to how often the money order payments were made, although they seem to have been utilized more frequently in 2011 and 2012 before V.M. began using bank drafts to pay his child support. 

[79]      The amounts of the money orders varied from $100 to $1,000.  There were a number of money orders in the amounts of $500, $575, and $600. 

[80]      V.M. submits the money orders are recorded as debits on his Business Account which supports his position that these sums were paid to T.V. 

[81]      T.V. submits that she could not cash a money order, cheque, or bank draft without that item being first deposited and then “cleared” in her chequing account.  The deposits would then be reflected as entries in her monthly bank statements.

[82]      In support of her position, T.V. relies on a letter received from the BMO Bank of Montreal, Coquitlam Town Centre Branch, dated November 3, 2022, to verify the bank’s clearing procedures.  This letter states in part:

[83]      V.M. had no objection to this letter.  Accordingly, it was marked as an exhibit and entered in evidence. 

[84]      T.V. acknowledged that over the 11 year period, she received periodically cash payments in varying sums from V.M.  These sums were, for the most part, deposited into the BMO Account.  She testified that she credited V.M. with the cash sums she could identify as such from the deposit entries in her bank statements and included them in the total support amount of $64,128.80 she confirmed as having been received. 

[85]      V.M. also relies on a series of handwritten receipts to support the cash payments he made to T.V. or to the children for T.V.  It was his practice to ask T.V. to sign a receipt acknowledging the payments.  He referred to some of these receipts in his testimony.  These included a series of 8 ½ x 10 inch photocopies of handwritten receipts that confirmed the sums of cash received by and signed by T.V.  V.M. testified that the signatures on these receipts were those of T.V.

[86]      T.V. challenges the authenticity of these handwritten receipts. She testified that although the handwritten signatures on these receipts have some similarities to her signature, the signatures were written in scrawl with “grossly oversized letters” that were not how she writes or signs her name in documents.

[87]      T.V.’s testimony was not challenged by V.M. and he did not produce any examples of other signed documents by T.V. to corroborate the signatures on these statements during cross-examination. 

[88]      Also among the disputed payments was a cheque for $1,200 paid by V.M. to T.V.’s landlord directly for a rent payment in 2009, as well as two bounced support cheques in 2010. 

[89]      V.M. testified that the $1,200 payment was made to T.V.’s landlord in place of his monthly support payment.  He produced a copy of the cancelled cheque drawn on the Business Account on September 9, 2009.  The “re” line on the cancelled cheque reads “Maintenance/ hers and children”. 

[90]      T.V. disputes that this payment cancelled out the support payment that was owing.  She testified that she never received a copy of this cheque and was unaware that this cheque was in place of his support payment for that month. 

[91]      T.V. was unable to obtain copies of her 2010 bank statements and thus was unable to verify whether the bounced cheques were reissued by V.M.  V.M.’s evidence is that he made up for the bounced cheques.

[92]      Over the 11 year period in question V.M. used many methods to make his support payments to T.V., none of which included personal cheques, or electronic transfers of funds between the parties’ bank accounts. 

[93]      I find from my review of the banking records that V.M.’s child support payments were rarely made on time and when they were made, there were consistent shortfalls in the amounts he paid to T.V.  I thus find as a fact that V.M. did not pay his child support consistently and in the exact amounts as ordered by this Court. 

[94]      This pattern of non-compliance is problematic for three reasons:

[95]      First, V.M.’s payment practices were in clear contravention of his support obligations under multiple Orders of this Court.  This demonstrates a pattern of disregard for Orders of this Court. 

[96]      Second, the Child Support Orders were intended to provide a stable and consistent source of funding commensurate with V.M.’s income to help T.V. meet the children’s ongoing living expenses.  The children suffered and did without when V.M.’s support payments were made in the incorrect amounts and were paid late. 

[97]      Third, under Judge Pothecary’s April 21, 2010 Order, V.M. was ordered to pay monthly child support of $759 divided into two equal instalments ($379.50 per payment) payable on the 1^st and 15^th of the month starting May 1, 2010.  This Order remains in force and has not been varied or changed.  V.M. did not explain why he did not or was unable to follow Judge Pothecary’s Order when describing his complicated support payment practices.  Had V.M. paid on time and in the amounts ordered, then there would have been a regular pattern of deposit entries recorded in the BMO Account that would account for those payments. 

[98]      V.M. did not provide a satisfactory explanation of why he used so many different payment methods to make his support payments, nor did he explain why he did not have a personal bank account.  Overall, I found V.M.’s evidence to be lacking with regard to his annual income and his payment practices.  

[99]      In this regard, V.M.’s principle source of income reported in his 2020 Financial Statement is what he earned as an employee working at the family run coffee shop.  He reported annual earnings from employment of $19,200 on this Financial Statement.

[100]   He also appended his 2013-2015 and 2017-2018 Notices of Assessment to his Financial Statement.  The Notices of Assessment confirmed that his combined reported annual income ranged from a low of $20,032 in 2018 to a high of $30,511 in 2014 during this time period.  His combined earnings were at or below the minimum wage rate of pay for full time adult workers in British Columbia in each of these taxation years even though he worked full-time in a family run business.  He proffered no explanation in his testimony of why he continues to earn so little, or why he did not find more remunerative work to support his children.  In my view, this pattern of earnings is strongly indicative of someone who is deliberately underemployed. 

[101]   Additionally, V.M. was not forthcoming on this application with respect to the production of his current tax returns and notices of assessment.  His 2020 Financial Statement was also deficient in that he failed to include a statement of assets, liabilities, and living expenses that would shed light on the true state of his financial position and ability to pay.  This is problematic from the children’s standpoint as V.M.’s support obligation is tied to his income.

[102]   Judge Dossa imputed an annual income of $50,000 to V.M. in her October 15, 2009 Order.  This was a Consent Order.  There have been no further findings made in any of the subsequent Child Support Orders that dealt with V.M.’s actual or imputed income, although he sought a reduction in his child support payments based on his reported earnings in his first and second applications in 2020.  No such orders were made with respect to these applications. 

[103]   The fact that V.M. used multiple payment methods that included cash, bank drafts, and money orders in varying sums made it difficult for T.V. to match the support payments he claims were made to the deposit entries on T.V.’s bank statements.  This was clear from T.V.’s testimony.

[104]   Finally, while V.M. produced a large volume of banking records and receipts to support his payments, he did not go through T.V.’s bank statements in similar detail.  Thus, I did not find his testimony with regard to his support payment practices clear or convincing when measured against T.V.’s evidence.

[105]   T.V., on the other hand, went through the painstaking task of reviewing the entirety of the banking records that were produced by the parties in evidence.  She credited V.M. with payments totalling $64,128.80 that she verified from the deposit entries on her bank statements.  This in turn resulted in a correction to the quantum of child support arrears that were originally reported to FMEP.  The shortfall (or arrears) that remain owing from T.V.’s standpoint is $30,767.20.

[106]   Had V.M. routinely paid his monthly child support to T.V. by way of cheque (or even by e-transfer in more recent years) in two equal instalments of $379.50 on the 1^st and 15^th of each month as ordered by Judge Pothecary, then there would have been a clear and consistent record of payment found in the deposit entries in the BMO Account. 

[107]   Accordingly, V.M. has not provided “sufficiently clear, convincing, and cogent evidence” to discharge his burden of proof.  I find as a fact that there was a cumulative shortfall of $30,767.20 in his child support payments over the period of June 1, 2009 and May 24, 2019.

[108]   Therefore, on these findings I make the following Orders: