[1] These Reasons address a review of a permanent order made by Madam Justice Daphne Smith on the 22^nd of September 1997 awarding the plaintiff spousal and child support for two children of the marriage.

[2] The Order granted a divorce. It provided that the defendant Stephen Graham pay spousal support of $900.00 monthly and child support of $748.00 monthly for the two children, Joshua and Nathan. The order further provided for a review of spousal support at the instance of either party when the former matrimonial home was sold. The family home has been sold, hence this review.

[3] Both parties seek orders varying spousal and child support. This is not a variation proceeding pursuant to Section 17 of the Divorce Act 1985, for Smith J. ordered a review regardless of a material change in circumstances.

[4] The plaintiff Mrs. Graham seeks an increase of spousal support of more than $900.00 monthly on an ongoing basis. She seeks increased child support for the child Nathan. The defendant seeks an order that the support for the child Joshua be terminated; that support for Nathan be in the Guidelines amount; and his obligation to pay spousal support be terminated or alternatively, that it be reduced and a date be fixed for its termination.

[5] At a hearing on November 8, 2000 I made these orders, by consent:

1. Child support for Joshua be terminated;

2. Support for Nathan, now age 19, be $543.00 monthly commencing December 1^st 2000 based on the defendant's annual income of $66,288.00;

3. Of the remaining proceeds of sale of the family home, $15,000.00, the plaintiff would receive $8,591.02 and the balance of the $15,000.00, would be divided equally between the parties.

[6] The September 1997 order was based on the defendant's pension income from the Workers' Compensation Board ("WCB"). He was not then receiving CPP disability benefits.

[7] Mr. Graham is 54 years of age, Mrs. Graham is 51. They were married on July 7^th 1973. They have three children:

[8] The parties agreed that the plaintiff would not work outside the home during the marriage. She was a homemaker and she home-schooled each of their children. She graduated from High School in 1968 and thereafter worked as a legal secretary for five years. Prior to the marriage in 1973, and thereafter, for two years as secretary for the West Vancouver Probation Office until their first child was born in 1975. She took on part-time jobs for short periods of time but they did not train or fit her for any particular occupation.

[9] The defendant was a labourer in his early years. He was injured in a logging accident in 1971 and returned to labouring but found the work aggravated his 1971 injury. He went to university in 1976, but when their first child was born money was tight and he returned to labouring work. By 1982 he had become disabled from post-traumatic osteoarthritis and reflex sympathy dystrophy (RSD). RSD was not well under-stood and difficult to treat. He was prescribed pain-killers by his doctors and became addicted to them. Once treatment for RSD was developed he was given new medication and was able to overcome his addiction in 1989. Despite his health problems he supported his family and made efforts to retrain. He had many diverse jobs. He attended BCIT between 1983 and 1985 completing a course in Occupational Health and Safety. To do so he commuted $25,000.00 of the disability award valued at $80,000.00 which related to the 1971 injury.

[10] In 1986 he left BCIT and entered the Occupational Health and Safety program at Simon Fraser University completing the program in 1987. Once he became a fully qualified health and safety professional he obtained various jobs, culminating in a position as Director of Membership Services for four construction unions. He held those positions from 1992 until 1994 when he was severely injured in a work-related car accident. He suffered head injuries which resulted in a serious visual impairment, chronic nausea and vomiting, amongst others.

[11] Mr. Graham receives a permanent pension from the Workers' Compensation Board of $38,416.00 non-taxable. Counsel have agreed that the benefit is equivalent to $57,000.00 of taxable income and I shall use that calculation hereafter. He also receives $9,228.00 annually from a CPP disability pension which is taxable.

[12] His total annual income from his two pensions is $66,288.00.

[13] His pensions are fixed and he is incapable of working at an occupation.

[14] The parties lived separate and apart although under the same roof, after September 1991. The defendant left the family home in June 1994.

[15] The defendant lived in Vancouver until December 1994 and then moved to Quesnel. He began to live with Debbie Coldwell and her two children Adam and Hailey in August 1995. Adam was then 12 and Hailey 7 years of age. He and Ms. Coldwell have lived together, thereafter. They married on July 11, 1998 and Ms. Coldwell's children continued to live with them. I shall speak of these children and Mr. Graham's present wife, later. The defendant has a loco parentis relationship with the children Adam and Hailey.

[16] The plaintiff brought an action for divorce and child and spousal support on March 29, 1995. An interim order for support was made May 3, 1995, ordering the defendant to pay blended spousal and child support of $1,000.00 and that he pay the mortgage on the family home, approximately $800.00 monthly. That order continued until Judge Smith made her September 1997 order. When the family home was sold, each party received net $102,000.00 out of the proceeds. Mrs. Graham received further money by my order for the renovation work on the family home. By agreement the plaintiff took the kitchen items, washer and dryer and received the family furniture and the family vehicle at the time of separation.

[17] I shall refer to the present Mrs. Graham as Ms. Coldwell. Ms. Coldwell has not worked since 1991. She receives a CPP disability pension of $8,776.44 yearly. She receives $325.00 monthly child support for Hailey and she receives a child tax benefit. Adam's father pays $325.00 monthly for his son's support. Adam is now at the University of Victoria and the father pays the monthly support directly to Adam. Ms. Coldwell has suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome since 1991 and is unable to work. She receives the CPP disability pension that I have mentioned. Her physician has recommended Ms. Coldwell receive home support and a respite from caring for her daughter Hailey who suffers from a genetic defect and brain damage. She has not received those benefits recommended by her physician.

[18] Ms. Coldwell has declared an annual income in 1998 tax year of $15,976.44 and in 1999 tax year an income of $11,027.00, declaring a business loss of $5,023.00 in that year. I have no particulars of that loss. Her income consists of her CPP disability pension and spousal support for Hailey and a child tax credit.

[19] The plaintiff lives in a same sex relationship with Ms. Barlow. They came together in June 1997. The information I have about Ms. Barlow comes from the plaintiff's affidavit of November 23, 2000, her affidavit of March 15, 2001 and her answers to two Interrogatories.

[20] Ms. Barlow moved into the plaintiff's former matrimonial home in Mission. She was then a full-time student at Uni-versity College of the Fraser Valley ("UCFV"). She was living on the proceeds of student loans and support from her former husband. She paid the plaintiff $325.00 monthly for rent and $125.00 monthly for her share of the plaintiff's grocery bill. She occupied her own room and had the use of the rest of the house. The plaintiff says she did not discuss Ms. Barlow's financial circumstances with her in detail but knows the principal source of her income was from student loans. Ms. Barlow worked in the College library and in the summer as a housekeeper.

[21] When the family home was sold in 2000, the two shared a rental property on Brant Avenue in Mission. The rent was $960.00 monthly and Ms. Barlow paid half. She contributed $175.00 monthly for groceries. The plaintiff was budgeting $460.00 monthly for groceries for herself and Nathan.

[22] Ms. Barlow completed a degree in social work at the College. She commenced working in August 2000 as a child protection investigator for the Ministry. As of November 2000, Ms. Barlow has been earning approximately $2,000.00 monthly. She has an outstanding student loan which the plaintiff says is approximately $50,000.00.

[23] The plaintiff deposes that she receives no financial benefit from the common-law relationship except a contribution to housing costs and that arrangement is no different than it would be if the relationship between them was platonic.

[24] In the year 2000 the plaintiff invested her share of the sale proceeds of the former matrimonial home in a term deposit earning 5%. Ms. Barlow did not share in those proceeds.

[25] The plaintiff has recently purchased a property at Whidden Avenue in Mission, B.C. for $197,000.00, putting up $70,000.00 from the term deposit and has arranged a mortgage of $127,000.00. The mortgage payments are $910.00 monthly. Ms. Barlow has not contributed any money towards the purchase of that property and title is in the plaintiff's sole name.

[26] Ms. Barlow pays rent to the plaintiff of $500.00 monthly. The plaintiff deposes that the monthly housing costs, including taxes, upkeep and mortgage exceed the $960.00 she was paying at Brant Avenue, but she hopes that together with the new rent she will receive from a suite she intends to build in the house, in the long run it will be more economical to buy than to pay rent. She expects that the apartment she intends to create will cost about $16,500.00. She expects to pay for it from the balance of her share of the sale proceeds of the former matrimonial home.

[27] Ms. Barlow has designated the plaintiff as her common-law spouse on her group life insurance from her employment and she will qualify her for extended health and dental benefits associated with her employment.

[28] The plaintiff is not a beneficiary under Ms. Barlow's will.

[29] When they came together in June 1997 the plaintiff and Ms. Barlow entered into an agreement that they would keep their respective assets separate. They have recently entered into a new agreement extending those terms to cover the plaintiff's new home.

[30] The Agreement provides that any property acquired by each before or during their relationship is considered to be the sole property of each, and any improvements to the plaintiff's property that Ms. Barlow chooses to make, will be made gratuitously. The Agreement also provides that Ms. Barlow is not expecting to participate in any beneficial ownership of the new home. The Agreement also provides that Ms. Barlow is free of any responsibility for past or future improvements, liabilities or taxes on the plaintiff's property. Her sole obligation is to pay rent.

[31] That information leads me to conclude that while the parties have lived together for 3 1/2 years in a same sex relationship, that relationship is not a marriage-like relationship. They are not spouses within the meaning of the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128 ("Act"). The Act was amended on February 4, 1998 and the definition of "spouse" was broadened to include same sex couples and reads in part:

[32] The leading case on the distinction between living in a same sex relationship and in a spousal relationship in which parties have lived in a marriage-like relationship is Gostlin v. Kergin (1986), 1 R.F.L. (3d) 448 (BCCA). The case was decided when the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121 was in force and the definition of "spouse" included:

[33] In my opinion, the 1998 amendment to the definition of "spouse" does not alter the effect of the principles spoken of in Kergin. Two recent cases decided under the 1998 amendment have followed Kergin. These are Kim v. De Camillis Estate (1999), 47 R.F.L. (4^th) 335, a decision of Loo J. and Roach v. Payne, [1999] BCJ No. 2739, Prince George Registry No. 08458, a decision of Master Baker which was upheld on appeal by Meiklem J., 2000 BCSC 869, [2000] BCJ No. 1160, Prince George Registry No. 08458.

[34] In Gostlin v. Kergin, Lambert J.A. delivering the judgment of the court said at page 453:

[35] In a recent case Takacs v. Gallo (1998), 48 B.C.L.R. (3d) 265 (CA) Newbury J.A. spoke of the Gostlin v.Kergin case saying at paragraphs 53 and 55:

[36] The parties have lived separate and apart for the past ten years. Mrs. Graham has not obtained work and I doubt that she has been anxious for it or that she is so now.

[37] In her Affidavit sworn October 21, 2000 Mrs. Graham lists her attempts to find work and her present plan. She deposes that since the divorce was granted in September 1997 she has had parenting and home schooling duties, extensive renovations to the family home most of which she did herself for sale purposes, has pursued classes at UCFV and has applied for various jobs without success.

[38] I will consider each of those in turn.

[39] With respect to parenting and home schooling duties, her eldest boy Joshua did not proceed with schooling in fall 1997 and has not since. Her home schooling responsibilities in respect to Nathan ended in June 1999. In September 2000 he entered into a diploma course in electronics at Career Technical Centre in Clearbrook. He is doing well and providing he maintains a 70% grade average will have a diploma equivalent to grade 12 and first year of college in June 2002. He may then go on to BCIT for further training.

[40] Mrs. Graham deposes that she still has some respons-ibilities for Nathan including transportation, cooking, cleaning, laundry and similar tasks. On the other hand, Mr. Graham deposes that the boy has a bus pass and he personally contributes money to him for sharing lifts. He deposes that Nathan is a capable independent 18 (now 19) year old, capable of doing his share of cooking and housework. I find that if Nathan's home schooling kept Mrs Graham from outside work, it ended in June 1999 when her responsibility ended.

[41] Her home care duties for Nathan do not prevent Mrs. Graham from working outside the home. Nathan is the only child living at home although in fall 2000, the eldest boy Joshua returned home temporarily. Mrs. Graham has not been charging Joshua room and board. I have no other information about Joshua. He is 22, soon to be 23 years of age.

[42] After the 1997 divorce Mrs. Graham undertook renovations in the family home to make it more saleable. She describes them as extensive. Mr. Graham does not disagree. She says the renovations were physically taxing requiring her to attend regularly for chiropractic, physiotherapy and massage. The renovations, she says, took up a great deal of her time and energy between the time of the 1997 order and December 22, 1999 when they were finished.

[43] Mr. Graham deposes that she did not discuss the renovations with him, neither the extent nor how to accomplish them as efficiently as possible.

[44] Whether it made economic sense to do the renovations rather than training for some occupation that would help her in the workplace, I cannot say. With respect to seeking work, in her October 12, 2000 Affidavit she lists a number of attempts to find work:

• foster parent
• facilitator for a substance abuse program
• day care provider
• home support worker for the elderly and disabled
• office worker
• membership coordinator for a women's fitness centre
• community work order supervisor
• Vega treatment
• publisher's assistant
• United Church youth worker
• worker with the Women's Resource Society of the Fraser Valley
• Marriage counsellor

She deposes that she has not had any positive responses, and she has found that very discouraging and damaging to her self-esteem.

[45] Mrs. Graham has not given the dates she applied for these various jobs; she has not attached any letters of application. She deposes that the applications were made "since my separation from the defendant" -- whether she speaks of 1991 or 1994 being the date of separation, I cannot say.

[46] Prior to the separation she enrolled at UCFV with the intention of obtaining a degree in "general studies", taking one course in each semester. Commencing in the fall of 1997 and in 1998 she took one or two courses in each semester. Her studies have not been a success. In October 2000 she deposed that she is still one course shy of finishing her first year at the College.

[47] She deposed that her studies have been hard and stressful for she was caring for Nathan, carrying out the home renovations and looking for work. She deposes she knew she was expected to find a job, but she found she could only cope with one issue at a time in her life.

[48] There is a reference in her October 12^th 2000 affidavit that is revealing. As an example of her discouragement in finding work and damage to her self-esteem, she deposed:

[49] She has not enrolled in that course. I suspect she would be suited for that kind of work given her school training and care for her three children.

[50] Mrs. Graham deposes that she dropped her course at the College for the spring semester of 1999 to visit her mother who was ill in Winnipeg with congestive heart failure. She did not enroll again in the fall of 1999 because, she says, she was in the midst of renovations and she was feeling "overwhelmed with my responsibilities".

[51] In January 2000 she entered a 3-month job - crafting course at the Mission Community Skills Centre which provided her with job search assistance including preparation of her resume (a one-page document) and they provided her with three computer courses. The course helped her to upgrade her skills.

[52] In a document she prepared on the 14^th of April 2000 she wrote:

[53] In October 2000, she deposes:

[54] In a later affidavit of October 31, 2000 Mrs. Graham deposes:

[55] When the case was first heard in November 2000, the plaintiff was considering having her mother who had suffered a stroke in Winnipeg in July 2000, live with her. She concedes that were this to happen, it would be a full-time job and she would not be able to work outside the home. I do not know if her mother now lives with her.

[56] There is no evidence about the condition of her health before 1999. Her present physician has attended her since May 1999 and her naturopath since August 1999.

[57] Mrs. Graham says she has lived with stress for years and deposes that in the years 1982 until 1994 the family lived with the affects of the defendant's addiction to pain killers to relieve his pain. Mr. Graham deposes his addiction was overcome in June 1989.

[58] Mrs. Graham deposes that in the spring of 1999 she was diagnosed with diabetes which may have been triggered by stress. She suffers from a chronic illness called benign vertigo. She does not relate her current symptoms of that disease but when it was diagnosed, she was experiencing loss of balance, dizziness, loss of memory, disorientation and an inability to concentrate and focus. There is no mention of this illness in her physician's report.

[59] Mrs. Graham's daughter Christy was married on May 6, 2000 to a British citizen and decided to emigrate with him to Scotland. Mrs. Graham found her leaving a "wrenching experience". On July 27, 2000 her mother had a stroke and by October 2000 was still in hospital in Winnipeg with left side paralysis. In September 2000 Mrs. Graham enrolled in a com-munications course at UCFV but did not complete it. She was unable to concentrate and could not seem to retain information and began to experience memory difficulties. She had trouble sleeping. Her daughter left for Scotland in September 2000 and Mrs. Graham thought it would be "okay to kill myself".

[60] In late September 2000 she began to cry and could not stop. She deposes,

[61] Mrs. Graham believes in holistic healing and attempted to assuage her grief using St. John's Wort and homeopathic remedies. She turned to her naturopath, Dr. Sleigh, who told her that things were beyond the stage where herbal remedies were a solution. On September 25, 2000 she saw her physician, Dr. Friesen. He diagnosed clinical depression and told her that continued weeping and forgetfulness were typical symptoms of that condition. He prescribed Celexa, an anti-depressant drug.

[62] On October 12, 2000 Mrs. Graham deposed:

[63] Dr. Friesen's Report says that on September 25, 2000 she reported feeling depressed and the stresses included - a recent family wedding; a move to a smaller house in Mission in a less desirable location; her mother's illness; her daughter's removal to Scotland; difficulties with the course at the College; divorce and financial resources.

[64] Dr. Friesen noted her symptoms were fatigue, poor concentration, poor sleep, social withdrawal, difficulty with short term memory and mood lability. She was not suicidal. In his October 23, 2000 Report Dr. Friesen noted that her symptoms were consistent with a major depressive episode and Celexa 20 mgs. a day, was initiated. He saw Mrs. Graham in October 2000 and she told him she felt somewhat improved, less anxious, with some improvement in her mood, a positive response to Celexa. He referred her to Mental Health for counselling and advised she continue with Celexa for one month and to "follow up" then. He reported that upon a review of his file he noted that on December 7, 1999, Mrs. Graham had expressed some similar symptoms but to a lesser extent, regarding similar stresses. He determined that her level of symptoms then were not a major mood disorder.

[65] In his October 2000 Report, Dr. Friesen gave his summary:

[66] Dr. Sleigh, her naturopath, reported in October 2000, inter alia:

Those Reports were written a year ago. There is no evidence concerning her health since they were written.

[67] Since the order was made over four years ago, the circumstances of both parties have changed. In a nutshell, these are they:

Hailey is treated by Dr. Wood and Dr. Lauderdale, a psychiatrist and psychologist, both of Victoria. She is treated for precocious puberty by Dr. Laura Stewart in Vancouver. The Grahams estimate that the travel and associated cost to take Hailey to see the doctors in the two cities costs $2,920.00 annually; very little short of the $325.00 a month Hailey's father pays for child support.

[68] Mr. and Mrs. Graham supplement the support that the children's father pays. Mrs. Coldwell contributes her full disability benefits to pay family expenses.

Mrs. Graham's Change in Circumstances

[69] After living for a time in a mobile home in Quesnel, Mr. Graham and Mrs. Coldwell moved to Victoria. For reasons of his health they decided to move into the country in the fall 2000. Mr. Graham's doctor, Dr. Inman, reported in May 2000:

[70] In fall 2000 Mr. Graham and Mrs. Coldwell purchased a house on ten acres of land near Clearwater, B.C. The property is registered in joint tenancy. They paid $182,500.00 using his share of the sale proceeds of the former matrimonial home and assuming a mortgage of $60,000.00. The monthly payments were $1,096.00, paid weekly.

[71] They have since borrowed $30,000.00 to build a basement suite for Mrs. Coldwell's parents to occupy. To raise that sum they increased the mortgage which is now amortized over nine years, payable at $1,197.80 monthly. Mrs. Coldwell's parents are elderly, in poor health and have no assets; their only income is CPP. Mr. Graham and Mrs. Coldwell feel obligated to her parents because they loaned $20,000.00 six years ago to enable her to establish a business which failed; her parents foregave the loan.

[72] The plaintiff submits that Graham and Coldwell have chosen to pay down the mortgage faster than they need to, thereby increasing his monthly expenses.

[73] Mr. Graham accounts for it saying they have decided to pay down the mortgage as quickly as they can for two reasons. First, because Hailey's medical and emotional problems will prevent her being able to support herself and live independently, and therefore they have to provide some provision for Hailey's future; and second, if he predeceases Mrs. Coldwell, Mr. Graham's CPP and WCB benefits will end. To provide Mrs. Coldwell and Hailey with security, they have to make their best efforts to pay off the mortgage so soon as possible.

[74] I have not been told why they chose to live near Clear-water nor why they chose to pay $182,500.00 for a property.

[75] Mrs. Graham has recently purchased her own property in or near Mission for $197,000.00 and used part of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home as a down payment. She has arranged a mortgage of $127,000.00 payable at $910.00 monthly. She expects to build a suite for rental purposes and estimates it will cost approximately $16,500.00. She still retains some of the sale proceeds of the former matrimonial home.

[76] In his affidavit sworn August 15, 2000, Mr. Graham deposes he had obtained information about the cost of accommodation in the Mission area and found that Mrs. Graham could purchase a home for between $140,000.00 - $160,000.00 or a two-bedroom, two bath condominium for $80,000.00 - $115,000.00. Mrs. Graham has not responded to those assertions and has not said why she paid $197,000.00 for her new home.

[77] These parties have each purchased new accommodation knowing that support obligations were before the court or shortly would be, for review. Each has paid a substantial sum, each has assumed a substantial mortgage. That is their choice, but I find it is not appropriate to seek financial subsidy from the other because they have chosen to do so.

[78] It was a long marriage and it has been a long separation. Mrs. Graham left the workforce by mutual agreement. She cared for and home schooled their three children. She was disadvantaged by leaving the workforce. Mr. Graham worked throughout the marriage and supported the family financially. He has continued to do so since his 1994 injury. Because his health prevents him working, his income is fixed. His wife is also disabled and they both live on disability pensions.

[79] Mrs. Graham continues to be in need of spousal support and I am not prepared to fix a time for it to end. She needs to take training for the workforce but her approach to training is casual and unrealistic. She has taken the occasional course at University College of Fraser Valley in past years but has not yet qualified to pass her first year there.

[80] One of the objectives of a spousal support order pursuant to Section 15.2 of the Divorce Act is to promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time, insofar as it is practicable (s. 6). That objective is not paramount over the other three objectives mentioned in the section. I find it is practicable in these circumstances and my reasons follow.

[81] The local College offers a two-year diploma course in early childhood education. Mrs. Graham I suspect is suited to that work and she enquired about it in the past. When she enquired she found out that if she had such a diploma she could have had work providing day care at the Mission High School. She did not enroll. She said she found it frustrating to find that she needed a diploma to obtain work there. She took a three month job training course and identified that she would have an aptitude for hospice-palliative care. The College offers a Certificate Program in hospice-palliative care. She has not enrolled. She deposes that she plans to work as an unpaid volunteer in that field commencing in January 2001 which she hopes may open doors to paid employment. In my opinion, she is not making any realistic attempts to help make her economically self-sufficient and does not seem to recognize that she should do so. Were she to take the training in hospice-palliative care that the College offers, she would be in a better position to find paid work in that field. Over the years she has taken one extra course a semester in "general studies". She has deposed that she would like to attend college as and when she is able and pursue her career without pressure to perform and to lead a quality life in peace. In my opinion, given the long period of separation, that is not realistic. It suggests she is not prepared to train herself for a career which she is capable of having.

[82] The evidence does not suggest that she is physically unable to take training or to work. Her doctors did not say that her medical condition found in 2000, was permanent. Her depression was episodic in character. It arose at a time when her life had changed - the renovation work had ended, her home had been sold, she no longer taught any of her children and her daughter had decided to live abroad. All those events are past her. She has not provided any medical evidence that would prevent her taking courses leading to a career. Were she to do so, I expect it would be emotionally beneficial.

[83] I shall increase spousal support on the premise that she will actively pursue a career by enrolling in the College to qualify herself for the workforce and she will enroll in a full-time course.

[84] I order a review in six months to see if Mrs. Graham is engaged in training herself for the workplace. If she is, a review will likely not be necessary. If she is not, I shall revisit the issues of quantum and duration of spousal support.

[85] I shall remain seized of the review unless both counsel prefer that it be dealt with by another judge. The review may be at the instance of either party and there need not be a material change in circumstances of the parties.

[86] I order spousal support of $1,250.00 monthly commencing November 1^st, 2001. I fix that amount on the understanding that Mrs. Graham may have schooling costs as a result of enrolling in the College.

[87] I shall not order that the support be retroactive to the date of the Application or the date of the Hearing for two reasons:

1. The plaintiff did not disclose that she was living in a common-law relationship with Ms. Barlow and had been for years. That information came to Mr. Graham very shortly before the Application was heard. That was relevant evidence and should have been produced, seasonably. At the November 8^th Hearing I gave leave to the defendant to examine Mrs. Graham on her current financial circumstances including the nature of her relationship with Ms. Barlow. I also gave leave to the parties to adduce further evidence on the issue of the plaintiff's financial circumstances. Both parties adduced further evidence. My order resulted in a long delay before the Application ended.

2. Mrs. Graham did not inform Mr. Graham that Joshua was not taking any schooling after June 1997 and he continued to pay support for him from October 1997 until May 1999, when he need not have.

[88] Mrs. Graham will have costs of the proceedings up to and including the proceedings on November 8^th and 9^th 2000. The adjournment of the proceedings was caused by Mrs. Graham's failure to seasonably disclose her financial circumstances. The Affidavits and Interrogatories addressed that issue. The written submissions also addressed the issue.

[89] I order that the defendant have the costs of the proceedings subsequent to the adjournment, including the costs associated with written submissions.

[90] Costs will be at scale 3 and there will be a set-off.

"G.R.B. Coultas, J."
The Honourable Mr. Justice G.R.B. Coultas