Is the Respondent’s debt load related in part to his exercise of access to his children a factor in his debt load under section 10(2)(b)?

It is arguable that the Respondent’s debt load relates in part to his exercise of access and therefore may come under section 10(2)(b); however, his expenses are not unusually high, nor are they the only way in which he can facilitate access to his children. Various choices were involved on the part of the Respondent in purchasing a home and acquiring a van. As Mclntyre J. stated in Jackson v. Holloway, supra [at p. 278]: A separated spouse with a child support obligation enters into a new family unit knowing he or she has an obligation and is expected to organize his or her affairs with due regard to that obligation. A general or generic reference to the overall expense of a new household will not give rise to a claim of undue hardship. To permit such a claim would in many instances mean that if the claimant could establish a lower standard of living then a claim to undue hardship must succeed. This is not the test.