The Master was conscious throughout these proceedings that the appellant was a person of very limited means. He discussed impecuniosity in each of his endorsements. However, he concluded that the appellant’s initial breach of the undertakings order was not the result of her impecuniosity. Moreover, impecuniosity is not a shield where a party has consistently failed to act reasonably (Christian Jew Foundation v. Christian Jew Outreach, [2007] O.J. No. 2140 (S.C.J.) at para. 69). The Master was concerned, as well, about fairness to the respondents in this case. In my view, he made no error of principle nor any palpable and overriding error in his appreciation of the facts.