ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
PETER SVEC
Applicant
— AND —
JENNIFER BOLUK-SVEC
Respondent
Before Justice Joanne Beasley
Heard on November 12, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on November 21, 2025
Peter Svec........................................................................................ acting on his own behalf
Scott J. De Groot counsel for the respondent
Beasley, J.:
1The issue before the Court is the Applicant Peter Svec’s obligation to pay child support for the two children of the marriage and a determination of child support arrears. Both parties have brought Summary Judgment Motions.
2Ms. Boluk-Svec seeks a final order setting arrears of child support at $ 15,604.92 and ongoing child support in the amount of $1,464 per month based Mr. Svec’s 2024 income of $137,575, commencing October 1, 2025. She asks for $5,212.09 in section 7 arrears and a payment arrangement for section 7 expenses going forward. She asks that Mr. Svec’s claims be dismissed.
3Mr. Svec seeks a final order that his child support obligation be based on his claim for financial hardship, that his child support obligation be $ 500 per month for Olivia only, that his obligation to support Chloe be terminated when she completed high school and was 18 years of age in June 2023 (and not to continue through her post-secondary education period), that there be no section 7 arrears, and that future section 7 obligations be determined on consent or through mediation.
4Ms. Boluk-Svec relies on her affidavits sworn September 22, 2025 and November 3, 2025. Mr. Svec relies on his affidavit sworn October 20, 2025. Both parties prepared Statements of Law.
5Ms. Boluk-Svec and Mr. Svec are both teachers.
6The parties have 2 children Chloe Anne Svec born […], 2005 and Olivia Catherine Svec born […], 2009.
7Olivia is a high school student and resides primary with Ms. Boluk-Svec.
8Chloe is a third-year student at the University of Guelph, and support is sought for her on a summer-month basis. She returns to her mother’s home during the summer.
9Mr. Svec acknowledges that his relationship with the children is strained. The parenting issues are not before the Court.
10The 2022 Separation Agreement provided for no child support being paid between the parties. Olivia was residing with Mr. Svec, and Chloe was residing with Ms. Boluk-Svec, and their income was the same.
11Commencing January 1, 2023, Olivia changed her residence and moved in with Ms. Boluk-Svec and Chloe.
12The parties entered into a 2024 Amending Agreement. The parties agreed on a formula to calculate ongoing table child support for the children, full child support for Olivia and applying the summer formula for Chloe. At that time, Chloe was attending her first year at University of Guelph. She lived in student housing during the academic year and with Ms. Boluk-Svec during the summer months.
13The 2024 Amending Agreement provided for Mr. Svec to pay child support based on his 2022 income of $98,211 as follows:
(1) $1,196.56 per month from September to April (including $896.56 for Olivia and $300 for Chloe while away at university).
(2) $1,449.53 per month from May to August (table support for both children while Chloe resides at home).
(3) Mr. Svec’s child support arrears were fixed at the sum of $5,123.00, as of October 2023, payable at the rate of $303.44 bi-weekly commencing November 8, 2023.
ISSUES
14The following issues need to be determined:
#1 Should Final Orders be made on the Summary Judgment Motions? Is there a genuine issue for trial?
#2 Should child support be paid for Chloe? Or has the obligation terminated?
#3 On what income should Mr. Svec’s support be based? Should his obligation be reduced on the basis of financial hardship?
#4 What child support should Mr. Svec pay Ms. Boluk-Svec on an ongoing basis?
#5 What are Mr. Svec’s arrears for child support?
#6 What are Mr. Svec’s arrears for section 7 expenses?
#7 How should arrears be paid?
#7 What are the section 7 expense obligations going forward?
#1 Should Final Orders be made on the SJMs? Is there a genuine issue for trial?
15I find that there is no genuine issue for trial. Final orders can be made on the evidence before me.
16Both parties agree that there is no genuine issue for trial. Ms. Boluk-Svec and Mr. Svec have filed affidavit material and neither sought cross-examination on the affidavits. The parties agree on the facts and timeline. They disagree on the appropriate orders to be made.
17Summary judgment motions are governed by Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.
18Pursuant to subrule 16 (4.1) the responding party to the Summary Judgment Motion may not rest on mere allegations or denials but shall set out, in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The responding party must put their best foot forward on the motion. The judge is entitled to assume that the parties have put before her or him all of the evidence that they would be able to adduce at trial. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.T. 2000 CanLII 20578 (ON CJ), 2000 O.J. No. 4736 (Ont. C.J.); Sweda v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200.
19Subrule 16 (6.1) provides that in determining if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties, and the court may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be only exercised at trial:
Weighing the evidence
Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.
Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.
20In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a two-step process for determining whether summary judgment should be granted.
21There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result (Hryniak - paragraph 49).
#2 Should child support be paid for Chloe? Or has the obligation terminated?
Father’s Position
22Mr. Svec argues that Chloe’s support should be discontinued under Section 5.8(f) of the 2022 Separation Agreement, which allows for review when a child turns 18.
Mother’s Position
23Mr. Svec seeks continued child support for Chloe while she pursues her first university degree. The parties entered into the 2024 Amending Agreement after their daughter Chloe began post-secondary education. This agreement includes a child support provision calculated using the “summer formula,” reflecting that both children reside primarily with Ms. Boluk-Svec and Chloe was in university.
Analysis
24Chloe remains a dependent child. She is currently in her third year of university. She will complete her degree in April 2027. Child support shall be paid for Chloe until April 2027.
25The obligation to support a child is found in section 31 of the Family Law Act:
Obligation of parent to support child
31 (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so, for his or her unmarried child who,
(a) is a minor;
(b) is enrolled in a full-time program of education; or
(c) is unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents.
26Mr. Svec’s request to terminate child support for Chloe when she turned 18 is denied.
27The 2024 Amending Agreement provided for reduced child support for Chloe during the academic year which is consistent with Albert v Albert, 2007 CanLII 29972 (ON SC), 2007 Carswell Ont 4863 (S.C.J.). Generally, the full amount will be ordered while at home, with a drop-down in support while away at school. Park v. Thompson, Lewi v. Lewi (CA), Merritt v. Merritt [1999] O.J. No. 1732 (SCJ).
28Child support for Chloe will end April 1, 2027 when she completes her first university degree.
#3 On what income should Mr. Svec’s support be based? Should his obligation be reduced on the basis of financial hardship?
Father’s Position
29Mr. Svec seeks that his child support obligation be $500 per month for Olivia and nothing for Chloe. I have already determined that child support for Chloe is to be paid. Mr. Svec does not stipulate a specific income for child support purposes. An income of $54,100 results in a $ 500 per month child support obligation pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines.
30His 2025 income is $ 119,800. He resides with a common law partner and she earns approximately $ 40,000 per year. His partner has 2 children, one at home and one in university.
31Mr. Svec makes an undue hardship claim under Section 10 of the Guidelines, citing:
(1) Depletion of RRSPs.
(2) Maxed-out credit cards.
(3) Mortgage and household expenses exceeding income.
(4) Medical leave in 2025, reducing his salary.
(5) Loss of income from volunteer firefighting.
32He references case law including:
(1) Costa v. Perkins (2011 ONSC 5536): hardship must be economic and exceptional.
(2) Reid v. Fortune (2018 ONCJ 486): outlines a three-part test for undue hardship.
(3) Barrie v. Barrie (1998 AJ No. 460): hardship must be excessive or disproportionate.
33He argues that his financial situation meets the high threshold for undue hardship and that maintaining current support levels would cause extreme debt.
34Mr. Svec asserts that his expenses exceed his income. Mr. Svec purchased a home after separation while Olivia was residing with him to accommodate the family’s needs. The timing was at the end of COVID-19 and he asserts that his mortgage rate is excessively high. He has a leased truck and the lease is for 6 years. He asserts that he cannot change his financial obligations.
35His financial statement is confusing. Mr. Svec re-partnered a few years after the separation. He indicates that his partner contributes $1000 per month to household expenses. The grocery expenses are listed at $2,200 per month. In argument, he submitted that there is also partner contribution to the grocery expenses. I placed no weight on the financial statement evidence that his partner only contributed $ 1,000 to the household costs.
36Mr. Svec asserts that his income has reduced. He is no longer doing a side business and has sold his tools. He is no longer a volunteer firefighter.
37Mr. Svec experienced a medical episode in 2025 and was off work for several months. He provided medical documentation. Mr. Svec asserts that his 2025 income will be reduced because of the time off work. The financial impact of the time off is not specified.
Mother’s Position
38Ms. Boluk-Svec asserts that Mr. Svec’s claim of undue hardship should be denied. She seeks child support based on Mr. Svec’s current reported income as a teacher, not his prior consulting income. She highlights her own financial responsibilities and criticizes Mr. Svec’s failure to contribute adequately to child support and Chloe’s education expenses. She questions his claims of financial hardship, citing his attempt to purchase her share of a Florida timeshare during the litigation period.
39The parties entered into the 2024 Amending Agreement in January 2024.
40In 2024, Mr. Svec’s line 150 income was $137,576.51 and he received a refund of $9,123.50. Both parties received a one-time lump sum payment in 2024. Mr. Svec stopped paying child support within a year of signing the 2024 Amending Agreement which was the year of his highest income. There have only been 2 payments since then.
41The application to address child support and arrears was issued November 28, 2024. Ms. Boluk-Svec asserts that Mr. Svec does not come to the Court with clean hands.
42Mr. Svec disclosed that he had a "medical episode" which caused a decrease in his earnings and was unable to work for a short period of time. Mr. Svec provided a Medical Note from Dr. Ali advising the Applicant was off work for "medical reason" from February 5, 2025 to April 17, 2025, and the Functional Abilities Form dated April 16, 2025, confirming the Applicant's ability to return to work without accommodation on June 11, 2025. Mr. Svec provided no documentation regarding his short term and/or long-term disability benefits, including application, benefits received, and medical documentation to substantiate his disability claim despite being ordered to do so by Justice Wilson on March 17, 2025.
43With respect to Mr. Svec’s 2025 medical time off work, Ms. Boluk-Svec does not dispute his health status but maintains that financial obligations should remain based on actual income. The 2025 income is not known at this time. Both parties are teachers and have benefits for sick days, short-term and long-term disability.
44Ms. Boluk-Svec asserts that Mr. Svec’s claim for undue hardship fails under the three-part test from Matthews v. Matthews, 2001 CanLII 28118:
- No evidence of exceptional, excessive, or disproportionate hardship.
- No need to assess household standard of living.
- No basis to reduce support.
45She cites Costa v. Perkins, 2011 ONSC 5536, emphasizing that hardship must be economic and directly related to the ability to pay—not personal choices.
46Ms. Boluk-Svec asserts that Mr. Svec’s financial statement does not demonstrate distress. The only debt disclosed is $ 10,000 on a credit card and the child support arrears.
Analysis
47Child support will be based on Mr. Svec’s line 150 income. I find that Mr. Svec’s claim of undue hardship fails.
48Section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines involves a 2-step test and then a determination of the child support amount. The first part requires a finding by the court that the party trying to rely on the section, or a child for whom support is ordered to be paid would suffer undue hardship. The categories in s.10 are not exhaustive. The key is undue hardship, a lower standard of living is not enough. Evidence is needed that the children in the payor’s household will be deprived of a reasonable or average standard of living. Camirand v. Beaulne 1998 CanLII 14919 (ON CTGD), 1998 O.J. No. 2163. The hardship must be exceptional, excessive or disproportionate, not merely awkward or inconvenient. Hanmore v. Hanmore 2000 ABCA 57, 2000 4 RFL 348.
49The second part of the test is the comparison of standards of living. Wislesky v. Wislesky 1999 O.J. No. 1220 (Ont. CJ – General Division). Mr. Svec did not make an argument that undue hardship should be found on the basis of a comparison of household income. There are 4 members of his household and his partner earns approximately $ 40,000 per year. The amount she receives for child support of her children was not disclosed. Ms. Boluk-Svec and Mr. Svec earn the same amount. On the record before me, Ms. Boluk-Svec is the sole income earner in her household with the 2 children of the marriage living with her. The comparison of household incomes would not have warranted an undue hardship claim.
50I find that there has been no material change since 2024 Amending Agreement. The 2024 Amending Agreement revised child support, did not change the September 2022 separation agreement provisions governing section 7 expenses.
51Mr. Svec stopped paying his child support obligations shortly after agreeing to the terms of the 2024 Amending Agreement. He earned his highest income in 2024.
52The support payor has the onus of providing adequate supporting documentation to prove his undue hardship claim. See: Van Gool v. Van Gool [1998] B.C. No. 2513 (C.A.). He has not done so.
53In the case of Min v. Soe [2008] O.J. No. 927 (Ont. S.C.J.), Blishen J. wrote: Section 10(2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may cause undue hardship. Even if any of the circumstances set out in s. 10(2)(a) to (e) are established, this does not necessarily establish undue hardship. A line must be drawn between "hardship" and "undue hardship" and this will be determined mainly on the particular circumstances of the case. In a case such as this, where there is alleged to be a second family, the payor parent should provide clear and cogent evidence, not conjecture or speculation, from which an inference could reasonably be drawn that the children in the second family would suffer significant deprivation if the Table amount was ordered for the children of the first relationship. "Deprivation" means with respect to food, clothing, shelter or some medical or other health need: See Reid v. Nelson (2002), 2002 CanLII 78097 (ON CJ), 30 R.F.L. (5th) 153 (Ont. C.J.). Clear and cogent evidence as to alleged debts should also be provided.
54In Matthew v. Mathews (2001), 2001 CanLII 28118 (ON SC), 14, R.F.L. (5th) 129 (S.C.J.), at para. 11, sets out a three-part test to be dealt with under s. 10:
I do agree with Rotherby J. in Nishnik that s. 10 of the Guidelines requires a multi-step analysis. I would go one step further and say that three distinct issues must be dealt with in turn:
The first question that must be answered is whether an order in the Guideline table amount (or such other amount as determined under s. 3 to 5, 8 or 9) would cause the applicant to suffer undue hardship. The non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may cause a party to suffer undue hardship is set out in s. 10(2). Each of those considerations relates to the circumstances of the spouse making the application. One can conclude, therefore, that information relating to the financial circumstances in the responding spouse's household would not be relevant to a determination of this issue;
If the answer to the first question is yes, s. 10(3) requires the court to consider the standards of living of the households of both parties. If the person claiming undue hardship has a higher standard of living than the responding spouse based on the payment of support pursuant to the Guidelines, the application must be denied. On this issue, the income of all income earners in both households is relevant;
If the applicant is successful on the first two issues, then the final stage of the analysis would be to determine the appropriate amount of child support payable. This requires an examination of the needs and means of both parties, among other things. Since the expenses claimed by the responding spouse would be relevant, so too would be the contribution toward those expenses by his girlfriend. It follows that the income of the girlfriend would also be relevant, in order to determine whether her contribution was reasonable in the circumstances.
Cited with approval in Costa v. Perkins, 2011 ONSC 5536.
55Section 10.2 provides ccircumstances that may cause a spouse or child to suffer undue hardship include the following:
(1) the spouse has the responsibility for an unusually high level of debts reasonably incurred to support the spouses and their children prior to the separation or to earn a living;
(2) the spouse has unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access to a child;
(3) the spouse has a legal duty under a judgment, order or written separation agreement to support any person;
(4) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage, who is:
(a) under the age of majority, or
(b) the age of majority or over but is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessaries of life; and
(5) the spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to an illness or disability.
56Mr. Svec has $10,000 in credit card debt showing on his financial statement. He asserts that his mortgage rate is high and the house was purchased to accommodate Olivia when she lived with him and that he is paying for a 6 year truck lease. On the record before me, Mr. Svec has not demonstrated that any of his debt is related to the family prior to separation or to earn an income. No parenting time is occurring and both parties reside in Brantford. There are not unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access to a child.
57There is no evidence before me that Mr. Svec has a duty to support his partner’s children or any other person.
58I also note that Mr. Svec’s 2024 line 150 income is $ 137,576. His T4 income was $147,150 and $ 372 (other employment income). He withdrew $ 2,248.72 in RRSPs. He claimed business income of $ 3,219 on a gross basis with a net loss of $12,195. His line 150 income is less than his T4 income.
#4 What child support should Mr. Svec pay Ms. Boluk-Svec on an ongoing basis?
Father’s Position
59Mr. Svec asserts that his 2024 income should not be used for support purposes as it included a one-time lump sum income payment. His usual income is $ 119,800.
Mother’s Position
60Ms. Boluk-Svec is content that the arrears be set in accordance with the 2024 Amending Agreement with arrears set as of September 2025 at $ 15,604, but requests that ongoing child support commencing October 1, 2025, be based on Mr. Svec’s 2024 income of $137,575.
Analysis
61Mr. Svec’s child support obligation as of October 1, 2025 will be based on his 2024 line 150 income of $ 137,575 and will change to $119,800 or his actual line 2025 150 income, if Mr. Svec provides his 2025 Notice of Assessment to Ms. Boluk-Svec, as of June 1, 2026.
62Child support is based on actual income. Mr. Svec earned a higher income in 2024 and the children should benefit from his actual income earned. The arrears calculation does not take into account the higher 2024 income. The child support will decrease in 2026 based on his actual line 150 2025 income or the $ 119,800 estimate of the parties.
#5 What are Mr. Svec’s arrears for child support?
Father’s Position
63Mr. Svec acknowledges $15,604.92 in arrears as of September 30, 2025. He proposes to repay this amount through installments funded by his annual tax refunds, beginning with the 2025 tax year.
Mother’s Position
64Ms. Boluk-Svec provided a detailed chart which sets out the cumulative arrears of $15,604.92 as of September 2025.
65She argues that these arrears are conservative, as retroactive support should be based on Mr. Svec’s 2024 income of $137,576.51, which would result in a higher obligation.
66Citing Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, Ms. Boluk-Svec argues that arrears cannot be rescinded unless the payor proves they will never be able to pay, even with a flexible plan. Mr. Svec has not met this burden. The test is not whether will it be difficult to pay, but will they ever be able to.
67Mr. Svec has since paid child support albeit inconsistently and in varying amounts by way of e transfer. He fell into arrears in December 2023, only one month following the November 2023 commencement date set out in the January 2024 Amending Agreement and his arrears have continued to mount.
68In October 2024, Mr. Svec unilaterally stopped paying child support to Ms. Boluk-Svec. This is the month prior to commencing the Application in November 2024. Mr. Svec paid no child support between October 19, 2024 and May 22, 2025. He made two payments of $1,000 on each of May 23, 2025 and August 7, 2025.
Analysis
69On consent, the arrears are fixed as of September 15, 2025 at $15,604.92.
#6 What are Mr. Svec’s arrears for section 7 expenses?
Father’s Position
70Mr. Svec agrees that post-secondary expenses are special and extraordinary under Section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines and Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of the 2022 Separation Agreement. He was not consulted about Chloe’s university expenses and did not agree to any specifics. There was no disclosure of RESP withdrawals or expense details until September 22, 2025. He is willing to contribute once expenses are discussed and agreed upon through mediation.
71He emphasizes that both parties contributed to the RESP during the marriage and that Chloe’s own contributions (e.g., OSAP, scholarships, employment) should be deducted before calculating parental shares.
72Mr. Svec acknowledges that he knew Chloe was at the University of Guelph.
73Chloe has a vehicle which Mr. Svec finds unreasonable.
74He paid for all of his own post-secondary education costs.
Mother’s Position
75Ms. Boluk-Svec seeks contribution for post-secondary education expenses for Chloe from Mr. Svec in the amount of $5,212 ($2080 for 2nd year and $3132 for 3rd year).
76Ms. Boluk-Svec references paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of the 2022 Separation Agreement, which outline the parties’ responsibilities for post-secondary expenses. Both parties contributed to a RESP during the marriage, indicating a shared expectation that their children would pursue post-secondary education. Ms. Boluk-Svec has continued to contribute to the RESP. Mr. Svec has not.
77Ms. Boluk-Svec disputes Mr. Svec’s claim that his consent was required for the children to attend university before he would be obligated to contribute financially.
78Ms. Boluk-Svec has covered Chloe’s university costs, including tuition and living expenses, while Mr. Svec has not contributed to these special and extraordinary expenses.
79Under Section 7 of the Guidelines, both parents must contribute proportionally to post-secondary expenses after deducting the child’s reasonable contribution. The 2022 Separation Agreement (paras 5.4 and 5.5) confirms this obligation.
80Ms. Boluk-Svec withdrew a portion of the RESP funds to pay for Chloe's first year of university. She anticipates doing the same for Olivia's first year of post-secondary education.
81Chloe applied for and received OSAP and has financially contributed to her education using funds she earned during the summer months.
82Ms. Boluk-Svec has covered the balance of Chloe's post-secondary expenses, including tuition, travel, and living expenses.
83Ms. Boluk-Svec contributed $ 4,160.02 to Chloe’s second year of university. The balance was paid with OSAP of $9,494.00, scholarship of $3,000, and Chloe contributed $ $3,370.
84Ms. Boluk-Svec contributed $6,264.15 to Chloe’s third year of university. The balance was paid with OSAP of $6,644.00, scholarship of $ 2,000.00 and Chloe contributed $5,734.80.
85Ms. Boluk-Svec seeks half of what she paid for the second and third years from Mr. Svec. She calculates the parental contribution as less than a third of Chloe’s actual expenses.
Analysis
86Mr. Svec shall pay $ 5,212 to Ms. Boluk-Svec towards Chloe’s second and third year post-secondary education costs.
87The 2022 Separation Agreement provided for the parents to share the post-secondary education expenses. The 2024 Amending Agreement was entered into during Chloe’s first year of university and did not revise the 2022 terms.
88The section 7 expenses sought are reasonable and Chloe has applied for OSAP and the amount has been deducted from the total expenses for the year. Chloe has also benefitted from scholarship funds to her credit. In addition, Chloe has contributed significantly to the balance of the costs.
89Mr. Svec was aware Chloe was in university. On the record before me, he did not ask about her expenses and how the costs were being paid. I do not find that consent was needed in order for him to contribute his share.
#7 How should arrears be paid?
Father’s Position
90Mr. Svec proposes to repay this amount through installments funded by his annual tax refunds, beginning with the 2025 tax year.
Mother’s Position
91Ms. Boluk-Svec does not specify a payment plan for the arrears.
Analysis
92Mr. Svec shall pay the arrears at the rate of $ 500 per month commencing December 1, 2025. Commencing May 1, 2027, when the child support obligation for Chloe has terminated, the arrears payment shall be $ 1,000 per month.
93On May 1, 2027, Mr. Svec’s child support obligation should be for one child based on his 2026 line 150 income. He will need to provide proof of same to Ms. Boluk-Svec and hopefully a consent motion to change can be brought.
94I note that the 2024 Amending Agreement set arrears repayment at $ 750 per month, being $303.44 bi-weekly.
#8 What are the section 7 expense obligations going forward?
Father’s Position
95Mr. Svec asks that future section 7 expense obligations be resolved through mediation.
Mother’s Position
96Mr. Svec asks that the parental contribution to section 7 expenses be calculated by the Total Expense be reduced by grant, scholarship and one-half of the child’s summer earnings and that the parties share the balance equally.
Analysis
97I will order Ms. Boluk-Svec’s formula for determining future section 7 expenses for the children. Her calculations for Chloe’s expenses have been reasonable and the parental contribution has been appropriate. I do not find that the parties need to undertake a dispute resolution process to determine this issue.
98The RESP shall be used for Olivia’s first year and any balance shall be applied to her second year of post-secondary education.
ORDER
99The Applicant Peter Svec shall pay to the Respondent, Jennifer Boluk-Svec, table child support for the two children, Chloe Anne Svec born […], 2005 and Olivia Catherine Svec born […], 2009, in the amount of $1,481 per month based on his 2024 income of $137,575, commencing October 1, 2025 and on the first day of each month thereafter until May 1, 2026 in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines and the summer formula for Chloe.
100The Applicant Peter Svec shall pay to the Respondent Jennifer Boluk-Svec table child support for the two children, Chloe Anne Svec born […], 2005 and Olivia Catherine Svec born […], 2009, in the amount of $1,315 per month based on $119,800 or his 2025 line 150 income, if Mr. Svec provides his 2025 Notice of Assessment to Ms. Boluk-Svec, commencing June 1, 2026 and on the first day of each month thereafter in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines and the summer formula for Chloe.
101The Applicant Peter Svec shall pay to the Respondent Jennifer Boluk-Svec child support and section 7 expense arrears in the amount of $20,817.01, being child support arrears of $15,604.92, fixed as of September 22, 2025 and $5,212.09 representing the Applicant Peter Svec’s contribution to the children’s special and extraordinary expenses, up to September 22, 2025.
102The Applicant Peter Svec shall pay the Respondent Jennifer Boluk-Svec the arrears at the rate of $ 500 per month commencing January 1, 2026 and on the first day of each month thereafter until April 1, 2027.
103The Applicant Peter Svec shall pay the Respondent Jennifer Boluk-Svec the arrears at the rate of $ 1,000 per month commencing May 1, 2027 and on the first day of each month thereafter until paid.
104The Applicant Peter Svec shall pay 50% of the children’s special and extraordinary expenses of the children, Chloe Anne Svec born […], 2005 and Olivia Catherine Svec born […], 2009, to the Respondent Jennifer Boluk-Svec as calculated by taking the child’s total expenses and deducting OSAP grants, bursaries and awards, and one-half of the child’s summer earnings. The Respondent Jennifer Boluk-Svec shall provide the calculation for each school year to the Applicant Peter Svec, and he shall pay the same 60 days later.
105The RESP shall be used for Olivia’s first year and any balance shall be applied to her second year of post-secondary education.
106All other claims shall be dismissed.
Costs
Any party seeking costs may make written submissions to the court, to be submitted no later than 14 days from today.
Responding submissions may be submitted no later than 14 days after being served with the submissions.
Submissions shall be a maximum length of two pages – double spaced, 12 point font, normal margins. Bill of costs and Offer to Settle may be attached to the costs submission without counting to the page limits.
No reply submissions permitted.
Parties are to file electronically to send submissions to chambers upon expiry of the two deadlines.
Released: November 21, 2025
Signed: Justice Joanne Beasley