CITATION: Felix Perez v. Samuel, 2025 ONCJ 692
COURT FILE NO. D42510/22
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
BILERKY FELIX PEREZ
GLENDA PERRY, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and –
MIGUEL ALEJANDRO SAMUEL
OMAR RAMBHAJAN, for the RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT
HEARD: DECEMBER 23, 2025
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
REASONS FOR DECISION
Part One – Introduction
1This was a motion to change brought by the respondent (the father) to change the child support terms contained in the court’s order dated November 8, 2022 (the existing order) regarding the parties’ two children (the children).
2The existing order was made after an uncontested trial. The father was ordered to pay $755 each month for the children. This was the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) table amount for two children, based on an annual income of $50,000 imputed to him. Child support arrears were fixed at $33,010 as of October 31, 2022. The court ordered the father to pay the mother’s costs of $3,000.
3The father asks that his child support payments be reduced to zero starting on April 1, 2025, because he is in receipt of social assistance and is unable to work.
4The applicant (the mother) asks that the father’s motion to change be dismissed. She believes the father is earning or can earn the income that was imputed to him in the existing order. She also seeks an order that the father be required to obtain leave of the court before commencing any future motion to change support.
5The court relied on the affidavits filed by the parties, an affidavit from the father’s ex-wife (the ex-wife) and the financial statements filed by the father. The parties were cross-examined at the hearing. The father was assisted by Spanish interpreters.
6The issues for the court to determine are as follows:
a) Has there been a change in circumstances that gives rise to changing the existing order or is the father still earning or capable of earning the $50,000 annual income imputed to him in the existing order?
b) If there has been a change in circumstances, what child support, if any, should the father pay the mother for the children? And should the child support payments be reduced based on undue hardship under section 10 of the guidelines?
c) Should an order be made that the father requires leave of the court before bringing another motion to change child support?
Part Two – Brief background facts
7The mother is 35 years old. The father is 45 years old.
8The parties lived together from 2011 until 2015 and had two children, who are now 13 and 12 years old. The children have lived with the mother since the parties separated.
9The father has two other children with his ex-wife. One of those children is now an adult.
10The father started an interlocking company in 2012 called MS Interlocking. The mother worked in this business until the parties separated. She did the administrative and accounting work.
11The father now lives with a new spouse who has worked with him in the interlocking business.
12The mother issued an application for parenting and child support orders on April 1, 2022. The father was served with the application on April 6, 2022.
13Both parties attended the first court date at First Appearance Court on June 8, 2022. They consented to an extension for the father to file his responding materials. The endorsement stated “the mother intends to proceed by Form 23C if the father does not serve and file materials by extension date”.
14The parties attended the first case conference. Temporary child support was ordered. The father was given one last extension to serve and file his responding materials.
15The father did not attend the second case conference. Justice Carole Curtis endorsed that the father was in default, and the mother would be asking for final orders by Form 14B motion and Form 23C affidavit for an uncontested trial.
16The mother served her Form 23C affidavit and Form 14B motion on the father on October 24, 2025.
17On November 1, 2022, the court adjourned the uncontested hearing until November 8, 2022. The court endorsed:
Although he has been found in default, the father is encouraged to attend at the hearing. If the father has evidence to dispute the mother’s claims, he shall serve and file a financial statement and any documentation (tax returns, notices of assessment, statements of professional and business affairs) in support of his position.
18On November 3, 2022, the mother served and filed an amended Form 23C affidavit on the father.
19The father did not attend the hearing on November 8, 2022. He filed no financial information. The hearing was held, and the existing order was made.
20The father did not appeal this order or move to set it aside.
21The father has not paid any of the $3,000 costs ordered. He made paltry child support payments.
22The father issued this motion to change on September 13, 2024. At the same time, he issued a motion to change the child support order regarding his two children with his ex-wife. The two motions to change proceeded together in this court.
23In his motions to change, the father sought orders fixing his arrears at zero as of January 1, 2021. He asked that no child support be payable after January 1, 2021.1
24On October 1, 2025, the court ordered the hearings of the motions to change to be heard together. The father was ordered to provide further financial disclosure. He was given permission to file a supplementary affidavit with any medical reports he wished to rely upon.
25At the outset of these hearings, the ex-wife and the father resolved the case between them. This was incorporated into a court order. The court proceeded with the motion to change between the father and the mother.
26The father owes the mother child support arrears of $60,893.
Part Three – Positions of the parties
3.1 The father
27The father deposed that he had no knowledge of the existing order until he was imprisoned in 2024, arising out of enforcement proceedings brought by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office. He said his family gave him $7,000 to be released from jail.
28The father claims he has never earned the income imputed to him in the existing order.
29The father said his business was adversely affected by the pandemic. He also said he started suffering foot and knee issues that impaired his ability to work. He has gout. He claimed in his motion to change that he became unemployed in 2022.
30The father stated that he and his spouse have been receiving social assistance since February 2025. He deposed he is not physically capable of working at this time.
31The father claimed his income was as follows:
2020 - $32,500
2021 - $20,694 – including $6,194 of net business income
2022 - $2,972 – including $606 of net business income
2023 - $15,000 – reported as cash business income
2024 - $15,000 – reported as employment income.2
The father filed 2025 statements of social assistance payments showing that he and his spouse are jointly receiving $1,136 each month.
3.2 The mother
32Simply put, the mother’s position is that the father has always lied about his income, and he is lying about it now. She asserted that the father has continuously done interlocking work for cash. If he is not working now, she says it is only to avoid his child support obligations.
33The mother claims that the father’s lifestyle does not support his claims of impecuniosity. He has vehicles, pays housing expenses of over $3,800 each month and takes frequent international vacations.
34The father’s ex-wife, in her affidavit, took the same position as the mother.
35The mother submits that the father continues to earn or can earn annual income of $50,000.
Part Four – Legal considerations
36The father’s motion to change the support terms in the existing support order is governed by subsection 37 (2.1) of the Family Law Act. This subsection reads as follows:
Powers of court: child support
(2.1) In the case of an order for support of a child, if the court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances within the meaning of the child support guidelines or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the court may,
(a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order, prospectively or retroactively;
(b) relieve the respondent from the payment of part or all of the arrears or any interest due on them; and
(c) make any other order for the support of a child that the court could make on an application under section 33.
37Paragraph 1 of section 14 of the guidelines reads as follows:
Circumstances for variation
For the purposes of subsection 37 (2.2) of the Act and subsection 17 (4) of the Divorce Act (Canada), any one of the following constitutes a change of circumstances that gives rise to the making of a variation order:
In the case where the amount of child support includes a determination made in accordance with the table, any change in circumstances that would result in a different order for the support of a child or any provision thereof.
38The Ontario Court of Appeal in Kohli v. Thom, 2025 ONCA 200, set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:
i) Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
ii) If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?
iii) If not, what income is appropriately imputed?
39In Trang v. Trang, 2013 ONSC 1980, Justice Alex Pazaratz made the following observations about the challenges of changing a support order where the court imputed income:
When a court imputes income, that’s a determination of a fact. It’s not an estimate. It’s not a guess. It’s not a provisional order awaiting better disclosure, or further review. It’s a determination that the court had to calculate a number, because it didn’t feel it was appropriate to rely on – or wait for -- representations from the payor.
A party who argues that an imputed income level is no longer appropriate must go beyond establishing their subsequent “declared” income. They must address why income had to be imputed in the first place. They must present evidence of changed circumstances which establish that either:
a. It is no longer necessary or appropriate to impute income. The payor’s representations as to income should now be accepted, even if they weren’t accepted before; or
b. Even if income should still be imputed, changed circumstances suggest a different amount is more appropriate.
If “declared income” automatically prevailed on a motion to change support, it would defeat the purpose of imputing income in the first place. It might even be a disincentive for payors to participate in the initial court process. They could simply ignore support Applications – as they often do. They could wait to see if the court imputes income, and how much. If dissatisfied with the amount, the payor could later return to court waving their tax returns, to suggest that the original judge got it wrong.
Similarly, the onus should not fall on the support recipient to establish why income should still be imputed on a motion to change. That determination has already been made. The onus is on the support payor to establish that there should be a change in the way their income is to be calculated.
Imputed income matters. The reason why income had to be imputed matters.
If an aggrieved party feels income was wrongly imputed, they can take timely steps to correct the original determination. They can appeal. They can bring a motion to set aside the order based on mistake or misrepresentation.
But if a payor proceeds by way of motion to change, they must face the presumption that the original order was correct – and the original imputation of income was correct. If they want to rely on their declared income, they must establish why this time their representations should be accepted by the court.
40Where income has been imputed, a support payor is not going to be able to vary that order unless he can demonstrate that there has been a material change since the making of that order. It is not open to a litigant to fail to produce financial information, run the risk that a trial judge will impute income, and then come back to a new court and suggest that the imputed income was wrong. See: Ruffolo v. David, 2016 CarswellOnt 2151 (Ont. Div. Ct.).
41The receipt of ODSP or Workplace Safety and Insurance Board benefits is not sufficient proof of one’s inability to work for support purposes. See: Tyrrell v. Tyrrell 2017 ONSC 6499 (SCJ). The court cannot take judicial notice of any eligibility requirements for ODSP. Nor can it delegate the important and complex determinations of employability and income earning capacity to unknown bureaucrats applying unknown evidence to unknown criteria. See: Abumatar v. Hamda, 2021 ONSC 2165; Bougataya v. Turkmen, 2023 ONCJ 341.
42A self-employed person has the onus of clearly demonstrating the basis of his or her net income. This includes demonstrating that the deductions from gross income should be taken into account in the calculation of income for support purposes. See: Whelan v. O’Connor, 2006 CanLII 13554 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 1660, (Ont. Fam. Ct.); K.H.S. v. K.S., 2025 ONSC 436. This principle also applies where the person’s employment income is derived from a corporation that he or she fully controls. See: MacKenzie v. Flynn, 2010 ONCJ 184; J.V.M. v. F.D.P., 2011 ONCJ 615; Yocheva v. Hristov, 2019 ONSC 1007.
43The self-employed have an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive, records of income and expenses from which the recipient can draw conclusions and the amount of child support can be established. See: Meade v. Meade (2002) 2002 CanLII 2806 (ON SC), 31 R.F.L. 5th 88 (SCJ). This includes the obligation to present information in a user-friendly fashion. A recipient should not have to incur the expense to understand it. See: Reyes v. Rollo, 2001 CanLII 28260 (SCJ).
44Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to them. See: Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548; Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583.
45The court may impute income where it finds that a party has hidden or misrepresented relevant information respecting their income to the other party or to the authorities. This includes cases where the evidence indicates that a party earns cash income that they do not declare for income tax purposes. See: Kinsella v. Mills, 2020 ONSC 4785; Prillo v. Homer, 2023 ONCJ 8.
46The court can also impute income where the evidence respecting income is not credible for any other reason. See: Heard v. Heard, 2014 ONCA 196 (C.A.), at paras. 33-35; Gostevskikh v. Gostevskikh, 2018 BCSC 1441 (S.C.); M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207.
47The payor must prove that any medical excuse for being underemployed is reasonable. See Rilli v. Rilli, 2006 CanLII 34451 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 4142 (SCJ.). Cogent medical evidence in the form of detailed medical opinion should be provided by the payor in order to satisfy the court that his/her reasonable health needs justify his/her decision not to work. See: Cook v. Burton 2005 CanLII 1063 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 190 (SCJ) and Stoangi v. Petersen 2006 CanLII 24124 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 2902 (SCJ).
48In Davidson v. Patten, 2021 ONCJ 437, Justice Carole Curtis set out that a party resisting a claim for imputation of their income based on medical reasons should provide a medical report setting out at least the following information:
i. Diagnosis;
ii. Prognosis;
iii. Treatment plan (is there a treatment plan? And what is it?);
iv. Compliance with the treatment plan; and
v. Specific and detailed information connecting the medical condition to the ability to work (e.g.: this person cannot work at the pre-injury job; this person cannot work for three months; this person cannot work at physical labour; this person cannot return to work ever).
49Even if the court accepts that the party has health-related challenges that may impact their income earning capacity, it must consider the nature and extent of the impact and whether the party could work on a part-time basis or in a less demanding position. See: Bentley v. Bentley, 2009 CarswellOnt 562 (S.C.J.); Kinsella v. Mills, 2020 ONSC 4785.
50In Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, at paragraph 121, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the importance of support payors meeting their support obligations and commented that the neglect or underpayment of support is strongly connected to child poverty and female poverty.
Part Five – Assessment of the evidence
51The mother was a credible witness. Her evidence was supported by documentation. She was only asked a few questions in cross-examination. Her evidence was also consistent with her evidence in the 2022 court proceeding, which the court accepted. In her Form 23C affidavit for the uncontested trial, the mother provided numerous screenshots establishing that the father was running an active interlocking business.
52The ex-wife was also a credible witness. Her evidence was supported by documentation. It was corroborated by the mother’s evidence. The father declined to cross-examine her.
53The father was neither a credible nor a reliable witness. He was evasive and argumentative. His memory of events was poor. He was dishonest.
54The father insisted he had no knowledge of the existing order until he was arrested in 2024. He claimed he had never been in court with the mother – that he had only been in court with his ex-wife. This was not true as:
a) He was served personally with the mother’s application.
b) He attended the First Appearance Court. He requested and obtained a filing extension.
c) He attended the first case conference and obtained one last filing extension.
d) He was given multiple notices of the final hearing and the evidence the mother was relying upon. Affidavits of service were filed.
55The reality is that the father put his head in the sand. He was aware that the mother was claiming significant retroactive support and seeking to impute his annual income at $50,000. He made a choice not to contest her claims.
56In his motion to change the father claimed he was unemployed and had no income. This was false. The mother and the ex-wife produced a multitude of pictures and a video showing the father was working. The father did not dispute he was the person in the photos but dismissed them, claiming they were from 10 years ago. However, many of the photos were much more current, many in 2024 and even up to February 2025.
57The mother and the ex-wife were able to obtain these photos from the father’s Facebook account, the father’s business Facebook account and the father’s spouse’s Facebook account. The father and his spouse were actively promoting the business on these accounts. At times, they were advertising for workers. They deleted these accounts after the mother and the ex-wife provided the screenshots in this proceeding.
58The father was shown a video of him performing physically demanding interlocking work in November 2024. The mother deposed the video was on the father’s business Facebook account. The father claimed he was unsure if it was him. The video shows it was him. He then said if it was him, his wife only allowed him to work for 5 hours.
59The mother also provided evidence that the father’s spouse is working for his business. The mother noted there are pictures on the Facebook accounts of the father’s spouse doing driveway/construction work on her own and with the father. The father’s spouse has also advertised for people to do interlocking work on her Facebook page, as recently as June 7, 2025.
60The mother and the ex-wife both provided several photos of the father’s work truck parked in his driveway with work tools in them, one as recently as October 9, 2025. The father denied it was his truck. He claimed he lets his friend park it in his driveway. He claimed he did not know the last name of this friend. His evidence was not credible.
61The father claims his gout prevents him from working. He cannot do physical activities. He came to court with a cane and walked with considerable difficulty. He was asked if he ever danced at a local Sports Bar. He said no. However, the mother obtained a video posted on Tik Tok by the Sports Bar, dated November 29, 2025, showing the father dancing without any apparent physical limitations. The father acknowledged he was the person dancing in the video.
62The father’s financial disclosure was inadequate. He did not provide comprehensive records showing how his income was calculated. He did not explain when he stopped operating his business and started working as an employee. His reported 2023 and 2024 incomes are both $15,000 – which appear to be numbers picked at random. The 2023 income tax return states this was cash income. He provided no invoices, no receipts. He did not provide his 2024 notice of assessment. He did not comply with the court’s disclosure order dated October 1, 2025.
63In his October 2025 financial statement, the father claims that he and his spouse’s only income is from social assistance. Yet, he shows annual expenses of over $56,000 and no debts. His rent is $3,500 each month. His 2024 financial statement showed he had $600 debts. No explanation was provided about how he was able to afford this.
64The father did not deny the evidence from the mother and the ex-wife that he takes multiple vacations to the Dominican Republic with his spouse. The father and his spouse both post pictures from these vacations on their Facebook pages. The father did not deny they spent several weeks in the Dominican Republic between December 2024 and January 2025. He provided no explanation about how he paid for these trips.
65The father did not deny the mother’s evidence that he often posts pictures of himself on social media wearing designer clothes and jewelry. He has posted photos of himself inside his home showing a large screen television and stereo equipment.
66The father’s payment history with the mother and the ex-wife is abysmal. He has had the ability to pay for child support and has only paid when aggressive enforcement actions have been taken by the Family Responsibility Office.
67The court makes the following findings of fact:
a) The father has continued to run his interlocking business on a cash basis.
b) The father’s income tax returns bear no relation to his actual income.
c) The father has tried to hide his income from the mother, the ex-wife and the court.
d) The father has avoided his child support obligations.
e) The father is leading a lifestyle based on an income that is greater than his stated income.
Part Six – The father’s health
68The father claims that his ability to work is significantly impaired due to his gout.
69The medical evidence the father filed was insufficient to corroborate this claim. He only filed the following:
a) A one-sentence letter from a doctor dated March 12, 2025, stating that: “Due to medical reasons the patient was unable to attend his court hearing on March 10, 2025”.
b) A two-sentence letter from a different doctor dated May 14, 2025, stating that: “This is to inform that the patient has recurrent gout which causing (sic) extreme pain and swelling. Due to his continue (sic) he has missed work multiple time”.
c) A pharmacy medical record showing he had medications filled on October 29, 2024, March 12, 2025, and July 18, 2025.
70This evidence does not come close to what the court set out was required to establish a medical reason for an inability to work in Davidson, supra. No details were provided about the gout. It is unknown if the report was based on self-reporting. No prognosis is given. No treatment plan is given. There is no indication given about how the gout impairs the father’s ability to work, if at all. It just states he missed several days of work in 2025.3
71The father did not prove that his income earning potential is impaired due to health reasons.
Part Seven – Should the father’s child support payments be reduced based on undue hardship under section 10 of the guidelines?
7.1 Legal considerations
72The father did not specifically plead undue hardship under section 10 of the guidelines. However, he consistently submitted during the case that his support payments should be reduced due to undue hardship, so the court will address this argument.
73Undue hardship claims are governed by section 10 of the guidelines which reads as follows:
Undue hardship
10. (1) On the application of either spouse or an mother under section 33 of the Act, a court may award an amount of child support that is different from the amount determined under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9 if the court finds that the parent or spouse making the request, or a child in respect of whom the request is made, would otherwise suffer undue hardship.
Circumstances that may cause undue hardship
(2) Circumstances that may cause a parent, spouse or child to suffer undue hardship include,
(a) the parent or spouse has responsibility for an unusually high level of debts reasonably incurred to support the parents or spouses and their children during cohabitation or to earn a living;
(b) the parent or spouse has unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access to a child;
(c) the parent or spouse has a legal duty under a judgment, order or written separation agreement to support any person;
(d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage, who is,
(i) under the age of majority, or
ii) the age of majority or over but is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessaries of life;
(e) the parent has a legal duty to support a child, other than the child who is the subject of this application, who is under the age of majority or who is enrolled in a full time course of education;
(f) the parent or spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to an illness or disability.
Standards of living must be considered
(3) Despite a determination of undue hardship under subsection (1), an application under that subsection must be denied by the court if it is of the opinion that the household of the parent or spouse who claims undue hardship would, after determining the amount of child support under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9, have a higher standard of living than the household of the other parent or spouse.
Standards of living test
(4) In comparing standards of living for the purpose of subsection (3), the court may use the comparison of household standards of living test set out in Schedule II.
i) Reasonable time
(5) Where the court awards a different amount of child support under subsection (1), it may specify, in the order for child support, a reasonable time for the satisfaction of any obligation arising from circumstances that cause undue hardship and the amount payable at the end of that time.
Reasons
(6) Where the court makes an order for the support of a child in a different amount under this section, it must record its reasons for doing so.
74It is difficult to make out a successful undue hardship claim under section 10 of the guidelines. There are three parts to the test:
The person making this claim must show that there are circumstances that could create undue hardship.
If this is the case, the person making the claim must show that his or her standard of living is lower than that of the responding party’s.
If the first two parts of the test are made out, the court has the discretion to make a support order different than the table amount, based on the means, needs and circumstances of the parties.
See: Matthews v. Matthews 2001 CanLII 28118 (ON SC), [2001] O.J. No. 876 (SCJ).
75The father must prove more than hardship. He must show that the hardship is exceptional, excessive or disproportionate, not merely awkward or inconvenient. See: Hanmore v. Hanmore 2000 ABCA 57.
76The father has the onus of providing adequate supporting documentation to prove his undue hardship claim. See: Van Gool v. Van Gool, 1998 CanLII 5650 (B.C.C.A.); Al-Hadad v. Al-Harash, 2023 ONCJ 463.
7.2 Analysis
77The father has a child support obligation of $300 each month with his ex-wife. He submits that together with his child support obligations to the mother this creates an undue hardship for him.
78While the court agrees with the father that his two child support orders cause him some hardship, he did not meet the stringent undue hardship test set out in the case law. He did not prove his hardship was exceptional, excessive or disproportionate. He affords vacations, expensive clothing and jewelry each year. He will have to adjust his priorities.
79The father provided no evidence that his standard of living is lower than the mother’s. He deposed in his financial statement that he spends over $56,000 annually without incurring debt. The mother suffered a mild traumatic brain injury in an accident in 2023 and has been unable to work. She attends physiotherapy regularly. She supports herself on Workers Compensation benefits and the Canada Child Benefit.
80The father has given the court no reason to exercise its discretion in his favour. He has been dishonest, has avoided his child support obligations and has failed to provide the court with meaningful financial disclosure.
81The father’s failure to pay for child support has had an adverse impact on the mother and the children. The mother has struggled to support them. There have been many times when she did not have money for food or medicine. She stated that the children missed out on many activities because she could not afford them. She deposed that when she asked the father for child support he would say no and mock her.
82Lastly, there has been no change in circumstances since the existing order was made that warrants reducing the child support payments due to undue hardship. The only change is that the father’s child support obligations to his ex-wife are lower because one of the children is now an adult and no longer eligible for child support.
83The father’s claim for undue hardship is dismissed.
Part Eight – Final comments
84As Justice Pazaratz wrote in Trang, supra, imputed income matters. On a motion to change, payors must face the presumption that the original order was correct – and the original imputation of income was correct. If they want to rely on their declared income, they must establish why this time their representations should be accepted by the court.
85The father failed to establish why his representations should be accepted at this time. His evidence was neither credible nor reliable. His financial evidence was incomplete and unreliable. His lifestyle does not support his evidence. His medical evidence was paltry. His alleged disability was contradicted by the recent video of him dancing and another video of him in November 2024 doing rigorous interlocking work. He did not contradict the evidence provided by the mother that he has continued to actively run his interlocking business with his spouse.
86The court finds that even if the father is not presently earning the same level of income imputed to him in the existing order, he is intentionally underemployed or unemployed without a valid reason.
87The court finds that the father is either earning or can earn the annual income of $50,000 imputed to him in the existing order. He did not establish that there has been a change in circumstances regarding his income.
88On September 10, 2025, the guidelines table amounts were changed. Based on an annual income of $50,000, the guidelines table amount for two children is now $744 each month. This will be ordered starting on October 1, 2025. Otherwise, the father’s motion to change will be dismissed.
Part Nine – Should the father be required to obtain leave of the court before starting any future court proceedings?
89The Ontario Court of Justice has jurisdiction to impose a term requiring leave to bring a motion to change under the Family Law Act. The jurisdiction is under subrules 14 (21), 15 (27), 1 (6), rule 2, and by importing 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure through subrule 1 (7). See: Tiveron v Collins, 2017 O.J. No. 2989 (OCA); Guma v. Nedelcu, 2019 ONSC 3429; Watson v. Watson, 2023 ONCJ 435, per: Justice Carole Curtis; Obitulata-Ugwu v. Ugwu, 2024 ONCJ 586.
90This court has written that leave orders should not be made just because a party was unsuccessful on one motion to change. Something more is required. See: Sajid v Mahmood, 2023 ONCJ 120; Ambia v. Degenstein, 2023 ONCJ 445.
91In W.H.C. v. W.C.M.C., 2024 ONCJ 327, this court required leave to bring any future proceedings where the father had unpaid costs orders and had acted unreasonably in both the original application and on the motion to change.
92In Marshall v. Russell, 2025 ONCJ 327, this court required leave to bring any future proceedings where the father misrepresented his income in the first court proceeding and he did not comply with court orders in the first court proceeding and on the motion to change. The court found he had put the mother through unnecessary aggravation.
93The court finds this is an appropriate case to require the father to first obtain leave of the court before he can bring another motion to change child support for the following reasons:
a) He caused unnecessary expense and delay in the original support application. He failed to file financial disclosure.
b) He has paid nothing towards the $3,000 costs order made against him in the original support application.
c) He has only paid child support when compelled to do so by enforcement proceedings by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.
d) In this case, he did not comply with the Automatic Disclosure Order and the court’s October 1, 2025 disclosure order.
e) He did not advise the mother that he was only seeking to change child support starting on April 1, 2025 until his opening submissions. The mother had to prepare for the case on the basis that he was seeking a retroactive change to support starting on January 1, 2021, and seeking to rescind the support arrears.
f) He misrepresented his income in this case.
g) He has caused the mother considerable aggravation and expense.
94The mother asks that the father be required to pay the outstanding costs of $3,000 and any costs ordered in this case as a condition of obtaining leave. The court will not order this. The father, despite multiple opportunities to do so, did not present the required medical evidence to show that his ability to work has been impaired. However, he has gout. If he has a legitimate claim to reduce child support for medical reasons, the court does not want to create an unreasonable financial barrier for him presenting it. Just because he is dishonest does not mean that he cannot have a valid claim.
95The requirement for leave does not preclude the father from returning to court. Any request for leave should include comprehensive medical evidence as set out by the court in Davidson, supra. The court will also want to see if he is making good faith efforts to comply with this order.
Part Nine – Conclusion
96A final order shall go as follows:
a) The existing order is changed to provide that the father shall pay the mother child support of $744 each month, starting on October 1, 2025. Otherwise, the father’s motion to change is dismissed.
b) Any temporary order made within this motion to change is terminated.
c) The Director or administrator of Ontario Works, the Ontario Disability Support Program or any income support program shall deduct from any income support paid or payable to the father the maximum prescribed amount, currently 10%, on account of the father’s child support obligation for the children, to be paid to the Director of the Family Responsibility Office for the benefit of the mother.
d) Support Deduction Order to issue.
e) The father requires leave of the court before he can bring another motion to change support. Any motion for leave should attach all medical evidence the father intends to rely on and evidence regarding his payment of child support and costs orders.
97The mother was the successful party and is entitled to her costs. If she seeks her costs, she shall serve and file written costs submissions by January 12, 2026. The father shall have until January 26, 2026 to respond. The submissions should not exceed 3 pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle.
98Court staff are directed to send these reasons for decision to the legal department of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.
99The court thanks counsel for their presentation on this matter.
Released: December 29, 2025 __________________________
Justice Stanley B. Sherr