ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO. FO-13-00060476-000
B E T W E E N:
B.R.
Self-represented (Responding Party)
APPLICANT
- and –
A.M.
Self-represented (Moving Party)
RESPONDENT
HEARD: September 18, 2025
JUSTICE D. SZANDTNER
REASONS FOR DECISION
Part One – Introduction
1This hearing was about the father’s motion to change the child support terms contained in Justice Spence’s January 9, 2014 order (the existing order) for his 22-year-old daughter (the daughter).
2The respondent and moving party A.M. (the father) seeks to terminate child support as of June 1, 2021 in his motion to change. The trigger event is the daughter’s 18th birthday. He seeks an order that there would be no further child support or special or extraordinary expenses (s. 7 expenses) payable by him from that date forward.
3The applicant and responding party B.R. (the mother) asks the court to dismiss the father’s motion to change. She seeks a continuation of the child support payable for until the parties’ daughter graduates from her teaching program in June of 2027. She proposes a 50/50 proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses going forward.
4The issues for the court to determine are:
a) Does the father’s child support obligation for the daughter end on June 1, 2021?
b) If not, was there a material change in circumstances regarding the father’s income?
c) If so, when is the presumptive start date that child support should be changed?
d) Should the court deviate from the presumptive start date?
e) How much ongoing child support (if any) should the father pay?
Part Two – Background
5The father is 74 years of age. He identifies his employer as REMAX realty where he works as a licensed real estate agent. However, he reports that he depends primarily on the financial support of Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Supplement (OAS).
6The mother runs a bakery in Toronto.
7The daughter, born in May 2004, is the only child of the parties.
8The existing order provides that the father pay child support for the daughter in the amount of $542.00 per month commencing February 1, 2012. The order is based on the payor’s agreed income of $59,584.00. Commencing February 1, 2014, the father is ordered to pay to the mother $635.00 as his ongoing share of the daughter’s special and extraordinary (s.7 expenses.)
9The father issued his motion to change the existing order on November 19, 2024. The mother was served on December 2, 2024.
10The mother filed her response to motion to change on January 17, 2025.
11On June 30, 2025, the parties appeared in court. The motion to change was adjourned to permit a proper evidentiary basis to be filed with the court. The father was ordered to serve and file by August 1, 2025 the following: a sworn affidavit to support his motion to change with exhibits supporting his claims regarding his financial status since the child was 18 years of age; an updated sworn financial statement and a copy of the order he is seeking at the motion.
12On that same date, the mother was ordered to serve and file a responding affidavit by August 22, 2025 setting out the following: details regarding the child’s post-secondary enrolment, reason for daughter’s lack of financial contribution, details regarding the mother’s income from 2021 onwards, an updated sworn financial statement and a copy of the order she is seeking at the motion.
13The records of the Family Responsibility Office show the father was $20,391.66 in arrears of his child support obligation as of May 8, 2025.
Part Three – Entitlement to child support
14The father asks that his child support obligation for the daughter be terminated as of June 1, 2021 (her eighteenth birthday). The father claims that the child is not enrolled in a full time post-secondary program. He seeks a full reimbursement of his payments to the Family Responsibility Office since June 1, 2021.
15The mother submitted that the daughter remained entitled to support after June 1, 2021 because she was enrolled in a full time post-secondary program at York University from September of 2021. She is scheduled to graduate in June of 2027.
16Subsection 37 (2.1) of the Family Law Act (the Act) permits the court to change a support order prospectively or retroactively if there has been a change in circumstances since the last order was made.
17Section 31 of the Act sets out a parent’s obligation to support a child as follows:
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.
(2) The obligation under subsection (1) does not extend to a child who is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental control.
18The onus of establishing the entitlement of an adult child to support is on the party seeking the support. See: Rebenchuk v. Rebenchuk, 2007 MBCA 22.
19In the motion before the court, the mother provided the following evidence of the daughter’s full-time enrolment in post-secondary education:
a. A letter (dated May 22, 2025) from York University confirming the following:
i. The daughter is a student in the Jewish Teacher Education Program at York University.
ii. She was admitted directly from high school to the combined B.A.-B.Ed.
iii. She is currently completing her fourth year of this six-year program of study that confers a double degree and an additional credential: an Advanced Certificate.
b. Her daughter’s York University transcript dated May 17, 2025 for the years enrolled (September 2021 to May 2025)
c. Statements of Account from York University that set out the tuition owed and any bursaries/scholarships received by the daughter. (August 18, 2021, May 18, 2022, July 19, 2022, April 26, 2023, July 18, 2023, June 18, 2024, July 22, 2024, December 20, 2024 and March 18, 2025)
d. Confirmation from York University of the daughter’s full-time enrolment in the 2025-2026 school year.
20The court makes the following findings of fact based on the evidence before it:
a. The daughter has been enrolled as a full-time student in the Jewish Teacher Training program at York University from the fall of 2021 to date.
b. She has been living at home during this period of time with the exception of the 2023 – 2024 school year. She studied in Israel during this year as part of her program.
c. She is on course to graduate in June of 2027 as a qualified Jewish teacher.
21Based on these findings of fact, the father’s obligation to continue to support the daughter continues beyond her 18th birthday. The evidence clearly establishes that she is enrolled in a full-time program of education and continues to reside primarily with her mother.
Part Four – Has there been a material change in circumstances in the father’s income?
22The father’s motion to change is focused on the daughter’s eighteenth birthday. He does not expressly claim a variation of the quantum of child support based on a material change in circumstances in his income.
23However, given that the father focused on his current reduced financial circumstances at the hearing, the court will consider whether there has been a material change in circumstances in the father’s income that would justify a variation of the child support order at this juncture.
24The threshold for a person to establish a material change in circumstances in their income is fairly low. See: Retroactive Support after Colucci, by Professor Rollie Thompson, 40 CFLQ 61.
25Paragraph 1 of section 14 of the Child Support Guidelines (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, 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.
26The father is 74 years of age. He is a licensed real estate agent. However, he reports that he depends primarily on Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Supplement (OAS). In his affidavit he reports that these sources of income provide him with $1918.00 per month.
27The father filed his Notices of Assessment with his sworn financial statement showing the following annual income:
2021
$27,545
2022
$32,047
2023
$47,222
2024
$22,642
28The father’s sworn financial statement sworn November 29, 2024 reports an annual income of $48,369.44. His sworn financial statement sworn July 31, 2025 reflects an annual income of $34,140.00. His financial statements reflect a significant debt owing to the Canada Revenue Agency of $65,000.00.
29The court finds based on the father’s Notices of Assessment and his advanced age that there has been a material change of circumstances in his income since the order was made in 2012.
Part Five – What is the presumptive start date when child support should be changed?
30The Supreme Court of Canada set out the framework for deciding applications to decrease support retroactively at paragraph 113 in Colucci v. Colucci 2021 SCC 24, as follows:
(1) The payor must meet the threshold of establishing a past material change in circumstances. The onus is on the payor to show a material decrease in income that has some degree of continuity, and that is real and not one of choice.
(2) Once a material change in circumstances is established, a presumption arises in favour of retroactively decreasing child support to the date the payor gave the recipient effective notice, up to three years before formal notice of the application to vary. In the decrease context, effective notice requires clear communication of the change in circumstances accompanied by the disclosure of any available documentation necessary to substantiate the change and allow the recipient parent to meaningfully assess the situation.
(3) Where no effective notice is given by the payor parent, child support should generally be varied back to the date of formal notice, or a later date where the payor has delayed making complete disclosure in the course of the proceedings.
(4) The court retains discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors (adapted to the decrease context) guide this exercise of discretion. Those factors are: (i) whether the payor had an understandable reason for the delay in seeking a decrease; (ii) the payor’s conduct; (iii) the child’s circumstances; and (iv) hardship to the payor if support is not decreased (viewed in context of hardship to the child and recipient if support is decreased). The payor’s efforts to pay what they can and to communicate and disclose income information on an ongoing basis will often be a key consideration under the factor of payor conduct.
(5) Finally, once the court has determined that support should be retroactively decreased to a particular date, the decrease must be quantified. The proper amount of support for each year since the date of retroactivity must be calculated in accordance with the Guidelines.
31The court finds that the father has not led any evidence to show that he provided the mother with full financial disclosure prior to commencing the motion to change. Accordingly, the start date for the variation of child support will be the date of formal notice, December 2, 2024. Any variation will commence on January 1, 2025.
Should the court deviate from the presumptive start date?
32The court retains discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors (adapted to the decrease context) guide this exercise of discretion. Those factors are: (i) whether the payor had an understandable reason for the delay in seeking a decrease; (ii) the payor’s conduct; (iii) the child’s circumstances; and (iv) hardship to the payor if support is not decreased (viewed in context of hardship to the child and recipient if support is decreased). The payor’s efforts to pay what they can and to communicate and disclose income information on an ongoing basis will often be a key consideration under the factor of payor conduct.
33Given the informational asymmetry between the parties, a payor’s success in obtaining a retroactive decrease will depend largely on the payor’s financial disclosure and communication. Indeed, effective notice in this context is only “effective” when there has been disclosure of the changed financial circumstances. At the stage of considering the D.B.S. factors, disclosure will once again be a key consideration in assessing whether the payor’s conduct operates to shorten or lengthen the presumptive period of retroactivity. See: Colucci, par. 74.
34In Colucci, the court discussed what constitutes effective notice when a payor seeks a retroactive decrease in income, writing the following at paragraphs 87 and 88:
87 It is not enough for the payor to merely broach the subject of a reduction of support with the recipient. A payor seeking a retroactive decrease has the informational advantage. The presumptive date of retroactivity must encourage payors to communicate with recipients on an ongoing basis and move with reasonable dispatch to formalize a decrease through a court order or change to a pre-existing agreement. The timing and extent of disclosure will be a critical consideration in ascertaining whether and when effective notice has been given and determining whether to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity.
88 In decrease cases, therefore, courts have recognized that effective notice must be accompanied by “reasonable proof” that is sufficient to allow the recipient to “independently assess the situation in a meaningful way and respond appropriately” (Gray, at para. 62, citing Corcios, at para. 55; Templeton, at para. 51). This ensures that effective notice provides a realistic starting point for negotiations and allows the recipient to adjust expectations, make necessary changes to lifestyle and expenditures, and make informed decisions (Hrynkow v. Gosse, 2017 ABQB 675, at para. 13; Hodges v. Hodges, 2018 ABCA 197, at para. 10).
35The father has not made the express claim for a reduction in child support. However, he has identified June 1, 2021 (shortly after the daughter’s 18th birthday) in his pleadings as the date on which his child support should be terminated.
36Accordingly, the court will consider whether or not the evidence supports a deviation from the presumptive start date to change child support of January 1, 2025 (based on his service of the motion to change on the mother) to the father’s claim for a variation on June 1, 2021.
37The father has not provided any evidence of a valid reason for his delay in commencing his motion to change. Given that the age of his daughter and his financial circumstances were known to him he could have brought the motion to change in 2021 but failed to do so.
38The father has not provided annual financial disclosure to the mother. He did not provide her with financial disclosure and ask her to vary the child support amount informally before the motion to change was commenced. The father has declined to provide his home address to the mother. She was wholly unaware of his financial circumstances before service of the within motion to change.
39The mother has taken steps to report the daughter’s enrolment in post-secondary education every year to the Family Responsibility Office.
40The court finds that it is fair in these circumstances to not deviate from the presumptive date of January 1, 2025 for any variation of the child support payable.
Part Six – The father’s income and ongoing child support payable
41The father has filed as evidence his Notices of Assessment for the past four years. His income has ranged from $22,647.00 to $47,222.00 during this period. He continues to be a licensed realtor. However, he is 74 years of age and reports that he is increasingly reliant on CPP and OAS financial supports.
42The court finds that it is reasonable to set the father’s income for 2025 at $34,140.00 per annum commencing January 1, 2025. This is his annual income as set out in his financial statement sworn on July 31, 2025. This generates a child support monthly amount payable of $294.00 per month.
43The court finds that given the father’s reduced income, he can no longer afford to contribute to s.7 expenses as set out in the existing order. Accordingly, the s.7 obligation is terminated effective January 1, 2025.
Part Seven – Conclusion
44A final order shall go on the following terms:
a) The existing order is changed to provide that commencing on January 1, 2025, the father is to pay the mother child support of $294.00 each month. This is the guidelines table amount for one child, based on the annual income of the father of $34,140.00.
b) There is no child support payable by the father with respect to section 7 expenses from January 1, 2025 onwards.
c) The father shall provide the mother with complete copies of his income tax returns, including all schedules and attachments, and his notices of assessment, by June 30 each year commencing in 2026.
d) The mother shall advise both the father and the Family Responsibility Office when the child stops attending full time post-secondary education.
e) A support deduction order shall issue.
45Each party will bear their own costs of this hearing.
Released: October 16, 2025
Justice D. Szandtner