Saldana Contreras v. Bernal, 2026 ONCJ 136

CITATION: Saldana Contreras v. Bernal, 2026 ONCJ 136

COURT FILE NO. D45941/25

THEODORA J. OPREA, for the APPLICANT

and –

HEARD: MARCH 5, 2026

Part One – Introduction

1This trial was about the applicant’s (the father’s) child support obligations for the parties’ 6-year-old daughter (the child). This was the remaining issue in this case. The parenting issues had previously been finalized.

2The applicant (the mother) seeks child support from the respondent (the father), retroactive to January 1, 2019. She asks to impute his annual income at $86,738 for this purpose.

3The father proposed to pay $500 each month for child support to the mother, starting on April 1, 2026. This is the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) table amount for one child, based on an annual income of $54,100. He opposes any support being ordered prior to April 1, 2026.

4The court ordered the parties to serve and file affidavits for their direct evidence. It also directed the father to serve and file an updated sworn financial statement. The mother complied with the court’s direction.

5The father did not comply with the court’s direction. He did not file a trial affidavit or an updated financial statement. The court permitted him to give his direct evidence orally. It also relied on the financial statement and notices of assessment he had previously filed.

6The parties cross-examined each other and made submissions. The mother was assisted by a Spanish interpreter.

7The issues for the court to determine are as follows:

a) What is the presumptive start date for child support? In determining this date, the court must determine the dates of formal notice and effective notice of the mother’s claim for support.

b) Should the court depart from the presumptive start date, and if so, when should support start?

c) How much child support should the father pay the mother for each year he is required to pay her support? What, if any, income should be imputed to him in any year?

d) What amount of support credits, if any, should the father receive?

e) How should any child support arrears be paid?

Part Two – Brief background facts

8The mother is 25 years old. She was born in Mexico. She came to Canada in 2017. She has applied for permanent residency in Canada. She lives with the child.

9The father is 44 years old. He came to Canada in 2004 from Columbia. He is a Canadian citizen. He lives with his mother. The father runs a restoration business dealing with emergency restoration jobs for fire and water damage called JGB Group Restorations (JGB).

10The parties never cohabited. They started a relationship in 2018. It ended in April 2019.

11The child has always lived with the mother. The father had minimal contact with the child from 2022 until this case started in 2025.

12The mother issued this application for parenting and support orders on March 17, 2025. The father’s Answer/Claim is dated June 4, 2025. He was represented by counsel at that time.

13On July 4, 2025, the parties consented to temporary orders for parenting, child support and financial disclosure. The father was ordered to pay child support of $313 each month, starting on July 1, 2025, based on an imputed annual income of $35,776.¹ He was ordered to provide specified financial disclosure to the mother within 30 days.

14The father has complied with the temporary child support order.

15On August 26, 2025, the parties consented to final orders regarding decision-making responsibility and incidents of decision-making responsibility. The mother has primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the child. The parties also agreed to a temporary order increasing the father’s parenting time with the child. The parties agreed that the father would have one final 30-day extension to provide the financial disclosure ordered on July 4, 2025.

16On October 15, 2025, the parties consented to final orders regarding the father’s parenting time with the child.

17On December 1, 2025, the court conducted a trial management conference and gave directions for this trial.

Part Three – Credibility and reliability of the parties

18The court had some difficulties with the credibility and reliability of the mother’s evidence as follows:

a) She struggled answering questions directly.

b) She didn’t exhibit a good memory of events.

c) She gave inconsistent evidence about the father’s financial contributions after January 1, 2019. She claimed he never paid her rent and later changed her evidence to say he paid it on a few occasions. She said he made no financial contributions for the child and later acknowledged that he sporadically paid for food, diapers and clothing.

d) She did not mention any financial contribution from the father in her trial affidavit.

19The court’s concerns about the credibility and reliability of the mother paled in comparison with its concerns about the credibility and reliability of the father’s evidence. Those concerns included:²

a) He breached multiple court orders to provide financial disclosure. He failed to provide his complete income tax returns with all schedules and attachments for the last three years, his most recent paystub, copies of his credit card statements for the past three years, and a copy of any application made in the last three years for a loan, line of credit, credit card or mortgage. He blamed his previous lawyer for this non-disclosure even though he was ordered to provide it after his lawyer went off the record.

b) He failed to provide an updated financial statement as ordered by the court. He provided no documentary evidence of his 2025 and 2026 income.

c) He failed to provide a trial affidavit, as ordered by the court.

d) He falsely claimed that his mother is the sole owner of JGB. Government documentation shows he is also an owner.

e) He falsely claimed he is a mere employee of JGB. It became apparent in his cross-examination that he is the person operating this business. His mother is 74 years old and does not speak English.

f) He provided none of JGB’s corporate tax returns, notices of assessments or financial statements.

g) He has been commingling his finances with his mother’s.

h) He is running his personal expenses through JGB.

i) He has misrepresented his annual income.

j) He admitted misrepresenting his qualifications and work experience in his resume and in JGB’s social media postings.

k) When confronted with multiple contradictions between his sworn financial statement and his oral testimony, he took no accountability and blamed his previous lawyer.

20Where their evidence conflicted, the court generally preferred the mother’s evidence over the father’s evidence.

Part Four – Start date for child support

4.1 Legal considerations

21The mother filed her application seeking child support on March 17, 2025. Support from that date is prospective support and is presumptively payable. See: Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.); Balian v. Balian, 2025 ONSC 4128. The support claimed by the mother before that date requires a retroactive support analysis.

22The court’s authority to make retroactive support orders is contained in clause 34 (1) (f) of the Family Law Act. This clause reads as follows:

Powers of court

(1) In an application under section 33, the court may make an interim or final order,

…….(f) requiring that support be paid in respect of any period before the date of the order;

23In Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 (Colucci), the court set out the framework that should be applied for applications to retroactively increase support in a court order or an agreement at paragraph 114. This framework can be summarized as follows:

a) Step One – The recipient must meet the threshold of establishing a past material change in circumstances. While the onus is on the recipient to show a material increase in income, any failure by the payor to disclose relevant financial information allows the court to impute income, strike pleadings, draw adverse inferences, and award costs. There is no need for the recipient to make multiple court applications for disclosure before a court has these powers.

b) Step Two – Determine the presumptive start date for support to change. This is the date the recipient gave the payor effective notice of the request for an increase, up to three years before formal notice of the application to vary. In the increase context, because of informational asymmetry, effective notice requires only that the recipient broached the subject of an increase with the payor. Where the recipient parent gives no effective notice, child support should generally be increased back to the date of formal notice.

c) Step Three – Determine if the court should depart from the presumptive start date. The court retains discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors³ continue to guide this exercise of discretion, as described in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24.

d) Step Four – Quantify the support payable for each year since the date of retroactivity selected, in accordance with the guidelines.

24This framework in Colucci addressed a request to retroactively increase the support contained in an order or an agreement. Courts have found that this framework should also be applied, with necessary modifications, for an original request for retroactive support. The court just skips Step One above in the framework. See: L.S. v. M.A.F., 2021 ONCJ 554; M.A. v. M.E., 2021 ONCJ 555; A.E. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 8189; M.K. v. K.M. , 2022 ONCJ 424.

25Retroactive child support simply holds payors to their existing (and unfulfilled) support obligations. See: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, at par. 25.

26Retroactive child support is a debt; by default, there is no reason why it should not be awarded unless there are strong reasons not to do so. See: Michel – par. 132.

27Retroactive awards are not exceptional. They can always be avoided by proper payment. See: D.B.S.- par. 97.

28In Michel, 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.

4.2 What is the presumptive start date to change support?

29The first step in an original application for retroactive support using the Colucci framework is to determine the presumptive start date for support. To determine this, the court must look at when effective notice and formal notice were given by the mother to the father.

30The mother was not specific about when she first sought an increase in financial contributions by the father. She thought it was sometime in either 2021 or 2022. The father was also unsure. He testified that the mother was always asking him for money. The court will set the date of effective notice as January 1, 2022.

31The date of formal notice in this case was the date the application was served on the father. That was on March 19, 2025. Colucci sets out that the presumptive start date for support cannot be more than three years from the date of formal notice. Here, the mother gave effective notice to the father more than three years before March 19, 2025. Accordingly, the presumptive start date for support is March 19, 2022.

4.3 Should the court depart from the presumptive start date?

32The second step in the Colucci framework is to determine if the court should depart from the presumptive start date. Both parties ask to depart from it. The mother seeks a start date of January 1, 2019. The father wants support to start on April 1, 2026.

33The court will review the legal considerations and evidence regarding delay, conduct, the circumstances of the child and hardship below.

4.3.1 Reasons for delay

34In considering delay, courts should look at whether the reason for delay is understandable, not whether there was a reasonable excuse for the delay. The latter consideration works to implicitly attribute blame onto parents who delay applications for child support. See: Michel, par. 121.

35A delay, in itself, is not inherently unreasonable and the mere fact of a delay does not prejudice an application, as not all factors need to be present for a retroactive award to be granted. See: Michel, par. 113.

36Rather, a delay will be prejudicial only if it is deemed to be unreasonable, taking into account a generous appreciation of the social context in which the claimant’s decision to seek child support was made. See: Michel, par. 86.

37In Michel, the court, at paragraph 86, set out what might be understandable reasons for delay in a support recipient coming to court as follows:

a) Fear of reprisal/violence from the other parent.

b) Prohibitive costs of litigation or fear of protracted litigation.

c) Lack of information or misinformation over the payor parent’s income.

d) Fear of counter-application for custody.

e) The payor leaving the jurisdiction or the recipient unable to contact the payor parent.

f) Illness/disability of a child or the custodian.

g) Lack of emotional means.

h) Wanting the child and the payor to maintain a positive relationship or avoid the child’s involvement.

i) Ongoing discussions in view of reconciliation, settlement negotiations or mediation.

j) The deliberate delay of the application or the trial by the payor.

38The mother asks the court to select January 1, 2019 as the start date for support. However, she testified that the parties did not end their relationship until April 2019.

39The mother provided understandable reasons for her delay in coming to court after April 1, 2019, including:

a) She had precarious immigration status. The court accepts her evidence that she was afraid to come to court because the father and his mother threatened her that they would call immigration authorities on her if she started a court proceeding.

b) She was afraid if she started a court proceeding that the father would try to obtain primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the child. The court accepts her evidence that the father and his mother threatened her that they would do this and she would end up paying him child support.

c) She lacked the emotional resources to engage with the father. She was afraid he would involve her in protracted litigation. Her fears were borne out. The father made claims for joint decision-making responsibility and equal parenting time, despite having had little involvement with the child for three years. He eventually settled those issues. He was highly resistant to her support claims, and protracted the proceedings with his failure to provide her with timely or meaningful financial disclosure.

d) The father never provided her with meaningful financial disclosure to permit her to assess his child support obligations.

4.3.2 Blameworthy conduct

40Courts should apply an expansive definition of blameworthy conduct. See: D.B.S., par. 106.

41Blameworthy conduct is anything that privileges the payor parent’s own interests over his or her children’s right to an appropriate amount of support. See: D.B.S., par. 106.

42If the payor has failed to disclose a material increase in income, that failure qualifies as blameworthy conduct and the date of retroactivity will generally be the date of the increase in income. See: Colucci, par. 114.

43The failure of a payor to disclose actual income, a fact within the knowledge of the payor, is blameworthy conduct that eliminates any need to protect the payor’s interest in certainty. See: Michel, par. 34.

44The father engaged in blameworthy conduct as follows:

a) He stopped making any financial contributions for the child early in 2022. He blamed this on the mother having another relationship and not knowing where she was living. His attitude was that if the mother was living with another man, that man should be supporting the child. He did not start paying support again until this case started.

b) He did not provide the mother with any income information until this case started.

c) He breached court orders to provide financial disclosure.

d) He misrepresented his ownership interest and roles in JGB. He did not include this interest in his financial statement.

e) He did not disclose his line of credit in his financial statement.

f) He misrepresented his income in this case.

g) The mother has never collected the Canada Child Benefit for the child. She says the father collected it. He denied this.⁴ However, he failed to provide his income tax returns, which would have informed the court if he was claiming the child as a dependant. A negative inference is drawn against him for his failure to do so.

h) The mother testified that the father told her he would only pay her child support if she performed sexual favours for him. The father denied this. The court found the mother more credible than the father.

i) There was a significant power imbalance between the parties, due to their age difference, the mother’s precarious immigration status and the mother’s economic vulnerability. The father took advantage of this.

45The mother acknowledged that the father paid portions of her rent a few times in 2019. Her memory was poor – it might have been for longer, as claimed by the father. He also paid for food, clothing and groceries for the child up until early 2022.

46The court also considered that the father’s ability to work was impaired by the pandemic in 2020. The court finds that his financial contributions for the child in 2019 and 2020 did not rise to the level of blameworthy conduct.

4.3.3 Circumstances of the child

47There are plenty of circumstances where a parent will absorb the hardship that accompanies a dearth of child support to prioritize their child’s well-being. There is absolutely no principled reason why this parent should receive any less support as a result of choices that protect the child (Michel - par. 123).

48The mother has relied on the assistance of third parties, such as her parents, to meet the child’s basic needs.

4.3.4 Hardship

49If there is the potential for hardship to the payor, but there is also blameworthy conduct which precipitated or exacerbated the delay, it may be open to the courts to disregard the presence of hardship. In all cases, hardship may be addressed by the form of payment. See: Michel, par. 124.

50While the focus is on hardship to the payor, that hardship can only be assessed after taking into account the hardship which would be caused to the child and the recipient parent from not ordering the payment of sums owing but unpaid. See: Michel, par. 125.

51The father provided no reliable evidence that a retroactive support order would cause him hardship that cannot be addressed through a monthly payment order.

52The mother will suffer hardship if she does not receive retroactive support.

4.3.5 The start date for support

53The court finds it is fair in these circumstances to depart from the presumptive start date. Child support will start on January 1, 2021.

Part Five – Quantification of support

54The third and final step in the Colucci analysis is to quantify the proper amount of support for each year since the start date of retroactivity, calculated in accordance with the guidelines.

5.1 The parties’ positions

5.1.1 The mother

55The mother asks to impute the father’s annual income at $86,736, for each year of this analysis. She asks the court to draw an adverse inference against the father due to his failure to provide complete and accurate financial disclosure.

56The mother filed information from the Government of Canada Job Bank setting out that a Disaster Restoration Technician in Ontario earns at the median $28 per hour and at the high end, $41.70 per hour. She calculated the father’s income by taking the high end and multiplying it by 52 weeks.

5.1.2 The father

57The father proposed to pay child support of $500 each month, starting on April 1, 2026. He did not connect this proposal to any income figure. He submitted this amount was “more than enough” for the mother to support the child. He asked the court to not make any changes to the temporary order that started on July 1, 2025. Lastly, he asked that no child support be ordered prior to July 1, 2025.

58The father testified that he has a high school education, with no further upgrading. He said his first job when he came to Canada in 2004 was as a cleaner. He eventually became a supervisor for that company. He then worked as a superintendant. In 2010, he worked as a packer at a factory. He next worked at an employment agency for three years. In 2016, he started working at a restoration company. He worked there for 3 years. He said he earned about $1,000 each week. He was unsure if this was gross income or net of deductions. He said that he worked at different jobs in 2019 and 2020. He provided no income information for those years.

59The father said that his mother started JGB in 2021. The business is incorporated. He said she is the sole owner of JGB, he is an employee and he cannot make decisions about the business. JGB employs two other people. The business is mainly hired by insurance companies to do restoration work for fire and water damage.

60The father deposed that his annual notices of assessment reflect his actual annual income. His 2022 to 2024 notices of assessment set out the following annual income:

2022 – $17,806

2023 – $29,986

2024 – $29,534

61The father said that he earns an annual salary of $30,000 from JGB. He said that he earned that amount in 2025 and will earn that amount in 2026.

62The father said his salary is low, and he is paid less than JGB’s other two employees because he has a lower body injury that prevents him from doing heavy lifting.

5.2 Legal considerations for imputation of income

63The court may impute income to a party pursuant to section 19 of the guidelines.

64The case law for imputation of income sets out the following:

a) Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed. See: Drygala v. Pauli, [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. C.A.).

b) The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made. See: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552. (Ont. C.A.). However, in Graham v. Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260, the court inferred that the failure of the payor to properly disclose would mitigate the obligation of the recipient to provide an evidentiary basis to impute income.

c) Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking. See: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719.

d) A 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] O.J. No. 1660, (Ont. Fam. Ct.). 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; Yocheva v. Hristov, 2019 ONSC 1007; Poulin v. Poulin, 2017 ONSC 64.

e) The 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, 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 expense to understand it. See: Reyes v. Rollo (SCJ).

f) The court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn income in light of such factors as employment history, age, education, skills, health, available employment opportunities and the standard of living enjoyed during the parties’ relationship. The court looks at the amount of income the party could earn if he or she worked to capacity. See: Lawson v. Lawson (ONCA).

g) The court will usually draw an adverse inference against a party for his or her failure to comply with their disclosure obligations as provided for in section 21 of the guidelines and impute income. See: Smith v. Pellegrini, [2008] O.J. No. 3616, (Ont. S.C.); Maimone v. Maimone, [2009] O.J. No. 2140, (Ont. S.C.).

h) The payor must prove that any medical excuse for being underemployed is reasonable. See: Rilli v. Rilli, [2006] O.J. No. 4142 (SCJ.).

i) 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] O.J. No. 190 (SCJ) and Stoangi v. Petersen, [2006] O.J. No. 2902 (SCJ).

5.3 Analysis

65The father’s evidence about his income was not credible. The court rejects it in its entirety.

66The mother produced the company’s registration information from the Government of Canada. The father’s statement that he had no ownership interests in JGB was false. He is shown as a co-owner of JGB.

67The father’s evidence that he is a mere employee of JGB and cannot make decisions about the business was false. On cross-examination, it was apparent he runs this business. His mother is 74 years old and does not speak English. He admitted that customers contact him to arrange jobs. He testified, “the companies know me, they call me, it is word of mouth”. He is the person who organizes and does the jobs.

68The father represents on social media that JGB is his business. He also represents it as a thriving business. On JGB’s Linkedin page he writes:

With 15-plus years of dedicated experience in this sector, I have established a thriving company focused on helping individuals and businesses recover from unexpected disasters.

At JGB Group, we specialize in offering 24/7 emergency response services for both residential and commercial properties. Our expertise spans a range of restoration needs, including fire damage, water damage, mold remediation and storm damage.

Key Highlights:

Led a skilled team that has successfully completed over 900 emergency restoration projects.
Trusted partner for leading insurance companies.
Multiple certifications to ensure the quality of our job.

69The father also represents on JGB’s Linkedin page that he has been the manager of JGB for close to 20 years.

70The JGB Linkedin and Facebook pages both give the father’s personal phone number as the contact number for the business.

71JGB are also the initials of the father’s name.

72When confronted with this evidence, the father claimed he was not telling the truth in JGB’s social media postings.

73The father failed to provide any meaningful evidence about JGB’s financial affairs. He did not provide any corporate income tax returns, notices of assessment or financial statements, as required by the guidelines and the Family Law Rules.

74The father also failed to provide his complete income tax returns, his credit card statements and any mortgage, line of credit or credit card applications, as required by court orders.

75An adverse inference is drawn against the father for his failure to provide any meaningful financial evidence.

76The evidence established that the father is running personal expenses through JGB. The business pays all the expenses for a 2024 Chevrolet Blazer electric vehicle he drives for business and personal use. The business also pays for his cell phone expenses.

77It became apparent that the father’s family’s financial affairs are commingled with JGB’s operations. The father described how he uses his personal line of credit to pay JGB’s expenses. He said that sometimes his brother pays these expenses on his credit card and sometimes his mother pays them on her credit card. The father provided no evidence to untangle these payments.

78The court also rejects the father’s evidence that his ability to earn income is impaired due to medical reasons. He raised this issue for the first time at trial. He provided no supporting medical evidence or evidence of any treatment for his alleged injury. Given his poor credibility, it was essential for him to produce such evidence for the court to seriously consider his injury as a basis to reduce the assessment of his income.

79It is difficult to assess what income the father is earning, given his efforts to conceal it from the mother and the court.

80The father’s resume, filed at trial, includes:

a) Supervisor with 12 years of experience in water, fire, damage.

b) Supervisor of projects with more than 50 people.

c) Manager of employees, including their hours and pay.

d) Checks jobs from start to finish.

e) Worker training.

f) Water restoration technician.

g) Applied structural drying.

h) Carpet cleaning technician.

i) Odor control technician.

j) Microbial remediation.

k) Bachelor’s in Business (2003).

81The father claimed that he exaggerated his qualifications in his resume.

82The evidence provided by the mother from the Government of Canada Job Bank website (Job Bank) regarding pay ranges for Disaster Restoration Technicians in Ontario is presumptively admissible under section 25 of the Ontario Evidence Act, as it is a public document.⁵ It is also presumptively admissible because it falls within the public records hearsay exception. This common law hearsay exception applies to publications from all levels of government. See: Lewis v. Willis, 2022 ONCJ 421; V.S.B. v. B.L.O., 2022 ONCJ 506; NG v. AMA, 2025 ONCJ 280

83In Jaha v. Mengele, 2025 ONSC 4182, the court admitted wage surveys and wrote that it would be unrealistic to expect parties to call expert evidence on these points in a case that involves less than $100,000.

84In Rodrigues v. De Sousa, 2008 ONCJ 807, this court permitted the introduction of reports from Ontario Job Futures and Statistics Canada as evidence of income levels for a payor in the insurance industry. However, it expressed the need to exercise considerable caution in how much weight the court could attach to such documents as they were unsworn third-party statements that could not be tested by cross-examination. In the specific circumstances of the payor in Rodrigues v. De Sousa, the court did not apply the wage range set out in the government publications.

85The mother seeks to impute the father’s income at the highest rate for a Disaster Restoration Technician in Ontario as set out by the Job Bank. This is too high. The father only has a high school education, with no upgrading. Despite his representations of having close to 20 years experience in the field in the JGB social media pages, he has closer to ten years of experience in this field. That said, the father appears to be operating an active and successful business.

86The father was asked why he didn’t apply for a better paying job given his work experience. He answered he has made no attempts to look elsewhere because, “I already have an employer”. This informed the court that the father is likely earning an income level similar to what he would be earning if he applied for employment in his field elsewhere.

87The court recognizes that JGB was a new business in 2021, starting up in the pandemic. The court will assess the father’s income at $50,000 for 2021 and 2022. This is close to the income he said he was earning in 2019 as an employee for another restoration company.

88The court will assess increasing annual income to the father starting in 2023. JGB was establishing itself and the pandemic was easing. The court will assess the father’s annual income at $60,000 for 2023 and 2024 and $65,000 starting on January 1, 2025.

89The analysis of the father’s income does not end there. It is appropriate in these circumstances to gross up his income, as he is declaring and paying tax on substantially less income than he is actually earning. This is done to ensure consistency of treatment where a party is found to have arranged his affairs to pay less tax on income. See: Sarafinchin v. Sarafinchin, [2000] O.J. No. 2855 (Ont. S.C.); Prillo v. Homer, 2023 ONCJ 8.

90Software calculations show that the father’s grossed-up income for each year, and the corresponding monthly guidelines table payments, starting in 2021, have been as follows:⁶

2021

$58,154

$538 per month⁷

2022

$62,648

$582 per month

2023

$72,458

$677 per month

2024

$72,746

$679 per month

2025

$79,488

$739 per month

2026

$79,262

$736 per month

Part Six – Support credits

6.1 Positions of the parties

91The father claims that he paid the mother between $3,000 and $4,000 for her rent, cellphone and other expenses for the child in both 2021 and 2022. He said he stopped making payments in 2023 because she stopped communicating with him (earlier in his evidence he claimed the mother stopped communicating with him in 2022). He claimed he always helped the mother “when she is without a person”. The father seeks credits for these alleged payments.

92The mother testified that the father paid nothing to her after 2019, until she started this case. She said they stopped communicating in early 2022. She opposes the father receiving any support credits, other than the support he paid pursuant to the July 4, 2025 temporary court order.

6.2 Legal considerations

93The court has the discretion to provide some credit to the father for payments made on behalf of the child. For instance, courts will sometimes credit payors if they buy diapers, clothing and other supplies for their children that assist the support recipient to support them. These do not have to be section 7 expenses. See: Hunchak v. Anton, 2026 SKCA 44; Thomas v. Charles, 2024 ONCJ 87; Swiderski v. Dussault, 2009 BCCA 461

94Courts will be more reluctant to exercise their discretion in a payor’s favour when they have engaged in blameworthy behaviour. In Lewis v. Lynch, 2024 ONCJ 279.

95In Wensel v. Rhodes, 2012 BCCA 245, the Court of Appeal declined to give credit for direct payments made by a payor for the following reasons:

a) The custodial parent should be the one to make decisions about the child’s expenditures.

b) A private unilateral scheme operated by the payor can be a method of control that undermines the authority of the custodial parent.

c) The payor is in sole possession of the information about direct payments. Unless the payor is forthcoming about such payments in a timely way, the payee is at the mercy of the payor’s record keeping.

d) The payor may choose to make additional payments for recreational or other activities which present them in a more positive light to the children and others, whereas the custodial parent may find themselves funding more mundane living expenses.

96The creation of unilateral support regimes has been criticized by several courts. See for example: Greene v. Greene (2010), 92 R.F.L. (6th) 52 (BCCA); Cameron v. Cameron, 2023 ABKB 52.

6.3 Analysis

97The analysis of this issue is complicated by the fact that neither party was credible regarding the father’s financial contributions on behalf of the child prior to 2023.

98The onus is on the father to show that he made payments on behalf of the child. He provided no documentation to support his claims.

99The mother acknowledged the father paid her rent a few times. She has likely understated this contribution. However, the court finds that the father stopped making those payments by the end of 2020. They were taken into consideration in determining the start date for support.

100The court finds that the father was still buying items for the child in 2021. This likely stopped early in 2022, when the relationship between the parties soured and they stopped communicating with each other. The court finds that the father exaggerated his contributions for the child in 2021 and 2022. The court will give him a support credit of $1,500 for the period from January 1, 2021 until the start of this case.

101The father will also be credited with $2,817 for support paid pursuant to the temporary order dated July 4, 2025 (9 months x $313).

102The father’s credits total $4,317 ($1,500 + $2,817).

Part Seven – Calculation and payment of Arrears

103Support has accrued pursuant to this order as follows:

2021

$538 x 12 months =

$6,456

2022

$582 x 12 months =

$6,984

2023

$677 x 12 months =

$8,124

2024

$679 x 12 months =

$8,148

2025

$739 x 12 months =

$8,868

2026

$736 x 3 months =

$2,208

Total:

$40,788

104The father is credited with payments of $4,317, leaving a support balance owing of $36,471.

105The court will permit the father to pay the support arrears at $500 each month. This will give him over six years to pay them. However, he must maintain his ongoing child support payments and these arrears payments in good standing if he wishes to continue to receive this indulgence. If he fails to do so, the entire amount of arrears owing at the time of default shall immediately become due and payable.

Part Eight – Conclusion

106A final order shall go on the following terms:

a) The father owes the mother $36,471 for child support arrears, as calculated in this decision.

b) The father may pay the arrears at $500 each month, starting on April 1, 2026. However, if he is more than 30 days late in making any arrears payment or ongoing support payment, the entire amount of arrears owing at the time of default shall immediately become due and payable.

c) The father shall pay the mother ongoing child support of $736 each month, starting on April 1, 2026. This is the guidelines table amount for one child, based on his imputed annual income of $79,262.

d) The father shall provide the mother with his complete income tax returns and notices of assessment and the complete income tax returns, notices of assessment and financial statements from JGB by June 30th each year.

e) Nothing in this order precludes the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from collecting arrears from any government source (such as income tax or HST returns), inheritance, or lottery or prize winnings.

f) A support deduction order will issue.

107The mother was the successful party. If she seeks her costs, she shall serve and file written costs submissions by March 26, 2026. The father will then have until April 9, 2026 to serve and file his written response. The submissions shall be no more than 3 pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle.

Released: March 12, 2026

Justice Stanley B. Sherr

Whether the recipient spouse has provided a reasonable excuse for his or her delay in applying for support.
The conduct of the payor parent.
The circumstances of the child.
The hardship that the retroactive award may entail.

Copies of statutes, etc.

Copies of statutes, official gazettes, ordinances, regulations, proclamations, journals, orders, appointments to office, notices thereof and other public documents purporting to be published by or under the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or of the Imperial Government or by or under the authority of the government or of any legislative body of any dominion, commonwealth, state, province, colony, territory or possession within His Majesty’s dominions, shall be admitted in evidence to prove the contents thereof.

Footnotes

This was the annual minimum wage income at the time. The order was made without prejudice and was subject to adjustment at trial.
Further details of several of these concerns will be provided later in this decision.
See: D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; Laura Jean W. v. Tracy Alfred R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37. These factors are:
The father also testified that he had told the mother he wanted these benefits held in trust for the child, and not to be used by her for current expenses.
Section 25 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:
The software calculations are attached to this decision.
The father did not file his 2021 notice of assessment. The court worked on the assumption that he declared close to $30,000 of income, as he did, starting in 2023. This may be a generous assumption for the father, given the lower income he declared in 2022.