ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: King v. Wilson, 2026 ONCJ 271
DATE: 2026-05-11
COURT FILE No.: 23-563 Brampton
BETWEEN:
Leah King
Applicant
— AND —
Jermaine Wilson
Respondent
Before Justice Joanne Beasley
Heard on April 15,16,17 and 22, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on May 11, 2026
Mervyn White.................................................................................. counsel for the applicant
Jermaine Wilson……………………….................................................... on his own behalf
Beasley, J.:
[1] The parties were married on May 18, 2013 and separated on September 15, 2022. They have two children John Wilson born November 7, 2016 and Nathan Wilson born September 4, 2019. The children have resided with Ms. King since separation..
[2] To their credit, the parties were able to resolve the parenting arrangements on a final basis in June of 2025. The partial minutes of settlement provided for final decision-making to Ms. King after notice to Mr. Wilson, both parents to have access to the children’s information, and primary care to Ms. King with Saturday parenting time for Mr. Wilson.
[3] The financial issues remained for trial. The issues for trial are:
(1) What is Mr. Wilson’s income for child support purposes?
(2) What is the start date for child support?
(3) What child support should have been paid by Mr. Wilson?
(4) What is Mr. Wilson’s section 7 contribution?
(5) What spousal support, if any, should Mr. Wilson pay to Ms. King?
Mother’s Position
[4] Ms. King asks that income be imputed to Mr. Wilson commiserate with a union wage for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year, $117,000.
[5] Her position is that Mr. Wilson owes $49,913.26 in arrears. She calculates the arrears at $3,062.31 for 2022, $15,776.67 for 2023, $14,093.88 for 2024, $12,217.29 for 2025, $4,762.11 for January to April 2026 for a total of $49,913.26 as follows:
| Year | Mr. Wilson’s income | Ms. King’s income | Child support | Midrange spousal | Section 7 expenses | payments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| October-December 2022 | 105,393 (87%) | 5,322 (13%) | 1,538 | 1,052 | 1292 of 1485 | 6,000 |
| 2023 | 108,408 (86%) | 7,140 (14%) | 1,574 | 1,006 | 2,816 of 3275 | 18000 |
| 2024 | 111,425 (65%) | 60,928 (35%) | 1,611 | 0 | 4,261 of 6,566 | 9,500 |
| 2025 | 114,441 (65%) | 60,298 (35%) | 1,700 | 0 | 3217 of 4949 | 11400 |
| 2026 | 117,457 (66 %) | 60,928 (34%) | 1,738 | 0 | 1,610 of 2,439 |
[6] Ms. King calculates the support and section 7 obligation annually and deducts Mr. Wilson’s payments. There is no distinction made in the application of payments to spousal or child support obligations
[7] Ms. King seeks ongoing child support of $1,738 per month based on an imputed income of $117,457 for 2026 and 66% of section 7 expenses. The section 7 expenses for the first 4 months of 2026 total $2,439.57. Ms. King seeks contribution of 66%, being $1,610.11. Mr. Wilson has been paying $950 per month. The totals above include the first 4 months of 2026.
[8] The parties married in 2013, and after 3 years, their first child, John, was born in 2016 and Nathan was born in 2019. Ms. King had worked at Scotiabank as a financial advisor from 2005-2019 after completing a 3-year Advanced Diploma from George Brown College. Once the children were born, Ms. King was a stay-at-home mom.
[9] From 2011 forward, Mr. Wilson worked in the fire suppression industry He is qualified as a fire alarm technician and eventually qualified as a fire sprinkler technician.
[10] Ms. King asks that Mr. Wilson’s income be imputed to a level commiserate with a union employee in his field for child support purposes.
[11] In 2019, Mr. Wilson established a corporation, Chrome Fire Protection, of which he is the 100% sole shareholder. In 2020, during COVID, he was laid off from his union job and focused on working through his company.
[12] Ms. King seeks spousal support for the first two years after separation. By 2024, she had returned to employment, and the Divorcemate calculations provide for a nil spousal support range based on the comparative incomes of the parents and the priority of child support obligations.
[13] In 2019, Mr. Wilson was working in a unionized position earning just over $46 an hour. A letter from his union dated March 26, 2026 provided the current hourly rate to be $56 per hour. Ms. King asks that $56 per hour for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year be used to impute an income of $ 117,000.
[14] Mr. Wilson’s highest income from union jobs was in 2019 when he earned just over $60,000, $50,000 from employment, $8,670 from employment insurance and the balance through his company. His hourly rate was $46 per hour. In 2018, Mr. Wilson’s income was $63,981 from all sources. Mr. Wilson’s reported incomes through his company are $6,684 for 2022, $69,241 for 2023 and $25,880 for 2024. Ms. King asserts that the reported incomes are not an accurate representation of Mr. Wilson’s income when compared to his expenses, travel and the deduction of personal expenses from the corporate income.
[15] In a 2023 financial statement, Mr. Wilson indicated his previous year’s income was $48,000. In February of 2024, Justice Clay made a temporary child support order of $750 per month and $250 per month contribution towards section 7 expenses based on the $48,000 declared income. Mr. Wilson has been making the payments on the temporary order. On the date of trial, there were arrears of $627.50.
[16] Ms. King challenges the financial records of Mr. Wilson and asserts that they should not be relied upon in determining his income for child support purposes. She asks the Court to impute an income based on the unionized hourly rate available to Mr. Wilson, in comparison to the gross billings of his business. She questions the expenses deducted in calculating his income, including personal benefit expenses. Ms. King also questions Mr. Wilson’s declared income as he has used a loan obtained through the business for personal use which is being repaid by the company and has not been declared as income.
[17] Ms. King’s evidence included a report from Ms. Griffiths of Vocational Alternatives Inc. This report provides a vocational opinion on the earning capacity of Mr. Wilson as a full‑time fire sprinkler technician. The assessment was based on a document review only and no interview or testing was completed. Her written report opined that full-time work for a person with Mr. Wilson’s credentials could result in an income with a range from $89,731 to $160,409. When Ms. Griffiths was shown, during her evidence, a letter from Mr. Wilson’s Union dated March 26, 2026 indicating at hourly rate of $56.47 per hour, she adjusted her opinion to a maximum of $117,000.
Father’s Position
[18] Mr. Wilson asks that his income as filed with Canada Revenue be his income for child support purposes. He did provide an expert opinion with respect to his 2022 and 2023 income higher than his line 150 income. Mr. Wilson asserts that his 2025 income of $ 73,000 is the best indicator of his current income.
[19] Mr. Wilson emphasized his commitment to supporting his family during the marriage and since separation. For the first year of the separation, he provided $2,300 per month to cover rent and other expenses: internet, car insurance, and groceries.
[20] In September of 2023, his payments stopped and the court action was started in October 2023. The temporary Order of February 2024 started child support as of March 1, 2024.
[21] Mr. Wilson takes issue with the section 7 expenses from a cost perspective and from a scheduling perspective for the children. He asserts that some expenses are not reasonable or necessary. He also takes issue with some of the paperwork to establish the section 7 expenses.
[22] Mr. Wilson opposes Ms. King’s spousal support claim. He acknowledges that once they had children, Ms. King did not work on a full-time basis outside the home. He asserts that she continued to earn income from her skin and hair business, Oasis Kare Products, and from rental property in the United States through a company owned with her brother.
What is Mr. Wilson’s income for child support purposes?
[23] I find that Mr. Wilson’s income for support purposes is imputed to be:
(1) For 2022, $66,911
(2) For 2023, $68,536
(3) For 2024, $80,100
(4) For 2025, $82,800
(5) For 2026, $83,400
(6) For 2024, $80,100
[24] His reported incomes are:
(1) 2019, $61,999 ($50,011 employment income, $8,670 Employment Insurance Benefits with balance through company)
(2) 2020, $41,838 (comprised of employment income and Employment Insurance benefits)
(3) 2021, $23,574 (mainly from Employment Insurance benefits)
(4) 2022, $6,884 (through company)
(5) 2023, $69,241 (through company)
(6) 2024, $25,880 (through company)
(7) 2025, $73,783 (through company)
[25] Mr. Wilson’s testimony was that he was disappointed and frustrated when he was laid off in 2020. He felt that other workers with less qualifications and less experience were not laid off. The uncertainty of his employment situation led him to focus on the business to support the family. This decision was made while the family was intact.
[26] Mr. Wilson’s income tax returns show considerable reliance on Employment Insurance in 2019 through 2021. Mr. Wilson admitted that in the first few years of the business, while he was busy, he did not quote jobs appropriately and lost money or broke even on some jobs. He had failed to increase his prices when his costs went up as other competitors did.
[27] He asserts that he has improved his business management skills over time and obtained better accounting advice.
[28] Mr. Daniel Craig, a Chartered Professional Accountant, provided expert opinion with respect to Mr. Wilson’s 2022 and 2023 income for child support purposes. Mr. Craig adjusted for personal benefit expenses that had been deducted by the company. He provided three scenarios for the 2022 and 2023 income ranging from a total of $41,000 to $61,000 for the 2 years. Mr. Craig presented his evidence fairly. He was a knowledgeable and impressive witness.
[29] Mr. Wilson took exception to the income opinion provided by Ms. Griffiths on the basis of his experience as a fire alarm technician and as a fire sprinkler technician. He also indicated that basing his potential income on 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year was unreasonable given the lay off/Employment Insurance time periods.
[30] Mr. Wilson took issue with the work experience of 14 years as a fire sprinkler technician. His evidence is that he qualified as a fire sprinkler technician in 2019 and earlier had worked in the field and was qualified only as a fire alarm technician.
[31] The hourly rate for union employment was $46 in 2019 and $56 in 2026. Ms. King asks the Court to impute an income to Mr. Wilson based on an hourly wage of $56 in 2026, and reduced by $1.50 per year for the years of 2022 through 2025. The wage is based on the union wage for 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year.
[32] Mr. Wilson submits that decisions on support should be based on reliable, objective evidence that reflects the parties’ true financial positions. He asserts that the vocational report wrongly describes the job loss as voluntary when official records confirm a COVID‑19 layoff and mischaracterizes the nature of the work and income fluctuations in the fire protection industry. His position is that an expert opinion based on incomplete or inaccurate assumptions should be given little or no weight.
[33] Mr. Wilson contends that his financial information is consistent, current, and supported by objective documentation, and that his reported income accurately reflects his true earning capacity as of 2025. He asks the court to rely on verified financial records rather than speculative earning projections.
[34] Mr. Wilson asserts that without full disclosure, a finding of financial need or entitlement to spousal support has not been established. Concerns are also raised about the lack of supporting documents regarding rental properties, business use, and expenses. Mr. Wilson asks the court to draw an adverse inference with respect to Ms. King’s income due to these disclosure gaps.
[35] Ms. King’s position is that Mr. Wilson is intentionally under‑employed and that income should be imputed to him based on what he is capable of earning as a highly skilled, certified sprinkler technician. She argues that bad faith is not required for imputation and that Mr. Wilson’s prolonged self‑employment at very low reported income levels, despite strong skills, union experience, and market demand, justifies imputing income under the Child Support Guidelines.
[36] She relies on case law, particularly Drygala v. Pauli, to submit that a parent must earn to capacity and that persisting in unremunerative self‑employment does not excuse reduced support obligations. Ms. King submits that Mr. Wilson has at least 10–14 years of experience, holds the required certifications, remains in good standing with the union, and could earn well over $100,000 annually, with $117,000 being a reasonable and conservative imputed figure.
[37] Ms. King further argues that Mr. Wilson’s financial disclosure and corporate records show inconsistencies, including significant business revenues, a BDC loan used for personal expenses, and a lifestyle inconsistent with his declared income. She submits that these factors undermine the reliability of his reported earnings and support imputing income in line with expert evidence and union wage information.
[38] Ms. King relies on Drygala v. Pauli, [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (OCA). I find that Mr. Wilson’s financial records are unreliable. I found Mr. Wilson to be candid in his evidence. There is a mixing of corporate and personal expenses. Mr. Wilson admitted to using the business card for personal expenses inadvertently. In 2023, Chrome Fire Protection obtained a loan through BDC of $ 70,000 which Mr. Wilson admits was used for personal use, including funds provided to Ms. King. Chrome Fire Protection has been repaying the loan. The loan has never been claimed as income by Mr. Wilson as required within one year, if not repaid by the owner/shareholder.
[39] I do not find that Mr. Wilson has intentionally understated his income. The running of a business has been a learning curve for him. He admits that errors were made in quoting jobs, in accounting and in intermingling business and personal expenditures. He is a one-man show and has up to 10 sub-contractors at times for specific jobs. He admitted to being an unsophisticated business owner, especially in the early years. I find that he was forthright and honest in his testimony and disclosure Mr. Wilson produced more than 7,000 pages of financial disclosure. All of his documents had been provided during the litigation and uploaded to CaseCentre.
[40] Drygala provides for a three-part test. First, is the person intentionally underemployed or unemployed? The answer is yes. I cannot rely upon the business records of Mr. Wilson to determine his income for support purposes. I find that the income he could earn if he continued to be employed through the union is the best indicator of an income that could be earned by Mr. Wilson for child support purposes.
[41] The next question is whether intentional underemployment or unemployment is required by his reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child of the marriage, or reasonable health needs. Mr. Wilson has experience in the fire suppression industry. His evidence was that he owed union dues but that he could pay up the union dues and earn income through the union at an hourly wage of $56. His reported income is much lower. He has not met the onus to demonstrate that he cannot earn more.
[42] The third step is whether the court should exercise discretion to impute an income.
[43] There is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income is imputed, and I do not do so.
[44] The list of circumstances in which it is reasonable to impute income to a party is not inclusive. It has been found to include circumstances in which a party has not reported income to a tax authority. See: Rivard v. Hankewiecz, 2007 ONCJ 180.
[45] Self-employed persons must put forward not only adequate but comprehensive records of income and expenses, from which the recipient can draw conclusions and establish the amount of child support. See: Meade v. Meade, 31 RFL 5th 88 (Ont. SCJ).
[46] When considering the onus issue in the imputation of income claims, the court must be mindful of the fundamental principle that every party in a support case must disclose and adduce the evidence required to allow the other party and the court to assess their income for support purposes properly. Further to this principle, if a party identifies issues respecting the other party's income that could support an imputation of income argument during the proceeding, the party whose income is in question cannot simply make bald assertions regarding their financial circumstances and hope that the other party will not uncover evidence to support an imputation of income claim. Instead, that party has a positive obligation to proactively disclose information and evidence supporting their position respecting their income, including why income should not be imputed to them. See: M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207.
[47] Ms. King has met with her onus to establish that Mr. Wilson should be imputed with income for child support purposes,
[48] The next issue for the Court is what income should be imputed to Mr. Wilson.
[49] Ms. King’s evidence included expert opinion from Ms. Griffiths with respect to income for Mr. Wilson. Her evidence was balanced. She was a knowledgeable and impressive witness. Ms. Griffiths concluded that Mr. Wilson was a fully qualified, experienced, and capable of working competitively in the labour market as a sprinkler fitter. Based on Government of Canada wage data, his estimated full-time earning capacity is between about $89,700 and $117,300 per year at non-union median-to-high wage levels. Ms. Griffiths was shown the March 26, 2026 Union letter during her evidence and accepted that the hourly rate of $56.47 was reasonable and consistent with her research and opinion. She calculated income at the hourly wage of $56.47 as $117,000 based on 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year.
[50] I do not accept that the income should be based on the union hourly rate at 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. A review of Mr. Wilson’s earnings when he was working for the union's hourly rate shows reliance on Employment Insurance. In 2019, the amount was approximately 1/6 of his income. In 2020, the amount was about half.
[51] When the union wage was $46 per hour in 2019, Mr. Wilson’s annual income was $60,000. This is the equivalent of 25 hours per week for 52 weeks per year at $46 per hour. Basing his income on 40 hours per week is not consistent with his earnings pattern. He earned $60,000, mainly from employment income and EI benefits. If his income was $46 per hour, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, his annual income would have been $95,680. His actual income is 63% of $95,680 for 2019.
[52] With a union wage of $56.47 per hour for 52 weeks per year, 25 hours per week is an annual income of $73,411. If his income was $56. per hour, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, his annual income would be $116,480; 65% of $73,382 for 2026.
[53] I have used 2019 as a comparison as it is the year before COVID and in 2020, half of Mr. Wilson’s income was from Employment Insurance Benefits. I note that his 2018 income is $63,000 while he was working for union rates.
[54] The hourly rates for the years between 2019 and 2026 are not in evidence on the record before me. The hourly rate changed by $10 in 8 years. This is an average change of $1.25 per year. I have applied hourly rates of $56.47 for 2026, $55.22 for 2025, $53.97 for 2024, $52.72 for 2023, and $51.47 for 2022.
[55] I have chosen to estimate Mr. Wilson’s full-time income based on the union rate for 52 weeks per year and applying 65%. I find that this represents the low range of earnings based on union wage employment. During the relationship, the parties determined that the uncertainty of union wage employment and the layoffs associated with such employment was not in the family’s best interest. Mr. Wilson then dedicated himself to earning income through his business.
[56] I will add $10,000 in income for each year from 2024 onward given the change in earning structure was expected to increase Mr. Wilson’s income and there would be less layoff time. I have not done so for 2022 and 2023 given Mr. Wilson’s acknowledged challenges in managing the paperwork and business side of the company.
[57] I find that Mr. Wilson’s income for child support purposes is: for 2022, $66,911, for 2023, $68,536, for 2024, $80,100, for 2025, $82,800 and for 2026, $83,400. The Child Support Guideline amounts are: for 2022, $1,020, for 2023, $1,044, for 2024, $1,213, for 2025, $1,263 and for 2026, $1,272.
What is the start date for child support?
[58] I find that the start date for child support should be October 1, 2022.
[59] Ms. King seeks child support as of the date of separation. The parties separated September 15, 2022. Mr. Wilson voluntarily paid child support immediately after separation. He emailed on September 25, 2022 indicating he would cover rent and other expenses: internet, car insurance, and groceries. He paid $2,300 per month until September 2023.
What child support should have been paid by Mr. Wilson?
[60] Mr. Wilson’s child support obligation for 2022 was $1,020 per month. He paid $2,300 per month.
What is Mr. Wilson’s contribution to section 7 expenses?
[61] I find that Mr. Wilson’s section 7 contributions should be 58% on a go-forward basis. I accept Ms. King’s claimed section 7 expenses.
[62] Ms. King has itemized the section 7 expense claims for 2022 forward. She has applied for subsidies and been careful with respect to the costs of the expenses. Mr. Wilson questioned some of the proofs of payments of the section 7 expenses. I am satisfied that Ms. King provided proof of payment through receipts or e-transfers for the expenses claimed.
[63] Ms. King’s claims $1,485.42 for 2022 and $3,275.20 in section 7 expenses, which includes swimming, French Tutoring, music lessons etc.. The total for 2022 and 2023 is $4,760.92.
[64] In 2024, the section 7 expense total is $6,566.74. Before- and after-school care costs of $54.10 and $157.90 were included. At the February 2024 case conference, Justice Clay noted that Ms. King had just obtained full-time employment at BDO Canada and her brief set out the childcare costs for John as $5,427 and for Nathan as $4,306. Mr. Wilson’s contribution to the after-tax amount was calculated at $42 per month, and the Order provided that he contribute $250 in total towards section 7 expenses.
[65] In 2025, the section 7 expense total is $ 4,949.66. None of the expenses were identified as childcare costs. Ms. King was working full-time. It may be that other costs noted as activities were also child-care expenses eligible for claim on her income tax return. Ms. King did not advise of the after-tax amount.
[66] For the first 4 months of 2026, the section 7 expense total is $2,439.
[67] The children attend an all-French-language school. One of the expenses claimed each year is French tutoring, which Ms. King said is necessary for the children to succeed in their French language education. Mr. Wilson questions whether the children would be better in an English school or a French immersion as he is concerned that they are struggling with the French curriculum.
What is Mr. Wilson’s section 7 expenses obligation?
[68] I find that Mr. Wilson’s obligation for past section 7 expenses is $11,712.43.
[69] In 2022 and 2023, the section 7 expenses total $4,760.92. I have found that Mr. Wilson’s income for child support purposes is $66,911 for 2022 and $68,536 in 2023.
[70] Ms. King declared an income of $5,322 and $7,240 in 2022 and 2023 respectively. I do not accept that Ms. King declared all of her income. She operates a home business, Oasis Kare Products and has rental property with her brother in the United States. Her financial disclosure is insufficient to determine her income for child support purposes. I will impute an income of $ 20,000 to her for 2022 and 2023.
[71] This means that Mr. Wilson should pay 76% of the children’s section 7 expenses. His contribution for 2022 and 2023 is $3,618.30.
[72] For 2024, 2025 and the first 4 months of 2026, Ms. King claims $13,955.40 with only nominal child care costs in 2024 being included.
[73] Ms. King declared an income of $60,928 in 2024 and 2025. I will add $10,000 per year as imputed income with respect to her home business and rental property interest.
[74] This means that Mr. Wilson should pay 58% of the children’s section 7 expenses. His contribution for 2024, 2025 and the first 4 months is $8,094.13.
[75] Going forward, Ms. King will need to identify the childcare costs and calculate the after-tax cost of same. On the record before me, I cannot identify past childcare costs. Ms. King has accessed subsidies whenever possible. I have accepted her section 7 expense claims as provided.
[76] Mr. Wilson has paid $ 250 per month towards section 7 expenses since March 1, 2024 along with $750 per month in child support. I have accepted Ms. King’s total for funds paid to date in my calculations.
What spousal support, if any, should Mr. Wilson pay to Ms. King?
[77] I find that no spousal support should be payable.
[78] Ms. King is entitled to spousal support for the years 2022 and 2023 given the length of the relationship and her role as primary caregiver. Ms. King had given up her full-time employment outside the home and her income was limited to rental property income and her home business. I find that there was no available income for Mr. Wilson to pay spousal support for those years. She resumed full-time employment in 2024.
[79] For 2022, the Divorcemate calculation on incomes of $66,911 and $5,322 provide for a low range of $25 per month, a midrange of $209 per month and a high range of $290 per month. For 2023, the Divorcemate calculation on incomes of $68,536 and $7,140 provide for a low range of $nil per month, a midrange of $63 per month and a high range of $263 per month.
[80] I do not accept that Ms. King has reported all of her income. She is a minority shareholder in the rental property business with her brother and provided no financial disclosure about the business. On an imputed higher income for Ms. King, there is no income available for spousal support purposes.
[81] If I am wrong, I note that it is undisputed that Ms. King retained all funds in the bank accounts at the time of separation. Mr. Wilson’s evidence is that for the first 5 years of the marriage, his income was used to support the family and Ms. King’s income was saved for a house. The parties had no joint accounts. Ms. King’s February 9, 2024 Financial Statement indicates $60,448 in investments and $57,087 in bank accounts. Some of the accounts were held jointly with her brother and mother.
[82] I found Ms. King’s evidence to be carefully constructed. At times, she was intentionally evasive. In response to her counsel’s questions, her answers were free-flowing. The parties were allotted specific cross-examination times, and she paced her answers with a 20 to 30-second pause before answering any question by Mr. Wilson. Where the evidence disagrees, I prefer Mr. Wilson’s evidence.
[83] I find that Mr. Wilson should have paid $72,276 for child support and his contribution to section 7 expenses since October 1, 2022. I find that he has paid $44,900 up until December 31, 2025. He has continued to pay in 2026 and his payments from January 1, 2026 shall be deducted from his support obligations, calculated as follows:
| Year | Mr. Wilson’s income | Ms. King’s income | Child support | Section 7 | Total due | Payments | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| October-December 2022 | 66,911 (76%) | 5,322 Or $20,000 imputed (24%) | 1,020 | In 2023 line | 3,060 | 6,000 | |
| 2023 | 68,536 (76%) | 7,140 Or $20,000 imputed (24%) | 1,044 | $3,618.30. | 16,146 | 18000 | |
| 2024 | 80,100 (58%) | 60,928+10,000= 70,928 (42%) | 1,213 | In 2026 line | 14,556 | 9,500 | |
| 2025 | 82,800 (58%) | 60,298+10,000 = 70,928 (42%) | 1,263 | In line 2026 | 15,156 | 11400 | |
| 2026 | 83,400 (58 %) | 60,928+10,000 = 70,928 (42%) | 1,272 | 8,094.13. | 23,358 | 72,276 | 44,900 Plus any funds paid since January 1, 2026 |
ORDER
[84] The Respondent Jermaine Wilson shall pay child support to the Applicant Leah King for the children John Wilson born […], 2016 and Nathan Wilson born […], 2019 in the amount of $1,272 per month commencing May 1, 2026 and on the first day of each month thereafter based on an imputed income of $83,400 per year and the Child Support Guidelines.
[85] The Respondent Jermaine Wilson shall pay section 7 expense arrears to the Applicant Leah King for the children John Wilson born […], 2016 and Nathan Wilson born […], 2019 in the amount of $ 27,376 less any payments paid after January 1, 2026 at the rate of $400 per month commencing June 1, 2026 and on the first day of each month thereafter until paid.
[86] The Respondent Jermaine Wilson shall pay 58% of the section 7 expenses for the children John Wilson born [..], 2016 and Nathan Wilson born […], 2019, to the Applicant Leah King on the following conditions:
(1) The Applicant Leah King shall advise Respondent Jermaine Wilson of the expense, in advance, in writing
(2) The amount of the expense to be shared shall take into account any subsidies, benefits or income tax deductions or credits relating to the expense, and any eligibility to claim a subsidy, benefit or income tax deduction or credit relating to the expense.
(3) The Applicant Leah King shall provide the after-tax calculation of any childcare expense
(4) And the Applicant Leah King shall provide proof of payment within 30 days
(5) The Applicant Leah King’s income for the proportionate sharing contribution calculation shall be her line 150 T4 income plus $10,000 as imputed income.
(6) The Respondent Jermaine Wilson’s income for child support and proportionate sharing contribution calculation shall be his line 150 income or 65% of his union’s annual hourly rate times 40 hours per week 52 weeks per year, whichever is higher.
(7) The Respondent Jermaine Wilson shall update the Applicant Leah King by June 1st of each year starting in 2027 of the Union hourly rate.
[87] All other claims shall be dismissed.
Costs Submissions
[88] If the parties are unable to resolve costs, pursuant to Rule 24(19):
Each party shall serve and file a written submission on costs no later than 15 days from today.
The other party may serve and file a responding written submission on costs, no later than 30 days from today.
A written submission shall be no longer than three pages or, if it relates to costs of a trial, five pages, not including the documentation required by subrules (15) and (16).
Rule 24 (15) Any claim for costs respecting fees or expenses shall be supported by documentation satisfactory to the court.
Rule 24(16) A party who opposes a claim for costs respecting fees or expenses shall provide documentation showing the party’s own fees and expenses to the court and to the other party.
- A written submission shall be typed or written legibly, double spaced, 12 point size.
CA to provide costs submissions upon expiry of 2 dates.
Released: May 11, 2026
Signed: Justice Joanne Beasley