ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Jason Ahmed Campbell
Applicant
— and —
Christina Melissa Sotelo
Respondent
Before Justice Sheilagh O’Connell
Heard: April 9, 2026
Reasons for Judgment: May 8, 2026
Jason Ahmed Campbell................................................................................ Acting in person
Christina Melissa Sotelo............................................................................ Ms Shakala Gujar
O’CONNELL J.:
1. Introduction:
1This focused hearing is about the child support and section 7 expenses for the parties’ only child, Hayden, who is almost seven years old. The parties have an equal shared parenting arrangement for their daughter, although they disagree about when this started.
2The father seeks an order imputing income to the mother for the purposes of both retroactive and ongoing child support. Should the court impute income to the mother, then the father seeks an order that any support arrears owed by him, as fixed by Justice Pawagi under a temporary order, be set off against the arrears that the mother may owe to him.
3The mother does not agree that income should be imputed to her. She also seeks an order for retroactive child support from the father to the date of separation less any arrears that the father has already been ordered to pay (and paid) under the existing temporary order. She also seeks section 7 expenses, to be paid in proportion to the parties’ incomes.
4The parties finalized the issues of decision-making responsibility and parenting by way of final consent orders dated October 1, 2025 and December 16, 2025. The parties agreed to joint decision-making and shared parenting whereby the parties share equal parenting time with Hayden on a 2-2-5 schedule. The final parenting order also addressed holidays, communication, travel, and extra-curricular activities.
5The parties were unable to resolve the issues of whether income should be imputed to the mother, child support arrears owed by the father, and ongoing child support.
2. The Father’s Position:
6During his opening statement at trial, the father stated that if income is imputed to the mother, then he is only seeking retroactive child support from April 1, 2022, which is the date that parties agreed to in determining the retroactive child support he owes under Justice Pawagi’s temporary order1.
7It is the father’s position that the mother’s decision to go back to university in 2021 and then leave university to re-train as a hair stylist was unreasonable given their joint obligation to support their daughter. He submits that she voluntarily reduced her income and has been capable of earning at least $35,000.00 annually since 2021.
8The father submits that the parties’ equal time parenting schedule started in May of 2021 after Hayden started daycare. However, he submits that prior to that time, he was exercising parenting with the child for at least 40 or 45 percent of the time since the separation, and thus any retroactive child support owed should be calculated on that basis.
9The father also seeks an order that the arrears he owes as well as the ongoing child support be recalculated on a straight “set-off” basis under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, based on his actual income and the mother’s imputed income.
10He seeks the following annual income to be imputed to the mother for the purpose of recalculating the arrears that he owes for the same 3 years and for ongoing support:
2022: $32,240
2023: $34,424
2024: $35,776
2025: $36,608, and for ongoing child support
3. The Mother’s Position:
11It is the mother’s position that the parties’ equal parenting arrangement did not start until July of 2022 and that prior to that time, the child primarily resided with her. She does not agree that the child was in the father’s care at least 40 percent prior to July of 2022.
12At the opening of trial, the mother stated that she is seeking child support retroactive to March 9, 2020, the date of the parties’ separation, less the arrears that have already been fixed under Justice Pawagi’s temporary order for the period between April 2022 and October 1 2025.
13The mother asserts that the father paid minimal child support since the separation and stopped paying child support completely in November of 2022.
14It is the mother’s position that her decision to pursue post-secondary education in 2021 and then to re-train as a hair stylist was reasonable, given her lack of skills and financial insecurity. She states that she needed to ensure a higher income for herself and her daughter.
15The mother further asserts that during the time that she was in school full-time it was not possible for her to work part-time while fulfilling her coursework obligations and her child-care responsibilities.
4. Issues:
16The issues for this court to determine are the following:
When did the shared or equal parenting schedule start in this case? Specifically, when did the father start exercising parenting time with the child for not less than forty percent of the time over the course of a year? The court must determine this issue when considering the mother’s retroactive claim for child support from the date of the parties’ separation (March of 2020).
Once the start date of the shared or equal parenting schedule has been determined, how should retroactive (if any) and ongoing child support be calculated? In considering these issues, the court must also determine:
a. What is each parent’s income for support calculation purposes?
b. Should income be imputed to the mother and if so, at what date in order to determine both ongoing child support and retroactive child support?
c. Does the father owe the mother any retroactive contribution for child support back to the date of separation?
d. If the father does owe the mother any retroactive payment towards child support, what is the presumptive start date for the contribution? In determining this date, the court must determine the dates of formal notice and effective notice of the mother’s claims.
e. How should any child support arrears be paid?
- What are the section 7 expenses and how should each party’s contribution to these expenses be calculated?
5. Brief Background Facts:
17The mother is 33 years old. She is currently employed as a junior hair stylist at a salon in Toronto. At the time of trial, she was working four days per week but moving to full-time employment shortly following the trial. She earns $20.00 per hour, plus tips, and commissions for hair products. Hayden is her only child. She lives alone with Hayden in a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto.
18The mother currently earns approximately $32,000.00 annually as a newly certified hair stylist.
19The father is 48 years old. He is an administrative clerk for Service Canada in the federal government. He has worked for the federal government in different capacities for approximately six years, including as a litigation clerk for the Department of Justice. Hayden is his only child. The father lives with his mother, Hayden’s paternal grandmother, in a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto.
20The father’s current income is $61,919.61, based on his 2025 T-4 slip. This income has not fluctuated significantly over the past six years that he has worked with the federal government.
21Hayden lives with each of her parents equally pursuant to a final consent order of Justice Pawagi dated October 1, 2025 in which the parties share parenting equally on a 2-2-5 schedule.
22The parties met in July of 2018 when the mother was working part-time in a bar where the father was a patron. At the time, the mother was 25 years old and the father was 40 years old. They became involved in a relationship.
23When the parties met, the mother had two part-time jobs earning minimum wage: as a retail clerk in the beauty/cosmetics department at Shoppers Drug Mart and as a part-time server in the restaurant/bar. The father was employed as a marketing coordinator for a non-profit youth organization and earning approximately $40,000.00 annually.
24The mother became pregnant with Hayden in September of 2018 and the parties started living together in November of 2018. Hayden was born in May of 2019.
25The parties separated on March 9, 2020 when Hayden was approximately nine months old. The father left their apartment following conflict between the parties. Hayden and the mother remained.
26Both parties described physical conflict and a volatile relationship leading to the separation. The mother described the relationship as abusive and described four incidents where the father had become physically violent. The father denied being abusive but described the parties’ relationship as volatile.
27It is not disputed that the mother was on maternity leave from Hayden’s birth until September of 2020.
28Immediately after the separation, the mother was the primary caregiver for Hayden following the father’s departure. However, the parties disagree about how long this lasted.
29Both parties agree that the equal shared parenting schedule has been in place since at least July of 2022.
30However, the father states that the equal time parenting schedule started in May of 2021 after Hayden started daycare. She was 23 months old at the time.
31The father states that even before that time, Hayden was in his care at least 40 percent of the time.
32The mother states that the equal shared parenting schedule did not start until July of 2022, when Hayden was 3 years old. The mother states that she remained the primary caregiver for Hayden until that time.
33The parties were initially able to work out parenting and some (not all) financial issues following the separation without court involvement. However, conflict arose in 2024 and 2025.
34The mother states that there was an attempt at reconciliation in October of 2024, however this ended badly, as the father only wanted a physical relationship. The father states that the mother started withholding the child from him at that time so he commenced this application.
6. Court History:
35The father commenced his application on April 3, 2025. He sought joint decision-making responsibility and equal parenting time, child support in accordance with the table amount for both parents, and retroactive child support to the date of separation (March 2020), with credits for any amount already paid, among other relief. In his application, the father states that the equal parenting time schedule started in February of 2021.
36The mother responded on June 16, 2025. She sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, or alternatively joint decision-making and shared parenting, spousal support, child support retroactive to the date of separation, section 7 expenses, insurance benefits for the child, a restraining order, among other relief. In her answer, the mother states that the shared parenting schedule started in 2022.
37The first appearance before the First Appearance Clerk was July 2, 2025. Both parties and counsel were present. The parties did not reach a consent. Justice Pawagi was assigned as the case management judge.
38The first case conference before Justice Pawagi was on October 1, 2025. Both parties and counsel for the mother were present. At that time, the parties entered into Temporary and Final Minutes of Settlement.
39The parties reached final consent orders regarding joint-decision making, equal parenting time on a 2-2-5-5 schedule, holiday time, travel, communication through Appclose regarding the child, and extra-curricular activities.
40According to Justice Pawagi’s Endorsement dated October 1, 2025, the parties reached temporary orders, on a without prejudice basis, regarding child support and section 7 expenses as follows:
- Commencing October 1, 2025, the father shall pay child support to the mother in the amount of $445.00 per month, based on the following:
a. The father’s 2024 Notice of Assessment of $62,036.00;
b. The mother’s 2024 Notice of Assessment of $19,867.00;
c. The set-off child support pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines given that the parties share parenting time equally.
The father’s child support arrears are fixed at $13,474 as of October 1, 2025. The father shall pay the arrears at the rate of $280.00 per month commencing October 1, 2025 until paid in full.
The parties shall share section 7 expenses, agreed upon in advance in writing, on a 50-50 basis.
The parties shall exchange Notices of Assessment (and Re-Assessment if any) by July 1st of each year for the preceding taxation year, commencing July 1, 2026.
41The matter was then adjourned to December 16, 2025 for a settlement conference on the remaining issues.
42On December 16, 2025, the mother withdrew her requests for spousal support and a restraining order. The parties also agreed on a temporary basis to vary the father’s payment toward the child support arrears to $100 per month commencing December 1, 2025 until further court order.
43As noted earlier, the parties were unable to resolve whether income should be imputed to the mother for the purposes of recalculating child support arrears, ongoing child support, and section 7 expenses.
44On consent, Justice Pawagi adjourned these issues to April 9, 2026 for a focused hearing. The parties were directed to serve and file affidavits as their direct evidence and proof of their 2025 income in their exhibits. The mother was also directed to provide an update regarding her job search and employment if obtained.
7. The Trial:
45Only the mother and father testified at trial. The court relied upon the parties’ affidavits and sworn financial statements as their direct evidence, subject to cross-examination. Both parties were permitted to file additional documents as exhibits during the trial. They were also permitted to give additional oral evidence, also subject to cross-examination at the trial.
46The relevant evidence will be summarized below.
a. Parenting Arrangements Post-Separation:
47The father does not dispute that the parties separated on March 9, 2020 following an incident leading to conflict between them. He denies being physically abusive, but acknowledges that there was verbal and physical conflict, so he left.
48The mother and child remained in the apartment, but in approximately June of 2020, the mother and Hayden, who was 13 months old at the time, went to stay with the mother’s parents (maternal grandparents) in Newmarket. This is not disputed by the father.
49The father states that for the first three months after the parties separated, his parenting time with the child was sporadic and limited, partly due to the Covid lockdown at the beginning of the pandemic and partly because of the conflict between the parties. The father testified that his mother, the paternal grandmother, acted as a mediator.
50The father testified that he eventually started seeing the child every weekend from Friday to Sunday after the mother moved to Newmarket.
51However, according to the father’s affidavit of his direct evidence for trial, this schedule did not start until in October of 2020. The father’s direct evidence is that his parenting time increased to “approximately 40 percent of the time” in October of 2020.2 The father testified that he would pick the child up on Friday evenings and return the child to the mother on Sunday evenings. He states that he also would pick the child up one night during the week although these days varied.
52It is the mother’s evidence that she was the primary caregiver for Hayden until July of 2022. After she moved to Newmarket with Hayden in June of 2020, she testified that the father visited the child regularly, but Hayden remained in her primary care.
53The mother testified that she and the child moved back to Toronto from Newmarket in October of 2020. The father does not dispute this. The father also acknowledged that the mother was on maternity leave until October of 2020, when she returned to Shoppers Drug Mart in the beauty department.
54The mother acknowledged that when she moved back to Toronto from Newmarket with the child, the father would see Hayden approximately every weekend from Friday to Sunday, however, she testified that his mid-week parenting time was sporadic and not consistent, and that it was not always an overnight visit.
55According to the father, the parenting schedule of every weekend and one weekday overnight continued until May of 2021.
56In March of 2021, Hayden started daycare. The father testified that the mother proposed a new parenting arrangement once the child started daycare. Given that Hayden was in daycare all week, the mother requested that the parties alternate the weekends.
57However, the father testified that although he agreed to move to an alternating weekend schedule, he pushed for more days during the week in view of the weekends that he would miss. According to the father, he then had an additional two overnights of parenting time during the week, although it was unclear if this was every week.
58At trial, it was the father’s evidence that by May of 2021 the parties had a “50/50” schedule of alternating weekends and two overnight during the week for him.
59However, according to the schedule the father prepared and filed in his sworn financial statement and admitted as an exhibit at trial, it was the father’s evidence that his parenting time with Hayden in May of 2021 was approximately 45 percent and that the “50/50” schedule did not start until April of 2022.
60The father testifies that in July of 2022, the parties switched to a “2-2-5” schedule which now forms the basis of the final order of equal parenting time.
61The mother agrees that the parties switched to a “2-2-5” schedule in July of 2022. She produced an exchange of texts between the parties which she testified confirms that the 50/50 parenting schedule started at that time.
62She does not agree that a shared parenting schedule existed before that time. She agrees that in March of 2021, after Hayden started daycare, the parties discussed moving to an alternate weekend schedule so that she could have weekend parenting time with Hayden once she returned to work. However, it is her evidence that the father’s mid-week parenting time was not consistent and that he did not always have midweek overnights every week with Hayden in addition to the alternating weekends from Friday to Sunday.
b. The Father’s Income:
63The father started working in the federal government in 2020. He is currently employed by Service Canada as an administrative clerk in logistics, but for a period of time when he worked in the Department of Justice as a litigation clerk.
64The father’s annual income since 2020 is as follows, as reported in his Notices of Assessment and T-4s filed in evidence, and not disputed by the father:
a. 2020 – $57,058.52
b. 2021 – $55,737.00
c. 2022 – $55,373.00
d. 2023 – $61,600.15
e. 2024 – $62,036.00
f. 2025 – $61,919.61
g. 2026 – $61, 919.61
c. The Mother’s Evidence regarding Income and Employment History:
65Although there were some gaps in this evidence, the mother’s annual income since 2020, based on the evidence filed, including Notices of Assessment, Records of Employment and other documentary evidence is as follows:
a. 2020 – $2,626.12 and EI (Maternity leave; Mother also received CERB benefits)
b. 2021 – $8,359.00 (Record of Employment for Shoppers Drug Mart. Mother also received OW and OSAP loans as started university in September 2021)
c. 2022 – $23, 480.00 (Notice of Assessment filed)
d. 2023 – $31,956.00 (Notice of Assessment filed)
e. 2024 – $19,867.00 (Notice of Assessment filed)
f. 2025 – nil (OSAP loans of $38,000.00 once started full-time college training program)
66It is the mother’s evidence that at the time she became pregnant with the child, she was 25 years old with no established career prospects, working two part-time jobs. She describes coming from a humble background, with little guidance regarding career choices. She had a high school education and no post-secondary education or training. She was working part-time as a server at a restaurant/bar and in retail at the beauty counter at Shoppers Drug Mart earning minimum wage.
67Following Hayden’s birth, the mother went on maternity leave. It is not disputed by the father that the mother’s maternity leave was from April 2019 (shortly before the child’s birth) to September of 2020. She received EI and CERB benefits during that time.
68In October of 2020, the mother returned to the cosmetics counter at Shoppers Drug Mart. However, the mother testified that she was only able to secure limited hours, due to the reduced working hours for in-person employees following the pandemic.
69The mother gave evidence that when she returned to part-time employment after maternity leave, she realized that she needed to improve her long-term career prospects to provide a better life for their daughter. She decided to apply to university.
70In September of 2021, the mother was accepted into a full-time university sociology program.
71The father testified that he supported the mother’s decision to go back to university, and in fact encouraged her at the time to pursue post-secondary education.
72The mother applied for OSAP and received funds as a student with a dependant child during this period. Since this was a full-time program and the mother had child-care responsibilities, it is the mother’s evidence that it was impossible for her to continue her part-time job at Shoppers Drug Mart.
73It is the mother’s evidence that soon after starting the university program, she realized that this was not a career path for her given her interests and aptitude. The mother testified that she has always had a strong interest in creative work as an aesthetician and hair stylist. She sought advice from people, who encouraged her to pursue this field professionally.
74The mother left university after completing one semester and she enrolled in a microblading course, which is a cosmetic tattooing technique for eyebrows. She completed this course in early 2022. The mother began providing services in her home as she did not have the financial means to set up as separate workspace. This arrangement also provided her the flexibility to care for her daughter, who was two years old at the time.
75The mother pursued work as a self-employed aesthetician for several months in the first part of 2022, however she was unable to attract a larger client base. As well, it is the mother’s evidence that during this time, she was receiving little to no child support from the father. She started looking for other work.
76In June of 2022, the mother obtained a full-time position as a “greeter” and receptionist at a Lexus Toyota car dealership. She testified that she did this to ensure financial stability for herself and Hayden. She was paid an hourly rate at minimum wage.
77When the mother first obtained the position, it is her evidence that the father’s parenting time was limited to alternating weekends and on occasion, a single midweek overnight visit. However, in July of 2022, the parents discussed, and the mother agreed to move to a shared parenting arrangement, which is the current 2-2-5 schedule.
78By the summer of 2023, the mother realized that the car dealership was not a good fit for her. Her role as a ‘greeter’ offered no career growth at a minimum wage rate with limited earning potential.
79The mother decided to continue to pursue her career as an aesthetician and hair stylist. She determined that she would eventually earn a better income and have better future career opportunities. It is the mother’s evidence that this choice was not only for her personal and professional fulfillment but to provide a better future for her daughter.
80During this transitionary period, the mother relied upon her own limited earnings and assistance from her parents as the father continued to reduce his child support until he stopped paying child support altogether in October of 2022.
81In November of 2023, the mother obtained employment in a hair salon. However, in 2024, she testified that in order to improve her skills and secure a reliable long-term income as a hair stylist she needed formal professional training. The mother applied to college. The mother worked in various hair salons in 2024, as well as other employment, supplemented by Ontario Works’ benefits pending college.
82In October of 2024, the mother started training at the Avola College of Hairstyling Aesthetics. Documentary evidence of the acceptance and enrolment into the program was admitted into evidence. The mother completed this program in September of 2025.
83The mother was able to pay for the course and support the living expenses of herself and the child with the assistance of an OSAP loan. Documentary evidence of this was submitted at trial and comprised of $12,638.00 of tuition and educational costs and $25,000.00 of non-educational living expenses for herself and Hayden. The mother currently owes approximately $40,000.00 in student loans.
84The program required regular in-person attendance from Monday to Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and was comprised of scheduled classes and hands-on training sessions. The mother completed approximately 1500 hours of course work. In addition, she was also required to prepare an online portfolio to demonstrate her hairstyling skills as part of the required 500 hours of professional training.
85It is the mother’s evidence that she was unable to engage in part-time work during the completion of the college program given the full-time weekday hours of attendance required, the hours of professional training required, and her childcare responsibilities. Further, the cost of childcare during the early mornings, evenings and weekends was prohibitive and not readily available.
86Although the mother fulfilled the course requirements and completed the program in September of 2025, she testified that there is an additional balance owing for her graduation fee to obtain the certificate, which she is currently making efforts to pay.
87The evidence filed by the mother, not disputed, indicates that hairstyling is a trade in Ontario that requires a Certificate of Qualification and is administered by Skilled Trades Ontario’s apprenticeship and certified regime.
88Since completing the program in September of 2025, the mother undertook an employment search in her field, submitted applications to hair salons and sought “chair rental” opportunities in salons.
89On December 17, 2025, the mother secured employment as a junior hairstylist in Toronto. She has started taking on her own clients and currently has approximately 3 or 4 clients, in addition to her other duties assisting senior stylists.
90Currently, according to her most recent paystub filed at trial from the hair salon (March 1st to March 14th 2026), the mother earned $1, 209.50, including tips for 60 hours of part-time employment, or approximately $32,000.00 annually. The tips were minimal given that she has recently started.
91During the trial, the mother testified that she was working four days per week, Tuesday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM, sometimes later than 5 PM on the days that Hayden is with her father.
92The mother successfully completed her probationary period and will be starting full-time employment approximately two weeks after the completion of trial. The full-time employment would include alternating Saturdays and extended hours on weekdays.
93It is the mother’s evidence that the college training program she completed has significantly improved her skills and will increase her future income. She estimates that as she gains experience and establishes a client base, she could potentially earn approximately $40,000 annually as a junior stylist and between $50,000 and $60,000 as a senior stylist.
d. The Father’s Child Support Payment History Prior to Court Proceedings:
94The father attached a schedule to his sworn financial statement and produced copies of a series of e-transfers that establishes his voluntary child support payments for basic child support and section 7 expenses once the parties separated in March of 2020. This schedule and the e-transfers were entered on consent as exhibits at trial.
95Based on his own evidence, the father first paid basic child support to the mother in the amount of $350.00 monthly in June of 2020, three months after the parties separated and while the mother was on maternity leave. The father then reduced this payment to $225.00 monthly in October of 2021. In February of 2022, he increased the monthly payment to $250.00 monthly. In March of 2022, he increased the monthly payment to $275.00 monthly. In September of 2022, he reduced the monthly payment to $225.00 monthly.
96The father testified and produced evidence that his last payment of child support ($250.00) was October 3, 2022. He decided to stop paying child support at that time.
97The father testified that he stopped all child support payments in October of 2022 because the mother had started working full-time at the car dealership in June of 2022.
98According to the father’s explanation, given that the mother had now obtained full-time employment earning at least minimum wage, and the parties had started an equal parenting schedule he believed that he was no longer required to pay child support.
99The father testified that he was not aware of how child support was calculated in equal or shared parenting arrangements. He testified that given that the mother had been receiving the Child Tax Benefits since the parties separated, which he had agreed to, and she was working full-time, he did not believe that he was required to pay child support.
100Based on the father’s evidence, the total amount of child support that the father paid from the date of separation prior to commencing his court proceedings in April of 2025 was $8,100.00, or 26 months of child support payments.
101The total amount of section 7 expenses that the father paid for the same period was $1,843.00.
8. Credibility and Reliability:
102The mother was a credible and reliable witness. She was a fair, even witness and she did not exaggerate her evidence.
103The court found that the mother’s evidence regarding her decision to return to school to improve her skills and to increase her future income and stability for the benefit of the child and herself was sincere. The court did not find that the mother was attempting to avoid or evade her child support obligations once the parties moved to a shared “2-2-5” schedule, or that the decision to pursue further training was unreasonable.
104The mother was not shaken in cross-examination on this issue, despite being asked several times by the father about the reasonableness of her education plan as well as her intentions. She was consistent in her evidence that “all of [her] decisions were made to better [herself] to make more money and to take care of [her] child.”
105The father was also a credible and reliable witness on most issues. Like the mother, he too is clearly devoted to his daughter and is a good father.
106However, the court finds that the father’s evidence on why he significantly underpaid child support to the mother when the parties separated and why he stopped paying child support completely once the mother obtained full-time employment in 2022 lacked credibility.
107The father was evasive during cross-examination when he testified that he did not know how child support was calculated in shared parenting arrangements. The father is clearly an intelligent man and a sophisticated litigant, who was previously a litigation clerk for the Department of Justice.
108It was difficult for this court to believe that that father truly believed he did not have to pay any child support to the mother when he was aware that she was earning minimum wage while he was earning more than double her income at the time the “2-2-5” parenting schedule started, or at a minimum, a “set-off” of child support owed.
109The father’s evidence regarding when the shared parenting schedule started was also not reliable. His evidence about the schedule changed on a number of occasions. His oral testimony was inconsistent with his sworn evidence in his financial statement, which was also inconsistent with his direct evidence in his affidavit dated March 25, 2026.
110During the trial, the father testified that the parties had moved to an equal “50/50” parenting schedule in March of 2021. This evidence contradicted the schedule attached to his sworn financial statement which indicated that in March of 2021 the child was with him approximately 40 percent of the time, and that in May of 2021, the child was with him 45 percent of the time. In his affidavit, it is the father’s evidence the parties began a “50/50” shared parenting schedule in May of 2021.
111The father’s evidence regarding when the shared parenting schedule started was somewhat of a moving target. The court preferred the mother’s evidence on this issue, which was supported by the texts exchange by the parties in July of 2022 confirming the move to the “2-2-5” schedule occurred in the summer of 2022.
9. The Law and Analysis:
112Section 1 of the Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines) provides as follows:
- The objectives of this Regulation are,
(a) to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they benefit from the financial means of their parents and, in the case of divorce, from the financial means of both spouses after separation;
(b) to reduce conflict and tension between parents or spouses by making the calculation of child support more objective;
(c) to improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts, and parents and spouses, guidance in setting the levels of child support and encouraging settlement; and
(d) to ensure consistent treatment of parents or spouses and their children who are in similar circumstances.
9.1 Imputing Income:
113Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines provides that the court may impute income to a parent such amount that it considers appropriate for the purpose of determining child support. It provides a non-exhaustive list of such circumstances. The relevant sub-section of section 19 in this case reads as follows:
19.(1) Imputing Income – The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,
(a) the spouse is intentionally underemployed or unemployed, other than where the underemployment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;
114Imputing 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 underemployed. Clause 19(1)(a) of the guidelines is perceived as being a test of reasonableness. Drygala v. Pauli 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. CA).
115The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. CA) and more recently 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:
Is the party intentionally underemployed or unemployed?
If so, is the intentional underemployment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?
If not, what income is appropriately imputed?
First Question:
116The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally unemployed or underemployed. 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.).
117The court stated in Drygala that there is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income is imputed; the payor is intentionally underemployed if he or she chooses to earn less than what he or she is capable of earning. The court must look at whether the act is voluntary and reasonable.
118As a general rule, separated parents have an obligation to financially support their children and they cannot avoid that obligation by a self-induced reduction of income. See Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137; DePace v. Michienzi, 2000 CanLII 22560 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 453, (Ont. Fam. Ct.).
Second Question:
119Once underemployment is established, the onus shifts to the payor to prove one of the exceptions of reasonableness. When an employment decision results in a significant reduction of child support, it needs to be justified in a compelling way. See: Rilli v. Rilli, 2006 CanLII 34451 (ON SC), 2006 CarswellOnt 6335 SCJ; Riel v. Holland, 2003 CanLII 3433 (Ont. C.A.), at paragraph 23. It must be reasoned, thoughtful and highly practical. See Hagner v. Hawkins 2005 CanLII 43294 , (Ont. S.C.) at paragraph 19.
120Parents can take jobs with less money as long as the decision is reasonable. A payor cannot be excused from his or her support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic career aspirations. See Hanson v. Hanson, 1999 CanLII 6307 (BCSC); Gobin v. Gobin 2009 ONCJ 245, [2009] O.J. No. 2191 (OCJ).
121It is not reasonable for a payor to return to school and not pay support, unless it is justified by a sufficient increase in earning ability that will benefit the children. Carter v. Spracklin, 2012 ONCJ 193, [2012] O.J. No. 1533 (OCJ).
122The court sets out the following in Drygala v. Pauli, supra, at paragraphs 38 to 41 of its decision, when considering whether the underemployment of the parent for educational needs are reasonable:
Reasonable Educational Needs
“[38] There is a duty to seek employment in a case where a parent is healthy. As a general rule, a parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income. Thus, once it has been established that a spouse is intentionally unemployed or underemployed, the burden shifts to that spouse to establish what is required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs.
39There are two aspects to this stage of inquiry. The trial judge must first determine whether the educational needs are reasonable. This involves a consideration of the course of study. A spouse is not to be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations.
40But, s. 19(1)(a) speaks not only to the reasonableness of the spouse's educational needs. It also dictates that the trial judge determine what is required by virtue of those educational needs. The spouse has the burden of demonstrating that unemployment or underemployment is required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs. How many courses must be taken and when? How much time must be devoted in and out of the classroom to ensure continuation in the program? Are the academic demands such that the spouse is excused from pursuing part-time work? Could the program be completed over a longer period with the spouse taking fewer courses so that the spouse could obtain part-time employment? If the rigours of the program preclude part-time employment during the regular academic school year, is summer employment reasonably expected? Can the spouse take co-operative courses as part of the program and earn some income in that way? These are the types of considerations that go into determining what level of under-employment is required by the reasonable educational needs of a spouse.
41The burden of proof is upon the spouse pursuing education as he or she is the person with access to the requisite information. The spouse is in the best position to know the particular requirements and demands of his or her educational program. He [page721] or she will have information about the hours of study necessary to fulfill such requirements, including the appropriate preparation time. He or she is in the best position to show whether part-time employment can be reasonably obtained in light of these educational requirements.”
Third Question:
123The third question in Drygala v. Pauli, supra is: “If there is no reasonable excuse for the payor’s underemployment, what income should properly be imputed in the circumstances?”
124The 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 earned during the parties’ relationship.
125The court looks at the amount of income the party could earn if he or she worked to capacity. See Lawson v. Lawson 2006 CanLII 26573 (ON C.A.).
Analysis of the Imputation Issue:
126Based on the evidence heard in this trial, the court makes the following findings of fact regarding the three questions posed by the court in Drygala v Pauli:
127On the first question, the court finds that father has met his onus of establishing that in 2022, the mother voluntarily left her full-time employment at the Toyota Lexus car dealership to pursue further career opportunities and further education, thus significantly reducing her income in 2024 prior to starting the college training program.
128As the Court in Drygala stated, there is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income is imputed; the payor is intentionally underemployed if he or she chooses to earn less than what he or she is capable of earning. The court must look at whether the act is voluntary and reasonable.
129On the second question, once underemployment has been established, the burden shifts to mother to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the reduction in income. The court finds that the mother has met her onus in establishing that her decision to leave full-time employment to pursue a career as a hair stylist and aesthetician and to engage in further educational training towards that goal was a reasonable one. The decision was thoughtful, practical, and realistic given the mother’s skills, aptitude, age, and experience. It is a career plan which will significantly increase the mother’s earning ability which will benefit the child.
130The mother’s employment history demonstrates that the mother has never earned more than minimum wage, and sometimes significantly less. She has always had part-time employment, often working two part-time jobs at the same time. When the father met the mother, she only had a high school education and was working at two part-time jobs as a retail clerk at Shoppers Drug Mart and a server, both minimum wage positions.
131Following the birth of her child, the mother was out of the waged labour force for more than one year on maternity leave. She returned to the Shoppers Drug Mart but was offered very reduced hours. By his own evidence, the father encouraged her to pursue post-secondary education in 2021. The mother did attempt university, but that did not prove successful.
132The mother’s return to employment in 2022 as a greeter/receptionist at the car dealership was also at minimum wage, albeit for the first time the mother had full-time employment. The court did not believe that the mother could have potentially earned more than minimum wage at the car dealership if she had stayed in that position.
133The evidence establishes that the mother has the skills and aptitude to pursue hairstyling and aesthetics. The college training program that she completed was approximately eleven months in duration. It was a rigorous and practical program. It was not possible for the mother to work part-time given the 1500 in person classroom hours required, the 500 required hours of hands-on training, and her childcare responsibilities.
134The mother is now qualified in a registered trade. She secured a position as a junior hair stylist in a hair salon on December 17, 2025 following the completion of her college program. It is an entry level position and she is currently earning $32,000.00. She has a small client base which she hopes to grow.
135It is not disputed that she has the potential to earn up to $40,000 annually as a junior stylist and $50,000 to $60,000 as a senior stylist, including tips and commissions.
136The mother is now 33 years old. This is more income than the mother has ever earned in the past and will benefit the child.
137Regarding question 3 in the Drygala analysis, given that the court has found that the mother has established a reasonable educational excuse for her underemployment from 2023 to 2025, the court will not impute income to her during that time period, as the father has requested.
9.2 Determination of Child Support in Shared Parenting Schedules:
138Section 9 of the Guidelines sets out the following regarding the threshold requirement for a shared parenting schedule and if the threshold has been met, the factors that must be considered in determining an appropriate amount of child support:
- Where each parent or spouse exercises parenting time with respect to a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year3, the amount of the order for the support of a child must be determined by taking into account,
(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the parents or spouses;
(b) the increased costs of shared parenting time arrangements; and
(c) the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent or spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.
139The framework of s. 9 of the Guidelines thus requires a two-part determination: first, establishing that the 40 percent threshold has been met; and second, where it has been met, determining the appropriate amount of support.See: Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63; Wither-Weston v. Blacker, 2024 ONCJ 490 per Justice Wiri Kapurura, at paragraphs 33 to 34.
140The onus of proving that the 40 per cent threshold is met falls upon the person seeking it4. In this case, the father asserts that the child has been in his care for not less than 40 percent of the time since the separation. If that is established, then he submits that any retroactive contribution to child support that he owes prior to April of 2022 should be calculated in accordance with section 9 of the Guidelines.
141There is no set formula for calculating the 40 per cent threshold. The two most common approaches to calculating parenting time are in days, and in hours. If using days, to reach 40 per cent, the parent must have the child in his or her care for 146 days per year. When calculating in hours, the 40 per cent threshold lies at 3,504 hours per year. See: L.(L.) v. C.(M.), 2013 ONSC 1801; Froom v. Froom 2005 CanLII 3362 (ON CA), 11 R.F.L. (6th) 254 (ONCA).
142In Froom v. Froom, supra, the Ontario Court of Appeal counted overnights. Cases decided after Froom have highlighted that the method chosen for calculating the 40 per cent threshold is often critical to the outcome of the support analysis in shared parenting situations.
143In L.(L.) v. C.(M.), supra, Justice Czutrin concluded that given the importance of this issue, it is desirable to be as precise as possible when calculating. Justice Czutrin noted that the overwhelming weight of authority in Ontario and other provinces supports calculating the 40 per cent threshold on an hourly basis: See: Scott v. Chenier, 2015 ONSC 7866 citing L.(L.) v. C.(M.) at 23-39.
144The language of section 9 is very strict. The parenting time should be exercised “for not less than 40 per cent”. A party must meet at least 40 per cent of parenting time with the child annually. The court does not have the jurisdiction to alter or round up the father’s parenting time to meet the 40 per cent threshold. See: Wither-Weston v. Blacker, 2024 ONCJ 490 per Justice Wiri Kapurura, at paragraphs 38 to 39.
Analysis: Commencement Date of Shared Parenting:
145The father’s evidence regarding when the shared parenting schedule started was inconsistent. As noted before, the evidence was a moving target as it kept changing.
146The father did not provide calculations showing how he reached 40 percent. Even by his own evidence, alternating weekends and undefined mid-week parenting time was not sufficient to meet the 40 percent rule until the parties switched to the 2-2-5 schedule.
147Given the strict language of section 9, the court does not have the authority to simply accept the father’s changing percentages with no detailed evidence or supporting documentation.
148The father did not meet his onus that the child was living with him for not less than 40 percent of the time before the summer of 2022.
149The court preferred the mother’s evidence on this issue, which was supported by the texts exchange by the parties in July of 2022 confirming the move to the “2-2-5” schedule occurred in the summer of 2022.
9.3 Determining an appropriate amount of child support if the 40 per cent threshold has been met:
150It is not disputed that the 40 percent threshold was met by at least July of 2022 and going forward to the present day in determining the ongoing child support owed by the father to the mother.
151Once the 40 percent threshold has been met, then the next step is determining the appropriate amount of child support under the factors set out in section 9 of the Guidelines.
152It is well-established in law, as directed under section 9, that simply calculating a straight set-off of the amounts both parents owe under the table in a shared parenting arrangement is incomplete.
153In Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, the Supreme Court of Canada sets out the following principles that must be considered when the court is conducting a section 9 analysis:
a. The specific language of s. 9 warrants emphasis on flexibility and fairness. The discretion bestowed on courts to determine the child support amount in shared custody arrangement calls for the acknowledgment of the overall situation of the parents (conditions and means) and the needs of the children. The weight of each factor under s. 9 will vary according to the particular facts of each case. [para 39]
b. All three factors must be applied [para 68].
c. Not only is there no presumption in favour of awarding at least the Guidelines amount under s. 3, there is no presumption in favour of reducing the parent’s child support obligation downward from the Guidelines amount [para 31].
d. The court must examine the continuing ability of the recipient parent to meet the needs of the child. [para 41]
e. Calculating a simple set-off serves as the starting point, but it cannot be the end of the inquiry. It has no presumptive value. Its true value is in bringing the court to focus first on the fact that both parents must make a contribution and that fixed and variable costs of each of them have to be measured before making adjustments to take into account increased costs attributable to joint custody and further adjustments needed to ensure that the final outcome is fair in light of the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and child for whom support is sought. Full consideration must be given to the last two factors. [para. 49]
e. The court retains the discretion to modify the set-off amount where, considering the financial realities of the parents, it would lead to a significant variation in the standard of living experienced by the children as they move from one household to another, something which Parliament did not intend. [para 51]
f. The total cost of raising children may be greater in shared custody situations than in sole custody situations.
g. The court will generally be called upon to examine the budgets and actual expenditures of both parents in addressing the needs of the children and to determine whether shared custody has in effect resulted in increased costs globally.[para 52]
h. Financial statements and/or child expense budgets are necessary for a proper evaluation of s. 9(c). [para 57]
i. There is no need to resort to section 10 undue hardship analysis.
154In Kerr v. Erland, 2014 ONSC 3555, Justice Jennifer Blishen summarized the approach applicable under section 9 as follows:
“Section 9 recognizes the increase in costs assumed by one parent does not necessarily lead to a decrease in costs assumed by the other. Section 9(c) requires the court to consider principles of fairness and, importantly, the standard of living of the children in each household along with the ability of each parent to absorb the costs required to maintain the appropriate standard of living in the circumstances.” [paragraph 116 of the decision]
155In M.D.L.C. v. D.S.C., 2024 ONCJ 550, Justice Melanie Sager did not order a straight set-off table amount, but followed the principles as set out in the Contino analysis. The court calculated the set-off amounts and then adjusted them as the father had better means, needs and circumstances than the mother. He had free rent, lower transportation costs, and higher earning potential.
Analysis: Determination of Ongoing Child Support Amount:
156Other than their sworn Financial Statements, neither party provided much evidence on their condition, means, needs and other circumstances or that of the child.
157The court finds that the father’s income for ongoing child support purposes is $61,919.61.
158The court finds that the mother’s current income for ongoing child support is $32,000.00.
159The court finds that it is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case to order a straight ‘set off’ in determining the ongoing child support under the equal parenting schedule for the following reasons:
The father’s income is significantly higher than the mother’s income. He is currently earning almost twice the amount of the mother’s income. The mother’s income earning potential will take some time to increase while she builds her client base as a junior stylist.
The father now lives with his mother rent-free and has minimal living expenses.
The mother is currently paying $1,885.00 per month for a one-bedroom apartment for herself and the child, not including utilities. Although this is a rent-controlled apartment in Toronto, the rent will continue to increase in accordance with rent control standards.
The mother has $41,811 in OSAP student loans, and approximately $5,000.00 of credit card debt, according to her most recent sworn financial statement. The mother testified that her student loans are now approximately $40,000.00, The father has little debt, according to his most recent sworn financial statement, other than the child support arrears that he currently owes the mother.
160The court finds that the amount of ongoing child support to be paid by the father to the mother going forward, subject to annual financial disclosure and adjustment, should continue to be $445.00 per month. In my view, this is a fair and appropriate standard of support that will benefit the child considering the financial means and circumstances of both parties.
9.4 The Mother’s Claim for Retroactive Child Support:
161The mother’s claim for retroactive child support to the date of separation is in her answer to the father’s application. This claim is governed by sections 33 and 34 of the Family Law Act.
162The mother seeks that the father’s contribution to Hayden’s child support be calculated retroactively back to March 9, 2020, the date of separation.
163The court’s authority to make retroactive support orders is contained in clause 34 (1) (f) of the Family Law Act.
164Any support claimed by the parties after they served and filed their application and answer is prospective and presumptively payable. See: Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.); Balian v. Balian, 2025 ONSC 4128; Lewis v. Lynch 2024 ONCJ 279, per Justice Stanley Sherr.
165The legal framework is set out at paragraph 114 in Colucci as follows:
a. 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. Once a material change in circumstances is established, a presumption arises in favour of retroactively increasing child support to 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.
c. Where no effective notice is given by the recipient parent, child support should generally be increased back to the date of formal notice.
d. The court retains discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors continue to guide this exercise of discretion, as described in Michel. If 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.
e. Once the court has determined that support should be retroactively increased to a particular date, the increase must be quantified. The proper amount of support for each year since the date of retroactivity must be calculated in accordance with the Guidelines.
166Retroactive child support simply holds payors to their existing (and unfulfilled) support obligations. See: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, paragraph 25.
167Retroactive 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.
168Retroactive awards are not exceptional. They can always be avoided by proper payment. See: D.B.S., par. 97.
169In 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.
Analysis of Retroactive Support Issue:
170In an original application for retroactive support there will be no need to meet the threshold requirement of establishing a material change in circumstances, as required in Colucci.
171The first step in this case will therefore be to determine the presumptive date of retroactivity as described in step b. above in Colucci. To determine this, the court must look at when effective notice and formal notice were given by the mother to the father. See: Jansen v. DiCecco, 2025 ONCJ 189 at paragraphs 60 to 62, per Justice Stanley Sherr.
172The mother issued her Answer to the father’s application on June 16, 2025. The mother sought retroactive support to the date of separation (March 9, 2020) in her Answer. June 16, 2025 is the date of the mother’s formal notice to the father.
173The mother did not provide any evidence of effective notice, which is when she asked the father to increase or review his child support obligation prior to issuing her Answer.
174June 16, 2025 is therefore the date of both effective and formal notice to the father that the mother was requesting a change to his child support payments. It is the presumptive start date for a change to child support.
175The second step under Colucci is to determine if the court should depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair.
176The D.B.S. factors guide the exercise of the court’s discretion to depart from the presumptive start date, as described and modified in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 and Colluci.
177These factors are briefly summarized as follows: 1) the reasons for delay in seeking retroactive support; 2) whether any party has engaged in blameworthy conduct; 3) the circumstances of the child; and 4) whether a lump sum retroactive order will cause the payor hardship.
178The mother’s retroactive claim is more than five years prior to the date of her effective and formal notice to the father.
179Alternatively, the mother also stated at trial that she is agreeable to maintaining the presumptive start date for retroactive support at April 1, 2022, three years before the father commenced his application, and which is the date the parties agreed to under the Temporary Order of Justice Pawagi, when the father’s retroactive child support arrears were fixed at $13, 474.00 on a temporary without prejudice basis.
180The mother was asked why she did not bring a claim for child support when the parties separated, and waited until the father commenced his own application, five years after the parties’ separation.
181The mother testified that she thought that the parties would still eventually be in a relationship and that they would reconcile. The parties did reconcile briefly in 2024, but this ended badly after approximately two months.
182The mother also testified that she was collecting the Canada Child Tax benefit as Hayden’s primary caregiver, and that she was also receiving a daycare subsidy. Occasionally, she would ask the father for assistance to purchase clothing and other supplies for Hayden, so she “kept pushing it off” [her claim for child support] until the father commenced his application for parenting time.
183Although ongoing discussions of reconciliation, settlement negotiations or mediation are generally not considered unreasonable5 in considering a parent’s delay in bringing an application, the mother did not provide sufficient evidence that her five-year delay in bringing a retroactive application for child support was reasonable.
184Notwithstanding the unreasonable delay, the father’s conduct prior to commencing these proceedings met the definition of blameworthy conduct under the law.
185The father reduced his child support payments to the mother when she returned to work after her maternity leave in 2021. He then stopped paying child support completely in 2022 when the mother obtained full-time employment.
186As noted previously, the court found the father’s explanation for doing this lacked credibility. The father should have been paying the basic table amount of child support to the mother in accordance with his income following the parties’ separation in March of 2020. The mother candidly acknowledged in her testimony that she did not pursue this.
187By his own evidence, he only started paying child support of $350.00 per month in June of 2020 three months after the separation, while the mother was on maternity leave. Based on the father’s income at the time, he should have been paying a table amount of $528.00. He does not dispute that the child was in the mother’s primary care while she was on maternity leave at least until October of 2020.
188In 2021, the father then continued to reduce child support to $275.00, $250.00 or $225.00 until he stopped paying child support in October of 2022.
189The total amount of child support paid by the father prior to commencing his application was significantly inadequate. The court has calculated that from March of 2020 to July of 2022, when the parties started the equal parenting schedule, the father should have paid the table amount of child support to the mother in accordance with his income, amounting to almost $15,000.00 in arrears, not including the arrears that he owes under the Temporary Order for the time period of 2022 to 2025.
190Even if the child was in the father’s care at least 40 percent of the time since October of 2020, as the father asserts but the court did not find based on the evidence at trial, the father should have paid significantly more child support on a straight “set-off” basis given the disparity in the parties’ income.
191Even if the court imputed income to the mother at $35,000.00 annually, retroactive to 2022, as the father has requested, he still underpaid child support based on a straight set-off analysis once the parties started the equal parenting schedule. As noted, he admitted that he stopped paying child support completely in October of 2022.
192The Supreme Court of Canada directs that courts should apply an expansive definition of blameworthy conduct. Blameworthy 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.
193Neither party gave evidence regarding the child’s circumstances, the third factor that a court must consider in determining whether to depart from the presumptive start date for retroactive child support.
194Finally, a lump sum retroactive order may cause the father hardship. However, any hardship may be addressed by the form of payment. Justice Pawagi has already reduced the father’s payment towards the arrears that he currently owes to $100.00 monthly on consent of the parties.
195In considering the mother’s delay and the father’s blameworthy conduct, as well as the other DBS factors, the court finds that April 1, 2022 continues to be a fair and appropriate start date for the child support owing by the father. This is slightly more than three years before the mother gave formal and effective notice of her claim for retroactive child support in June of 2025. It is also the date that the parties had already agreed to as the start for the arrears owed by the father under the Temporary Order dated October 1, 2025.
196The third step of the Colucci framework (quantifying the amount of arrears owing) is therefore not necessary, as the parties have already calculated and fixed the amount that the father owed at $13,474, less any payments that the father has made.
9.5 The Section 7 Expenses:
197Section 7 expenses are governed by Section 7 of Ontario’s Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 303/24 and defined in the legislation as follows:
Special or extraordinary expenses
- (1) In an order for the support of a child, the court may, on the request of either parent or spouse or of an applicant under section 33 of the Act, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the parents or spouses and those of the child and to the spending pattern of the parents or spouses in respect of the child during cohabitation:
(a) childcare expenses incurred as a result of the employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment of the parent or spouse who has the majority of parenting time;
(b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;
(c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;
(d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs;
(e) expenses for post-secondary education; and
(f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 7 (1); O. Reg. 446/01, s. 2; O. Reg. 32/21, s. 2.
7(1.1) For the purposes of clauses (1) (d) and (f),
“extraordinary expenses” means
(a) expenses that exceed those that the parent or spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that parent’s or spouse’s income and the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate, or
(b) where clause (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account,
(i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the parent or spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate,
(ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities,
(iii) any special needs and talents of the child,
(iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and
(v) any other similar factors that the court considers relevant. O. Reg. 102/06, s. 1.
2The determination of each parent’s contribution to the section 7 expenses is set out under s. 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the Guidelines as follows:
Sharing of expense
7(2) The guiding principle in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1) is that the expense is shared by the parents or spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 7 (2).
Subsidies, tax deductions, etc.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1), the court must 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. O. Reg. 159/07, s. 2.
Universal childcare benefit
(4) In determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1), the court shall take into account any universal childcare benefit or any eligibility to claim that benefit. O. Reg. 159/07, s. 2.
198In Titova v. Titov 2012 ONCA 864, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that in awarding section 7 expenses, the trial judge calculates each party’s income for child support purposes, determines whether the claimed expenses fall within one of the enumerated categories of section 7 of the Guidelines, determines whether the claimed expenses are necessary “in relation to the child’s best interests” and are reasonable “in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation.”
199Currently, there are very few section 7 expenses. Hayden is now in grade one and she is in a daycare program at her school (a ‘before and after school’ program). This childcare is now fully subsidized as it is based on the mother’s income. However, that may soon change once the mother’s income increases. The cost of the daycare program is $685.00 per month if there is no subsidy.
200The child’s dental and medical expenses are covered by the father’s health plan through his employment, although the mother also pays for some medical expenses. The father agrees to continue to cover these expenses so long as this is available through his employment. There are no other section 7 expenses at this time.
201The court has discretion to deviate from the guiding principle under section 7(2) that section 7 expenses should be shared by the parties in proportion to their incomes. See: Zhao. v. Xiao, 2023 ONCA 453. The Temporary Order provides that the parties share the sections 7 expenses equally.
202However, given the disparity in the parties’ income, the court finds that it is not appropriate to deviate from section 7(2) and 7(3) of the Child Support Guidelines. Any section 7 expense, discussed in advance and agreed to in writing by the parties, shall be shared in proportion to their respective incomes, after deducting any subsidies, benefits, tax deductions, or credits relating to the expense.
10. Final Order and Conclusion:
203The court makes the following final orders:
The father’s application to impute income to the mother is dismissed.
Commencing June 1, 2026, the father shall pay child support to the mother in the amount of $445.00 per month based on the findings made in this judgment, and in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines for Ontario.
The mother’s application for a retroactive contribution to child support from the father since the date of separation (March 9, 2020) is dismissed.
The father shall continue to owe child support arrears to the mother in the amount of $13,474.00, as fixed in the Temporary Order of Justice M. Pawagi, dated October 1, 2025, less any payments that he has already made to the mother through the Family Responsibility Office.
The father shall continue to pay the arrears at a rate of $100.00 per month until paid in full.
The parties shall share the cost of section 7 expenses, discussed in advance and agreed to in writing by the parties, in proportion to their respective incomes, after deducting any subsidies, benefits, tax deductions or credits relating to the expense. The father’s current income is $61,919.61 and the mother’s current income is $32,000.00. The father’s proportional share of the child’s section 7 expenses is therefore 66 percent and the mother’s proportional share is 34 percent based on their current incomes.
The father shall continue to irrevocably maintain the child as a beneficiary on any medical, dental or extended health plan that he has available to him through his place of employment and shall provide the mother with details of the plan and proof of the child’s coverage within 30 days of any request. This shall continue as long the child is eligible for child support.
The father shall sign any documentation required authorizing the mother to make claims for the child directly to his health insurer.
Commencing July 1, 2026, the parties shall exchange complete copies of their income tax returns, including all schedules, attachments, t-4 slips, statement of income and expenses, and any notices of assessment, by July 1st of each year for so long as child support is payable.
A Support Deduction Order and Support Deduction Order Information Form shall issue.
All other claims are dismissed.
Counsel for the mother shall draft the final order forthwith.
204The court thanks both parties and counsel for their preparation and for conducting themselves professionally throughout this hearing.
205If either party seeks their costs, they are to serve and file written submissions by June 15, 2026. The other party will then have until July 15, 2026 to provide a written response. The submissions should not exceed five pages, not including any bills of costs or offers to settle.
Released: May 8, 2026 Signed: S. O’Connell
Footnotes
- April 1 2022 is three years before the father issued and served his formal application.
- Page 1 of 5 at Part II of the father’s Affidavit under “Parenting Arrangement and Support History” at paragraph 3.
- Emphasis added by the court.
- L.(L.) v. C.(M.), 2013 ONSC 1801;
- See: Janson v Dicecco 2025 ONCJ 189, per Justice Stanley Sherr.