ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
Fahra Murad
-and- Dalibor Bikich
Applicant
Respondent
Before Justice Susan Sullivan Heard on June 8, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on July 6, 2026
S. Cantos…………………………………………………………..Counsel for the Applicant
D. Bikich…………………………………………………………………….On his own behalf
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
1This motion is about Dalibor Bikich’s interim child support obligation to Fahra Murad for the child Dario Murad (born […], 2024) from June 1, 2026 onward.
2The main issue to be decided is Mr. Bikich’s income for child support purposes.
3Ms. Murad requests that Mr. Bikich be imputed a gross annual income of $100,000 and be ordered to pay $932 a month in child support.
4Mr. Bikich requests that he be imputed a gross annual income of $50,000 and be ordered to pay $450 a month in child support.
5The parties’ requested monthly amounts of child support are the 2025 Guideline amounts to be paid for one child, based on their requested imputed incomes.
Facts
6The parties were in a relationship from November, 2023 to February, 2025.
7Since separation (maybe before; the evidence is not clear) Dario has primarily resided with Ms. Murad.
8Mr. Bikich owned 50% of Playlist Company Inc.
9In November, 2025 Mr. Bikich received $275,000 in tax-free funds as a result of the sale of his 50% share of Playlist to the spouse of his former business partner.
10Playlist’s revenue for the last three years was:
(a) 2023: $217,145.88.
(b) 2024: $333,056.
(c) January, 2025 to November, 2025: $309,951.51.
11Mr. Bikich’s drawings from Playlist for the last three years were:
(a) 2023: $98,150.
(b) 2024: $100,901.06.
(c) January 1, 2025 to November 19, 2025: $95,700. (This is for 46 weeks; at this rate, drawings for 52 weeks would be $108,182.61).
12In his November 3, 2025 Financial Statement (completed prior to the sale of his share of Playlist), Mr. Bikich states that his gross annual income is $108,000.
13In his April 28, 2026 Financial Statement, Mr. Bikich states that his gross annual income is $8,185.80.
14Also, in his April, 2026 Financial Statement, Mr. Bikich states:
(a) His annual expenses total $75,511.08.
(b) He purchased FIFA World Cup tickets for resale. One set of tickets was purchased for $9,000, with an estimated resale value of $15,000. Another set of tickets was purchased for $8,000, with an estimated resale value of $16,000.
15Notably, a comparison of Mr. Bikich’s November, 2025 and April, 2026 Financial Statements shows:
(a) His housing expenses remained constant ($2,510.63 a month).
(b) His transportation expenses increased (from $150 a month in November, 2025 to $564.96 a month in April, 2026).
(c) His personal expenses decreased (from $1,553.50 in November, 2025 to $1,191 a month in April, 2026, with a notable change in his entertainment / recreation expenses which included therapy, chiropractor, massage, and yoga costs).
(d) His ‘other expenses’ decreased (his vacation expenses remained the same at $400 a month, but the monthly debt payments of $2,208 noted in his November, 2025 Financial Statement are absent in his April, 2026 Financial Statement).
(e) His savings increased (from $100 in November, 2025 to $94,546.47 in April, 2026).
(f) His debt decreased (from $71,016.45 in November, 2025 to $4,706.47 in April, 2026).
(g) His net worth increased (from ($48,916.45) in November, 2025 to $158,840 in April, 2026).
16Since the sale of his share of Playlist, Mr. Bikich has enrolled in a Master of Science in Analytics program at Georgia Institute of Technology.
17With respect to these studies, Ms. Murad’s evidence is:
(a) This is a part-time on-line program.
(b) It is described on the school’s website as a “self-paced data analytics degree program” offering a “flexible format for working professionals.”
(c) Mr. Bikich is permitted to take as few as one course per semester.
(d) Mr. Bikich is enrolled in two courses per semester.
(e) The program pamphlet provided by Mr. Bikich in response to her Request for Information recommends only two courses while completing the program and working full-time.
18With respect to these studies, Mr. Bikich’s evidence is:
(a) Georgia Tech’s published program guidance recommends 10-20 hours per week per course, with students taking one or two courses at a time.
(b) He takes two courses per semester, placing his coursework workload at, “20- 40 hours per week before prerequisite study, research, consultancy development, and self-representation in this litigation.”
(c) The residual weekly capacity for paid work is 15-20 hours per week. He stipulates a work week of 20 hours, “to remove from this dispute any marginal disagreement about exact part-time hours.”
(d) The accelerated program pace he has adopted “compresses the educational transition, after which earning capacity moves into materially higher levels available in the analytics field.” He states this is consistent with Dario’s long- term interests.
(e) His studies are year-round.
19Currently, Mr. Bikich works part-time as a consultant. He charges $100 an hour. The invoices he provided to Ms. Murad’s counsel on May 5, 2026, in response to Ms. Murad’s Request for Information, show that his last invoice was dated February 28, 2026.
20Mr. Bikich’s evidence is that his stated income of $8,200 (in his April, 2026 Financial Statement) is his, “current consulting earnings annualized during the educational period.”
Positions
21Ms. Murad’s request that Mr. Bikich be imputed a gross annual income of $100,000 is based on:
(a) What Mr. Bikich advised he earned in the last three years from Playlist, given that he has not established that his decision to become under-employed and return to school was reasonable.
(b) If the court accepts that Mr. Bikich’s decision to return to school is reasonable, he has the capacity to earn $100,000 a year, if he worked part-time at $100 an hour ($100 an hour x 20 hours a week x 52 weeks a year).
22Mr. Bikich’s request that he be imputed a gross annual income of $50,000 is based on:
Law
(a) His prior earning capacity of $100,000, based on a 40-hour work week, yields him an hourly wage of $48 an hour. If he works 20 hours a week at this rate while a student, his gross annual income would be $50,000 ($48 an hour x 20 hours a week x 52 weeks a year).
23One of the purposes of the Child Support Guidelines (O. Reg. 391/97 under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3) is to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they benefit from the financial means of both parents (section 1(a) of the Guidelines).
24A parent’s income for support purposes is determined in accordance with sections 16 to 20 of the Guidelines (Section 15(1) of the Guidelines).
25The starting point for calculating a payor’s Guidelines income is line 15000 from the payor’s personal income tax return (section 16 of the Guidelines).
26However, the court may impute such amount of income to a parent as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include, the parent is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent (section 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines).
27Income imputation provides a means by which the court can ensure that parents meet their joint and ongoing obligation to support their children (Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (ONCA)).
28The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli, supra, set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:
(a) Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
(b) If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of reasonable educational needs?
(c) If not, what income is appropriately imputed?
29The onus is on the parent claiming imputation to establish an evidentiary foundation for intentional under-employment or unemployment (Berta v. Berta, 2015 ONCA 918).
30As a general rule, a payor parent cannot avoid a support obligation by a self- imposed reduction of income (Drygala v. Pauli, supra, at para. 38). There is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income is imputed. The parent required to pay is intentionally under-employed if that parent chooses to earn less than he or she is capable of earning. That parent is intentionally unemployed when he chooses not to work when capable of earning an income (Drygala v. Pauli, supra, at para. 28).
31Once intentional under-employment or unemployment is established, the burden shifts to the payor parent to show one of the exceptions of reasonableness (Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 72, at para.702).
32There are two aspects to this second stage of inquiry. First, the payor parent must satisfy the court that their educational needs are reasonable. Second, the payor parent must satisfy the court that under-employment or unemployment is required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs.
33The first prong involves a consideration of the course of study:
(a) Where a payor parent elects to return to school to retrain for a new type of employment or career, the court must consider whether the educational plan is reasonable; whether it relates to realistic and productive career aspirations; the extent to which ongoing support will have to be interrupted or reduced; and the ultimate impact retraining will have on income prospects and long-term ability to pay (Tillmanns v. Tillmanns, 2014 ONSC 6773, at para. 72).
(b) Merely being enrolled in an educational program is not sufficient to discharge the onus, once intentional under-employment has been established. There must be a clear and realistic plan for re-entering the workforce (Tillmanns v. Tillmanns, supra, at para. 73).
(c) Quitting secure employment to pursue a career change is harder to justify and more likely to lead to income being imputed (Tillmanns v. Tillmanns, supra, at para. 73).
34The second prong involves a determination of what is required by virtue of the payor parent’s educational needs. The payor parent has the burden of demonstrating that under-employment or unemployment 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 parent is excused from pursuing part-time work? Could the program be completed over a longer period with the parent taking fewer courses so that the parent 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 parent 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 parent (Drygala v. Pauli, supra, at para. 40).
35What is to be gleaned from the Drygala v. Pauli, supra, references above is that the burden on the payor parent is to establish the reasonableness of his or her education decision. Unreasonable education decisions will be rejected by the court (Eden v. Grondin, 2018 ONCJ 116).
36The burden of proof is upon the parent pursuing education as he or she is the person with access to the requisite information. (Drygala v. Pauli, supra, at para. 41).
37Not all career decisions which result in reduced income will be unreasonable. However, when an employment decision leads to a significant reduction in child support, it must be justified in a compelling way (Riel v. Holland (2003), 2003 CanLII 3433 (ON CA), 67 O.R. (3d) 417 (ONCA), at para. 23).
38The payor must demonstrate that the decision was, “reasoned, thoughtful, and highly practical” (Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137, at para. 35).
39Justice Pazaratz notes in Jackson v. Mayerle, supra, at para. 715:
Parents are required to act responsibly when making financial decisions that may affect the level of child support available. They must not arrange their financial affairs so as to prefer their own interests over those of their children.
40When a parent is intentionally and unreasonably under-employed or unemployed, the last step is to determine what, if any, income is appropriately imputed in the circumstances. The onus is on the parent claiming imputation to establish the evidentiary foundation for the amount sought to be imputed (Berta v. Berta, supra). There must be a rational basis underlying the selection of an amount (Drygala v. Pauli, supra, at para. 44).
41The parent against whom the imputation of income is sought must make full and complete financial disclosure to ensure that the information required to make a decision on the issue is before the court (Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548).
42The court must consider many factors including the age, education, experience, skills and health of the party; his or her past earning history; the standard of living during the parties' relationship; and the amount of income the payor could reasonably earn if they worked to capacity. The court can also consider the pattern of income - usually during the three years leading up to termination of employment - to determine an amount that is fair and reasonable (Tillmanns v. Tillmanns, supra, at para. 67).
43Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking (Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719).
44Where the court concludes there was simply no justification for the payor to voluntarily terminate ongoing, secure employment, the court may impute income based on the amount the payor would have earned if they had remained on the job (Tillmanns v. Tillmanns, supra, at para. 74).
45The court has a large range of discretion to impute as income an amount founded on a rational basis (D. (D.) v. D. (H.), 2015 ONCA 409).
Analysis
46This case involves an evidentiary record limited to affidavit evidence in support of an interim order, as opposed to a more complete record that would be available at trial. Nevertheless, this does not preclude making findings based on the present evidentiary record in relation to interim child support; income may be imputed on a motion (Kowalik v. Kowalik, 2011 ONSC 1551).
47There is no dispute that child support (Table) is owed to Ms. Murad by Mr. Bikich.
48Mr. Bikich concedes that he is under-employed; at paragraph 17 of his May 26, 2026 affidavit he states, “I have intentionally elected to retrain rather than maintain my pre-sale earnings.”
49Mr. Bikich has not discharged his onus of demonstrating that his decision to sell his share of Playlist, become under-employed, and return to school to re-train for a new career was reasonable:
(a) Playlist is a successful company. Its revenue has increased over the last three years. While its revenue did not return to its 2018 level ($539,198), its 2024 revenue and 2025 (January to November) revenue were comparable to its 2019 revenue ($397,141). Playlist’s 2024 Financial Statement confirms a surplus with no long-term liabilities.
(b) Mr. Bikich’s drawings from Playlist have been meaningful and consistent over the last three years and have provided him with financial security. The drawings may be an underestimation of Mr. Bikich’s income for child support purposes as they do not include any add-backs or gross-ups for Mr. Bikich’s personal expenses he ran through his business.
(c) The evidence does not establish reason to be concerned that Playlist would not continue to generate revenue in the range it has over the last three years, and that Mr. Bikich would not be able to receive drawings in the amounts he has over the last three years on a go-forward basis. Mr. Bikich has not provided any evidence with respect to the purported decline in the music industry. The court does not accept Mr. Bikich’s submission that, “The pandemic contraction of the in-store music programming industry is a matter of judicial notice.”
(d) Mr. Bikich has not substantiated at all his statement that his, “multi-year educational trajectory predating the parties’ relationship” establishes the reasonableness of his current education plan.
(e) Mr. Bikich has not provided evidence as to the length of his current educational program. As a result, the court does not know the extent to which ongoing support will have to be reduced.
(f) Mr. Bikich has not articulated a clear and realistic plan for re-entering the workforce upon completion of his studies.
(g) Mr. Bikich has not provided any evidence as to how his current studies will enhance his employability and income in the future. For example, he has not provided any evidence as to what the employment market for graduates of the program is today or forecasted to be when he graduates and he has not provided information regarding the potential salary range following completion of the program. This makes it impossible for the court to weigh any purported long-term benefits of Mr. Bikich’s studies against his decision to be under- employed.
(h) In sum, Mr. Bikich has not established that his decision to sell his share of Playlist - a successful company that provided him with financial security - to pursue an unrelated degree was a reasoned, thoughtful, and highly practical decision, particularly given his child support obligation to Dario.
50As the court has found that Mr. Bikich’s educational plan is unreasonable, there is no need to determine what is required by virtue of his educational needs.
51Given that Mr. Bikich is intentionally and unreasonably under-employed, the last step is to determine what, if any, income is appropriately imputed in the circumstances.
52Ms. Murad has provided a rational evidentiary foundation to impute Mr. Bikich a gross annual income of $100,000:
(a) This amount is in keeping with Mr. Bikich’s earning history in the three years prior to him becoming under-employed. It also takes into account that the drawings may be an underestimation of Mr. Bikich’s income for child support purposes as they do not include any add-backs or gross-ups for the personal expenses Mr. Bikich ran through his business.
(b) Mr. Bikich has the time, skills, and experience to develop his consultancy business and work twenty hours a week at it while he is completing his course of studies, particularly (but not necessarily) if he takes one course a semester (as he is permitted to do). He can reasonably earn $100 an hour working as a consultant. Twenty hours of work a week, at $100 an hour, renders Mr. Bikich’s income close to $100,000 (it is actually $104,000) if he worked to capacity.
53Mr. Bikich has not successfully defended the income position established by Ms. Murad:
(a) Mr. Bikich stipulates that he can currently work twenty hours a week (while doing two courses). He also explains that his stated income of $8,200 is his, “current consulting earnings annualized during the educational period.” This suggests a work rate of approximately one and a half hours a week ($8,200 divided by 52 is $157.69; his hourly rate is $100 an hour). This represents a very unreasonable level of under-employment.
(b) Mr. Bikich’s request to rely on $48 an hour when determining his income for child support purposes is not reasonable. The court has information regarding the current hourly rate Mr. Bikich can presently earn; he charges $100 an hour for his consultancy work. It is appropriate to apply the most up-to-date income information available. The evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Bikich can earn at least $100,000 a year, via part-time consultancy work, while he pursues his studies.
(c) Mr. Bikich can take one course per semester but has chosen to take two courses. Lessening his studies would increase his availability to earn a higher income and in turn, allow him to meaningfully satisfy his child support obligation to Dario.
Order
(d) Mr. Bikich did not include in the calculation of his income the anticipated $14,000 profit to be realized from the resale of his FIFA World Cup tickets.
(e) On May 26, 2026 Mr. Bikich disclosed to Ms. Murad’s counsel in a ‘Memorandum’ that he has, “arranged a summer 2026 applied analytics engagement with an online retailer based in Vancouver.” He has not provided Ms. Murad, or the court, with any disclosure regarding the compensation or duration of this summer employment. Income from this program would be included in a determination of his income for child support purposes.
(f) In the same May 26, 2026 Memorandum, Mr. Bikich disclosed to Ms. Murad’s counsel that he is developing an AI development consulting business. This is directly relevant to his income and earning capacity. However, Mr. Bikich has not provided any disclosure of when he intends to start this business, despite an obligation to do so.
(g) Mr. Bikich’s annual expenses are $75,511 with no corresponding debt and a stated actual annual income of $8,185. A gross annual income of $100,000 is reasonably required to meet his yearly budget.
(h) Mr. Bikich is clearly using the non-recurring income received from the sale of his share of Playlist to fund not only his regular expenses, but also to support new ventures. He is paying for his studies with these funds; he has increased his transportation expenses from $150 a month to $564 with the purchase and refurbishment of a 21-year-old Mercedes-Benz; he has purchased FIFA World Cup tickets for resale. Mr. Bikich has also used these funds to significantly reduce his pre-sale personal debt. Dario is entitled to benefit from the money available to Mr. Bikich following the sale of his share of Playlist; to conclude otherwise would be contrary to the purpose of the Guidelines (Marinangeli v. Marinangeli, 2003 CanLII 27673 (ON CA), 2003 CarswellOnt 2691(CA); Schick v. Schick, 2008 ABCA 196, at paras. 25 and 27).
54Based on the totality of the foregoing, an interim order shall issue as follows:
Commencing June 1, 2026 and on the first day of each month thereafter, Dalibor Bikich shall pay Fahra Murad Table child support in the amount of $932 per month for the child Dario Murad (born […], 2024), which amount shall be subject to retroactive and prospective adjustment in the final disposition of this matter. This is the 2025 Guideline amount of support to be paid for one child, based on Mr. Bikich having an imputed gross annual income of $100,000.
SDO to issue.
This matter shall be adjourned to a further in-person Case Conference before Justice Fishman, to be set by the Trial Coordinator. Briefs and Confirmations shall be served and filed per the Family Law Rules. Briefs shall be prepared using 12 pt font, 1.5 spacing and shall not exceed 8 pages in total, inclusive of attachments.
If Ms. Murad seeks costs in relation to this motion:
(a) By July 20, 2026 at 4:00 p.m., Ms. Murad shall serve and file (i) written costs submissions, which shall not exceed 5 pages in total, and shall be prepared using 12 pt font, 1.5 spacing; (ii) bill of costs; and (iii) case law, if any, not to exceed 3 cases.
(b) By August 4, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Bikich shall serve and file (i) responding written costs submissions, which shall not exceed 5 pages in total, and shall be prepared using 12 pt font, 1.5 spacing; (ii) bill of costs; and (iii) case law, if any, not to exceed 3 cases,
Justice Susan Sullivan
Release date: July 6, 2026