COURT FILE NO. D42860/22
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
RYAN MICHAEL SMITH
ACTING IN PERSON
APPLICANT
- and –
BARBARA LEE SHIELDS-KRIEGER
ACTING IN PERSON
RESPONDENT
HEARD: MARCH 17 and JULY 28, 2026
BEFORE: JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
REASONS FOR DECISION
Part One – Introduction
1This trial was about the applicant’s (the father’s) child support obligations for the parties’ 18-year-old daughter (H).
2The remaining issues for trial were as follows:
a) Should child support for H terminate, and if so, when?
b) What is the father’s income for support purposes in 2025 and 2026? In particular, what portion, if any, of the father’s severance payment received in 2025 should be included in his income?
c) What amount, if any, should the father be required to contribute to H’s orthodontic expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines)?
d) How should any support arrears be paid?
3The trial started on March 17, 2026. The court heard evidence, adjourned the trial and required the parties to provide further disclosure, including:
a) Details about H’s school attendance.
b) Details about H’s orthodontic expenses.
c) The mother’s 2025 income tax return.
d) The father’s 2025 income tax return and details about his severance payment.
4The parties substantially complied with the disclosure orders and the trial resumed on July 28, 2026. The parties agreed that support for H would terminate as of June 30, 2026. The other issues remained outstanding.
5The court considered the affidavits and financial statements filed by the parties. They both gave oral evidence and cross-examined each other. The father provided the court with a Statement of Law and Book of Authorities.
Part Two – Brief background facts
6The parties are both 43 years old. They lived together from 2007 to 2017. They have two children together, H, and E, who is an independent adult.
7H has lived with the mother since the parties separated.
8The father issued an application for parenting and support orders on December 16, 2022. The mother filed an answer/claim.
9The parties consented to a final support order dated December 13, 2023. The father’s support arrears were fixed at $6,532, payable at $175 each month. Ongoing support for H was set at $547 each month, based on his annual income of $59,100.
10The father issued an amended application dated March 3, 2025. He sought to terminate support for H. He also sought to reduce his child support payments because he had recently been laid off by his employer.
11The mother filed an answer/claim, issued on March 5, 2026, seeking increased child support and the dismissal of the father’s application.
Part Three – What is the father’s income for 2025 and 2026?
3.1 Positions of the parties
12The father was laid off by his employer in February 2025. The father said he received a one-year severance payment of $52,272 in April 2025. He found a new job as an assistant funeral director in June 2025. That job is paying him an annual income of approximately $38,000.
13The line 15000 entry on the father’s 2025 notice of assessment shows total income of $83,766. This includes the full amount of his severance payment.
14The father submits the severance payment was a one-time payment that will not recur and should not be included in his income for support purposes. He asks that his child support obligations for 2025 and 2026 be recalculated based on his actual employment income for those years.
15The mother asks that the full amount of the severance payment be included in the father’s income.
16The father is presently earning income at an annual rate of about $38,000. The mother is not seeking to impute additional income to him.
3.2 Discussion
17The starting point for determining guideline income is a payor’s “total income” as set out in line 15000 of a payor’s tax return. See: Section 16 of the guidelines. Subsection 17 (1) of the guidelines states that if the court is of the opinion that the determination of a parent’s or spouse’s annual income under section 16 would not be the fairest determination of that income, the court may have regard to the parent’s or spouse’s income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years.
18The case law supports a presumption that severance payments should be included in income because they replace employment earnings and therefore form part of the payor's resources available for support.
19The fact of non-recurrence is not on its own sufficient reason to deny a spouse or child the benefit of the payor’s severance income. In McKenzie v. Perestrolo, 2014 BCCA 161, the court wrote at paragraph 99:
Severance packages are obviously different from RRSP withdrawals in that they represent substitution for a temporary loss of income stream and should be considered to be available to pay support. Subject to a sound argument to the contrary, I can see no reason why severance packages should not generally be included in Guideline income.
20The court will include the father’s severance payment in his income. The issue is whether it should be entirely allocated to his 2025 income or allocated over two years.
21A pro rata adjustment is appropriate when the severance package carries over a period of one year. See: McKenzie, supra.
22For instance, in Campbell v. Campbell, 2012 NSCA 86, the husband was given a severance package for what amounted to 18 months’ salary. The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to include the severance package and average his income over two years.
23The court will adopt a similar approach. The father received a one-year severance package in April 2025. It would be unfair to him to include the entire severance amount received in his 2025 income. The severance was income replacement for him from April 2025 to April 2026. This approach is also consistent with subsection 17 (1) of the guidelines to determine income in a manner that is fair in the circumstances. It results in a reduction of the child support the father will be required to pay.
24The court will allocate two-thirds of the severance amount to the father’s 2025 income and one-third of it to his 2026 income to more accurately reflect the periods of income replacement. This is because approximately eight months of the severance period fell within 2025 and four months fell within 2026.
25The court will reduce the father’s 2025 income by $17,459, being a one-third reduction of the severance payment of $52,272. This means the father’s 2025 income is $66,307 ($83,766 - $17,459). The guidelines table amount at this income for one child is $612 each month.
26The father’s 2026 income will be increased by the same $17,459 deducted in 2025, being one-third of his severance payment. This means that his 2026 income for support purposes is $55,459 ($38,000 + $17,459). The guidelines table amount at this income for one child is $512 each month.
27Paragraph 3 (2) (b) of the guidelines requires the court to consider whether the guidelines (the guidelines table amount plus section 7 expenses) became inappropriate once H turned 18 years old in November 2025. The court finds that the guidelines remained appropriate as she continued to live with her mother and go to school in Toronto.
Part Four – What amount, if any, should the father contribute to H’s orthodontic expenses?
4.1 Positions of the parties
28In April 2025, the mother entered into an agreement with H’s orthodontist to pay $5,800 for H’s orthodontic work, with a downpayment of $1,160 and the balance payable at $275.40 each month.
29The mother paid a total of $3,318 in 2025 for H’s orthodontic expenses. A balance of $1,390 remains owing.
30The mother provided documentation supporting these financial arrangements, her payments and the need for H’s orthodontic treatment.
31The mother asks that the father contribute his proportionate share for these expenses.
32The father opposes making any contribution towards these expenses. He asserts he was not consulted or advised about the orthodontic treatment before it started. He was never provided with a treatment plan. Further, the mother did not claim this relief in her answer/claim and only provided supporting documentation at trial. He said that if he had been consulted earlier, he might have been able to have some of these expenses paid through his medical coverage with his previous employer.
4.2 Legal considerations
33In Titova v. Titov, 2012 ONCA 864, the court set out the following framework for determining a party’s contribution to a child’s section 7 expenses:
a) Calculate each parties’ income for child support purposes.
b) Determine whether the claimed expenses fall within one of the enumerated categories of section 7 of the guidelines.
c) Determine 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.”
d) If the expenses fall under paragraphs 7 (1) (d) or (f) of the guidelines, determine whether the expenses are “extraordinary” as defined by subsection 7 (1.1) of the guidelines.
e) The court considers what amount, if any, the child should reasonably contribute to the payment of these expenses and then applies any tax deductions or credits.
f) The court determines the proportions that each party should contribute to the expenses, with the guiding principle being that the expenses will be shared in proportion to their incomes.
34Unlike section 3 of the guidelines, which presumptively provides for the table amount of child support, an order for section 7 expenses involves the exercise of judicial discretion. See: Park v. Thompson, 2005 CanLII 14132 (ON CA), 77 O.R. (3d) 601, (Ont. C.A.).
35The onus is on the parent seeking the special or extraordinary expenses to prove that the claimed expenses fall within one of the categories under section 7 and that the expenses are necessary and reasonable, having regard to the parental financial circumstances. See: Park v. Thompson, supra.
36Reasonableness and necessity are assessed in context, having regard to the child’s needs, the family’s circumstances and the nature of the expense. The necessity of an expense is linked to the child’s best interests, including their emotional, physical and social development. See: A.E. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 8189.
37Where the expense is not within the means of the parties, the court may limit or deny recovery of that amount. See: Ebrahim v. Ebrahim, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2039 (SCJ); L.H.M.K. v. B.P.K. 2012 BCSC 435, [2012] B.C.J. 593 (SCJ); Simone v. Van Nuys, 2021 ONCJ 652.
38Section 7 itself does not require prior consultation for allowable expenses, but a failure or refusal by a claiming parent to discuss an expense with the other parent in advance bears on the court’s exercise of its discretion in determining whether it is reasonable. However, where consultation would be meaningless due to chronic default of payor, or attitude of payor, prior consultation should not be required. See: Yeo v. Hutcheson, 2020 ONSC 1256.
39The court has the discretion to apportion the section 7 expense in a different manner than pro-rata to the parties’ incomes, depending on the circumstances of the case. See: Hamilton v. Salmon, 2023 ONCJ 343, per Justice Danielle Szandtner; Salvadori v. Salvadori, 2010 ONCJ 462, [2010] O.J. No. 4425 (OCJ); Buckley v. Blackwood, 2019 ONSC 6918.
40The court may consider the parties’ capital assets, income distribution, debts, third party resources, access costs, support obligations, receipt of support and any other relevant factor. See: Delichte v. Rogers, 2013 MBCA 106.
4.3 Discussion
41The father’s 2025 income has been assessed at $66,307, and his 2026 income has been assessed at $55,459 for the purpose of this support analysis.
42The mother’s 2025 income was $29,667. This income will also be used for her 2026 income for the support analysis.
43The orthodontic expenses for H are eligible medical expenses under paragraph 7 (1) (c) of the guidelines. They are reasonable and necessary for her. She required braces.
44H’s orthodontic expenses were $3,318 in 2025.
45The court will attribute the balance of the orthodontic expenses of $2,482 to 2026.
46The court considered that some of the orthodontic payments are due after H is ineligible for support. However, the orthodontic work was done while she was eligible for support – it is only the payment plan that stretches beyond the date of her ineligibility for support. The court finds this should not impact the amount the father is required to contribute to these expenses.
47If the orthodontic expenses are apportioned strictly on income, the father’s proportionate share of the net orthodontic expenses, after applying tax credits and deductions, comes to $1,872 in 2025 and $1,210 in 2026. The software calculations showing this are attached to this decision.
48However, the analysis does not end there. The court will reduce the father’s share of these expenses for the following reasons:
a) The court expects H, as an adult who has completed school and is seeking employment, to make a modest contribution to the orthodontic expenses – particularly for the orthodontic expenses allocated to 2026.
b) The mother made a choice not to consult or advise the father about the orthodontic work before treatment was started. She should have done so. If she had consulted him earlier about H’s need for treatment, some of these expenses might have been covered by his medical insurance plan.
c) The mother did not make a claim for a contribution to orthodontic expenses in her answer/claim. However, she put the father on notice that she was making this claim in her trial material and he was aware this was a central trial issue when the trial was adjourned for four months. The mother’s failure to plead this relief was a minor factor in this decision.
d) The mother did not provide comprehensive documentation about the orthodontic costs and treatment plan until the second day of trial. This was unfair to the father.
49The court will order the father to contribute $1,400 towards H’s orthodontic expenses for 2025 and $900 towards these expenses for 2026. This is approximately a 25% reduction from what the father would have been required to pay based on an apportionment of the orthodontic expenses strictly on income.
Part Five – Payment of arrears
50The father is in arrears of child support. This order will increase those arrears.
51The father proposes to continue to pay the arrears at $175 each month. He deposed that he is struggling financially. He said that he has Type 1 Diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and he has health-related costs to manage these conditions.
52The mother wants the arrears paid at a higher rate. She did not specify an amount.
53The father’s ongoing child support payments are now finished. This will leave him with more resources to pay the arrears. The court considered his economic circumstances. He will be required to pay the arrears at $300 each month, starting on September 1, 2026. However, this repayment arrangement is conditional upon him remaining current with the ordered payments.
Part Six – Conclusion
54A final order shall go as follows:
a) The child support payments set out in the December 13, 2023 order are changed as follows:
i) The father shall pay child support to the mother of $612 each month for H, starting on January 1, 2025. This is the guidelines table amount for one child based on the father’s 2025 income assessed at $66,307.
ii) The father shall pay child support to the mother of $512 each month for H, starting on January 1, 2026. This is the guidelines table amount for one child based on the father’s 2026 income assessed at $55,459.
iii) In addition, the father shall pay the mother $1,400 for his share of H’s orthodontic expenses in 2025 and $900 for his share of those expenses in 2026. These payments are to be added to his support arrears.
iv) The father’s child support payments for H are terminated effective June 30, 2026.
b) The Family Responsibility Office is requested to adjust its records in accordance with this order.
c) The father may pay his support arrears at $300 each month, starting on September 1, 2026. However, if he is more than 30 days late in making any payments, the full amount of arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.
d) This order does not preclude the Family Responsibility Office from collecting arrears from any government source, such as income tax or GST/HST returns, lottery or prize winnings or inheritances.
e) A support deduction order shall issue.
55The court thanks the parties for their civil presentation of this matter.
Released: July 30, 2026 __________________________
Justice Stanley B. Sherr