ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
C. V.
Applicant Father (Responding Party on Motion to Change)
— AND —
S. G.
Respondent Mother (Moving Party on Motion to Change)
Before Justice Sheilagh O’Connell
Heard on April 14, 2025, December 18, 2025
Ruling on Motion to Change: January 28, 2026
The Applicant Father/Responding Party C.V., not participating
The Respondent Mother/Moving Party, S. G., acting in person
O’CONNELL J.:
Introduction:
1The respondent mother has brought a motion to change the child support provisions of the Final Order dated March 12, 2019. The court made the Final Order following a six-day trial in which both parties participated.
2The mother seeks an order increasing the father’s child support payments to $24,792.16 per month, retroactive to 2014, based on an annual imputed income of $2,500,000.00 USD1. This is the Table amount for one child under the Child Support Guidelines of Ontario.
3In the alternative, the mother seeks an order that the father pay child support on income imputed to the father of 2.5 million CAD, the amount both parties agreed to under a 2009 Domestic Agreement when the father was a professional athlete.
4The mother is not seeking section 7 expenses. She is requesting a fixed amount of child support only.
5This is an uncontested hearing. Although served, the father did not file a response to the motion to change or attend at court despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. On April 14, 2025, he was noted in default.
6It is the mother’s position that she has evidence that the father misrepresented his income during the 2018 trial in this matter, and that there has also been a material change in his financial circumstances resulting in a significant increase in his income as a real estate developer, entrepreneur, restaurant owner, and investor since 2019.
7The mother also seeks several other grounds of relief relating to parenting orders, incidents of parenting, privacy and communication provisions arising from the parties’ 2009 Domestic Agreement and regarding to the father’s social media postings.
8The mother also seeks an order that the father shall pay for the re-evaluation and completion of a forensic accounting of the father’s financial records and that the re-evaluation include a lifestyle analysis.
9The mother further seeks an order that the father shall execute a “Form 8821” and grant the forensic accountant's complete access to his financial records and tax records with the Internal Revenue Services, and an order that the father shall provide all bank statements and credit card statements dating back to his time as a professional basketball player in the NBA, as well as other detailed requests for financial disclosure.
10Finally, in addition to other relief, the mother seeks an order that the father shall pay the costs associated with appointing a mental health professional to support the mother regarding the trauma she has suffered because of these proceedings.
October 28, 2025 Ruling:
11The court held an oral hearing on April 14, 2025. The mother testified and produced over 2000 pages, mostly exhibits and social media documents, in her trial affidavit and further supplementary affidavits filed. The court only relied upon admissible evidence. Following the full day hearing, the court reserved its decision.
12On October 28, 2025, the court released a written ruling that was delivered to both parties by the trial coordinator. The lengthy background and court history between these parties, as well as the findings and orders made regarding the mother’s motion to change should be read as a backdrop to the following ruling.
13In my October 28, 2025 temporary ruling, I also made the following observations, as set out below.
14I determined that through no fault of her own, the mother did not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate a material change or increase in the father’s income and financial circumstances since 2019. This was because the father failed to participate in the hearing, despite being served and notified by the court, and failed to provide any financial disclosure.
15I also determined that there was no evidence before the court that the mother had requested financial disclosure from the father until she filed this motion to change. However, the father clearly breached his legal duty to provide financial disclosure once he was served with the motion to change.
16As stated in my October 28, 2025 ruling at paragraph 90: “The court acknowledges that the mother is in a very challenging and unfair position given that the father has not responded to her motion to change and has not provided any financial disclosure since the Final Order dated March 12, 2019. This “informational asymmetry” as the Supreme Court of Canada in Colluci describes it, is through no fault of the mother.”
17As the court in Colucci noted, “a payor’s failure to make timely, proactive and full disclosure undermines the policies underlying the family law regime and the processes that have been carefully designed to achieve those policy goals”. (Colucci, paragraph 50).
18Given the law regarding a payor’s financial disclosure obligations, I found that the “informational asymmetry” caused by the father’s non-disclosure should not result in the dismissal of the mother’s motion to change child support at that time.
19I gave the father one further opportunity to provide detailed financial disclosure, and to respond to the mother’s motion. I made the following court order on October 28, 2025, starting at paragraph 120 of that decision:
For the above reasons, the court is adjourning the mother’s motion to change and makes the following temporary order:
- The father shall produce the following financial disclosure to the court and the mother no later than December 1st, 2025:
a. An updated sworn Financial Statement (Form 13), which has attached to it, all required attachments, including any notices of assessment and re-assessment from the U.S. and Canada Revenue Agency, and proof of year-to-date gross income earned from all sources.
b. The financial statement shall include a list of all bank accounts, including, but not limited to, JP Morgan personal accounts, RBC personal accounts, NBA Pension accounts, Merrill Lunch Accounts, JP Morgan Chase Accounts, Wells Fargo Accounts, the Trust account for the child, pursuant to the parties’ 2009 Domestic Agreement, and all personal real estate holdings.
c. A copy of all bank statements for the trust account set up for the child under the 2009 Domestic Agreement, confirming the amount of accumulated funds in the trust since 2019.
d. A detailed list of all Limited Liability Corporations, other corporations, enterprises, and corporations, including bank accounts, properties and real estate holdings in each corporation; with separate year-end financial and audited, or non-audited statements for each business for the past 5 years.
e. A copy of every personal and corporate tax return filed with the U.S. Revenue Agency, Canada Revenue Agency or other with all attachments, assessments, and re-assessments for the past 5 years.
f. The most recent monthly or quarterly income and expense statement for each corporation owned by the father, or for which he has an interest.
g. A detailed statement of all personal expenses paid by each corporation.
h. A statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, the party and persons or corporations with whom each corporation does not deal at arm’s length.
i. The year-end financial statements, including balance sheet and income statement or statement of profit and loss, of each corporation and of any related corporations or subsidiaries.
j. A copy of the shareholders’ agreement for each corporation.
k. Details of any shareholders loans.
l. Year-end financial statements for all businesses that are not incorporated, including income and expense statements and list of assets, liabilities and debts.
m. The most recent monthly or quarterly income and expense statement for all businesses not incorporated.
n. A statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, the party and persons or corporations with whom the party does not deal at arm’s length.
o. A copy of any application made by or for the business for a loan, line of credit, credit card or mortgage, including any statement of income or net worth provided by or for the business.
p. Detailed list of all motor vehicles and boats owned, including value of each;
q. Detailed list of all restaurants and other enterprises in which the father is a silent partner and value of each;
20I further put the father on notice of the following: “Should the father fail to produce the disclosure ordered above on or before December 1st, 2025 and fail to attend the December 15th court date, the court will consider ordering a significant financial penalty against the father or a cost award in the mother’s favour. The court will also consider drawing an adverse inference against the father and impute income to him in the amount of 2.5 million CDN for child support purposes.”
21I then adjourned the hearing to December 15th, 2025 to review the financial disclosure ordered and to conference the issues with the parties. I permitted the father to attend virtually given that he resides in the United States. The written reasons, order and Zoom link were delivered to both parties by the Trial Coordinator.
22On December 15, 2025, the mother attended in person. The father did not attend. An all-building page was conducted and the matter was held down. The Clerk of the Court also sent an email to the father advising him that the matter was in court and that we were waiting for his attendance. The clerk re-sent the Zoon link so that the father could attend.
23The father did not respond or attend. The court was prepared to deliver a ruling on that day, however, the mother requested that I postpone releasing a decision until after January 5, 2026. This was because the child who is the subject of this proceeding was travelling to the United States to visit the father for the Christmas holiday. The mother was concerned that any ruling made by the court may have a negative impact on the child’s visit with the father.
24It should be noted that this was the third request by the mother seeking a delay in the release of my ruling in this matter. The previous requests were to file further evidence in support of her claims, without notice to the father. The court permitted the mother to file additional evidence on at least two separate occasions only after the evidence was served upon the father. The mother has also requested that I delay the release of the October 28th Ruling.
25The court agreed to postpone the delivery of this ruling until after January 5, 2026 to ensure that the child’s Christmas visit with his father was not disrupted, given that father and child had not seen each other for a number of years. What follows are my reasons.
Brief Background:
26The parties are the biological parents of one child, who is the subject of these proceedings. The parties never married but were in a relationship while the father was a professional basketball player for the Toronto Raptors and living in Toronto.
27The parties began dating in 2005 and the child was born in 2008. Their relationship ended shortly after the child’s birth.
28The child is now 17 years old and is attending high school. He will be turning 18 years old in June of 2026.
29The child lives with the mother in Ontario and has done so since his birth.
30The father lives in the United States and retired from professional basketball in 2016 when he was 32 years old. He is currently living in Texas and is a businessman and real estate developer. He develops and invests in real estate and other business ventures. He owns several limited companies and is a silent investor in at least one restaurant. He has one other child of a subsequent relationship.
31In 2009, when the child was 8 months old, the parties entered into a Domestic Agreement that addressed support, parenting and other issues relating to the child. The Agreement provided that the father pay ongoing child support to the mother in the amount of $18,000.00 per month, based on an agreed imputed income of 2.5 million Canadian.
32This amount of child support was non-variable for a period of six years. The mother agreed to deposit $3500.00 from the support payable each month into a savings account held in trust for the child.
33The Agreement also provided that the father pay additional sums of $25,000.00 per year into a separate trust account held by him for the child for each $1,000,000.00 of income the father earned the previous year.
34At the time of the trial in 2019, the accumulated funds in the trust account set up by the father for the child amounted to approximately $564,000.00 US or $741,575.00 Canadian2.
35In 2016, following his final retirement from basketball, the father brought a motion to change the child support provisions in the parties’ Domestic Agreement3. The Agreement was filed with the court and enforceable as a court order pursuant to section 35(2) of the Family Law Act.
36The father sought the following orders:
An order that child support be varied effective January 1, 2017 on the following terms:
For the period January 1, 2017 to December 1, 2017, in the amount of $8,811.00 per months, based on the father’s annual income of $1,193,000.00, with credit to the father for the payments made during that time;
From January 1, 2018 and thereafter, in the amount of $3,702.00 per month based on an annual income of $483,684.00.
An Order that the father shall pay his pro-rated share of ordered section 7 expenses, commencing September 1, 2018, on those expenses found by the Court to be appropriate and reasonable section 7 expenses.
An Order that the mother shall refund the father the sum of $202,152.00, being the amount of overpayment of child support that the father has made from January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018, together with any further overpayments made until the Court released its final decision.
37The mother responded by seeking to maintain the child support payable to her on behalf of the child in the amount of 18,000.00 CAD per month based on income imputed to the father of 2.5 million CDN.
38The mother also sought a retroactive calculation of child support, going back to July 18, 2014. According to the mother’s calculations at the time of the original motions to change, the father owed her retroactive child support in the amount of $924,061.66, retroactive to July 18, 2014, or alternatively, $1,146,552.00. The mother used a three year “rolling average” of the father’s historical professional basketball income going back to 2010, in making these calculations.
39The mother also sought to set aside several terms of the parties’ Domestic Agreement, including the provisions regarding the trust accounts.
40At the time of the 2019 Final Order, the child was spending time with his father in the United States during American Thanksgiving, for two weeks over the Christmas holidays, and for six weeks in the summer, in addition to any other time that the parties were able to agree upon.
41The parenting schedule was in accordance with the recommendations in a 2015 Report of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and an agreement between the parties. 4
The March 12, 2019 Final Order:
42The father’s 2016 motion to change culminated in a six-day trial that led to the existing Final Order. The court released a lengthy judgment, referenced in footnote below5. Both parties and an income valuator/forensic accountant, jointly retained by the parties, testified.
43Following a voir dire at the 2019 trial, the forensic accountant/valuator was qualified as an expert witness to give opinion evidence regarding the determination of the father’s income for child support purposes for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
44The court made the following findings of fact regarding the father’s income during the 2019 trial:
The court accepted the father’s evidence that there had been a change in his circumstances following his retirement from basketball that warranted a review of the child support provisions of the Domestic Agreement.
The father was credible regarding his testimony that he was no longer able to find lucrative employment as a professional basketball player.
However, the father’s evidence regarding his income and sources of income following basketball was less credible and reliable.
Since his retirement from basketball, that father’s two main sources of income were comprised of his ‘active’ income from numerous real estate projects and business ventures as well as ‘passive’ income from his investments and savings.
The father amassed considerable savings both during his basketball career and since he retired. At the time of the trial, his net worth was almost 14 million US dollars, or 18 million dollars Canadian, according to his sworn financial statement.
The father used those funds in acquiring and developing real estate for considerable profit. The father stated that he hoped to diversify into other business ventures, such as the restaurant industry.
The father had worked hard to protect and maximize his wealth. The father started developing a career as a real estate investor and taking courses in real estate investment in 2015.
The father had developed a very successful real estate and business career with the potential for further growth.
The evidence of the business valuator was reliable and credible, but it was significantly limited by the information available to her.
In 2017, the first full year in which the father did not receive a salary from basketball, the business valuator calculated the father’s annual income for support purposes to be $1,193,298.00 Canadian. $434,903 of that income was from capital gains and rental and business income while $380,780.00 was from interest and dividend income, according to the valuator’s calculations, as well as other sources.
I accepted the evidence of the business valuator that as early as 2015, the father was already earning capital gains income and business income from his real estate ventures, in addition to his professional basketball income and interest and dividend income on his investments.
I found that in 2017, the father had already acquired approximately twenty properties by 2017, one year after his retirement. The father owned these properties through approximately seven Limited Liability Corporations in his name.
However, I also found that the business valuator did not calculate the father’s entire income for year 2018, nor did she provide any opinion regarding the determination of the father’s income for child support purposes in 2018 and going forward, which concerned the court.
The business valuator did not examine the father’s bank statements or credit card statements, nor did she conduct what is called a “lifestyle review.” She testified that she had not been requested to do this as confirmed in the joint engagement letter.
I found that the father had a solid grasp of the real estate investment business and that he minimized his success as a real estate investor and businessman.
I found that the father failed to disclose his significant business income and real estate holdings in his sworn financial statements until his cross-examination in November of 2017 when he was confronted with the report of the mother’s private investigator.
I found that there was demonstrable evidence that the father will also very likely receive further income from his real estate development and business ventures, as he done so since at least 2015, according to the income valuator. Further, this income has clearly increased over the past three years and will likely continue to grow, now that he has successfully transitioned to his new career.
At the time of the trial, it is not disputed that the father lived a very affluent lifestyle. According to his own sworn documentary evidence, the father’s monthly expenses for 2017 were $86, 817.00 per month or $1,041, 804.00 annually. Similarly, for 2018, the father’s monthly expenses were $67,604.50 and his annual expenditures were $811,244.00. During that time, the father’s savings and investments increased considerably while his debts did not increase.
I found that the fairest determination of the father’s income for 2018 and going forward would be to impute income to at a minimum of $1,100,000.00 for child support purposes.
This amount was based on the father’s dividend, interest, capital gains and rental income, took into consideration the father’s annual expenditures and lifestyle expenses, which he estimated at $1,041,804.00 annually in 2017.
The amount imputed by the court also reflected the evidence that the father’s capital gains and business income steadily increased in the years 2015, 2016 and most significantly in 2017, following his retirement from basketball, and will likely continue to do so.
In making this determination, I also drew an adverse inference against the father for his failure to make full and frank disclosure during the 2019 proceedings.
45At the time of the March 2019 trial, the father did not seek to deviate from the presumption of the table amount under sections 3 and 4 of the Child Support Guidelines when a payor’s income is over $150,000, nor did he lead evidence or make any submissions on this issue.
46Further, on the evidence before me at the trial, I found that the table amount of child support was not "inappropriate" for the child, based on the father’s income and net worth, the child’s lifestyle and pattern of expenditures, and the level of support that he had been accustomed to over the previous ten years in accordance with the terms of the parties’ Domestic Agreement.
47In addition, I considered the condition, needs, means and circumstances of the child at the time, including the child’s learning disabilities and his ADHD disability.
48I therefore ordered the table amount of child support to be payable to the mother based on an imputed income of 1.1 million Canadian, which was $8,139.00 per month in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines for Ontario at that time.
49I also found that that the father had underpaid child support owing to the mother in the total amount of $98,520.00. However, I declined to grant a retroactive child support award to the mother following the trial. For the reasons set out in my 2019 judgment, I found that the mother had unlawfully depleted a second savings account that she was directed to keep in trust for the child, in a breach of the parties’ Domestic Agreement. The amount depleted exceeded the retroactive child support owed to the mother.
50I also dismissed the mother’s motion to set aside the Domestic Agreement or any terms therein. I found that the mother had not met the burden of proof necessary to set aside the Agreement on any of the grounds that she had raised.
The Relevant Terms of the March 2019 Final Order:
51Accordingly, based on the above findings of fact, I made the following orders in the March 12, 2019 Final Order6 that are relevant to this motion to change:
The father shall pay child support in the amount of $8,139.00 per month for the child, effective April 1, 2019. This was the Table amount of child support for one child based on an imputed income to the father of $1,100,000.00 Canadian.
The father shall pay 96.5 percent of the special and extraordinary expenses for the child, including private school tuition that were set out in more detail in the Final Order, totalling $1,834.24 each month, provided that the mother delivered written proof of these expenses to the father every six months.
The total monthly amount of child support and section 7 expenses payable by the father was therefore $9,909.00 per month. This amount was based on the combined Table amount for one child and the father’s proportional contribution to the child’s section 7 expenses based on an imputed income of $1.1 million Canadian and the mother’s proportional contribution based on imputed income of $40,000 Canadian.
The father will only contribute to the child’s additional special or extraordinary expenses if he consents to the expenses in advance, in writing. If the parties cannot agree, then either party can seek a further order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
In the future, the father shall continue to pay child support for the child based on the greater of his imputed income of $1,100,000.00 and his actual income, subject to any future variations in accordance with section 37(2.1) of the Family Law Act and the Child Support Guidelines, including all financial disclosure provisions set out under sections 21, 24.1 and 25 of the Guidelines.
Any section 7 expenses will continue to be determined based on the greater of the imputed income to the father above and his actual income and the greater of the mother’s imputed income of $40,000.00 and her actual income.
The Current Circumstances:
52The father continues to pay the ongoing table amount of child support in the amount of $8,139.00 per month to the mother under the existing Final Order. In this hearing, the mother does not dispute that the father makes his monthly payments, and the ongoing table amount of child support is in good standing. There are no child support arrears owing.
53The child stopped attending private school and is now attending a public high school, so this section 7 expense is no longer being paid. The mother is also not seeking or claiming any other of the section 7 expenses ordered in 2019. She has not provided any written proof of same and only requests a fixed table amount of child support.
54Sadly, the child’s visits with the father have been far less frequent since 2019. The mother states that during the global pandemic, visits were not possible between Canada and the United States. She asserted that for a number of years the child had a fear of flying alone so he could not travel to the United States to see his father without being accompanied by the mother7. The mother further alleges that the father has made little effort to visit the child in Canada. The father’s perspective is unknown since he chose not to participate in this hearing.
The Motion to Change before the Court:
55The mother issued this motion to change on March 4, 2024. The mother initially brought a 14b motion seeking an order to serve her motion to change, affidavit, and all other supporting documents on the father by sending the documents to his email address.
56The court declined to make the order, without prejudice to the mother to renew her request on condition that she provide more detailed evidence in support of her motion.
57On April 11, 2024, the mother renewed her motion for substituted or irregular service with proper evidence at an in-person hearing. After hearing submissions, the court was satisfied that reasonable efforts had been made to personally serve the father to no avail, and that he could be served by way of substituted service, by email and by registered and ordinary mail at his last known address in Dallas Texas, as follows:
The mother’s motion to change and accompanying affidavit shall be substitutionally served on the father by email at his last known email address: [address removed].com
The mother’s motion to change shall also be served by registered and ordinary mail be sending a copy to the father’s last known address: [address removed], Texas, USA.
The exhibits (voluminous) may be served by way of a USB stick attached to the Motion to Change above when delivered by mail and registered mail, given their volume.
58The mother complied with this order and the father was served in accordance with the court’s ruling above on April 14, 2024, according to the mother’s Affidavit of Service filed, dated April 16, 2024.
59The motion to change hearing was adjourned on two occasions, to be heard virtually by Zoom, given that the father resides in Texas, to give him an opportunity to respond.
60The father was notified of all court appearances, Zoom links, and hearing dates by the Trial Coordinator by email and given multiple opportunities to participate.
61The motion to change was initially scheduled to be heard on August 9, 2024. The mother had served and filed thousands of pages of documents.
62A hearing based only on affidavit evidence and the mother’s submissions was held at that time. The father did not participate.
63The court reserved its decision and had intended to release its decision in December of 2024 when the mother brought a 14b motion seeking an order that the court postpone the delivery of its decision until 2025, after the 2024 Christmas holidays. The mother stated that she did not want the release of the decision to interfere with the child’s 2024 Christmas holiday visit with his father and that she also wished to file additional evidence.
64In January, 2025, the mother then brought further 14b motions seeking to file fresh evidence regarding her motion to change for the court to consider prior to releasing a decision.
65The court ruled that father should be served with all supplementary materials and ordered the mother to do so. A further hearing date was scheduled to hear submissions regarding the new material that the mother had presented, and to give the father an opportunity to respond.
66The new hearing date was scheduled for April 14, 2025. As noted, the father did not respond or participate in that hearing, despite being duly notified by the Trial Coordinator, in accordance with the Trial Coordinator’s email confirmations to the father and filed in the court record.
67For oral reasons, the court permitted the mother to give oral evidence and to file the new material. The father was also noted in default.
68The lengthy hearing proceeded at that time on an unopposed basis and the court reserved its judgment. As noted, the court released a lengthy written ruling on October 28, 2025, ordering the father to provide detailed financial disclosure for the reasons set out in that ruling.
The Evidence on the Mother’s Motion to Change:
69The mother filed several affidavits, to which she attached over two thousand pages of exhibits. The vast majority of the documents filed is information that the mother gathered from the father’s social media postings, as well as other information on the internet about the father’s professional career in real estate development, the restaurant business and other business venture since he retired from basketball.
70The mother acknowledged that she is largely relying on what she described as “lifestyle evidence” based on the social media and internet documents filed. It is her submission that these documents demonstrate that the father’s income has significantly increased since the time of the 2019 Final Order.
71It is the mother’s evidence that the thousands of pages of evidence demonstrate that the father is living a lifestyle “more in line” with an annual income of $7 million USD, which is the income he once earned as a professional basketball player.
72The mother also submits that the court should draw an adverse inference against the father for his failure to participate in this motion to change, or to comply with the court order for financial disclosure dated October 28, 2025.
73The mother testified that she has not received any financial disclosure from the father since 2019. She acknowledged that she did not request financial disclosure until she served her motion to change in April of 2024.
The Law and Legal Considerations:
74The mother’s motion to change the terms of the existing child support order is governed by subsections 37(2.1) and 37 (2.2) of the Family Law Act.
75The court’s authority to make a retroactive support order on a motion to change is set out in clause 34 (1) (f) of the Family Law Act.
76Any support claimed after an application is issued is prospective support, not retroactive support and is presumptively payable. See: Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.). Jansen v. DiCecco, 2025 ONCJ 189.
77In Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, [2021] 2 SCR 3, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the present framework that should be applied for retroactive applications to increase child support at paragraph 114 of its decision:
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 v. Graydon. 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.
78Retroactive child support simply holds payors to their existing and unfulfilled support obligations. See: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, at paragraph 25.
79Retroactive 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 v. Graydon, supra, at paragraph 132.
80Retroactive awards are not exceptional. They can always be avoided by proper payment of child support. See: D.B.S. v. S.R.G, 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 SCR 231 (“D.B.S.”) at paragraph 97.
Financial Disclosure:
81In Colucci, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada also set out the centrality of financial disclosure to the child support framework established by the Court.
82The enactment of the Child Support Guidelines in 1997 marked a paradigm shift in Canadian child support law away from a need-based approach to one which clearly established the child’s entitlement to support commensurate with the payor’s income. The Guidelines rest on the principle that “spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain the children of the marriage in accordance with their relative abilities to contribute to the performance of that obligation” (Colucci, paragraph 34.)
83The Court in Colucci described the legal duty of financial disclosure as the “linch pin” of the present child support regime in Canada and stated the following at paragraphs 48 to 54 of the decision:
B. Encouraging Timely and Full Disclosure
48After applying the Guidelines and D.B.S. for many years, it has become clear just how much the child support system, including s. 17 variations, depends upon adequate, accurate and timely financial disclosure. The centrality of disclosure in child support matters has been recognized in a rich body of jurisprudence both before and after D.B.S. (see, e.g., Shamli v. Shamli, 2004 45956 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 8; Hietanen v. Hietanen, 2004 BCSC 306, 7 R.F.L. (6th) 67, at para. 11; Gray, at para. 63; M.K.R. v. J.A.R., 2015 NBCA 73, 443 N.B.R. (2d) 313, at paras. 14 and 20; Francis v. Terry, 2004 NSCA 118, 227 N.S.R. (2d) 99, at para. 9; Goulding, at para. 44). Simply stated, disclosure is the linchpin on which fair child support depends and the relevant legal tests must encourage the timely provision of necessary information.
49The pivotal role of disclosure comes as no surprise since the premise underlying the Guidelines “is that the support obligation itself should fluctuate with the payor parent’s income” (D.B.S., at para. 45). The structure of the Guidelines thus creates an informational asymmetry between the parties. In a system that ties support to payor income, it is the payor who knows and controls the information needed to calculate the appropriate amount of support. The recipient does not have access to this information, except to the extent that the payor chooses or is made to share it. It would thus be illogical, unfair, and contrary to the child’s best interests to make the recipient solely responsible for policing the payor’s ongoing compliance with their support obligation.
50This is why frank disclosure of income information by the payor lies at the foundation of the child support regime. In Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6, the Court of Appeal described the duty to disclose financial information as “[t]he most basic obligation in family law” (para. 11). A payor’s failure to make timely, proactive and full disclosure undermines the policies underlying the family law regime and “the processes that have been carefully designed to achieve those policy goals” (Leitch v. Novac, 2020 ONCA 257, 150 O.R. (3d) 587, at para. 44). Without proper disclosure, the system simply cannot function and the objective of establishing a fair standard of support for children that ensures they benefit from the means of both parents will be out of reach (Michel, at para. 32, per Brown J.; Brear, at para. 19, per Pentelechuk J.A.).
Application of the Law to this Motion to Change:
1. Has There Been a Material Change in Circumstances in the Father’s Income?
84The first step in the Colucci framework is to determine if there has been a material change in circumstances regarding child support.
85To meet the threshold, the onus is on the moving party (the mother) to show that there has been a material increase in the father’s income since the March 2019 Final Order.
86However, as the Court in Colucci noted, while the onus is on the recipient mother 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. (Colucci, par. 114.)
87Further, the threshold for a person to establish a material change in circumstances in income for child support purposes is fairly low. See: Retroactive Support after Colucci, by Professor Rollie Thompson, 40 CFLQ 61 and Kerr v. Moussa, 2023 ONCJ 1; Marchan v. Clarke, 2023 ONCJ 483.
88In this case, despite being served with the mother’s motion to change and given multiple opportunities to participate, the father has chosen not to participate.
89The court gave the father a further opportunity to participate and ordered him to provide financial disclosure on October 28, 2025. The father failed to comply with that order. In fact, the father completely ignored the order.
90The father has not provided any financial disclosure since 2019.
91The court draws an adverse inference against the father, pursuant to sections 19(1) (f), 23 and 24 (c) of the Child Support Guidelines for his failure to comply with court-ordered financial disclosure and to produce any financial disclosure since 2019.
92For the reasons below, the mother has met the low threshold necessary to establish a material change in circumstances in the father’s income for child support purposes.
93Given the father’s refusal to provide financial disclosure, the only evidence of the father’s income since 2019 before the court is the mother’s “lifestyle evidence” as she has described it. This consists of thousands of pages of the father’s social media postings on Instagram and Facebook, and other Internet sources. The court reviewed this information carefully.
94Lifestyle can provide some evidence for imputing income. Aitken v. Aitken [2003] O.J. No. 2780 (SCJ); Jonas v. Jonas [2002] O.J. No. 2117 (SCJ); Price v. Reid, 2013 ONCJ 373.
95In Bak v. Dobell, 2007 ONCA 304 at para. 43, Lang J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, observed that “lifestyle is not income, but rather evidence from which an inference may be drawn that the payor has undisclosed income that may be imputed for the purpose of determining child support.”
96When considering lifestyle evidence to impute income, social media evidence may be relevant and admissible when assessing the financial circumstances of a party, their ability to work, or lifestyle choices in determining income, particularly if it clearly contradicts a person’s statements about their ability to work or their income based on the images and statements posted online and corroborated by other evidence. See: Kolodiejczyk v. Kozanski, 2011 ONCJ 6 per Justice Manjusha Pawagi; Plese v. Herhavec, 2015 ONSC 7572; Rueter v. Childs, 2016 ONSC 391.
97However, courts have also recognized that evidence from social media accounts such as Facebook or Instagram are often likely to contain an overly positive perspective regarding a person’s abilities and interests, or a certain amount of “puffery”, as people often try to amplify the quality of their existence. As such, they may not be reliable. See: DeWaard v. Capture the Flag Indoor Ltd., 2010 ABQB 571, at para. 41; Vacaru v. Vacaru, 2010 ONSC 7020 at para. 356.
98The photos, statements by the father and other messages on the father social media accounts since 2019 appear to demonstrate that the father enjoys a very luxurious and affluent lifestyle. There is evidence that he owns multiple high-end vehicles, boats and properties and is involved in numerous real estate and business ventures. He has lavish vacations. However, it is not dissimilar to some of the evidence filed by the mother at the previous trial in 2019.
99In my 2019 judgment, I found, based on the father’s evidence and that of the income valuator, that the father’s real estate, business and investment income would very likely increase, as it had continued to grow since 2015, according to the income valuator. The father also testified that he had developed a very successful real estate career with room for potential growth.
100I made the following observations and findings at paragraphs 479 and 480 of the 2019 Final Judgment:
“The father has prepared well for a life after basketball in order to ensure that his child will continue to be supported at an appropriate standard of living. In addition to the monthly child support that he has consistently paid for his son, he has also created a trust fund for this son in accordance with the parties’ Domestic Agreement. At the time of this hearing, the accumulated funds in the trust account set up by the father for the child amounted to approximately $564,000.00 US or $741,575.00 Canadian.
The father has amassed a considerable net worth and started his transition plan to what appears to be a successful real estate investor and businessman as early as 2014. It is hoped that his income will continue to grow to his son’s benefit.”
101Based on above findings, the voluminous lifestyle evidence produced by the mother since the final order, and the father’s decision to wilfully disregard the October 2025 court order for financial disclosure, it is reasonable to infer that the father’s income has increased considerably since 2019, thus establishing a material change in circumstances.
The Mother’s Retroactive Claim for Increased Child Support from 2014 to 2018:
102This mother’s claim to re-evaluate the father’s income retroactively to a date before the March 2019 Final Order, specifically her claim for the time period from 2014 to 2018, has already been adjudicated in my final judgment. This issue is res judicata.
103Any retroactive increase in child support will only be considered after March 12, 2019, the date of the final judgment subject to this motion to change.
104As noted in my October 28, 2025 written ruling, the court made very detailed findings of fact regarding the determination of the father’s income for child support retroactive to 2014 up to and including 2019 in the final judgment.
105The findings of fact made in 2019 followed a six-day trial, where the court received substantial financial disclosure from the father through his counsel and accountants at the time. The court also heard from a jointly retained expert witness who conducted a valuation of the father’s income for child support purposes for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
106The court determined the amount of retroactive child support payable based on the findings of fact made, as explained in the judgment.
107The mother did not appeal those findings of fact. The mother cannot relitigate those facts now.
108There is no evidence before the court now to suggest that those findings of fact should be set aside.
The Mother’s Claim for Increased Child Support Retroactive to March 2019: What is the Presumptive Start Date?
109The second step in the Colucci framework is to determine the presumptive start date for support to be changed. To determine this, the court must look at when effective notice and formal notice were given by the mother to the father. See: Colluci, supra at paragraph 114; Jansen v. DiCecco, 2025 ONCJ 189 at paragraph 60.
110In Jansen v DiCecco, supra, Justice Stanley Sherr summarized the difference between effective notice and formal notice as follows, at paragraphs 60 to 62 of his decision:
60The second step in the Colucci framework is to determine the presumptive start date for support to be changed. To determine this, the court must look at when effective notice and formal notice were given by the mother to the father.
61Effective notice is defined as any indication by the recipient parent that child support should be paid, or if it already is, that the current amount needs to be renegotiated. All that is required is for the subject to be broached. Once that has been done, the payor can no longer assume that the status quo is fair. See: D.B.S., par. 121. This low bar is justified by the recipient’s informational disadvantage. Regardless of whether the recipient had given notice, the payor knew when their own income had increased and must be taken to know that more income means more support. See: Colucci, par. 86.
62Although effective notice can be as little as broaching the topic in conversation, formal notice is something more, generally taking the form of written correspondence from the recipient or counsel or the commencement of legal proceedings. See: Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 2008 ONCJ 96; Vandenberghe v Dittrick, 2024 ABKB 58; Wilson v. Johnson, 2024 ONCJ 6, per: Justice Carole Curtis; Crightney v. Garcia, 2024 ONCJ 431.
111The court finds that the mother gave formal notice to the father that she was seeking increased child support on April 14, 2024, when the father was served with her motion to change, according to the Affidavit of Service filed.
112In this case, there is no evidence of the date of effective notice.
113There is no evidence of any request for financial disclosure from the mother before starting her motion to change. However, the mother testified that she did attempt to discuss financial arrangements for the child with the father through text or email. She did not provide clear evidence of when this occurred in the voluminous materials filed.
114The mother also testified that the father was aware of the court proceeding and told the mother that he was not going to participate. The mother had some communication with the father before she started her motion to change, but it is unclear when this happened.
115The mother gave evidence that it was extremely difficult to communicate with the father. She deposed that she suffers from PTSD and trauma because of the lengthy history of litigation between her and the father. She has struggled with multiple physical and mental health challenges over the past number of years. This made it very difficult for her to engage with the father. She described the father as being abusive and dismissive of her.
116Colucci sets out that where no effective notice is given by the recipient parent, child support should generally be increased back to the date of formal notice. (Colucci, par. 114.)
117Notwithstanding the above, the bar to establish effective notice is low, as set out in Colucci, given the recipient’s informational disadvantage. Further, the date of effective notice is not relevant when a payor parent has engaged in blameworthy conduct, irrespective of the degree of blameworthiness. The purpose and promise of child support is to protect the financial entitlements due to children by their parents. See Michel v Graydon, supra, at paragraphs 34, 36 and 38
118In this case, although there is no evidence of the date of effective notice, nor is there any evidence that the mother requested financial disclosure from the father before commencing these proceedings, the court finds that there was some evidence that the mother broached the subject of child support with the father prior starting her motion to change. The mother also deposed that the father refused to communicate with her.
119Given the very low bar set by Colucci to establish effective notice for a disadvantaged recipient, the court find that effective notice occurred prior to formal notice, although it is difficult to establish when that occurred.
120The court also retains the discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity (if it is more than 3 years from the date of formal notice) where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors continue to guide this exercise of discretion, as described in Michel v Graydon and Colucci. 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. (Colucci, paragraph 114.)
121This case is different in that the court finds that there is evidence of effective notice even though the date is unclear. The court will exercise its discretion by using D.B.S. factors to determine a fair and reasonable start date for retroactivity.
122The D.B.S. factors in this case are addressed below.
Reasons for Delay:
123The first D.B.S. factor is whether the payor has an understandable reason for the delay in giving effective notice or seeking relief in the courts.
124In considering delay, courts should look at whether the reason for delay is understandable, not whether there was a reasonable excuse for the delay. The latter consideration works to implicitly attribute blame onto parents who delay applications for child support. See: Michel, par. 121.
125A delay, in itself, is not inherently unreasonable and the mere fact of a delay does not prejudice an application, as not all factors need to be present for a retroactive award to be granted. See: Michel, par. 113.
126Rather, a delay will be prejudicial only if it is deemed to be unreasonable, taking into account a generous appreciation of the social context in which the claimant’s decision to seek child support was made. See: Michel, par. 86.
127In Janson v Dicecco8, Justice Sherr summarized the following factors or reasons for delay that should generally not be understood as arbitrary within the meaning of D.B.S.
a) Fear of reprisal/violence from the other parent.
b) Prohibitive costs of litigation or fear of protracted litigation.
c) Lack of information or misinformation over the payor parent’s income.
d) Fear of counter-application for custody.
e) The payor leaving the jurisdiction or the recipient unable to contact the payor parent.
f) Illness/disability of a child or the custodian.
g) Lack of emotional means.
h) Wanting the child and the payor to maintain a positive relationship or avoid the child’s involvement.
i) Ongoing discussions in view of reconciliation, settlement negotiations or mediation.
j) The deliberate delay of the application or the trial by the payor. (paragraph 72.)
128Child support is the right of the child and should not be lost due to parental delay except in the few cases where the delay is unreasonable. See: Gray v. Rizzi, 2016 ONCA 152.
129The mother provided some understandable reasons for the delay as follows:
a. The mother has significant mental and emotional health challenges and lacked the emotional means to communicate with the father engage with the father in further litigation.
b. The mother asserts that she has PTSD and other related trauma because of these court proceedings and that she has suffered significant emotional damage. The first proceedings very lengthy, acrimonious and difficult for her.
c. The mother also has some physical challenges resulting from a car accident.
d. The mother is not working and relies almost solely on the child support paid by the father to meet the child’s and her needs. She does not have the financial means to retain a lawyer and prepared all the court materials as a self-represented litigant.
e. The mother has been a single parent to the child since the parties separated with very little or no parenting support from the father.
f. The child has ADHD and a learning disability and requires considerable energy, time and support.
g. The mother was very concerned that commencing new proceedings could have a negative impact on the child’s relationship with the father. Indeed, the mother requested on at least three separate occasions during this motion to change to delay the release of my reasons until after the child’s visits to the father in the U.S. It was very apparent throughout these proceedings that the child is very aware of the conflict between the parties and this litigation, which has no doubt has caused him emotional harm.
Blameworthy Conduct:
130Courts should apply an expansive definition of blameworthy conduct. See: D.B.S., par. 106.
131Blameworthy 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.
132The failure of a payor to disclose actual income, a fact within the knowledge of the payor, is blameworthy conduct that eliminates any need to protect the payor’s interest in certainty. See: Michel, par. 34.
133Frank disclosure of income information by the payor lies at the foundation of the child support regime. See: Colucci, par. 50.
134To avoid having the presumptive date of retroactivity set prior to the date of effective notice, the payor parent must not be blameworthy. See: D.B.S., paragraph 125.
135The March 2019 Final Order provided the following provisions regarding future child support and financial disclosure, at paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Order:
In the future, the father shall continue to pay child support for the child based on the greater of his imputed income of $1,100,000.00 and his actual income, subject to any future variations in accordance with section 37(2.1) of the Family Law Act and the Child Support Guidelines, including all financial disclosure provisions set out under sections 21, 24.1 and 25 of the Guidelines.
Any section 7 expenses will continue to be determined based on the greater of the imputed income to the father above and his actual income and the greater of the mother’s imputed income of $40,000.00 and her actual income.
136The father has engaged in the following blameworthy conduct:
a. Failed to provide the mother and the court with any financial disclosure, despite being court ordered to do so in this proceeding, and his legal obligation to do so once served with this proceeding.
b. Failed to attend and participate in this proceeding despite being served and notified of the hearing and court dates, thus making it exceedingly difficult for the court to determine the father’s income. He has also been provided with all endorsements and rulings by the court clerk or trial coordinator. The father has simply wilfully ignored this proceeding in its entirety.
c. The father was aware of the court proceeding and told the mother that he was not going to participate.
137The court also found that the father had engaged in blameworthy conduct during the first trial in this matter by failing to disclose considerable assets and income on a sworn financial statement until confronted during a cross-examination with the report from a private investigator. I found that the father’s evidence regarding his sources of income lacked credibility.
138I stated the following at paragraphs 349 and 350 of the trial decision:
349The father’s failure to disclose his significant business income and real estate holdings on his sworn financial statements until his cross-examination in November of 2017 when he was confronted with the report of the mother’s private investigator caused this court considerable concern.
350After carefully listening to the father’s evidence in this hearing and in particular, the father’s testimony in November of 2017, I do not find that the father’s failure to disclose his very considerable real estate assets and capital gains income prior to his cross-examination in November of 2017 was an “unintentional” “error”. Nor do I believe that the father “misunderstood the question” when he was asked repeatedly in cross-examination if he had any other property or business interests not listed on his sworn financial statement.9
139However, the court finds that the father has consistently paid the child support that he was ordered to pay under the existing court order. The mother acknowledged that he has never missed a payment of child support. The monthly child support is $8,139.00 each month.
140The father has also maintained a trust account for the child, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ Domestic Agreement in which he had saved approximately $741,575.00 for the child’s benefit at the time of the 2019 trial. None of this money has been distributed to the child at this time. Given the father’s refusal to participate in this court proceeding, the court has no knowledge of the amount currently in the trust account or whether it still exists.
The Child’s Circumstances:
141There is no evidence of hardship to the child. As noted, the father has consistently paid $8,139.00 per month to the mother. This is tax free income of $97,668.00 each year to the mother for the child’s benefit.
142Notwithstanding the above, there is no requirement to prove any need on the part of the child in order to receive as retroactive support amounts that have not been paid as required. A payor parent cannot avoid a retroactive award by arguing that the recipient parent was able to sufficiently care for the child on his or her own. See: Henderson v. Micetich, 2021 ABCA 103, at paragraph 60.
143In Michel v. Graydon, the Supreme Court recognized that children remain entitled to payment of retroactive child support even after they become adults. Child support obligations arise upon separation, and retroactive awards provide a means "to enforce such pre-existing, free-standing obligations and to recover monies owed but yet unpaid". See: Michel v. Graydon, supra, para 41.
144In this case, the mother relies almost solely on the child support received by the father to support the child and herself given that the mother is not working due to medical issues and the child’s needs. There are plenty of circumstances where a parent will absorb hardship that accompanies a dearth of child support to prioritize their child’s well-being. There is absolutely no principled reason why this parent should receive any less support as a result, particularly in this case given the father’s considerable wealth. See: Michel v Graydon, supra, at paragraphs 123.
Undue Hardship:
145There is also no evidence of any hardship to the father in paying a large retroactive award. There is evidence that the father leads a very affluent and luxurious lifestyle and that he has substantial savings.
146At the time of the 2019 trial, according to his sworn financial statement filed, in addition to a trust fund for the child that exceeded $700,000.00, the father had amassed considerable savings and investments. His net worth was almost 14 million US dollars, or 18 million CDN dollars. There is no evidence that the father’s financial position has worsened.
Start Date to Change Support:
147The court finds that it is just and reasonable in all the above circumstances to depart from the start date of formal notice in this case. Although there is no evidence of the date of effective notice, based on the mother’s evidence, she did broach the subject of revisiting child support prior to bringing this proceeding, thus establishing effective notice, despite the lack of clarity regarding the date.
148As noted, the date of the effective notice is irrelevant when a payor parent has engaged in blameworthy conduct, irrespective of the degree of blameworthiness, as set out in Michel and Colucci above. The purpose and promise of child support is to protect the financial entitlements due to children by their parents. See Michel v Graydon, par. 38.
149In applying the D.B.S. factors above in the circumstances of this case, in the exercise of my discretion, I have determined that a fair and reasonable presumptive date for effective notice in this case is April 1, 2023, one year before the father received formal notice of this proceeding. The court has considered the paucity of evidence regarding an accurate date for effective notice, although there was some communication. In my view, this start date balances the payor’s interest in certainty with the need for fairness to the child and flexibility, as required by D.B.S.
The Determination of the Father’s Income for Child Support:
150The final step in the Colucci framework is to quantify the support payable for every year from the start date support is changed. (Colucci, paragraph 114.)
151Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines permits the court to impute income to a party as it considers appropriate to determine child support.
152Section 19(1)(f) of the Guidelines provides that a court may impute income if a parent has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so.
153As noted earlier, section 23 of the Guidelines also provides that where a parent fails to comply with an order for financial disclosure and an applicant has moved for judgment against the parent under 22 (1) (a), the court may draw an adverse inference against the parent who failed to comply and impute income to that parent in such amount as it considers appropriate.
154The jurisprudence for imputation of income under section 19 relevant to the circumstances in this case is the following:
a) Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed. See: Drygala v. Pauli 2002 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. C.A.).
b) The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made. See: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552. (Ont. C.A.). However, in Graham v. Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260, the court inferred that the failure of the payor to properly disclose would mitigate the obligation of the recipient to provide an evidentiary basis to impute income.
c) Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking. See: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719.
d) A self-employed person has the onus of clearly demonstrating the basis of his or her net income. This includes demonstrating that the deductions from gross income should be taken into account in the calculation of income for support purposes. See: Whelan v. O’Connor, 2006 13554 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 1660, (Ont. Fam. Ct.). This principle also applies where the person’s employment income is derived from a corporation that he or she fully controls. See: MacKenzie v. Flynn, 2010 ONCJ 184; Yocheva v. Hristov, 2019 ONSC 1007; Poulin v. Poulin, 2017 ONSC 64.
e) The self-employed have an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive records of income and expenses, from which the recipient can draw conclusions and the amount of child support can be established. See: Meade v. Meade (2002) 2002 2806 (ON SC), 31 R.F.L. 5th 88 (SCJ). This includes the obligation to present information in a user-friendly fashion. A recipient should not have to incur expense to understand it. See: Reyes v. Rollo, 2001 28260 (SCJ).
f) Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to them. See: Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548; Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583; Drummond v. Richardson, 2024 ONCJ 547.
h) A person’s lifestyle can provide the basis for imputing income. See: Aitken v. Aitken [2003] O.J. No. 2780 (SCJ); Jonas v. Jonas [2002] O.J. No. 2117 (SCJ); Price v. Reid, 2013 ONCJ 373; Prillo v. Homer, supra.
155As previously noted in these reasons, the court put the father on written notice in the October 28, 2025 court order that his failure to produce the financial disclosure ordered on or before December 1st, 2025 could result in the court drawing an adverse inference against him and impute income in the amount of 2.5 million CDN for child support.
156In this case, the court finds that it is fair and reasonable to draw an adverse inference against the father in accordance with section 19(1) (f) of the Guidelines.
157The court will impute income to the father in the amount of 2.5 million CDN for the following reasons:
The father amassed considerable savings both during his basketball career and since he retired. At the time of the 2019 trial, his net worth was almost 14 million US dollars, or 18 million dollars Canadian, according to his sworn financial statement.
The father used those funds in acquiring and developing real estate for considerable profit. The father states that he hoped to diversify into other business ventures, such as the restaurant industry.
The father had worked hard to protect and maximize his wealth. The father started developing a career as a real estate investor and taking courses in real estate investment in 2015.
In March of 2019, the court imputed income to the father in the amount of 1.1 million CDN and stated the following at paragraph 480 of the final judgment: “The father has amassed a considerable net worth and started his transition plan to what appears to be a successful real estate investor and businessman as early as 2014.”10
The father has had no difficulty meeting his child support payments since the final court order and has paid consistently.
The father has produced no financial disclosure since the 2019 order.
The father has completely ignored his obligation to provide financial disclosure to the mother and the court since he has been served with formal notice of the mother’s motion to change and increase child support.
The father has refused to participate in these proceedings.
The father has wilfully disregarded a court order for financial disclosure in this motion to change.
The father put on written notice by the court in its October 28, 2025 ruling that income will be imputed to him in the amount of 2.5 million CDN for child support purposes if he continues to legal and court ordered obligations to provide financial disclosure in this proceeding.
It has been almost seven years since the final court order. Over the past number of years, the mother has amassed considerable lifestyle evidence that illustrate an extremely luxurious lifestyle, including several luxury high end vehicles, multiple homes, and various business ventures, suggesting a very high income lifestyle.
The court can draw a reasonable inference that the father’s refusal to provide disclosure and to participate in this motion to change suggests he is aware that his current income is significantly more than 2.5 million CDN.
The Determination of Child Support for Income over $150,000: Section 4 of the Guidelines:
158Section 4 of the Child Support Guidelines provides that where a payor’s income is over $150,000.00, the amount of child support should be determined as follows:
Incomes over $150,000
4 Where the income of the spouse against whom a child support order is sought is over $150,000, the amount of a child support order is
(a) the amount determined under section 3 [the ‘Table Amount’]; or
(b) if the court considers that amount to be inappropriate,
(i) in respect of the first $150,000 of the spouse's income, the amount set out in the applicable table for the number of children under the age of majority to whom the order relates;
(ii) in respect of the balance of the spouse's income, the amount that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children who are entitled to support and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the children; and
(iii) the amount, if any, determined under section 7.
159Ridley v. DeRose, 2017 ONCJ 877, Justice Barry Tobin set out the following regarding the determination of child support with a payor whose income is over $150,000 at paragraphs 131 to 137 of that decision:
“132 The first option is to award Table support and an amount for special and extraordinary expenses.
133 The second option arises if the Court considers the first option to be inappropriate.
134 If the second option is found to be appropriate, then child support will be determined in a three-step process:
a. Table support is calculated on the payor's first $150,000.00 of income;
b. In respect of the payor's income in excess of $150,000.00, the Court must determine an amount it considers appropriate having regard to:
i. the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children;
ii. the financial ability of each parent to contribute to the children's support.
c. An amount for special or extraordinary expenses is determined.
135 There is a presumption that Table support is the appropriate amount to award: Francis v. Baker, 1999 659 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250 para. 42.
136 A payor who wants the Court to order a different amount bears the onus of rebutting that presumption by "clear and compelling evidence". Francis v. Baker, supra para. 43. The onus is to demonstrate on the evidence that the Table amount of support would be inappropriate.
137 The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the meaning of the word "inappropriate" in the context of s. 4 in Francis v. Baker, supra. The Court held that "inappropriate" is to be broadly defined to mean "unsuitable" rather than merely "inadequate" (para. 40).”
160In Ewing v. Ewing 2009 ABCA 227, [2009] A.J. No. 712 (Alberta C.A.), citing Francis v. Baker 1999 659 (SCC), [1999] 3 SCR 250, the Alberta Court of Appeal also set out the following considerations:
“i. There is a presumption that the Table applies to all incomes, including incomes over $150,000. A party seeking to deviate from the Table has the onus of rebutting the presumption. (paras. 41, 43)
ii. Children can expect the Table amount on the first $150,000 and a fair additional amount for that portion that exceeds $150,000. The closer the amount is to $150,000, the more likely it is that the Table amount will be awarded1. (para. 41)
iii. Where the presumption is rebutted, the Guideline figures can be increased or reduced under section 4. (para. 42)
iv. The test for deviation from the Table amount is that the evidence in its entirety must be sufficient to raise a concern that the Table amount is inappropriate. The evidence for departure from the Guidelines must be clear and compelling. A party seeking deviation is not required to testify or adduce evidence and no unfavourable conclusion should be drawn from a failure to do so. It is recognized that a party may not possess the required relevant evidence. (para. 43)
v. The actual situation of the children is central, and the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children must be considered in the assessment of the initial determination of inappropriateness and the determination of appropriate support. (para.44) No single element of legislative purpose is to be given more weight than the actual circumstances of the children (para. 39). A proper construction of section 4 requires that the objectives of predictability, consistency, and efficiency on the one hand, be balanced with those of fairness, flexibility, and recognition of the actual "condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children" on the other. (para. 40)
vi. To determine appropriateness the court must be armed with sufficient information, and trial judges have discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a child expense budget is required to provide that information and they have the power to order it. (para. 45) Custodial parents are not required to produce child expense budgets in all cases under section 4.
vii. Although frequently child support results in a benefit to the wife, the legislative objective is maintenance for the children rather than household equalization or spousal support. (para. 41)
viii. While standard of living can be considered in assessing need, at some point support payments will meet even a wealthy child's reasonable needs. When the Table amount is so in excess of the child's reasonable needs it must be considered a functional wealth transfer to a parent, or de facto spousal support. (para. 41)
ix. The test for whether expenses are reasonable will be met by the paying parent if the budgeted expenses are so high as to "excee[d] the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible": Bellenden v. Satterthwaite, [1948] 1 All E.R. 343 at 345. (para. 49).”
161In Simon v. Simon (1999), 1999 3818 (ON CA), 127 O.A.C. 17 (Ont. C.A.) and in Francis v. Baker 1999 659 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250, the court held that the onus is on the payor to establish why section 3 of the Guidelines should not apply.
162In this motion to change, the father has provided no evidence to support a finding that the guidelines approach is unsuitable given his refusal to participate.
163Further, during the 2019 trial, the father did not seek to deviate from the table amount under section 3 of the Child Support Guidelines, nor did he lead evidence or make any submissions on this issue.
164Given the father’s blameworthy conduct in this proceeding as previously outlined, there is a complete absence of equity to support the court exercising its discretion under section 4 of the Guidelines in favour of the father. See: Jansen v. DiCecco, 2025 ONCJ 189, at paragraph 154, per Justice Stanley Sherr.
165Further, on the only evidence before me, the table amount is not "inappropriate" based on the father’s income and net worth, the child’s lifestyle and pattern of expenditures, and the level of support that he had been accustomed for many years under the terms of the parties’ 2009 Domestic Agreement.
166The mother is not employed as a result of her physical and mental health challenges. She is a full-time parent to the child who has special needs and a learning disability. The mother’s main source of income to support the child and herself is the child support received from the father. The mother gave evidence that their home requires significant repairs that she cannot afford, and that she will need a new car.
Calculation of Ongoing Child Support and Arrears:
167The father’s ongoing monthly child support payment to the mother will now be $19,187.00 CDN per month, which is the table amount for one child based on an imputed income of 2.5 million CDN. (On October 1, 2025, the table amounts under the Child Support Guidelines were updated by the Federal Government and came into effect on that date in Ontario.)
168The arrears are calculated as follows:
a. April 1, 2023 to October 1, 2025 ($18,219 - $813911) x 30 months = $302,400.00.
b. October 1, 2025 to January 31, 2026 ($19,197 - $8139) x 4 months = $44,192.00.
169The total arrears owing are therefore $387,440.00 CDN and are payable forthwith.
170The ongoing child support will commence on February 1, 2026 and shall be payable on the first of each month.
The Mother’s Other Claims in her Motion to Change:
171The mother also seeks to set aside several terms of the parties’ 2009 Domestic Agreement.
172Regarding the request to set aside other terms in the parties’ Domestic Agreement, the court dealt extensively with the mother’s requests to set aside several terms in the parties’ Domestic Agreement in the March 12, 2019 judgment at paragraphs 263 to 294. After carefully considered all the evidence, the court dismissed all the mother’s claims regarding the set aside of terms of the parties’ Domestic Agreement at that time.
173The mother did not appeal the decision and she cannot relitigate these issues now.
174The claims regarding the parenting and communication provisions in the Domestic Agreement are also dismissed. The child was 8 months old at the time the parties entered into that Agreement. He is now 17 years old and will become an adult in June of 2026. His views and preferences are therefore paramount and not before the court. The court is not prepared to make any parenting orders without input from the child. Given that he will be an adult in eight months, it is not reasonable nor practicable to do so.
175The mother also seeks an order that the father shall pay for the re-evaluation and completion of a forensic accounting of the father’s financial records filed during the trial and that the re-evaluation include a lifestyle analysis. This claim is also dismissed. As previously stated in this decision, the court is not prepared to re-evaluate the finding of facts made regarding the determination of the father’s income in the 2019 judgment.
176Finally, the court has no jurisdiction to make an order that the father shall pay the costs associated with appointing a mental health professional to provide treatment and support for the mother regarding the trauma that she asserts she has suffered because of these proceedings.
Conclusion and Order:
177The Final Order dated March 12, 2019 shall be varied, such that the child support provisions shall be changed as follows:
Commencing February 1, 2026, the father shall pay child support to the mother in the amount of $19,187.00 CDN per month. This amount is the Table amount for one child based on an imputed income to the father in the amount of $2.5 million CND dollars, in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines for Ontario.
The child support arrears owed by the father to the mother are fixed at $387,440.00 CDN (retroactive from April 1, 2023 up to February 1, 2026), based on the calculations set out at paragraph 168 in the reasons for this decision.
The above arrears are due and payable forthwith and shall be payable to the mother.
A Support Deduction Order shall issue.
Court staff to issue and enter this Order forthwith, with the standard FRO and other clauses to permit the mother to take the necessary steps to enforce this Order.
178The mother is the successful party in this case. The mother is a self-represented litigant. However, if she is seeking any legal costs in these proceedings she shall serve and file her written costs submissions by February 27, 2026. The father will then have until March 15, 2026 to make a written response. The submissions should not exceed five pages, shall be double-spaced, not including any Bill of Costs or Offers to Settle served, which should also be provided. No other attachments will be permitted. The submissions should be delivered to the Trial Coordinator’s office and to the 14b clerk.
January 28, 2026 Signed: Justice S. O’Connell
Footnotes
- $3,443,440.00 Canadian dollars.
- It is not known how much is in this trust account for the child. The father has not provided any annual reports to the mother.
- The father brought an earlier motion to change in 2015 that he withdrew.
- Initially, these court proceedings were commenced by the father in 2010 to obtain parenting time with the child following the terms of the parties’ Domestic Agreement prior to commencing his MTC child support.
- See: C.V. v. S.G., 2019 ONCJ 159, https://canlii.ca/t/hzghc
- The mother had also brought an application to set aside certain provisions in the parties’ Domestic Agreement relating to the father’s trust account for the child, among other issues, which the court dismissed for the reasons set out in the Judgment. The mother did not appeal these findings.
- During this hearing on December 15, 2025, the court heard from the mother that the child now felt comfortable to fly alone to visit the father over the December 2025 school holiday.
- Jansen v Dicecco, supra at paragraph 72.
- C.V. v. S.G., 2019 ONCJ 159, https://canlii.ca/t/hzghc
- C.V. v. S.G., 2019 ONCJ 159, https://canlii.ca/t/hzghc, paragraphs 479 and 480.
- The table amount under the 2017 Child Support Guidelines for Ontario.