Roberts v. Wallace, 2026 ONCJ 491

CITATION: Roberts v. Wallace, 2026 ONCJ 491

DATE: August 17, 2026

COURT FILE NO. D48446/09

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

KEMA ROBERTS

DENISE BADLEY, limited scope retainer for THE APPLICANT

APPLICANT

• and –

ADRIAN WALLACE

THE RESPONDENT ACTING IN PERSON

RESPONDENT

HEARD: AUGUST 11, 2026

JUSTICE S.B. SHERR

REASONS FOR DECISION

Part One – Introduction

[1] This was the trial of the parties’ motions to change the support terms in the court’s order dated April 17, 2014 (the existing order) for their 22-year-old son (AT).

[2] The existing order required the respondent (the father) to pay the applicant (the mother) child support of $183 each month, together with $75 each month towards AT’s daycare expenses.[1] The order was based on the father’s annual income of $22,800. The existing order also required the parties to exchange annual income disclosure.

[3] The mother asks for an increase in child support retroactive to January 1, 2019, in accordance with the father’s reported annual income.[2] She proposed that he pay a lesser amount of child support starting on April 1, 2025. This is when AT began receiving Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP) payments. The mother proposes that the father pay child support arrears created by this order at $200 each month.

[4] The father opposes any increase in child support. He asks that his child support payments be lowered to $150 each month, starting on March 1, 2022.[3] This is the first day of the first month after AT turned 18 years old. He further asks that his child support payments be reduced to $100 each month, starting on April 1, 2025, when AT started receiving ODSP payments.[4] Lastly, he asks that he pay $50 each month towards any child support arrears created by this order.

[5] The father’s child support payments under the existing order are in good standing.

[6] The court relied on the affidavits and financial statements filed by the parties. At the trial management conference, the parties were given timelines to serve and file supplementary affidavits and were ordered to provide updated financial statements. The father complied with the timelines and filed a supplementary affidavit and financial statement. The mother filed no further materials.[5]

[7] The issues for the court to determine are:

a) Has the father’s income materially changed since the existing order was made?

b) If so, when is the presumptive start date that child support should be changed?

c) Should the court depart from the presumptive start date, and if so, when should the change in child support start?

d) How much child support should the father pay for each year from the date when support is changed? In particular:

i) Was the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) approach[6] to calculating child support inappropriate once AT turned 18 years old?

ii) If not, was the guidelines approach to calculating child support inappropriate once AT began receiving ODSP payments?

iii) If the answer to i) or ii) above is yes, what amount of support should the father pay in each year the guidelines approach was inappropriate?

e) How should any child support arrears be paid?

Part Two – Brief background facts

[8] The mother is 40 years old. She lives with AT. She is employed full-time with the Toronto Transit Commission.

[9] The father is 41 years old. He has worked at Ford for the last 11 years. He married in August 2025 and lives with his wife and her two children. The father has another son who lives with his mother. That child visits with the father on alternate weekends and on holidays. The father deposed he pays monthly child support of $680 for that child.

[10] The mother issued her motion to change the existing order on August 25, 2025.

[11] The father issued his response to motion to change the existing order on October 3, 2025.

[12] The court organized the process for this hearing on June 10, 2026.

Part Three – AT and his eligibility for support

[13] The parties agreed that AT has had many challenges. He has had significant mental health issues. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2020 and was hospitalized in 2021 due to an episode of psychosis.

[14] AT participated in the RISE program through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, a specialized program for youth with significant mental health issues who are completing high school. He attended ALPHA II Alternative School, a specialized alternative program, from 2019 until June 2023. He has been enrolled in upgrading programs since then at George Brown College to prepare for college.

[15] The father described how AT suffers from severe anxiety and depression.

[16] The mother obtained an autism assessment for AT in 2025. The report set out that AT may be autistic and made several recommendations for services.

[17] The mother has arranged many services to address AT’s mental health issues. He regularly attends psychotherapy. She involves him in activities such as Muay Thai and basketball. The father agreed that the psychotherapy and athletic programs are important to assist AT in addressing his issues.

[18] AT has struggled in school, mostly due to his mental health issues. However, the parents agreed he is trying his best. He has been taking preparatory classes so he can qualify for college. He hopes to attend George Brown College in January 2027 and take cooking, baking or social work courses.

[19] Section 31 of the Act sets out a parent’s obligation to support a child as follows:

Obligation of parent to support child

31 (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so, for his or her unmarried child who,

(a) is a minor;

(b) is enrolled in a full-time program of education; or

(c) is unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents.

(2) The obligation under subsection (1) does not extend to a child who is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental control.

[20] AT has been unable to withdraw from the mother’s charge due to his disabilities since he turned 18 years old. His mental health, medication and treatment require close monitoring by the mother. See: Karnes v. Reid, 2023 ONCJ 167. He is starting to develop some life skills but still requires significant support from the mother for his day-to-day functioning. Except for a small role as an extra in a television show that paid him $300, AT has not been employed since he turned 18. He usually takes Wheel Trans to transport him to services and activities.

[21] AT, with some gaps, has also been enrolled in a full-time program of education that is appropriate to his academic level since he turned 18 years old.[7]

[22] The court finds that AT has been and continues to be eligible for support. The father conceded this in his closing submissions.

[23] AT is on his way to being able to withdraw from parental control. The mother is to advise the father and the Director of the Family Responsibility Office (the Director) when AT is no longer eligible for support.

[24] The father will have the right to ask the court to review AT’s eligibility for support after September 1, 2028.

Part Four – Retroactive support

4.1 Legal considerations

[25] The motions to change the terms in the existing support order are governed by subsection 37 (2.1) of the Family Law Act (the Act). This section reads as follows:

Powers of court: child support

37 (2.1) In the case of an order for support of a child, if the court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances within the meaning of the child support guidelines or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the court may,

(a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order, prospectively or retroactively;

(b) relieve the respondent from the payment of part or all of the arrears or any interest due on them; and

(c) make any other order for the support of a child that the court could make on an application under section 33.

[26] The mother issued her motion to change on August 25, 2025. Support from that date is prospective support, and presumptively payable. See: Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.); Balian v. Balian, 2025 ONSC 4128. The support claimed before that date requires a retroactive support analysis.

[27] In Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 (Colucci), the court set out the framework that should be applied for applications to retroactively increase support in a court order or an agreement at paragraph 114. This framework can be summarized as follows:

a) Step One – 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) Step Two – Determine the presumptive start date for support to change. This is 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. Where the recipient parent gives no effective notice, child support should generally be increased back to the date of formal notice.

c) Step Three – Determine if the court should depart from the presumptive start date. The court retains discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors^[8] continue to guide this exercise of discretion, as described in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24.

d) Step Four – Quantify the support payable for each year since the date of retroactivity selected, in accordance with the guidelines.

[28] Retroactive child support simply holds payors to their existing (and unfulfilled) support obligations. See: Michel, par. 25.

[29] Retroactive awards are not exceptional. They can always be avoided by proper payment. See: D.B.S., par. 97.

4.2 Has there been a material change in circumstances regarding child support?

[30] The first step in the Colucci framework is to determine if there has been a material change in circumstances regarding child support. The court finds there has been as the father’s annual income has approximately tripled since the existing order was made.

[31] The other material change in circumstances is that the child started receiving ODSP payments in April 2025.

4.3 What is the presumptive start date when child support should be changed?

[32] The second step in the Colucci framework is to determine the presumptive start date that support should be changed. This is the date effective notice was given to the other party to change support, but this date cannot be more than three years from the date of formal notice.

[33] Effective 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.

[34] The mother testified that she first broached the issue of increasing support with the father in 2018 by asking him to provide his income tax information in accordance with the existing order. She said that the father ignored her request and that, because their communication was difficult and stressful for her, she decided not to pursue the issue further at that time.

[35] The mother gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and took a reasonable, proportionate approach to her support claims at trial, which enhanced her credibility. The father could not recall the mother asking him for his income tax returns in 2018. The court accepts the mother’s evidence on this point.

[36] The date of formal notice of the mother’s claim was the date she issued her motion to change – August 25, 2025. In the Colucci framework, the presumptive start date cannot be more than three years before the date of formal notice. This means that the presumptive start date for support to change upwards is August 25, 2022.

[37] The father opposed the mother’s claims for both retroactive and prospective increases in child support. In closing submissions, he made his own claim to reduce child support. He did not broach the issue of reducing support with the mother prior to the start of her motion to change.

4.4 Should the court depart from the presumptive start dates?

[38] The third step in the Colucci framework is to determine if the court should depart from the presumptive start date. The mother asks that child support be changed in accordance with the father’s annual income starting on January 1, 2019. The father opposes this and seeks to reduce his child support payments to $150 each month, starting on March 1, 2022, and further lower them to $100 each month, starting on April 1, 2025.

[39] The court will review the legal considerations and evidence regarding delay, conduct, the circumstances of the child and hardship below.

4.4.1 Reasons for delay

[40] In 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.

[41] A 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.

[42] Rather, 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.

[43] In Michel, the court, at paragraph 86, set out what might be understandable reasons for delay in a support recipient coming to court as follows:

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.

[44] The mother provided the following understandable reasons for her delay in bringing her motion to change, being:

a) The existing order required the father to provide her with annual financial disclosure. He did not comply with the order. She had little basis to assess if she should seek increased child support. The court also considered that she also did not provide her annual income information to the father, as required in the existing order.

b) The father did not increase his support payments even though his income materially increased.

c) She was reluctant to engage with the father in litigation. The parties agreed that their communication is very poor.

d) AT has special needs and went through periods of mental health crisis. She focused on AT and not litigation with the father. She said she was overwhelmed, at times, with managing AT’s needs on her own.

[45] That said, the mother should have come to court earlier. She knew that the father obtained full-time employment at Ford shortly after the existing order was made. She knew, or ought to have known, that his income had significantly increased.

[46] The father only came to court in response to the mother’s request to increase child support. He provided no understandable reason for his delay in coming to court to change support.

4.4.2 Blameworthy conduct

[47] Courts should apply an expansive definition of blameworthy conduct. See: D.B.S., par. 106.

[48] Blameworthy conduct is anything that privileges the payor parent’s own interests over his or her children’s right to an appropriate amount of support. See: D.B.S., par. 106.

[49] The 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.

[50] The father has complied with the support terms in the existing order.

[51] The mother, with the exception of not providing the father with her annual financial disclosure, has not acted in a blameworthy manner.

[52] The father has engaged in blameworthy conduct as follows:

a) He breached the existing order by failing to provide the mother with required annual financial disclosure.

b) He failed to advise the mother about his increases in annual income.

c) He failed to increase his child support payments in accordance with his annual income. He knew he was seriously underpaying child support to the mother.

4.4.3 AT’s circumstances

53There are plenty of circumstances where a parent will absorb the 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 of choices that protect the child. See: Michel, par. 123.

[54] The mother provided evidence that AT’s circumstances were disadvantaged by the father’s failure to pay the appropriate amount of child support. The mother struggled to support herself and AT. In March 2026, AT had to stop seeing a psychotherapist he had developed a connection with due to the expense. AT has been using a cheaper psychotherapy service and is seen by interns. The mother would like to use the previous psychotherapist if she could obtain financial help from the father.

4.4.4 Hardship

[55] If there is the potential for hardship to the payor, but there is also blameworthy conduct which precipitated or exacerbated the delay, it may be open to the courts to disregard the presence of hardship. In all cases, hardship may be addressed by the form of payment. See: Michel, par. 124.

[56] While the focus is on hardship to the payor, that hardship can only be assessed after taking into account the hardship which would be caused to the child and the recipient parent from not ordering the payment of sums owing but unpaid. See: Michel, par. 125.

[57] The retroactive order sought by the mother would cause the father some hardship. He and his wife have a joint annual income of about $120,000. They are supporting two children in the home. The father also pays child support of $680 each month for his other child.

[58] The mother will also have some hardship if she does not receive retroactive support. She is struggling to support AT on her own.

[59] The father’s hardship can be addressed with a reasonable payment plan for the support arrears.

4.4.5 Start date to change support

[60] The dominant factor in this case has been the father’s blameworthy conduct. He failed to comply with the existing order to provide annual financial disclosure, and he failed to increase his support in accordance with his income when it tripled after the existing order was made. He knew he was seriously underpaying child support.

[61] In determining the fairest start date for changing child support, the court also considered the mother’s delay in coming to court, including her understandable reasons; the disadvantaged circumstances of the child; the hardship that a retroactive order will cause the father; and the hardship that the absence of a retroactive order will cause the mother.

[62] The court finds that it is fair in these circumstances to depart from the presumptive start date and to retroactively change support upwards starting on September 1, 2020. This is approximately two years before the presumptive start date.

[63] The court will also determine if child support should be changed after AT turned 18 years old. That will be discussed below.

Part Five – Retroactive support from September 1, 2020 until February 28, 2022

[64] The final step in the Colucci framework is to quantify the proper amount of support for each year since the start date of retroactivity, calculated in accordance with the guidelines.

[65] AT turned 18 years old in February 2022. He is entitled to the guidelines table amount of support from September 1, 2020 until February 28, 2022 based on the father’s annual income.

[66] There was no dispute about the father’s annual income for each year of this analysis.

[67] The father earned $66,664 in 2020. The monthly guidelines table amount for one child at that income was $622. The total support for the four months in 2020 was $2,488 ($622 x 4 months). The father paid child support of $732 ($183 x 4 months). The deficiency was $1,756 ($2,488 - $732).

[68] The father earned $56,367 in 2021. The monthly guidelines table amount for one child at that income was $521. The total support for 2021 was $6,252 ($521 x 12). The father paid child support of $2,196 ($183 x 12). The deficiency was $4,056 ($6,252 - $2,196).

[69] The father earned $66,558 in 2022. The monthly guidelines table amount for one child at that income was $621. The total support for the two months in 2022 before AT turned 18 years old was $1,242 ($621 x 2). The father paid child support of $366 ($183 x 2). The deficiency was $876 ($1,242 – $366).

[70] The father owes additional retroactive support of $6,688 ($1,756 + $4,056 + $876) from September 1, 2020 until February 28, 2022.

Part Six – Was the guidelines approach inappropriate for AT after he turned 18 years old?

[71] The court must consider subsection 3 (2) of the guidelines and determine whether the guidelines approach to calculating child support was inappropriate once AT turned 18 years old.[9] The onus is on the father to show that the guidelines approach was inappropriate. See: Lewi v. Lewi (2006), 2006 CanLII 15446 (ON CA), 80 O.R. 321 (Ont. C.A.); MacLennan v. MacLennan, 2003 NSCA 9.

[72] The closer the circumstances of the child are to those upon which the usual guidelines approach is based, the less likely it is that the usual guidelines calculation will be found to be inappropriate. See: Rebenchuk v. Rebenchuk, 2007 MBCA 22. The court will consider factors such as if the child is still living at home and going to school in the same city. It will also look at the child’s ability to earn income.

[73] The court finds that the guidelines approach was appropriate from March 1, 2022 until March 31, 2025. AT was living at home with the mother and going to school in Toronto. He was not employed. His circumstances did not change when he turned 18 years old.

[74] The father’s request to reduce his child support payments to $150 each month once AT turned 18 years old has no merit. He continued to underpay support after AT turned 18.

[75] The court will next assess whether the guidelines approach for calculating support became inappropriate after AT began receiving ODSP payments in April 2025.

[76] An adult child’s receipt of ODSP in itself is sufficient to find that the guidelines approach is inappropriate. The ODSP program reflects society’s commitment to sharing financial responsibility for adults with disabilities. The assumption of some responsibility by the state and the child’s receipt of income supports make the table approach inappropriate. These circumstances change the equation and call for the calculation to be based on the child’s unique condition, means, needs and other circumstances, including their receipt of ODSP and the ability of the parents to contribute to their support. See: Senos v. Karcz, 2014 ONCA 459.

[77] The court finds that AT’s receipt of ODSP payments starting April 2025 significantly changed the support equation and the guidelines approach became inappropriate. The court will discuss below what child support is appropriate after April 1, 2025.

Part Seven – Retroactive support from March 1, 2022 until March 31, 2025

[78] The father earned $66,558 in 2022. The monthly guidelines table amount for one child at that income was $621. The total support from March 1, 2022 until the end of 2022 was $6,210 ($621 x 10 months). The father paid child support of $1,830 ($183 x 10 months). The deficiency was $4,380.

[79] The father earned $66,048 in 2023. The monthly guidelines table amount for one child at that income was $615. The total support for 2023 was $7,380 ($615 x 12). The father paid child support of $2,196 ($183 x 12). The deficiency was $5,184.

[80] The father earned $72,041 in 2024. The monthly guidelines table amount for one child at this income was $673. The total support for 2024 was $8,076 ($673 x 12). The father paid child support of $2,196 ($183 x 12 months). The deficiency was $5,880.

[81] The father earned $63,238 in 2025. The monthly guidelines table amount for one child at that income was $587. The total support accrued until the end of March 2025 was $1,761 ($587 x 3 months). The father paid child support of $549 ($183 x 3 months). The deficiency was $1,212.

[82] The father owes additional retroactive support of $16,656 ($4,380 + $5,184 + $5,880 +$1,212) from March 1, 2022 until March 31, 2025.

Part Eight – What is the appropriate amount of child support the father should pay to the mother starting on April 1, 2025?

8.1 Positions of the parties

[83] The mother sought a very specific support order, starting April 1, 2025. She asks that the father pay:

a) 50% of the $1,500 cost of AT’s autism assessment in 2026.

b) 50% of AT’s psychotherapy costs. The father’s share would be $285 each month.

c) 50% of AT’s Muay Thai costs. The father’s share would be $100 each month.

[84] The father proposed paying child support of $100 each month starting on April 1, 2025.

8.2 Analysis

[85] When the guidelines approach is determined to be inappropriate, courts will usually examine the child’s monthly budget and then determine how those expenses should be allocated between the parties and the child. The court looks at their means, needs and circumstances. See: Rebenchuk v. Rebenchuk, supra.

[86] The mother set out the following proposed monthly expenses for the child:

Monthly Expense

Cost

Psychotherapy[10]

$570.00

Muay Thai

$200.00

Rent

$250.00

Clothes

$100.00

Food

$400.00

Transportation

$150.00

Internet – Phone

$100.00

Entertainment

$150.00

Total

$1,920.00

[87] The court notes that the mother only set out the small amount for rent she presently asks AT to pay to her each month. Her monthly rent is $1,649 each month. For the purpose of this analysis, the court will allocate $700 each month for AT’s housing expenses. This is a more realistic apportionment of AT’s housing costs. This increases his monthly expenses to $2,370, as an additional $450 is being added to his housing expenses.

[88] The ODSP payments are $1,065 each month. A direct deduction leaves a monthly deficiency of $1,305 ($2,370 - $1,065).

[89] The mother earns about $96,300 annually. She also receives tax credits of about $10,000 each year due to AT’s disability, with a tax refund of about $5,600 arising from this. For the purpose of this support analysis the court will assess her annual income at $106,000.

[90] The father earns $63,238 annually. Based on their respective incomes, the father’s proportionate share of the $1,305 monthly budget deficiency is 37.4% or $488 each month.

[91] However, the court recognizes that the father has other support obligations, including the $680 each month he pays for his other child. He also helps support his wife’s two children, who live with the couple. The court will reduce the father’s share of AT’s monthly budget deficiency to 25%. This is $326.25 each month ($1,305 × 25%), which the court rounds to $326 each month. Subject to the adjustments set out below, this will be the father’s monthly child support payment starting on April 1, 2025.

[92] The first adjustment to the child support amount is for AT’s psychotherapy costs. The mother paid about $570 each month for this expense from April 2025 to March 2026. This is the amount the court used in determining the father’s monthly $326 support payment. However, for the past six months, the mother has only been paying $120 each month for the less expensive psychotherapy service. Child support needs to be slightly adjusted to reflect this. The difference between the former and current psychotherapy costs is $450 per month ($570 - $120). Over six months, the difference was $2,700. Based on the father’s 25% share of these expenses he will receive a credit of $675 ($2,700 x 25%).

[93] It is also fair for the father to pay 25% of the cost of the 2026 autism report. This assessment was also reasonable and necessary for AT. It was important to professionally assess his challenges and receive recommendations for how to support him. The cost of the report was $1,500. The court will order the father to pay $375 for his 25% share of this expense.

[94] The father’s total support liability from April 1, 2025 to August 31, 2026 is $5,242. This is based on payments of $326 each month for 17 months ($5,542) plus his share of the autism assessment ($375), less, a $675 credit because the less expensive psychotherapy service was used for 6 months in 2026.

[95] The father paid $183 each month for 17 months ($3,111). This leaves a deficiency in child support for this period of $2,131 ($5,242 - $3,111).

[96] The father’s claim to reduce his child support payments is dismissed.

Part Nine – Calculation of additional support owing since September 1, 2020

[97] The father owes additional support to the mother of $25,475, calculated from September 1, 2020 as follows:

September 1, 2020 to February 28, 2022 - $6,688, as calculated in Part Five above.

March 1, 2022 to March 31, 2025 - $16,656, as calculated in Part Seven above

April 1, 2025 to August 31, 2026 - $2,131 as calculated in Part Eight above.

Part Ten – How should arrears be paid?

[98] This order will create additional support arrears of $25,475 for the father.

[99] The father proposed to pay any support arrears at $50 each month.

[100] The mother proposed the father pay his support arrears at $200 each month. This is very reasonable and will give the father many years to pay them. The court will order the arrears payment sought by the mother with two additional terms.

[101] First, if the mother advises the father and the Director that AT is no longer eligible for support, or if the court makes this determination in the future, the arrears payments will increase to $500 each month. This is because the father will have more funds available to pay the arrears once his ongoing child support obligation ends.

[102] Secondly, if the father is more than 30 days late in making any arrears payments or ongoing support payments, the entire amount of arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.

Part Eleven – Conclusion

[103] A final order shall go on the following terms:

a) The existing order shall be changed as follows:

i) The father owes the mother $25,475 in additional child support as of August 31, 2026, as calculated in this decision.

ii) Starting on September 1, 2026, the father shall pay the mother $326 each month for child support.

b) The father shall pay the arrears created by this order at $200 each month, starting on October 1, 2026.

c) The mother shall advise the father and the Director when AT is no longer eligible for support.

d) The father may seek a court review of AT’s eligibility for support after September 1, 2028.

e) The father’s arrears payments shall increase to $500 each month once AT is no longer eligible for support, whether by court determination, or by notification by the mother to the father and the Director.

f) If the father is more than 30 days late in making any arrears payments or ongoing support payments, the entire amount of arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.

g) Nothing in this order precludes the Director from collecting arrears from any government source (such as income tax or GST/HST refunds), inheritances, or lottery or prize winnings.

h) The Director is asked to adjust its records in accordance with this order.

i) The parties shall exchange their income tax returns and notices of assessment by June 30^th each year.

j) The mother shall provide the father with copies of all psychotherapy and Muay Thai expenses for AT upon his request.

k) A support deduction order shall issue.

[104] If either party seeks costs, they are to serve and file written submissions by August 31, 2026. The other party will then have until September 14, 2026 to serve and file written submissions (not to make their own submissions). The costs submissions should not exceed three pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle.

Released: August 17, 2026

________________________

Justice Stanley B. Sherr

1The additional daycare payment ended many years ago.

2In her motion to change, the mother sought retroactive support starting on May 1, 2014. She revised that position at trial.

3The father did not seek a reduction of child support in his response to motion to change. However, the court considered this claim made at trial.

4The father did not contest AT’s entitlement to child support in his response to motion to change. However, he challenged AT’s entitlement to support in case management and in his trial affidavit. In closing submissions, he advised the court he no longer contested this issue. Rather, he contested the amount he should pay for child support since AT is receiving ODSP payments and the mother receives tax benefits due to AT’s disability.

5The mother sought to file an updated affidavit and financial statement after she had completed her testimony. She did not ask for a filing extension prior to trial or even prior to her testimony. The court did not permit her to file these documents as it would have been unfair to the father who had prepared for the trial and his cross-examination of the mother based on the materials filed.

6Subsection 3 (1) of the guidelines sets out that the guidelines approach is the table amount plus the amount, if any, determined under section 7.

7AT was not in school from June 2024 until January 2025 and from June 2025 until June 2026.

8See: D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; Laura Jean W. v. Tracy Alfred R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37. These factors are:

1. Whether the recipient spouse has provided a reasonable excuse for his or her delay in applying for support.

2. The conduct of the payor parent.

3. The circumstances of the child.

4. The hardship that the retroactive award may entail.

9Subsection 3(2) of the guidelines states:

Child the age of majority or over

(2) Unless otherwise provided under these Guidelines, where a child to whom a child support order relates is the age of majority or over, the amount of the child support order is

(a) the amount determined by applying these Guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority; or

(b) if the court considers that approach to be inappropriate, the amount that it considers appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the child.

10The court agrees with the mother that using the more expensive psychotherapy service is reasonable and necessary for AT. He developed a close connection with his previous psychotherapist. The present service uses interns. This is an important moment for AT. He needs significant support to meet his potential and become independent.