DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC 25-3031
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
J.A. Ramsay, Dunphy and O’Brien JJ.
BETWEEN:
LINDA CALMES
Appellant/Applicant
– and –
GUY BEAUCHAMP
Respondent
Self-represented, for the Appellant/Applicant
Self-represented, for the Respondent
HEARD at Ottawa: November 20, 2025, by Videoconference
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
J.A. Ramsay J.
1The respondent (respondent in Family Court) brought a successful motion to reduce his obligation under an order to pay child support. The applicant appeals.
2The respondent was ordered to pay $200 a month in child support with an interest rate of 8% on arrears on December 16, 1992. Child support was terminated on July 24, 1995. The respondent had voluntarily paid a total of $100 by 2021. From 2021 FRO was able to garnish the respondent’s old age pension. As of the date of the hearing the respondent had paid the principal remaining ($6,200) and $3,971.82 in interest. He still owed $10,342.03 in interest.
3The respondent lives on $1,327.69 per month. He has medical expenses. In August 2023 he inherited $18,000. He settled some debts and bought a 10-year-old car to get to his medical appointments. He should have paid his arrears, as the judge said. In February 2024 he was admitted to hospital for psychiatric care.
4The judge found that if the respondent had made payments when he should have, he would not be in his present predicament.
5The judge reduced the obligation to pay arrears to $2,229 and ordered that this amount be paid at the rate of $75 per month.
6The appellant submits that the judge misapplied Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24. In that case, the Supreme Court set out a framework for retroactive changes to child support based on a change in the payor’s income, and rescission of arrears based on the payor’s inability to pay. In the latter case the payor must establish on the balance of probability that he will never be able to pay.
7In the case at bar the judge did not rescind arrears of child support. Arrears of child support had been satisfied. The judge rescinded a portion of the interest payable on those arrears in order to recognize the decrease in interest rates in the last 20 years. Colucci is of doubtful application.
8Varying post-judgment interest was within the judge’s discretion: Family Law Act, s. 37 (2.1) (b). Post-judgement interest is discretionary in the first place: Courts of Justice Act, s.130(2)(a). The judge exercised his discretion on a reasoned basis, to wit: the payor’s ability to pay and the statutory consideration of changes in market interest rates. The judge took a pragmatic approach to an unfortunate situation. The appellant ‘s dissatisfaction is understandable but the finding that the respondent could not pay more than the reduced amount was available on the evidence and reflects no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.
9The appeal is dismissed without costs.
J.A. Ramsay J.
_______________________________ Dunphy J.
_______________________________ O’Brien J.
Date: November 26, 2025
CITATION: Calmes v. Beauchamp, 2025 ONSC 6576
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC 25-3031
DATE: 20251126
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
J.A. Ramsay, Dunphy and O’Brien JJ.
BETWEEN:
LINDA CALMES
Appellant/Applicant
– and –
GUY BEAUCHAMP
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
J.A. Ramsay J.
Date: November 26, 2025