Maggio v. Sousa, 2025 ONCJ 98

DATE: February 24, 2025
COURT FILE NO.: D44389/23
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

TIFFANY MAGGIO
O. BENJAMIN VINCENTS
APPLICANT

• and -

ROBERT SOUSA
ACTING IN PERSON
RESPONDENT

HEARD: February 20, 2025
JUSTICE: Stanley B. Sherr

REASONS FOR DECISION

Part One – Introduction

[1] This hearing was about the respondent’s (the father’s) child support obligations for the parties’ 7-year-old son (the child).

[2] The applicant (the mother) seeks an order that the father pay her child support starting on August 1, 2019. She seeks to impute income to him for the purpose of the support calculation, as she believes that he has significantly underreported his business income. She also seeks an order that he pay 74% of the child’s ongoing special and extraordinary expenses (section 7 expenses), pursuant to section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines).

[3] The father asks that his child support obligations be calculated starting in August 2021. He submitted that the mother has overstated his annual income since 2019.

[4] The parties were the only witnesses at trial. They were permitted to provide additional oral evidence and were cross-examined. The court also relied on their filed affidavits and financial statements.

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

a) What is the presumptive start date for child support?
b) Should the court depart from the presumptive start date, and if so, when should support start?
c) What is the father’s annual income for each year he is required to pay child support? Should income be imputed to him in any of these years, and if so, how much?
d) What amount does the father owe the mother for child support?
e) How should any support arrears be paid?

Part Two – Background facts

[6] The mother is 46 years old. The father is 52 years old.

[7] The parties never cohabited.

[8] The parties have the one child together. The child has special needs. He has a learning disability. He is also being treated for diabetes.

[9] The child has always resided with the mother.

[10] The mother has a 21-year-old child from another relationship who attends the University of Toronto.

[11] The mother is a full-time student taking a Graphic Design course. She has two more years of school.

[12] The father has a 24-year-old son from another relationship. His son does not live with him.

[13] The father is self-employed. He runs a commercial cleaning and maintenance business. He deposed that he has contracts to clean and maintain five commercial buildings, located in Vaughn, Guelph, Brampton and Milton.

[14] The child was born in February 2017. The father started visiting with the child in July 2017. He did not pay any child support to the mother.

[15] In August 2019, the mother asked the father to pay her child support. The father asked for a paternity test. He took one and it was positive. He still paid no child support.

[16] The father chose not to see the child once the pandemic started in March 2020.

[17] In 2021, the father asked the mother for a second paternity test. At trial, he deposed he did not trust the first test result because it was ordered on-line. The second test was also positive and the father accepted the result.

[18] The father had minimal contact with the child from 2021 to 2023. The mother deposed that he saw the child twice in 2021, once in 2022 and not at all in 2023. The father did not dispute this.

[19] The father has paid child support of $300 each month since July 2021. He unilaterally chose that support figure. He did not provide the mother with any proof of his income.

[20] The mother issued her application for parenting and support orders on September 18, 2023.

[21] The father filed his Answer/Claim on December 15, 2023. He was represented by counsel at that time.

[22] The father deposed in his financial statement sworn on December 14, 2023 that his annual income was $40,800.

[23] On January 16, 2024, the court ordered the father to pay temporary child support to the mother of $370 each month, based on his represented annual income of $41,000, starting on February 1, 2024. The amount and start date were subject to future adjustment. The father was further ordered to pay 60% of the child’s section 7 expenses. The court also made a financial disclosure order.

[24] On September 19, 2024, the parties consented to final parenting orders. The child’s primary residence is with the mother. The mother has sole decision-making responsibility for him. The father has parenting time with the child every other Sunday for 90 minutes. The father had not provided his financial disclosure. He was ordered to provide it to the mother within 30 days.

[25] On December 3, 2024, the focused hearing of the remaining support issues was arranged.

Part Three – The start date for support

3.1 The Colucci framework

[26] The court’s authority to make retroactive support orders is contained in clause 34 (1) (f) of the Family Law Act (the Act). This clause reads as follows:

Powers of court
34 (1) In an application under section 33, the court may make an interim or final order,
…….(f) requiring that support be paid in respect of any period before the date of the order;

[27] Any 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.). The father did not dispute that prospective child support was payable.

[28] In Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, the court set out the framework that should be applied for retroactive applications to increase support in paragraph 114 as follows:

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[^1] continue to guide this exercise of discretion, as described in Michel.[^2] 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.

[29] This framework in Colucci addresses a request to retroactively increase the support contained in an order or an agreement. It should also be applied, with necessary modifications, for an original request for retroactive support. See: L.S. v. M.A.F., 2021 ONCJ 554; M.A. v. M.E., 2021 ONCJ 555; A.E. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 8189; Hajak v. Hemmings, [2024] O.J. No. 4763 (SCJ).

[30] In an original application for retroactive support, there will be no need to meet the threshold requirement of establishing a material change in circumstances, as required in Colucci. The first step will be to determine the presumptive date of retroactivity as described in Colucci. The second step will be to determine if the court should depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors will guide the exercise of that discretion, as described in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24. The third step will be to quantify the proper amount of support for each year since the date of retroactivity, calculated in accordance with the guidelines.

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

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

3.2 What is the presumptive start date when child support should start?

[33] The first step in the Colucci analysis is to determine the presumptive start date when child support should start.

[34] The mother testified that she first asked the father for child support in July 2019, when he took the first paternity test. She said she often asked him for support after that date but he refused to pay it.

[35] The father acknowledged the mother asked him for child support in July 2019. He said he did not pay child support because he did not trust the first paternity test results.

[36] The court finds that the mother broached the issue of child support with the father by August 1, 2019, at the latest. This was the date of effective notice. However, this date was more than three years before the date of formal notice, being when the application was issued on September 18, 2023. This means that the presumptive start date for child support to start is September 18, 2020 – three years before the date of formal notice.

3.3 Should the court depart from the presumptive start date?

[37] The second step in the Colucci analysis is to determine if the court should depart from the presumptive start date.

[38] The parties both ask to depart from the presumptive start date. The mother asks that the start date for child support be on August 1, 2019. The father asks that it be on August 1, 2021.

[39] The court will consider the departure factors set out in D.B.S., as modified by Michel, below.

3.3.1 Reasons for delay

[40] In considering delay in applying for increased support, 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. A delay motivated by any one of the reasons set out below 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.

These situations raise issues of impracticability and inaccessibility to justice on the one hand, and on the other fear and danger. See: Michel, par. 86.

[43] The mother provided some understandable reasons for her delay in bringing the case to court, being:

a) The father did not disclose his income to her. He did not provide her with any meaningful financial disclosure until late in 2024.
b) The father represented to her he was not earning much income. This was not true.
c) She did not have the emotional means to engage in extended litigation with the father. She was essentially a single parent raising a special needs child. She knew that the father would be resistant to paying the proper amount of child support. Her fears were borne out. The father was resistant to providing financial disclosure and misrepresented his income and how many bank accounts he had during these proceedings.

3.3.2 Blameworthy conduct

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

[45] 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.

[46] 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.

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

a) He failed to disclose his actual income to the mother.
b) He misrepresented his annual income as being $41,000 at the first case conference. This resulted in a very low temporary support order.
c) He failed to pay child support in accordance with his actual income.
d) He did not provide complete or timely financial disclosure.
e) He misrepresented to the mother and the court that he only had one bank account. The mother discovered a second bank account. Substantial income flowed through that account.

3.3.3 Circumstances of the children

[48] There 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.

[49] The circumstances of the child have been disadvantaged by the father’s failure to pay appropriate child support. The mother has not been able to pay for extra-curricular activities for the child. She has incurred debts of $80,000 trying to support her family.

3.3.4 Hardship

[50] 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.

[51] 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.

[52] The father did not establish that a retroactive support order will cause him hardship. He owns his home. He valued it at one million dollars in his first financial statement. He deposed he had debts of $250,000. He has plenty of equity in his home to refinance his mortgage and pay his support arrears.

[53] The mother will suffer hardship if she does not receive retroactive support.

3.3.5 Start date to change child support

[54] The mother’s proposal to start child support on August 1, 2019 is very fair in these circumstances. This will be ordered.

Part Four – The father’s income and calculation of arrears owing

4.1 Positions of the parties

[55] The final step in the Colucci framework is to quantify the proper amount of support for each year from the start date of retroactivity. The father’s income for each year needs to be assessed to do this.

[56] The mother submitted that the father has not accurately presented his annual income to the court. She asked to impute additional income to him for each year since 2019. She presented the court with a work sheet setting out her calculations of the father’s annual revenues and expenses.

[57] The father conceded at trial that he has not accurately reported his annual income to the Canada Revenue Agency (the CRA) and that he initially understated his income to the court. However, he feels the mother is asking to impute too much income to him. He submitted that she has understated his business expenses in her calculations.

4.2 Legal considerations

[58] The court may impute income to a party pursuant to section 19 of the guidelines.

[59] The mother is not seeking to impute income to the father based on his intentional unemployment or underemployment. Rather, she is asking the court to determine his actual income for support purposes. She claims that he has hidden income sources, earns unreported cash income and has deducted personal expenses from his business income.

[60] The jurisprudence for imputation of income in these circumstances sets out 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 ONCA 41868.
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. 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 ONSC 13554.
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 ONSC 2806. 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 ONSC 28260.
f) A review of the caselaw respecting business deduction claims reveals a general theme that in determining whether expenses should be added back into a parent’s income for child support purposes, an important consideration is whether there is a benefit derived from the business expenses that employed people would have to cover from their personal income. See: Izyuk v. Langley, 2015 ONSC 2409.
g) 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.
h) The court may impute income where it finds that a party has hidden or misrepresented relevant information respecting their income to the other party or to the authorities. This includes cases where the evidence indicates that a party earns cash income that they do not declare for income tax purposes. See: Kinsella v. Mills, 2020 ONSC 4785; Prillo v. Homer, 2023 ONCJ 8.
i) The court can also impute income where the evidence respecting income is not credible for any other reason. See: Heard v. Heard, 2014 ONCA 196, paras. 33-35; Gostevskikh v. Gostevskikh, 2018 BCSC 1441; M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207.
j) 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.

[61] The above is a non-exhaustive list and as such, the court has discretion to impute income based on other circumstances.

4.3 Problems with the father’s evidence

[62] The father has run a successful business for over 20 years.

[63] The court accepts the mother’s evidence that the father misrepresented his annual income to her when she asked him for child support.

[64] The father has not accurately reported his annual income to the CRA. His notices of assessment set out he has earned the following annual income:

• 2020: $17,058
• 2021: $16,914
• 2022: $16,296
• 2023: $16,723

[65] The father delayed in providing the mother with the financial disclosure required in the Automatic Disclosure Order that was issued together with the Application. Two further orders were made for him to provide his financial disclosure.

[66] The father did not provide complete financial disclosure. He did not provide his complete income tax returns with all schedules attached, Statements of Business or Professional Activities, general ledgers from his business or copies of invoices or receipts.

[67] The father provided no evidence about his 2019 income.

[68] The father initially did not reveal all his assets. He did not disclose in his first financial statement that he had an account with the CIBC. He denied having a CIBC account when asked by the mother. Only when the mother said she would summons someone from the CIBC to court did the father sign an authorization for the mother to obtain his CIBC bank statements. These statements revealed substantial additional income. After the father’s additional income was discovered, he disclosed in his trial affidavit that he had earned much more annual income than he had first reported.

[69] The father was more forthcoming with his financial disclosure once his second bank account was revealed. His annual revenues and expenses were calculated from these accounts.

[70] The father was also more open about his finances at trial. He acknowledged he did not include in his trial affidavit income he had earned from driving Uber from 2020 to 2022. He also did not include payments from his adult son towards the house expenses when his son lived with him from 2021 to 2023. He agreed those payments should be added to his income.

4.4 The father’s annual revenue

[71] The mother calculated the father’s annual revenue by adding deposits from his two accounts. She excluded transfers between the accounts.

[72] The mother calculated the father’s annual revenue as follows:

• 2020: $63,469
• 2021: $87,451
• 2022: $97,053
• 2023: $88,329
• 2024: $91,994

[73] The father agreed that these revenue figures were accurate, with the exception of the inclusion of loan payments from his son to him between 2021 and 2023.[^3] The court agrees with the father that the loan portions of his son’s payments to him should be excluded from his revenue. It is difficult to be precise about these payments as they were mixed with other payments made by the son to the father and the father provided no supporting documentation, other than bank deposits. The court will reduce the father’s revenue by $4,000 in 2021 and 2022 and by $3,000 in 2023, as it appears that his son’s loan payments ended in September of that year.

4.5 The father’s annual expenses and net income

[74] In her work sheet, the mother calculated the father’s annual business expenses as follows:

• 2020: $5,085
• 2021: $6,057
• 2022: $5,838
• 2023: $5,718
• 2024: $6,327

[75] The father disputed these expenses. He felt more expenses should be deducted from his income.

[76] In his trial affidavit, the father deducted 100% of his vehicle expenses for a 2018 Honda CRV, supplies, bank fees and his phone. He also deducted meal expenses of under $1,000 annually.

[77] The mother asked the court to assess the father’s expenses for the Honda CRV at 30% for business purposes and to entirely disallow the expenses the father claimed for his bank fees and phone expenses.

[78] At trial, the father said he owns a second vehicle he drives on weekends for personal use. He estimated he only used the Honda CRV for personal use 15-20% of the time. He estimated he used the phone for personal use 60% of the time.

[79] The court finds that the father has legitimate vehicle expenses for his business. He has to visit five building sites daily, spread between Vaughn, Brampton, Milton and Guelph. The court will allow an 80% deduction for his claimed vehicle expenses for the Honda CRV.

[80] The court accepts the father’s evidence that 40% of his phone expenses are for business use and will permit that deduction.

[81] The court is satisfied that the bank fees claimed by the father are legitimate business expenses.

[82] The father did not provide satisfactory evidence that the meal expenses he claimed were legitimate business expenses. They will be disallowed, for the purpose of this analysis.

[83] It became apparent during his testimony that the father had other legitimate business expenses not taken into account in the mother’s work sheet. The court will permit him to deduct $1,400 annually for his home office[^4] and an average of $4,500 annually for subcontractor expenses.[^5]

[84] The father’s allowable business expenses after these adjustments, and his net income for each year since 2020, before taxes, are calculated as follows:

2020
Vehicle: $11,642 x 80% = $9,314
Phone: $816 x 40% = $326
Bank Fees: $1,858
Supplies: $1,347
Home Office: $1,400
Subcontractors: $4,500
Total expenses: $18,745
Net income is $63,469 - $18,745 = $44,724

2021
Vehicle: $13,248 x 80% = $10,598
Phone: $816 x 40% = $326
Bank Fees: $374
Supplies: $1,837
Home Office: $1,400
Subcontractors: $4,500
Total expenses: $19,035
Net income is $83,451 - $19,035 = $64,416

2022
Vehicle: $14,481 x 80% = $11,585
Phone: $816 x 40% = $326
Bank Fees: $591
Supplies: $1,249
Home Office: $1,400
Subcontractors: $4,500
Total expenses: $19,651
Net income is $93,053 - $19,651 = $73,402

2023
Vehicle: $14,034 x 80% = $11,227[^6]
Phone: $816 x 40% = $326
Bank Fees: $687
Supplies: $1,263
Home Office: $1,400
Subcontractors: $4,500
Total expenses: $19,403
Net income is $84,329 - $19,403 = $64,926

2024
Vehicle: $16,557 x 80% = $13,246
Phone: $816 x 40% = $326
Bank Fees: $822
Supplies: $1,115
Home Office: $1,400
Subcontractors: $4,500
Total expenses: $21,409
Net income is $88,994 - $21,409 = $67,585

[85] The father provided no evidence of his 2019 income. The court won’t use his 2020 or 2021 income as yardsticks to calculate his 2019 income because his income during those years was lower because of the pandemic. Based on the father’s pattern of income, and it being a well-established business, the court will assess the father’s net income in 2019, before taxes, at $63,000.

4.6 Gross-up of the father’s income and calculation of arrears accumulated since August 1, 2019

[86] The analysis of the father’s income does not end with the net income determinations. It is appropriate in these circumstances to gross-up the father’s income, as he is declaring and paying tax on substantially less income than he is actually earning. This is done to ensure consistency of treatment where a party is found to have arranged his affairs to pay less tax on income. See: Sarafinchin v. Sarafinchin, 2000 ONSC 22639; Prillo v. Homer, 2023 ONCJ 8.

[87] The father declared annual income to the CRA ranging from $16,000 to $17,000 between 2020 and 2023. He did not provide evidence of the income he reported to the CRA in 2019. It is likely he reported a similar range of income to the CRA. For the purpose of calculating the gross-up of his annual income, the court will work on the assumption that the father reported income of $16,500 in 2019 to the CRA.

[88] There is no reason to believe that the father will change this pattern of underreporting his income to the CRA. The court will base its calculations on the basis that the father will declare income of $16,500 to the CRA for 2024 and on an ongoing basis.

[89] Software calculations show that the father’s grossed-up annual income and his guidelines table support obligations for one child for each year since 2019 are as follows:[^7]

• 2019: $81,359 - $758 x 5 months = $3,790
• 2020: $54,817 - $506 x 12 months = $6,072
• 2021: $83,625 - $780 x 12 months = $9,360
• 2022: $96,813 - $886 x 12 months = $10,632
• 2023: $83,816 - $782 x 12 months = $9,384
• 2024: $87,225 - $812 x 12 months = $9,744
• 2025: $87,225 - $812 x 2 months = $1,624

Total support accrued = $50,606

[90] The parties agreed that the father has paid $13,600 for child support since August 1, 2019. This means the child support arrears are presently $37,006 ($50,606 - $13,600).

Part Five – Section 7 expenses

[91] The mother began paying $500 each month for tutoring expenses for the child, starting in February 2025.

[92] The court finds this is an eligible special expense pursuant to section 7 of the guidelines. The child has a learning disability and requires tutoring to upgrade his literacy skills. The court finds the expense is reasonable and necessary.

[93] The mother is not employed. She is in school full-time. She is receiving student grants of $11,272, student loans and the Canada Child Benefit. Given this, her proposal that the father pay 74% of the tutoring expense, being $370 each month, is very reasonable.[^8]

Part Six – Payment of arrears

[94] The mother proposed that the father pay the support arrears created by this order at $1,000 each month. The father proposed making an annual payment towards the arrears of $3,000.

[95] The mother’s proposal is very reasonable. This gives the father just over three years to pay his arrears. This will be ordered. The father has considerable equity in his home. He could likely refinance his home and pay the entire arrears within 90 days. He is fortunate the mother is not seeking an order that he do this.

[96] The order will set out if the father is more than 30 days late in making any ongoing or arrears support payment the entire amount of the arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.

Part Seven – Conclusion

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

a) The father shall pay the mother child support of $1,182 each month, starting on March 1, 2025. This is comprised of the guidelines table amount for one child of $812 each month, based on his imputed annual income of $87,225, and $370 each month, being 74% of the child’s section 7 tutoring expenses.
b) The father’s support arrears are fixed at $37,006, as calculated in this decision.
c) The father may pay the support arrears at the rate of $1,000 each month, starting on March 1, 2025. However, if he is more than 30 days late in making any ongoing or arrears support payment, the entire amount of arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.
d) Nothing in this order shall prevent the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from collecting arrears from any government source, such as income tax or HST/GST refunds, inheritances, or lottery or prize winnings.
e) Nothing in this order precludes the mother or the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from registering an execution on the father’s home to enforce this order.
f) The Director of the Family Responsibility Office is requested to adjust its records in accordance with this order.
g) The father shall provide the mother with complete copies of his income tax returns, including all schedules and attachments, and his notices of assessment, by June 30th each year.
h) A support deduction order shall issue.

[99] If either party believes there is a mathematical error in this decision, or that there is an inputting error in the software calculations, they are to serve and file a Form 14B by March 3, 2025, setting out those errors. The other party will then have until March 10, 2025 to respond.

[100] If either party seeks their costs, they are to serve and file written submissions by March 17, 2025. The other party will then have until March 31, 2025, to make a written response (not to make their own costs submissions). The submissions should not exceed three pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle. The submissions should be either delivered to the trial coordinator’s office on the second floor of the courthouse or emailed to the trial coordinator’s office.

[101] The court thanks the parties for their civility during the trial and the mother’s counsel for his professional presentation of the case.

Released: February 24, 2025

Justice Stanley B. Sherr

[^1]: See: 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.

[^2]: See: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 25.

[^3]: The father deposed he had bought a car for his son and his son was repaying him for it.

[^4]: This was the father’s estimate.

[^5]: The father deposed he paid $4,500 for subcontractor expenses in 2023 and 2024, $1,200 in 2022 and $9,600 in 2020 and 2021. He had no documentation supporting he paid these expenses.

[^6]: Starting in 2023, the father claimed ETR expenses. 80% will be permitted and included under the vehicle expenses.

[^7]: The software calculations will be attached to this decision.

[^8]: The software analysis shows that the father’s proportionate payment of this expense, based on the parties’ incomes, would be closer to 88% of the expense.