Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-04-17
Docket: COA-23-CV-1284
Coram: Peter Lauwers, Lise Favreau, Julie Dawe JJ.A.

Between

Jessica Bortoleti De Oliveira
Applicant (Respondent)

and

Kurt Ashley Ritchie
Respondent (Appellant)

Appearances:
Godfrey Okundaye, for the appellant
Jessica Bortoleti De Oliveira, acting in person

Heard: 2025-04-15

On appeal from the order of Justice William Black of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 25, 2023, with reasons reported at 2023 ONSC 6018.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The respondent, Jessica Bortoleti De Oliveira, brought an application to set aside a separation agreement between the parties. The trial judge upheld the separation agreement, subject to some modification. As part of his order, the trial judge adjusted the amount of child support payable by the appellant, Kurt Ashley Ritchie, between January 1, 2022, and May 1, 2023. He also ordered that each party was to bear their own costs of the application.

[2] The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in adjusting the child support in the period between January 1, 2022, and May 1, 2023, and seeks leave to appeal the costs order. At the conclusion of oral arguments, we advised the parties that the appeal was dismissed with reasons to follow. These are our reasons.

[3] On the issue of child support, the appellant does not challenge the trial judge’s determination that his income at the relevant time was $103,000 per year. Rather, he argues that the trial judge erred in failing to take the respondent’s income into account. We are not persuaded that the trial judge made such an error. The trial judge was aware that parenting time was shared and that, according to section 6.5 of the agreement, child support would be based on both parties’ income as of July 1, 2021. Section 6.11 confirms that the parties would exchange financial information yearly on or before May 1 to make necessary adjustments. It is evident from his reasons, at para. 101, that the trial judge was satisfied that the respondent’s income at the relevant time was “zero or close to zero”. The appellant has not pointed to any evidence to suggest this was an error, let alone a palpable and overriding error.

[4] We also see no reason to grant leave to appeal the trial judge’s costs award. He based this award on his view that there was divided success, and on the parties’ conduct throughout the proceedings and their relationship. It is worth noting that both parties were self-represented during most of the proceedings below. Costs awards are highly discretionary, especially in family law cases: Fielding v. Fielding, 2015 ONCA 901, 129 O.R. (3d) 65, at paras. 67 and 71. We see no error in principle or reason to overturn the trial judge’s determination that this was an appropriate case for no costs to be awarded.

[5] We note that, going forward, the parties continue to be required, pursuant to s. 6.11 of the Separation Agreement, to exchange financial information yearly on or before May 1 to make necessary adjustments. Either party may take enforcement steps at the Superior Court of Justice in the face of non-compliance.

[6] The appeal and the motion for leave to appeal the costs award are both dismissed. We order no costs of the appeal.

“Peter Lauwers J.A.”
“Lise Favreau J.A.”
“Julie Dawe J.A.”