DATE: June 7, 2024 COURT FILE NO. D70561/14
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
TRICIA LYNCH LAUREN ISRAEL, for the APPLICANT APPLICANT
- and -
MICHAEL LEWIS ACTING IN PERSON RESPONDENT
HEARD: JUNE 3, 2024
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
REASONS FOR DECISION
Part One – Introduction
[1] On January 3, 2020, the court ordered the respondent (the father) to pay child support to the applicant (the mother) for the parties’ two 13-year-old children, J and JA (the children) in the amount of $547 each month, based on an imputed annual income to him of $36,140 (the existing order).
[2] J has been living with the father since October 2023. JA has been living with the father since January 2024.
[3] The father has brought a motion to change the existing order. He seeks to terminate his child support obligation and obtain child support from the mother.
[4] The mother has brought a response to motion to change. She seeks a retroactive increase in child support, starting from the date of the existing order until the end of 2023.
[5] The father asks that the mother’s claim for retroactive support be dismissed. Although he did not plead this in his motion to change, the father submits that his payment of the children’s special and extraordinary expenses (section 7 expenses) pursuant to section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines), from the date of the existing order until the end of 2023, satisfied his support obligations. If the mother’s claim for retroactive support is granted, in whole or in part, he seeks a retroactive order for section 7 expenses.
[6] On March 8, 2024, the court arranged a focused hearing restricted to determining the respective support claims between January 1, 2020, and the end of 2023.
[7] During the hearing, the parties agreed that the mother shall pay temporary child support to the father of $597 each month, starting on January 1, 2024. This is the guidelines table amount for two children based on the mother’s stated current annual income of $40,000. The issue of the mother’s contribution to the children’s section 7 expenses since January 1, 2024, if any, remains outstanding.
[8] During the hearing, the parties also agreed to final parenting orders that were made that day. The children will continue to reside with the father and he will have decision-making responsibility for them.
[9] The parties both filed affidavits and financial statements as their direct evidence for the hearing. They were both cross-examined. There were no other witnesses.
[10] The issues for the court to determine are:
a) Should the court retroactively increase the guidelines table amount of child support, and if so, starting when? b) Should the court make a retroactive order for the mother to contribute to the children’s section 7 expenses? If so, when should the order start and how much should she contribute? c) What credits, if any, should the father receive for payments made on behalf of the children between January 1, 2020 and the end of 2023? d) How should any child support arrears be paid?
Part Two – Background facts
[11] The father is 41 years old. He is employed by a hospital as a social service worker. He has no other children.
[12] The mother is 43 years old. She is employed as a customer service representative. She lives with her partner and five of her eight children. The mother does not receive child support from the fathers of her other children. There are no court orders or agreements requiring those fathers to pay her support. Her partner is unemployed.
[13] The parties have litigated about the children, on and off, since 2014.
[14] On September 20, 2017, on a motion to change, the court ordered the father to pay the mother child support of $698 each month, commencing on May 1, 2017.
[15] The father subsequently brought a motion to change support. A trial was held, reasons for decision were released and the existing order was made. See: Lynch v. Lewis, 2020 ONCJ 2. Child support was reduced to $547 each month starting on September 1, 2019. The father was required to notify the mother when he obtained employment and to annually provide her with his income tax returns and notices of assessment. He did not do this.
[16] On November 24, 2023, the father issued his motion to change.
[17] On January 2, 2024, the mother issued her response to motion to change.
[18] On March 8, 2024, the court suspended the father’s support obligation.
[19] The father was in full compliance with his child support obligations, pursuant to the existing order, as of September 30, 2023. He also paid child support of $547 for October 2023. He stopped paying child support after that date.
Part Three – Legislative considerations and the Colucci framework
[20] Any support claimed after an application or motion to change is issued is prospective support, not retroactive support. See: Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.); Cumor v. Mohamud, 2024 ONCJ 162.
[21] The parties have both made retroactive support claims that require a similar, if somewhat different analysis. The mother’s claim for a retroactive increase in support is a motion to change governed by subsection 37 (2.1) of the Family Law Act. The father’s claim for retroactive section 7 expenses is an original application that is governed by sections 33 and 34 of the Family Law Act.
[22] 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 v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 25. 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.
[23] In an original application for retroactive support, as the father has made here with respect to section 7 expenses, 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. 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; M.K. v. K.M., 2022 ONCJ 424; T.B. v. O.T., 2023 ONCJ 35; V.S.B. v. B.L.O., 2022 ONCJ 506; Mohamoud v. Farah, 2023 ONCJ 103.
[24] Retroactive child support simply holds payors to their existing (and unfulfilled) support obligations. See: Michel, par. 25.
[25] Retroactive 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, par. 132.
[26] Retroactive awards are not exceptional. They can always be avoided by proper payment. See: D.B.S., par. 97.
[27] In Michel, at paragraph 121, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the importance of support payors meeting their support obligations and commented that the neglect or underpayment of support is strongly connected to child poverty and female poverty.
[28] The retroactive support analysis equally applies to claims for section 7 expenses. See: Smith v. Selig, 2008 NSCA 54, 56 R.F.L. (6th) 8 (NSCA); Hetherington v. Tapping, 2007 BCSC 209 (BCSC), Surerus-Mills v. Mills, [2006] O.J. No. 3839 (Ont. SC); Kovalchuk v. Kovalchuk, 2023 ONCJ 355; Cumor v. Mohamud, 2024 ONCJ 162.
Part Four – Analysis of the mother’s claim for a retroactive increase in guidelines table support.
4.1 Has there been a material change in circumstances regarding child support?
[29] The first step in the Colucci framework is to determine if there has been a material change in circumstance regarding child support. The answer is yes. The father’s annual income materially increased almost immediately after the existing order was made, as he found full-time employment at a hospital. By 2021, his income was more than double the amount imputed to him in the existing order.
4.2 What is the presumptive start date to change support?
[30] The 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 was given by the mother to the father.
[31] 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.
[32] The date of effective notice is not relevant when a payor parent has engaged in blameworthy conduct (irrespective of the degree of blameworthiness). See: Michel, par. 36.
[33] The mother attested that she first raised the issue of increased support with the father in early 2021. The father gave inconsistent evidence on this issue. He first stated that the mother never asked him for increased support or for financial disclosure. He later said she asked for increased support at some point in late 2021. Then he said that the mother had been constantly asking him for increased support for the past 10 years. The mother’s evidence is more reliable. The court finds that the mother gave the father effective notice on or about February 1, 2021. This is the presumptive start date when support should be changed.
4.3 Should the court deviate from the presumptive start date?
[34] The third step in the Colucci framework is to determine if the court should deviate from the presumptive start date.
4.3.1 Reasons for delay
[35] 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.
[36] 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.
[37] 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.
[38] 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.
[39] The mother provided understandable reasons for her delay in bringing her motion to increase child support, including:
a) The existing order required the father to provide her with annual financial disclosure. He did not comply with the order. She had no basis to assess if she should seek increased child support. She did not learn about the father’s significant increases in annual income until he issued his motion to change. b) The existing order required the father to immediately notify her if he obtained employment and the details of that employment. He did not do this. The parties do not communicate well with each other. She was unaware of the father’s employment. Again, she had no basis to assess if she should seek increased child support. c) She had been through protracted litigation with the father. This has had financial and emotional costs for her. It was understandable why she was reluctant to re-engage with him.
4.3.2 Blameworthy conduct
[40] Courts should apply an expansive definition of blameworthy conduct. See: D.B.S., par. 106.
[41] 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.
[42] 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.
[43] The father has engaged in blameworthy conduct as follows:
a) He breached the existing order by failing to provide the mother with annual financial disclosure. b) He breached the existing order by failing to advise the mother when he obtained employment. c) He failed to advise the mother about his increases in annual income. d) He failed to increase his child support payments in accordance with his annual income.
[44] The father is not an unsophisticated litigant. He has litigated child support issues several times over the past 10 years. He is aware of his obligation to pay child support pursuant to the guidelines and to provide annual financial disclosure to the mother. He acted coyly at trial when he kept justifying his failure to provide annual financial disclosure, as ordered, by saying, “she never asked for it”.
[45] The court has previously commented on the father’s failure to provide timely and accurate financial disclosure and his failure to pay adequate child support. The court wrote the following in its reasons for decision dated January 2, 2024:
The father did not notify the mother about his increases in income despite the requirement in the existing order to provide annual financial disclosure by June 1st (par. 24 (c)).
The father significantly delayed providing the financial disclosure ordered by the court. At trial, he was still unable to set out how much money he has received from each income source in 2019 (par. 24 (h)).
The father did not act in good faith by only paying $500 to the mother after June 1, 2019 despite having access to considerable funds (par. 24 (i)).
[46] The court finds that the father’s failure to disclose his increases in income to the mother was deliberate and done with an intent to avoid his child support obligations. The father felt justified doing this. He expressed his belief at trial that the mother would only use the increased support to benefit herself and her other children – it would not benefit the children. He expressed his bitterness at trial that he is the only father of the mother’s children she has taken to court.
4.3.3 Circumstances of the children
[47] 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.
[48] The court accepts the mother’s evidence that the circumstances of the children have been disadvantaged due to the father’s failure to pay adequate child support. It was ironic that the father severely criticized the mother for failing to buy adequate clothing for the children and enroll them in activities when he didn’t give her proper child support that would have allowed her to do this.
[49] The mother testified that she has had to borrow money at times from family members to make ends meet.
4.3.4 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 provided no evidence that a retroactive support order will cause him hardship. Any hardship can be addressed by making a payment order for arrears.
[53] The failure to make a retroactive support order will cause the mother hardship. She has incurred considerable debt and earns modest income to support her family.
[54] The court will deviate from the presumptive start date. Otherwise, the result would be unfair. The court finds that it is fair to change support starting on January 1, 2020.
4.3.5 Calculation of arrears
[55] The final step in the Colucci framework is to quantify the proper amount of guidelines table support for each year from the start date of retroactivity.
[56] The father’s annual income for the years 2020 to 2022 is not in dispute. The father did not provide an updated sworn financial statement or his 2023 Notice of Assessment for this hearing. However, he filed an October 27, 2023 pay stub that sets out his year-to-date income. The court finds that pro-rating that income over an entire year is the best evidence of the father’s annual income since 2023. This comes to $72,408 ($60,340 divided by 10 months x 12 months).
[57] The father’s guidelines table child support obligations from 2020 until September 30, 2023 are as follows for the two children:
| Year | Income | Table Calculation | Annual Amount Payable |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | $52,632 | $801 each month x 12 months | $9,612 |
| 2021 | $72,629 | $1,104 each month x 12 months | $13,248 |
| 2022 | $69,517 | = 1,059 each month x 12 months | $12,708 |
| 2023 | $72,408 | $1,102 each month x 9 months | $9,918 |
| Total guidelines table amount accrued | $45,486 |
[58] The parties agree that the father paid the mother $547 each month for child support until the end of September 2023. The father will be credited with support paid of $24,615 ($547 x 45 months).
[59] The father owes the mother guidelines table support of $20,871 ($45,486 - $24,615) as of September 30, 2023.
Part Five – Analysis of the father’s claim for retroactive section 7 expenses
[60] The father claimed that between 2020 and 2023 he spent about $6,530 for private swimming sessions for both children and about $3,300 for private basketball sessions for J. He said he stopped the private swimming lessons in mid-2023. He also claimed contribution for food, clothing and transportation expenses he said he paid for the children.
[61] Since the father’s claim for retroactive section 7 expenses is an original application, the court does not have to first determine if there has been a material change in circumstances.
5.1 What is the presumptive start date?
[62] The first step in the Colucci framework is to determine the presumptive start date when section 7 expenses should be paid. The father provided no evidence that he broached the issue with the mother of contributing to the children’s section 7 expenses between January 1, 2020 and when he issued his motion to change. He only provided a text in 2022 where he objected to the mother’s request to increase support because he was paying for private basketball and private swimming lessons for the children.
[63] The father issued his motion to change on November 24, 2023. This is the date of formal notice. Here, the date of effective notice is the same date as formal notice.
[64] Even if the father had broached the issue of the mother contributing to section 7 expenses prior to the date of formal notice, the notice would have been meaningless without accompanying financial disclosure so she could have properly assessed the claim. He did not provide this.
5.2 Should the court exercise its discretion and deviate from the presumptive start date or otherwise give the father credit for payments made on behalf of the children?
[65] The second step in the Colucci framework is to determine if the court should deviate from the presumptive start date.
[66] The court recognizes that the children enjoyed and benefitted from the activities paid for by the father. The mother acknowledged this. However, the court will not deviate from the presumptive start date for the following reasons:
a) The father delayed in seeking a contribution to section 7 expenses because he did not want to reveal his actual income to the mother and pay increased support. He only came to court when J came to live with him and he felt he could reduce his child support. He only sought a retroactive claim for section 7 expenses when faced with the mother’s claim for a retroactive increase in support. This is not an understandable reason for delay. b) The father engaged in egregious blameworthy conduct as detailed in paragraphs 43 to 46 above. c) The father’s decision to redirect child support properly payable to the mother to activities he unilaterally chose for the children should not be condoned. He did not like how the mother spent the child support she received, so he decided how it would be directed. He did so at his own peril. He is an experienced litigant and knew he had to pay guidelines table support in accordance with his income and provide financial disclosure. His actions resulted in the mother struggling to support the children. She could not afford to enroll the children in activities. d) The circumstances of the children will not be disadvantaged if the father does not receive a retroactive support order. e) The father provided no evidence that he would suffer hardship if he does not receive a retroactive support order. f) The onus is on the parent seeking the special or extraordinary expenses to prove that the claimed expenses fall within one of the categories under section 7 and that the expenses are necessary and reasonable, having regard to the parents’ financial circumstances. See Park v. Thompson, [2005] O.J. No. 1695, (Ont. C.A.). Many of the expenses claimed by the father are not proper section 7 expenses. This includes his claims for food, travel and clothing expenses. g) There is no issue that the father incurred expenses for private basketball and swimming lessons. However, the amounts claimed by the father for these expenses were highly unreliable. He attached some undated and unsigned receipts for the swimming expenses and an unsigned receipt for the basketball lessons. Given the court’s findings about his manipulative and dishonest conduct, the court finds that the father has overstated the amounts of these expenses. h) Where the section 7 expense is not within the means of the parties, the court may limit or deny recovery of that amount. See: Titova v. Titov, 2012 ONCA 864. The amounts of the expenses claimed by the father for private basketball and private swimming lessons were not necessary and reasonable. They were far beyond what the mother could reasonably afford. During this time frame, the mother had 7 children living with her. She received child support only from the father. She supported her family on Canada Child Benefits and her modest income. She worked on contract as a court reporter and earned income as follows:
| Year | Income |
|---|---|
| 2020 | $32,974 |
| 2021 | $36,976 |
| 2022 | $20,288 |
| 2023 | $27,361 |
i) The father did not consult with the mother prior to incurring the claimed expenses. He acted unilaterally. Section 7 of the guidelines itself does not require prior consultation for allowable expenses, but a failure or refusal by a claiming parent to discuss an expense with the other parent in advance bears on the court’s exercise of its discretion in determining whether it is reasonable. See: Yeo v. Hutcheson, 2020 ONSC 1256. j) If the court had ordered that the mother should contribute retroactively to the children’s section 7 expenses, the contribution ordered would have been modest, due to her limited ability to pay them, the father’s failure to consult with her about these activities and their cost, and the amounts of the expenses not being necessary and reasonable.
[67] Courts at all court levels, including Colucci, are trying to send litigants the strong message that the failure to provide financial disclosure and to pay proper child support will not be tolerated. The Supreme Court of Canada in Michel observed how this has led to the feminization of poverty. This case proves that point.
[68] To change behaviour, courts must make orders that send clear and strong messages to support payors, such as the father, that such conduct will result in significant financial consequences for them. This will not dissuade all dishonest payors. However, increasing the risks for such conduct may dissuade many more of them.
[69] Here, the father made a calculated gamble that he would be able to control how his support was spent by not disclosing his income to the mother. He has lost that gamble.
[70] The court recognizes that even if it does not make an order for retroactive section 7 expenses, it has the discretion to provide some credit to the father for payments made on behalf of the children since 2020. For instance, courts will sometimes credit payors if they buy diapers, clothing and other supplies for their children that assists the support recipient to support them. These do not have to be section 7 expenses. See: Hunchak v. Anton, 2026 SKCA 44; Thomas v. Charles, 2024 ONCJ 87.
[71] This is not a case where the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the father. The father’s conduct was dishonest and highly manipulative. The mother needed support to pay for the basic necessities for the children. Instead, he kept the mother impoverished while he was able to play the role of the “fun parent”, taking the children to expensive activities the mother could not afford.
[72] The consequences of the father’s actions will be as follows:
a) His claim for retroactive section 7 expenses is dismissed. b) He will receive no credit prior to 2024 for any expenses he paid for the children since the date of the existing order. c) He can expect that the court will make a significant costs order against him if requested by the mother.
Part Six – Support arrears from October 2023 to the end of 2023
[73] At the beginning of October 2023, J went to live with the father. This means there needs to be a change in the child support calculation. It became a split custody situation pursuant to section 8 of the guidelines. Section 8 of the guidelines reads as follows:
Split parenting time
- If there are two or more children, and each parent or spouse has the majority of parenting time with respect to one or more of those children, the amount of an order for the support of a child is the difference between the amount that each parent or spouse would otherwise pay if such an order were sought against each of the parents or spouses
[74] The split custody arrangement continued until the end of 2023. The father’s guidelines table payment for JA was $676 each month, based on his annual income of $72,408. The mother’s guidelines table payment for J was $228 each month, based on her 2023 income of $27,361. The set-off amount is $448 each month owing by the father to the mother. For three months in 2023, this comes to $1,344.
[75] The father made a child support payment of $547 on October 1, 2023. This reduces the arrears owing from October to December 2023 to $797.
[76] The total arrears outstanding as of December 31, 2023 were $21,668 ($20,871, as set out in paragraph 59, plus $797).
Part Seven – Current arrears and payment of arrears
[77] Starting on January 1, 2024, the parties agreed that the mother should pay child support to the father in the amount of $597 each month. This is the guidelines table amount for two children based on her projected 2024 income of $40,000.
[78] The mother owes the father $3,582 of support for 2024 (6 months at $597 each month). This will be applied to reduce the arrears owing to the mother, leaving a present balance outstanding of $18,086 ($21,668 - $3,582).
[79] The mother proposes that the father pay his arrears at $597 each month – the same amount as her ongoing support obligation. The result is that no money will flow either way until the father’s arrears are satisfied. The court finds that this is a reasonable proposal and will incorporate it into the order.
Part Eight – Conclusion
[80] A final order shall go on the following terms:
a) The father’s present support arrears are fixed at $18,086, as calculated in this decision. b) The father shall pay the arrears to the mother at the rate of $597 each month, starting on July 1, 2024. These amounts should be set-off against the ongoing child support the mother will be required to pay to him. c) In the event a final order is made that requires the mother to pay child support to the father in excess of $597 each month, the arrears shall be paid monthly by the father at that higher amount so that no money will be flowing between the parties until the support arrears and any subsequent costs orders are satisfied. d) The father’s ongoing child support obligation pursuant to the existing order is terminated. e) The father’s claim for retroactive section 7 expenses is dismissed.
[81] The mother shall pay temporary child support to the father of $597 each month starting on July 1, 2024. The mother’s temporary child support payments are to be applied to reduce the arrears the father owes to the mother. To be clear, no money should be collected by the Family Responsibility Office from the mother or the father at this time.
[82] The remaining issue in this case will be the determination of the mother’s child support obligations on a final basis, including the father’s claim for a contribution to the children’s section 7 expenses, effective January 1, 2024.
[83] The mother is entitled to her costs. She may serve and file written submissions by June 21, 2024. The father will then have until July 5, 2024, to serve and file his written response. The submissions shall not exceed 3 pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs. The submissions should be delivered to the trial coordinator’s office on the second floor of the courthouse.
Released: June 7, 2024
Justice S.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:
- Whether the recipient spouse has provided a reasonable excuse for his or her delay in applying for support.
- The conduct of the payor parent.
- The circumstances of the child.
- The hardship that the retroactive award may entail.
[2] See: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 25.