DATE: June 10, 2024 COURT FILE NO. D21643/18 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

MONIQUE ELAINE NOBLE ACTING IN PERSON APPLICANT

- and –

MARLON KEVIN WHITE ACTING IN PERSON RESPONDENT

HEARD: JUNE 7, 2024

JUSTICE S.B. SHERR

REASONS FOR DECISION

Part One – Introduction

[1] The applicant (the mother) has brought a motion to retroactively change the child support order of this court dated May 11, 2021 (the existing order) for the parties’ two children (the parties’ children). She also seeks an order that the respondent (the father) pay for 60% of the parties’ children’s ongoing special and extraordinary expenses (section 7 expenses) pursuant to section 7 of the Child Support Guideline (the guidelines).

[2] The father seeks the dismissal of the mother’s motion to change. He claims undue hardship on the basis that he has 13 children by four women and is supporting 11 of them.

[3] The court considered the affidavits and financial statements filed by the parties. They both provided additional oral evidence and were given the opportunity to cross-examine each other.

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

a) Has there been a material change in circumstances since the existing order was made?

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

c) Should the court deviate from the presumptive start date as to when support should be changed?

d) How much child support should the father pay for each year that child support is changed? In particular, should the father’s guidelines table obligations be reduced in any year due to his undue hardship?

e) What contribution, if any, should the father make to the parties’ children’s section 7 expenses?

f) How should any child support arrears be paid?

Part Two – Background facts

[5] The mother is 35 years old. She lives with the parties’ children and is employed as a registered pharmacy technician.

[6] The father is 44 years old. He lives with his 19-year-old daughter. He is employed as an operations manager.

[7] The parties cohabited from 2016 to 2018.

[8] The father has 13 children as follows:

a) 3 children with S.J. One of their children is an independent adult. Their 19-year-old child lives with the father and their 15-year-old child lives with S.J.

b) 5 children with S.M. They have two 3-year-old twins, and children who are 14, 12 and 10 years old. The children live with S.M.

c) 3 children with T.T. The children are 13, 10 and 9 years old. The children live with T.T.

d) 2 children with the mother. The parties’ children are 8 and 5 years old.

[9] The mother is the only mother of the father’s children who has brought court proceedings against him. She issued her application for parenting orders and child support on November 7, 2018.

[10] On August 28, 2019, on consent, the mother was given final decision-making responsibility for the parties’ children and the father was given reasonable parenting time with them on reasonable notice to her.

[11] On May 11, 2021, on consent, the existing order was made. The father was ordered to pay the mother $600 each month for child support. This was based on his annual income being $54,000 and having established a claim for undue hardship pursuant to section 10 of the guidelines. The court ordered the parties to exchange their income tax returns and notices of assessment each year by July 1st.

[12] The mother issued this motion to change on October 13, 2023. The father filed his response to motion to change on December 8, 2023.

[13] On January 19, 2024, the parties consented to an order for the mother to relocate with the parties’ children to Alberta. She remains in Ontario and does not plan to relocate to Alberta until 2025. The parties also agreed, on a temporary without prejudice basis, to increase child support to $700 each month, starting on February 1, 2024 (the temporary order).

[14] On April 9, 2024, the hearing of this motion to change was organized and the parties were given detailed instructions about what evidence was required to address the retroactive support and undue hardship issues.

[15] The parties agreed that the father is only $83 in child support arrears pursuant to the existing order and the temporary order.

Part Three – The start date for support adjustment

3.1 Legal considerations

[16] The mother’s motion to change support is governed by subsection 37 (2.1) of the Family Law Act which reads as follows:

Powers of court: child support

(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.

[17] The court’s authority to make a retroactive support order on a motion to change is contained in clause 34 (1) (f) of the Family Law 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;

[18] Any support claimed after an application is issued is prospective support, not retroactive support. See: Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.).

[19] 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.

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

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

[22] 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.

3.2 Has there been a material change in circumstances since the date of the existing order?

[23] The first step in the Colucci framework is to determine if there has been a material change in circumstances regarding child support. The answer here is yes. The father’s annual income materially increased after the existing order was made as follows:

2021 - $74,256 2022 - $85,374 2023 - $111,465

[24] The father deposed that his 2023 income was higher because he changed jobs and received additional benefits owed to him when he left his job. The father stated that his annual salary is now $93,500. He filed pay stubs supporting this.

[25] The other material change in circumstances since the date of the existing order is that the father is no longer supporting his two eldest children.

3.3 What is the presumptive start date to change support?

[26] 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.

[27] 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.

[28] The mother said that she remarked at times to the father that it was hard to support the parties’ children on the money she received from him. However, she acknowledged that she never asked him to increase his child support payments. The first time she did this was when she issued her motion to change.

[29] The court finds that the date of effective notice is the same as the date of formal notice - when the motion to change was issued on October 13, 2023.

3.4 Should the court deviate from the presumptive start date?

[30] The third step in the Colucci framework is to determine if the court should deviate from the presumptive start date.

3.4.1 Reasons for delay

[31] 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.

[32] 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.

[33] 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.

[33] The mother provided understandable reasons for her delay in bringing her motion to change child support, being:

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 responded to her motion to change.

b) The first application involved protracted litigation between the parties. It was understandable that the mother did not want to re-engage with the father.

3.4.2 Blameworthy conduct

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

[35] 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.

[36] 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.

[37] 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 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. His income had more than doubled by 2023. He knew or should have known he was significantly underpaying child support to the mother.

[38] The court credits the father for maintaining his child support payments in good standing pursuant to the existing order. It also recognizes that he is struggling to meet his multiple child support obligations.

3.4.3 Circumstances of the parties’ children

[39] 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.

[40] The court accepts the mother’s evidence that the circumstances of the parties’ children have been disadvantaged due to the father’s failure to pay adequate child support. She is struggling to meet their needs and to pay her rent. She explained how the parties’ older child is a talented dancer but she cannot afford to enroll her in a specialized program her dance teacher recommended.

[41] The mother testified that she has had to borrow money at times from family members to make ends meet.

3.4.4 Hardship

[42] 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.

[43] 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.

[44] Establishing hardship under the Colucci framework is far less onerous for a support payor than it is for them to establish undue hardship under section 10 of the guidelines. [3] This provides judges with more discretion than under section 10 of the guidelines to structure an equitable child support order.

[45] The court finds that a retroactive support order will cause the father hardship. He has dug himself a financial hole because of his multiple child support obligations. The father’s hardship is a significant consideration in this case. The court also considered that the mother and the parties’ children will have financial hardship if a retroactive support order is not made.

3.4.5 Start date to change support

[46] The court finds that it is fair in these circumstances to deviate from the presumptive start date and to retroactively change support starting on January 1, 2022.

3.5 Calculation of arrears

[47] The final step in the Colucci framework is to quantify the proper amount of support for each year from the start date of retroactivity.

[48] The father’s guidelines table payments accrued for the parties’ children since January 1, 2022 are as follows:

2022 - $85,374 – $1,289 x 12 months = $15,468 2023 - $111,465 – $1,612 x 12 months = $19,344 2024 - $93,500 -- $1,392 x 6 months = $8,352 Total: $43,164

[49] The father paid support of $600 each month from January 1, 2022 until the end of January 2024, at which time he started paying $700 each month, pursuant to the temporary order. The father has paid total support of $18,500 since January 1, 2022 ($600 x 25 months plus $700 x 5 months). This leaves a balance owing of $24,664.

Part Four – Undue hardship

4.1 Positions of the parties

[50] The court next needs to determine if child support should be reduced in any year, starting in 2022, arising out of the father’s undue hardship claim.

[51] The mother proposed reducing the father’s monthly child support payments in 2022 to $868. [4] She came to this figure because the table support payment in the existing order had been reduced by 73%. She was prepared to agree to a similar reduction from the guidelines table amount until 2023, when the father’s income significantly increased.

[52] The father proposed to increase his child support payments to $1,000 each month starting on July 1, 2024.

4.2 Legal considerations

[53] Section 1 of the guidelines sets out the objectives of the guidelines as follows:

(a) to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation;

(b) to reduce conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of child support orders more objective;

(c) to improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the levels of child support orders and encouraging settlement; and

(d) to ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances.

[54] Undue hardship claims are governed by section 10 of the guidelines which reads as follows:

Undue hardship

10. (1) On the application of either spouse or an mother under section 33 of the Act, a court may award an amount of child support that is different from the amount determined under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9 if the court finds that the parent or spouse making the request, or a child in respect of whom the request is made, would otherwise suffer undue hardship.

Circumstances that may cause undue hardship

(2) Circumstances that may cause a parent, spouse or child to suffer undue hardship include,

(a) the parent or spouse has responsibility for an unusually high level of debts reasonably incurred to support the parents or spouses and their children during cohabitation or to earn a living;

(b) the parent or spouse has unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access to a child;

(c) the parent or spouse has a legal duty under a judgment, order or written separation agreement to support any person;

(d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage, who is,

(i) under the age of majority, or

(ii) the age of majority or over but is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessaries of life;

(e) the parent has a legal duty to support a child, other than the child who is the subject of this application, who is under the age of majority or who is enrolled in a full time course of education;

(f) the parent or spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to an illness or disability.

Standards of living must be considered

(3) Despite a determination of undue hardship under subsection (1), an application under that subsection must be denied by the court if it is of the opinion that the household of the parent or spouse who claims undue hardship would, after determining the amount of child support under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9, have a higher standard of living than the household of the other parent or spouse.

Standards of living test

(4) In comparing standards of living for the purpose of subsection (3), the court may use the comparison of household standards of living test set out in Schedule II.

Reasonable time

(5) Where the court awards a different amount of child support under subsection (1), it may specify, in the order for child support, a reasonable time for the satisfaction of any obligation arising from circumstances that cause undue hardship and the amount payable at the end of that time.

Reasons

(6) Where the court makes an order for the support of a child in a different amount under this section, it must record its reasons for doing so.

[55] It is very difficult to make out a successful undue hardship claim under section 10 of the guidelines. There are three parts to the test:

1. The person making this claim must show that there are circumstances that could create undue hardship.

2. If this is the case, the person making the claim must show that his or her standard of living is lower than that of the responding party’s.

3. If the first two parts of the test are made out, the court has the discretion to make a support order different than the table amount, based on the means, needs and circumstances of the parties.

See: Matthews v. Matthews, [2001] O.J. No. 876 (SCJ).

[56] The father must prove more than hardship. He must show that the hardship is exceptional, excessive or disproportionate, not merely awkward or inconvenient. See: Hanmore v. Hanmore, 2000 ABCA 57.

[57] The father has the onus of providing adequate supporting documentation to prove his undue hardship claim. See: Van Gool v. Van Gool; Al-Hadad v. Al-Harash, 2023 ONCJ 463.

4.3 Analysis

[58] The court finds the mother’s proposal to reduce the father’s 2022 child support payments to 73% of the required guidelines table amount for two children is very reasonable. This will reduce the father’s monthly payments to $868 each month and result in a saving to him in 2022 of $3,852 ($1,189 – $868 x 12 months).

[59] The court finds there are circumstances that may cause the father undue hardship if he is required to pay the full guidelines table amount starting in 2023. They are:

a) He has to support a child who lives with J.S. He entered into a written paternity agreement with J.S. on April 10, 2011. It requires him to pay her child support of $294 each month. He has been paying that support. [5]

b) He has to support five children who live with S.M. He entered into a written paternity agreement with S.M. on February 5, 2020. It requires him to pay her child support of $1,024 each month for their three eldest children. He said that during 2022 and 2023 he paid S.M. $600 each month for their 5 children. He filed money transfers showing his payments have increased, on average, to $650 each month in 2024.

c) He has to support three children who live with T.T. He said he entered into a paternity agreement with T.T. to pay her $600 each month. He was unable to produce this agreement and did not know when the agreement was made. He said his former lawyer has it. He produced evidence of email transfers of $600 sent each month to T.T. in 2024. The court accepts his evidence that there is a written agreement between him and T.T. for this amount.

[60] The father also submitted that he will need to incur high transportation costs to visit the parties’ children in Alberta. The court finds this is not a circumstance that will cause the father hardship. First, the mother does not intend to relocate to Alberta until some time in 2025. This does not affect the current analysis. Second, and even more importantly, the father has chosen not to see the parties’ children since November 2023 – and has only seen them twice since July 2023. The father says this is due to work commitments. There is no evidence to support a finding that the father will have a renewed commitment to have a relationship with the parties’ children once they move to Alberta.

[61] The second part of the undue hardship test is that the father bears the onus of showing that his household has a lower standard of living than the mother’s household. The court will conduct a separate analysis of this for 2023 and 2024, as the father earned a much higher income in 2023.

[62] The mother made a good effort to conduct this analysis. However, the court will make some different assumptions than she did in conducting its analysis as follows: [6]

a) The mother only used the father’s 2023 income in her calculations. The court will use the father’s projected 2024 income for the analysis of his 2024 household standard of living.

b) The mother did not include the child support the father pays for his 3 children with T.T. in her calculations. The court will include the $600 each month he pays for these children.

c) The mother included the $1,024 each month the father contracted to pay S.M. However, he has not paid her this amount since at least 2021 and there is no evidence that he is going to pay her that amount in the future. There is also no evidence that S.M. is seeking that amount from him. In doing the standard of living calculation, the court will use the $600 each month the father paid S.M. in 2023 and the $650 each month he is paying her in 2024.

d) The mother imputed income of $25,518 to the father’s adult child who lives with him. This figure is too high. This child was in school until June 2023. She then started working part-time at a fast-food restaurant. The court will impute income to her in 2023 of $15,000 for the purpose of the standard of living calculation. Further, this child plans to return to school full-time in September 2024. For 2024, the court will impute annual income of $18,000 to her for the purpose of this analysis.

[63] The mother’s annual income is $60,880.

[64] The software analysis shows the father’s household standard of living for 2023 is 4.064 and the mother’s household standard of living is 3.923. Since the father did not meet his onus of showing that his household had a lower standard of living than the mother’s, his claim for a reduction of guidelines table support in 2023 due to undue hardship fails.

[65] The father’s income drops by over $18,000 in 2024, so the analysis changes. The software analysis shows the father’s household standard of living for 2024 is 3.621 and the mother’s household standard of living is 3.816. This differential will increase when the father’s daughter returns to school in the fall and is no longer working. The father met his onus to show that his household has a lower standard of living than the mother’s household in 2024.

[66] The court will exercise its discretion and reduce the father’s guidelines table payments in 2024 from $1,392 each month to $1,016 each month. The court is using the 27% discount applied in the existing order, and proposed by the mother for 2022, to come to this figure. This results in a savings to the father to date in 2024 of $2,256 ($1,392 - $1,016 x 6 months).

[67] The additional support arrears owing by the father to the mother arising from this decision are $18,556. This is based on the $24,664 owing for the guidelines table payments as set out in paragraph 49 above, less the undue hardship credits to the father of $3,852 for 2022 and $2,256 for $2,024.

[68] The mother proposed that these arrears be paid at $50 each month. That is very reasonable but will take far too long to pay off. The court will permit the father to pay the arrears at $100 each month, provided that he maintains all of his support payments to the mother in good standing.

Part Five – Section 7 expenses

5.1 Positions of the parties

[69] The mother seeks an order that the father pay 60% of the parties’ children’s section 7 expenses starting on July 1, 2024. The father says he cannot afford to contribute to these expenses.

[70] The mother says that the current section 7 expense for the parties’ children is for before and after school childcare. This expense is presently subsidized and costs her $284 each month. This is an eligible section 7 expense and is necessary and reasonable as the mother requires childcare to work.

[71] The mother deposed that she is ineligible for the daycare subsidy for the parties’ older child starting in October 2024 and the daycare expense will increase to $569 each month. The court accepts this evidence.

5.2 Legal considerations

[72] In Titova v. Titov, 2012 ONCA 864, the court set out the following framework for determining a party’s contribution to a child’s section 7 expenses:

a. Calculate each parties’ income for child support purposes.

b. Determine whether the claimed expenses fall within one of the enumerated categories of section 7 of the guidelines.

c. Determine whether the claimed expenses are necessary “in relation to the child’s best interests” and are reasonable “in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation.”

d. If the expenses fall under paragraphs 7 (1) (d) or (f) of the guidelines, determine whether the expenses are “extraordinary” as defined by subsection 7 (1.1) of the guidelines.

e. The court considers what amount, if any, the child should reasonably contribute to the payment of these expenses and then applies any tax deductions or credits.

f. The court determines the proportions that each party should contribute to the expenses, with the guiding principle being that the expenses will be shared in proportion to their incomes.

[73] The court has the discretion to apportion the section 7 expense in a different manner than pro-rata to the parties’ incomes, depending on the circumstances of the case. See: Hamilton v. Salmon, 2023 ONCJ 343, per Justice Danielle Szandtner; Salvadori v. Salvadori, 2010 ONCJ 462, [2010] O.J. No. 4425 (OCJ); Buckley v. Blackwood, 2019 ONSC 6918.

5.3 Analysis

[74] The software analysis shows that the father’s present contribution to the parties’ children’s section 7 expenses should be $32 each month. Starting on October 1, 2024, this increases to $56 each month. The court will order the father to pay these amounts. They are modest payments that he can afford. The amounts are this low because of the tax benefits and credits the mother receives that reduce the cost of the childcare expenses. This is set out in detail in the software calculations.

[75] The mother generously decided not to pursue retroactive section 7 expenses from the father with the exception of one expense. In July 2023 the mother was charged with a $100 daycare late fee because the father failed to pick up the parties’ children from daycare as scheduled. The mother seeks reimbursement. The court will exercise its discretion and order the father to pay the full amount of this childcare expense. The court will add this to the section 7 expenses the father must make over the next three months.

Part Six – Conclusion

[76] A final order shall go changing the support terms in the existing order as follows:

a) The father shall pay the mother child support in the amount of $868 each month, starting on January 1, 2022. This is less than the guidelines table amount for two children, based on the father’s 2022 income of $85,374. The reduction is due to the father establishing a claim for undue hardship.

b) The father shall pay the mother child support in the amount of $1,612 each month, starting on January 1, 2023. This is the guidelines table amount for two children based on the father’s 2023 income of $111,465.

c) The father shall pay the mother child support in the amount of $1,016 each month, starting on January 1, 2024. This is less than the guidelines table amount for two children, based on the father’s 2024 income of $93,500. The reduction is due to the father establishing a claim for undue hardship.

d) Starting on July 1, 2024, the father shall pay the mother $65 each month for the parties’ children’s section 7 expenses, being childcare costs. Starting on October 1, 2024, this amount shall be reduced to $56 each month.

e) The sum of $18,556, as calculated in paragraph 67 of this decision, should be added to any arrears presently owing to the mother, as reflected in the records of the Family Responsibility Office.

f) The father may pay these arrears at the rate of $100 each month, starting on July 1, 2024. However, if he is more than 30 days late in making any payment, the entire amount of arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.

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

h) A support deduction shall order.

i) The parties shall exchange their complete income tax returns and notices of assessment by July 1st each year, starting in 2025.

[77] If either party seeks their costs, they shall serve and file their written submissions by June 24, 2024. The other party will then have until July 10, 2024, to serve and file their written response (not to make their own costs submissions). The submissions should 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 10, 2024

Justice Stanley B. Sherr

Footnotes

[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 legal test for establishing undue hardship pursuant to section 10 of the guidelines is set out in Part 4.2 below.

[4] She proposed a similar reduction for 2021.

[5] The father is actually paying J.S. $292 each month. He thought that was the contracted amount.

[6] The software calculations conducted by the court in doing this analysis are attached to this decision.