CITATION: Parris v. Douglas, 2024 ONCJ 668
DATE: December 9, 2024
COURT FILE NO. 15-264-01
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BRAMPTON
B E T W E E N:
SHELDON PARRIS
ACTING IN PERSON
APPLICANT (Respondent in the Motion to Change)
- and –
LANISHA DOUGLAS
SOPHIE DHAMI, for the RESPONDENT (Moving Party)
RESPONDENT (Moving Party in the Motion to Change)
HEARD: September 20 and 24, 2024
JUSTICE J. HARRIS
REASONS FOR DECISION
Part One - Introduction
[1] This is a final decision following a trial.
[2] This court is asked to determine the following issues:
a. Has there been a material change in circumstances?
b. If so, from when should the retroactive child support be payable? In particular,
i. What is the presumptive start date/effective notice date?
ii. Should the court depart from the presumptive start date, considering the following:
a) reason for delay;
b) conduct of the payor parent;
c) circumstances of the Child; and
d) any hardship that a retroactive award may create?
c. What is the payor’s income for purposes of calculating child support, and the amount of support owed since the date of retroactivity and ongoing?
d. Whether an award for section 7 child support (special or extraordinary expenses) should be made retroactively and prospectively?
Part Two - Background Facts
[3] The parties have one child, named Avery Prince Parris, born […], 2012 (currently aged 12) (the “Child”).
[4] On May 7, 2015, a final order (the “2015 Final Order”) was made based on Minutes of Settlement, dated May 7, 2015. Pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the 2015 Final Order, the following child support order was made:
The Applicant, Sheldon Parris, shall pay to the Respondent, Lanisha Douglas, for the support of the child, Avery Prince Parris, born […], 2012, in the amount of $196.00 per month, commencing on the 1st day of May, 2015 and continuing on the 1st day of every month thereafter.
This support is based on:
a. Support for one child.
b. The gross annual income of the payor is $24,440.00.
[5] Additionally, with respect to the Father’s obligation to make ongoing financial disclosure, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the 2015 Final Order state as follows:
- Every person whose income or other financial information is used to determine the amount of an order for the support of a child shall, no later than 30 days after the anniversary date of on [sic] which the order was made in every year in which the child is a child within the meaning of Ontario Regulations 391/97 as amended, provide every Party to the Order with the following, unless the Parties have agreed otherwise:
a. For the most recent taxation year, a copy of the person’s
i. personal Income Tax Return, including any materials that were filed with the return, and
ii. Notice of Assessment and, if any, Notice of Re-Assessment
b. As applicable, any current information in writing about,
i. The status and amount of any expenses included in the Order pursuant to subsection 7(1), and
ii. Any loan, scholarship or bursaries the child has received or will receive in the coming year that affect or will affect the expenses referred to in subparagraph i.
- The Applicant shall deliver to the Respondent each year by July 1st, starting in 2016, true copies of his full Income Tax Return and enclosures for the last taxation year and all Notice of Assessment and Re-Assessment received for the taxation year 2015 and thereafter, not previously delivered to the Respondent.
[6] On March 29, 2022, the Motion to Change was issued.
[7] On August 9, 2022, an initial case conference was held in this matter and the Father was to provide the following disclosure:
a. a sworn Financial Statement;
b. Notices of Assessment for 2016, 2017, and 2019;
c. T4s issued from 2016 to 2021;
d. Records of Employment from 2016 to 2021;
e. Equifax Report;
f. all bank and credit card statements from January 1, 2016 to present; and
g. copy of all current loan agreements.
[8] On September 29, 2022, the parties agreed, on a temporary without prejudice basis, to vary the terms of the 2015 Final Order, as follows:
Commencing October 1, 2022, the Father shall pay child support to the Mother in the amount of $301.76 based on the Father’s declared income of $34,800, in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.
[9] On April 12, 2023, a Form 20: Request for Information was served on the Father and the Father has not provided the following documents:
a. Equifax Report;
b. copies of any current loans and finance agreements; and
c. all applications for loans, leases, finance or credit submitted by the Father to any institution for any purpose for the period of January 1, 2016 to present.
[10] On August 18, 2023, the parties settled the parenting issues in this Motion to Change.
[11] On January 2, 2024, the Father served on the Mother an updated sworn financial statement, 2018-2022 Notices of Assessment, and his recent pay stubs.
[12] The trial of this matter was on the “running ready” list. The parties were notified in advance that the trial would commence on September 20, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
[13] The Father was out of town for work, and he requested an adjournment of the trial through the trial coordinator’s office. The Father was provided a ZOOM link to attend virtually.
[14] On September 20, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., the Father did not attend in-person or virtually. The trial was held down while counsel for the Mother called the Father twice and left him a voicemail message.
[15] After a significant delay and no response from the Father, the trial started; the Mother provided her testimony and the Maternal Grandmother provided her testimony.
[16] At 12:30 p.m. the Father attended by ZOOM from his car and indicated that he would be in Brampton by 2 p.m. to participate in the remainder of the trial. The Father indicated that he would attend by ZOOM. The court indicated that he should attend the trial in-person if he could be in Brampton by 2 p.m. Counsel for the Mother objected to the Father attending by ZOOM and did not accept the Father’s explanation for his whereabouts and timing. The court determined it was in the interests of justice to continue with the trial and have the Father attend by ZOOM because he has to work to pay child support and it is difficult to take time off not knowing exactly when trial will commence.
[17] The court was mindful of its obligation to assist the Father given that he was a self-represented litigant.[^1]
[18] Prior to the lunch break, the court provided the Father with the Ontario Court of Justice Guide to Conducting Trials for Self-Represented Litigants.
[19] Following the lunch break, the Father’s testimony in chief and the beginning of his cross-examination were held by ZOOM.
[20] On the second day of trial, the Father attended in-person for the conclusion of his cross-examination and for submissions.
Part Three - Retroactive and Prospective Monthly Support
3.1 Legal Considerations
[21] Section 31 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, as amended (“FLA”) requires every parent to provide child support, to the extent that the parent is capable.
[22] The Ontario Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97, as amended (“Guidelines”) establish a fair standard of support for a child that ensures that they benefit from the financial means of both their parents.
[23] The Mother’s motion to change support is governed by subsection 37 (2.1) of the FLA, which reads as follows:
Powers of court: child support
37 (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.
[24] The court’s authority to make retroactive support orders is contained in clause 34 (1) (f) of the FLA, which states as follows:
Powers of court
(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;
[57] Section 19 of the Guidelines permits the court to impute income to a party as the court considers appropriate.
3.2 Retroactive Child Support
[25] In Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 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.
[26] Any child support claimed after an application or Motion to Change is issued, in this case from March 2022, is prospective support, not retroactive support: Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.).
[27] Retroactive child support simply holds payors to their existing (and unfulfilled) support obligations: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 25.
[28] 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: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 25.
[29] Retroactive awards are not exceptional. They can always be avoided by proper payment: D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37 at paragraph 97.
[30] In Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 at paragraph 114, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the framework that should be applied for applications to retroactively increase support 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[^2] continue to guide this exercise of discretion, as described in Michel.[^3] 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.
3.3 Has there been a material change in circumstances since the date of the 2015 Final Order?
[31] The threshold 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 2015 Final Order was made.
[32] After the 2015 Final Order, the Father’s annual income, as reported on his Notices of Assessment, is as follows:
2018 - $ 0.00
2019 - $ 0.00
2020 - $27,402
2021 - $31,369
2022 - $25,780
[33] The Father’s pay stub for the pay period ending December 19, 2023, indicates that he earned $25,108.79 from his employer, S&S Activewear Canada. The Father earned $19.07 per hour.
[34] The Father’s financial statement, sworn January 2, 2024, indicates that the Father earned $29,400 in 2023, and he disclosed earning $29,400 in income for 2024, which is a combination of employment income and self-employment income ($3,600 annually).
3.4 Step #1 - What is the presumptive start date to change support?
[35] The first 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.
[36] 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 re-negotiated. 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: D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37 at paragraph 121.
[37] There was evidence that the Mother asked the Father to increase child support after the 2015 Final Order was made; however, there was no date provided as to when she asked the Father to increase his child support.
[38] The court finds that both the date of effective notice and the presumptive start date are the same as the date of formal notice – when the Motion to Change was issued on March 29, 2022.
3.5 Step #2 - Should the court deviate from the presumptive start date?
[39] The second step in the Colucci framework is to determine if the court should deviate from the presumptive start date.
3.5.1. Reasons for delay
[40] 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: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 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: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 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: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 86.
[43] In Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, at paragraph 85, the Supreme Court of Canada, set out what might be understandable reasons for delay in a support recipient coming to court as follows:
a. rear of reprisal/violence from the payor 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; and
j. the deliberate delay of the application or the trial by the payor.
[44] The Mother provided understandable reasons for her delay in bringing her motion to change child support, being as follows:
a. the 2015 Final Order required the Father to provide her with annual financial disclosure. He did not comply with the 2015 Final 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. when the Mother brought up the issue of increased child support, the Father got upset and stopped seeing the Child; and
c. the first application involved protracted litigation between the parties and impacted the Mother’s mental health. The Mother has experienced serious mental health struggles since 2016, according to the letter from Dr. Tatyana Selyanina, dated August 5, 2024. It was understandable that the Mother did not want to re-engage with the Father.
3.5.2. Blameworthy Conduct
[45] With respect to the conduct of the payor parent, the date of effective notice is not relevant when a payor parent has engaged in blameworthy conduct (irrespective of the degree of blameworthiness): Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 36.
[46] Blameworthy conduct is not a necessary trigger to the payor’s obligation to pay the claimed child support. Where present, it weighs in favour of an award and may also serve to expand the temporal scope of the retroactive award: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 119.
[47] Further, in considering blameworthy conduct, courts have applied an expansive definition of blameworthy conduct to include anything that privileges the payor’s own interests over his/her children’s right to an appropriate amount of support: D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37 at paragraph 106.
[48] 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: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 34.
[49] The Father has engaged in blameworthy conduct as follows:
a. he breached the 2015 Final Order by failing to provide the Mother with annual financial disclosure after 2017;
b. he failed to advise the Mother about increases in his annual income; and
c. he failed to increase his child support payments in accordance with his annual income. He knew or should have known he was underpaying child support to the Mother.
[50] The Father brought his child support payments, which were in arrears, in good standing pursuant to the 2015 Final Order.
3.5.3. Circumstances of the Child
[51] In considering the circumstances of the Child, 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: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 123.
[52] On the Mother’s financial statement, sworn July 25, 2024, the Mother discloses debts in the amount of $27,748.41 and that her chequing account is in overdraft $5,036.45. The Mother has no savings or investments. The Mother relies on the Ontario Disability Support Plan and the Canada Child Benefit for income.
3.5.4. Hardship
[53] Finally with respect to hardship, in considering hardship, 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: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 12.
[54] 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: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 at paragraph 124.
[55] 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. This provides judges with more discretion than under section 10 of the Guidelines to structure an equitable child support order.
[56] The Father’s financial statement, sworn January 2, 2024, indicated that he has modest credit card debt of $2,000. The Father also has an RRSP with RBC Global Growth Portfolio the value of which he did not disclose.
3.6 Start date to change support
[57] 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, 2020, when the payor’s income increased according to his 2020 Notice of Assessment and he failed to make disclosure and adjust his child support, as required by the 2015 Final Order.
Part Four - Step #3 – Quantification of Arrears
[58] The third step in the Colucci framework is to quantify the proper amount of support for each year from the start date of retroactivity. In this case, the court must determine the table child support the Father should pay pursuant to the Guidelines and his contribution to the Child’s special and extraordinary expenses pursuant to section 7 of the Guidelines.
4.1 Imputing income
[59] Section 19 of the Guidelines permits the court to impute income to a party as it considers appropriate.
[60] The jurisprudence for imputation of income 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: Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (Ont. C.A.);
b. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:
i. Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
ii. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?
iii. If not, what income is appropriately imputed?
c. The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552 (Ont. C.A.);
d. 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: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719;
e. As a general rule, separated parents have an obligation to financially support their children and they cannot avoid that obligation by a self-induced reduction of income: Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137; DePace v. Michienzi, 2000 CanLII 22560 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 453, (Ont. Fam. Ct.);
f. The court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn income in light of such factors as employment history, age, education, skills, health, available employment opportunities and the standard of living enjoyed during the parties’ relationship. The court looks at the amount of income the party could earn if he or she worked to capacity: Lawson v. Lawson, 2006 CanLII 26573 (ONCA); and
g. The court can also impute income where the evidence respecting income is not credible for any other reason: Heard v. Heard, 2014 ONCA 196 (C.A.), at paras. 33-35; Gostevskikh v. Gostevskikh, 2018 BCSC 1441 (S.C.).
[61] The court finds that the Father is capable, and has been capable, of earning at least minimum wage since 2020. The Father is young and healthy.
[62] Additionally, based on the evidence of the Father’s employment as a disc jockey (“DJ”), the court imputes to him an additional $500 per month, which is $4,800 annually after deducting expenses, except for 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic as there was limited evidence that the Father could earn income as a DJ.
[63] The Father denied much of the evidence with respect to his ability to earn income as a DJ. The Father stated that his work for Flow 93.5 was unpaid. The Father admitted to receiving some modest cash payments for parties and being paid with bottles of alcohol for others. The Father also indicated that many events were cancelled, or he did not appear, and his likeness was used without his consent on marketing material.
[64] The court did not receive evidence of large cash deposits into the Father’s bank accounts or other indications about his lifestyle to support the level of imputed income the Mother sought. He denies owning a vehicle and testified he drives his girlfriend’s car.
[65] The court finds the Father has earned, or is capable of earning, $500 per month as a DJ, after expenses, given his extensive experience and his profile.
[66] Additionally, the Father testified that he pays child support for another child in the amount of $303 per month, which corresponds with an income of $34,900. However, the Father did not provide a copy of the court order or agreement under which he pays the support for the other child and the Father also did not provide evidence that the payments of child support were being made for this other child. Finally, the Father did not disclose these child support payments on either of his sworn financial statements. The Father’s payments of child support to another child are not a factor the court has considered.
[67] The court finds that the Father’s income for child support purposes for each of the years 2020-2024 is as follows:
2020 - $29,640 (imputed minimum wage);
2021 - $31,369 (NOA income) + $4,800 (imputed income) = $36,169;
2022 - $31,200 (imputed minimum wage) + $4,800 (imputed income) = $36,000;
2023 - $32,240 (imputed minimum wage) + $ 4,800 (imputed income) = $37,040; and
2024 - $34,424 (imputed minimum wage) + $4,800 (imputed income) = $ 39,224.
[68] The court finds the Father’s child support obligation for each of the years 2020-2024 is as follows:
| Year | Father’s Income | Monthly Child Support | Annual Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | $29,640 | $253 | $3,036 |
| 2021 | $36,169 | $317 | $3,804 |
| 2022 | $36,000 | $315 | $3,780 |
| 2023 | $37,040 | $326 | $3,912 |
| 2024 | $39,224 | $350 | $4,200 |
| Total: | $18,372 |
[69] From January 1, 2020 to December 1, 2024, the total child support payable is $18,732.
[70] From January 1, 2020 to December 1, 2024, the total child support payments made by the Father were $14,595, as follows:
January 1, 2020 to September 1, 2022 - $196/month x 33 months = $6,468
October 1, 2022 to December 1, 2024 - $301/month x 27 months = $8,127
[71] Therefore, the Father’s arrears of child support is the total payable ($18,732) minus payments made ($14,595) which equals $4,137.
[72] Effective January 1, 2025, the Father shall pay $366.00 per month, in respect of ongoing monthly child support, based on an imputed income of $40,576, which is calculated based on $35,776 (minimum wage) plus $4,800 (in self-employment income).
4.2 Section 7 Expenses
[73] 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 party’s 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.
[74] The Mother did not provide any receipts or after-tax credit costs for any section 7 child support expenses historically.
[75] Effective December 1, 2024, the parties shall contribute to the costs of the Child’s section 7 special and extraordinary expenses in an amount proportionate to the parties’ respective incomes in accordance with section 7 of the Guidelines.
Part Five - Conclusion
[76] A final order shall go on the following terms:
a. The Father shall pay to the Mother arrears of child support from January 1, 2020 to December 1, 2024 in the amount of $4,137.;
b. Effective January 1, 2025, the Father shall pay to the Mother $366 per month in ongoing monthly child support based on an imputed income of $40,576, which is calculated based on $35,776 (minimum wage) plus $4,800 (in self-employment income), for the Child;
c. Effective March 29, 2022 (the date of the Motion to Change), the parties shall contribute to the costs of the Child’s section 7 special and extraordinary expenses in an amount proportionate to the parties’ respective incomes in accordance with section 7 of the Guidelines;
d. 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;
e. A support deduction order shall be issued; and
f. 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 are to serve and file written submissions by December 16, 2024. The other party will then have until December 30, 2024, to make a written response. The submissions should not exceed three pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle. The submissions should be submitted by email to the trial coordinator and copied to the opposing party/counsel.
Released: December 9, 2024
Justice J. Harris
[^1]: The Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) established by the Canadian Judicial Council was endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23. These principles include the following: • Access to justice for self-represented persons requires all aspects of the court process to be, as much as possible, open, transparent, clearly defined, simple, convenient and accommodating. • Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons. • Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case. • Judges and court administrators have no obligation to assist a self-represented person who is disrespectful, frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, abusive, or making no reasonable effort to prepare their own case. • Judges have a responsibility to inquire whether self-represented persons are aware of their procedural options, and to direct them to available information if they are not. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, judges may explain the relevant law in the case and its implications, before the self-represented person makes critical choices. • Judges should ensure that procedural and evidentiary rules are not used to unjustly hinder the legal interests of self-represented persons.
[^2]: 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.
[^3]: See: Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24.