Brown v. Williams, 2025 ONCJ 19

DATE: January 14, 2025
COURT FILE NO.: D42727/22
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

KEISHA ANN BROWN
Roger Rowe, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT

• and -

ROHAN ST. OLIVER WILLIAMS
Tajinder Kaur Silva, for the RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT

HEARD: April 12 and 30, July 11, 2024, and January 10, 2025
JUSTICE: Stanley B. Sherr

REASONS FOR DECISION

Part One – Introduction

[1] This trial was about the respondent’s (the father’s) child support obligations for the parties’ three children, K.W., age 15, R.W., age 9 and R.O.W., age 3 (the children). The parties previously resolved the parenting issues in this application.

[2] The applicant (the mother) seeks an order requiring the father to pay her child support of $1,397 each month, starting on June 1, 2022, based on an imputed annual income to him of $70,000. She also seeks her costs of $6,000.

[3] The father left his job as a dump truck driver in June 2023 and has not returned to work. He claims this has been due to his severe anxiety and depression. He is presently in receipt of social assistance. He asks the court to make its child support order in accordance with his actual annual income since June 1, 2022. He seeks his costs of $4,000.

[4] The issues in this case are:
a) Has the father been intentionally underemployed or unemployed without a valid medical excuse?
b) If so, what annual income should be imputed to him?
c) What child support order should be made?
d) What costs order should be made?

Part Two – Background facts

[5] The mother is 45 years old. The father is 50 years old.

[6] The parties started living together in Jamaica in December 2016. They were married in December 2018.

[7] The mother has five children. She has two adult children who are not part of this application. The father is not their father.

[8] The father is not the biological father of K.W. However, the parties agreed he formed a settled intention to treat K.W. as a child of his family and has a legal obligation to support her. K.W.’s father died in 2022.

[9] The father is the biological father of R.W. and R.O.W.

[10] In 2019, the father sponsored the mother and the children to come to Canada from Jamaica. They arrived in Canada on March 23, 2020 and lived with the father.

[11] The father has worked in Canada as a truck driver for 17 years. He filed income tax returns from 2019 to 2022 showing his annual income was over $70,000.

[12] The parties separated on September 2, 2020. They continued to live in the same apartment but rarely spoke to each other.

[13] The mother issued this application on May 31, 2022, seeking parenting and support orders.

[14] The apartment lease was in the father’s name. The father gave notice to his landlord that he was giving up the lease at the end of September 2022. The mother attempted to continue the lease with the landlord, who refused because the mother had no income other than the Canada Child Benefit. The mother and the children had to scramble to find accommodation. They moved into a hotel and subsequently found a place at a shelter.

[15] The mother and the children temporarily moved to Hamilton, Ontario on November 4, 2022 because they could not find suitable accommodation in Toronto. They returned to Toronto on January 11, 2023 when they obtained subsidized housing. They continue to live in Toronto.

[16] At the first case conference held on December 16, 2022, the parties agreed to temporary parenting orders. Based on the father’s represented annual income of $77,000, he was ordered to pay the mother temporary child support of $1,528 each month, starting on September 1, 2022. This was subject to adjustment both as to the amount and the start date. This support order was not changed prior to trial.

[17] At the next case conference held on March 10, 2023, the court endorsed that the father had paid no child support. The father was given a strong admonition that court orders must be followed. The mother was given leave to bring a motion to strike the father’s Answer/Claim on the financial issues. The court also made a financial disclosure order. The father was ordered to pay the mother $500 for her costs.

[18] The mother brought a motion to strike the father’s Answer/Claim. On May 1, 2023, the court adjourned the motion on a term that the father pay the mother $6,000 towards his support arrears by the return date. The court endorsed that the father had made little effort to comply with the court orders. He had vacationed out of the country and had paid no child support.

[19] On July 19, 2023, Justice Sheilagh O’Connell heard the mother’s motion and struck the father’s Answer/Claim on the financial issues. He had only paid $2,000 towards the outstanding child support arrears. She gave the father the ability to reinstate his Answer/Claim on the financial issues if he paid a further $4,000 towards the support arrears. She also ordered him to pay the mother $1,000 for her costs.

[20] The father did not make the required payments and did not reinstate his Answer/Claim on the financial issues.

[21] The parties resolved all parenting issues at a settlement conference on January 12, 2024. The children have their primary residence with the mother and she has decision-making responsibility for them. The settlement conference was restricted to the parenting issues.

[22] The court also set a date for the hearing of the support issues. Pursuant to subrule 1(8.4) of the Family Law Rules (all references to rules in this decision are to the Family Law Rules) the court provided the father with limited rights of participation at this trial. He was permitted to file an affidavit, an updated financial statement, provide any medical evidence he wanted the court to rely upon and make opening and closing statements. The parties agreed that the mother would have up to one hour to cross-examine the father and up to thirty minutes to cross-examine any medical professional who prepared a report. The father was not permitted to cross-examine the mother.

Part Three – The trial process

[23] The father did not meet the timeline for filing his trial material.

[24] The father attached four medical reports to his trial affidavit – one from his family doctor and three from his psychiatrist. He did not serve the required notices of intention to file practitioner reports pursuant to section 52 of the Evidence Act.

[25] The father did not produce his family doctor and psychiatrist for cross-examination at the first day of trial on April 12, 2024.

[26] Despite these irregularities, the court preferred to have the father’s evidence before the court so it could make the best determination of his support obligations for the child.

[27] The court permitted the late filing of the father’s trial affidavit. It was willing to overlook the father’s failure to provide the required notices of intention to file practitioner reports pursuant to section 52 of the Evidence Act and after hearing evidence from the parties, it adjourned the trial to give the father the opportunity to produce his family doctor and psychiatrist on the return date for the purpose of cross-examination. The court told the father it was his obligation to produce these witnesses if he wanted to rely on their evidence. See: Carew v. Loblaws Limited, 18 O.R. (2d) 660 (HC); Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. A. (B.), 2001 32526 (OCJ).

[28] The case returned to court on April 30, 2024. The father sought an adjournment because his psychiatrist had informed him that he was too ill to attend court, as he was undergoing chemotherapy. The mother opposed this request. The adjournment request was granted. The court ordered the production of the psychiatrist’s notes and records. It also permitted the psychiatrist to testify by video.

[29] The matter returned to court on July 11, 2024. The father’s psychiatrist did not attend and his notes and records had not been produced. The father asked for another adjournment. The mother opposed this request. The father’s adjournment request was again granted. See: Brown v. Williams, 2024 ONCJ 339, for the detailed reasons of the court. The court wrote the following at paragraphs 17 and 18 of its decision:

[17] The father has to face the reality that the psychiatrist may be unable to treat him or participate in this case. This case cannot go on indefinitely. The father needs to take steps to produce a psychiatrist who will be subject to cross-examination. This might mean obtaining a new psychiatrist.

[18] The court will grant a lengthier adjournment as it recognizes the father may have challenges obtaining a new psychiatrist. The new psychiatrist will also likely need several sessions with the father to provide a meaningful report. The court would want to see the following in any report:
a) A diagnosis of the father’s medical conditions.
b) A prognosis for the father.
c) A treatment plan for the father.
d) Information about the father’s compliance with the treatment plan.
e) Specific and detailed information connecting the medical condition to the ability of the father to work. For instance, can he work at a job other than truck driving? Can he work part-time?

[30] The father was required to produce the notes and records of any psychiatrist he wished to call as a witness. He was also required to serve and file an updated financial statement by December 16, 2024. The mother was given a further thirty minutes to cross-examine the father and up to one hour to cross-examine any psychiatrist produced by the father.

[31] The court endorsed that the return date was peremptory on the father. The trial was going to proceed whether or not he produced a psychiatrist for cross-examination.

[32] The case returned to court for the continuation of the trial on January 10, 2025. The father did not attend. His counsel informed the court that she had no further instructions from him, even whether to seek another adjournment. The father had advised her that he left Canada on October 29, 2024. He did not tell her where he was. He did not inform her when he planned to return to Canada. His counsel advised the court that she sent the father the court’s zoom link in the hope he would attend court. The father did not sign on the zoom link.

[33] The father did not provide any further clinical notes, records or reports from a psychiatrist. No psychiatrist was produced at trial for cross-examination. The father did not provide any evidence that he had seen a psychiatrist since the first day of trial on April 12, 2024, make any further attempts to obtain his psychiatrist’s clinical notes and records or make any further attempts to bring him to court. The father did not provide any evidence that he had made any efforts to see a new psychiatrist.

[34] The court ruled that it could not rely on the opinions contained in any of the medical reports filed by the father, as he had not produced the medical practitioners for cross-examination and had not produced their clinical notes and records.

[35] The trial went ahead and was concluded on January 10, 2025. The parties made closing statements and made costs submissions.

Part Four – Legal considerations for imputing income

[36] Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) permits the court to impute income to a party as it considers appropriate.

[37] 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. See: Drygala v. Pauli, [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 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. See: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552 (Ont. C.A.). However, in Graham v. Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260, the court inferred that the failure of the payor to properly disclose would mitigate the obligation of the recipient to provide an evidentiary basis to impute income.

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. See: 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. See: Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137; DePace v. Michienzi, [2000] O.J. No. 453 (Ont. Fam. Ct.).

f) The receipt of social assistance is not sufficient proof of one’s inability to work for support purposes. See: Tyrrell v. Tyrrell, 2017 ONSC 6499 (SCJ). The court cannot take judicial notice of any eligibility requirements for social assistance. Nor can it delegate the important and complex determinations of employability and income earning capacity to unknown bureaucrats applying unknown evidence to unknown criteria. See: Abumatar v. Hamda, 2021 ONSC 2165; S.P. v. D.P., 2024 ONCJ 665.

g) 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. See: Lawson v. Lawson.

h) The court will usually draw an adverse inference against a party for his or her failure to comply with their disclosure obligations as provided for in section 21 of the guidelines and impute income. See: Smith v. Pellegrini, [2008] O.J. No. 3616 (Ont. S.C.); Maimone v. Maimone, [2009] O.J. No. 2140 (Ont. S.C.).

i) The onus is on the payor parent to justify the decision to reduce their income. The payor cannot just present the income they are earning. The payor’s previous income is a rational basis on which to impute income, as it is the amount that the payor would have continued to earn but for their decision to leave their job: See: Olah v. Olah, Laing v. Mahmoud, 2011 ONSC 4047.

j) The payor must prove that any medical excuse for being underemployed is reasonable. See: Rilli v. Rilli, [2006] O.J. No. 4142 (SCJ).

k) Cogent medical evidence in the form of detailed medical opinion should be provided by the payor in order to satisfy the court that his/her reasonable health needs justify his/her decision not to work. See: Cook v. Burton, [2005] O.J. No. 190 (SCJ) and Stoangi v. Petersen, [2006] O.J. No. 2902 (SCJ).

l) In Davidson v. Patten, 2021 ONCJ 437, Justice Carole Curtis set out that a party resisting a claim for imputation of their income based on medical reasons should provide a medical report setting out at least the following information:
i. Diagnosis;
ii. Prognosis;
iii. Treatment plan (is there a treatment plan? And what is it?);
iv. Compliance with the treatment plan; and,
v. Specific and detailed information connecting the medical condition to the ability to work (e.g., this person cannot work at the pre-injury job; this person cannot work for three months; this person cannot work at physical labour; this person cannot return to work ever).

m) Support payors must use reasonable efforts to address whatever medical limitations they may have to earn income. This means following up on medical recommendations to address these limitations. See: Cole v. Freiwald, [2011] O.J. No. 3654, per Justice Marvin A. Zuker, paragraphs 140 and 141.

Part Five – The father’s evidence

[38] The father has been a dump truck driver for 17 years.

[39] The father provided notices of assessment showing his annual income has been as follows:
2019 - $73,325
2020 - $72,587
2021 - $77,940
2022 - $70,047

[40] The father testified he is a seasonal worker. He usually works from mid-April to mid-November. He receives Employment Insurance (EI) for the months he does not work. His notices of assessment reflect his total of employment income and EI benefits.

[41] The father finished work for 2022 on November 9, 2022. He vacationed in Jamaica and returned to Canada in January 2023.

[42] The father deposed he returned to work in mid-April 2023. He said he left work in June 2023 because of his mental health issues.

[43] The father solely attributed his mental health issues to the mother’s conduct. In his trial affidavit, he deposed that these issues began to develop in March 2023. He felt anxious and had trouble sleeping. He stopped working on June 15, 2023, after having had an anxiety attack at work.

[44] The father said his family doctor referred him to a psychiatrist in July 2023. He said he saw the psychiatrist weekly. He stated he is on medication for anxiety and depression. He said it is helping.

[45] The father deposed that after June 15, 2023 he went on short term disability. He said his 2023 employment income was $15,018 and his disability benefits were $20,033. He said his disability benefits ended in September 2023. The parties agreed that his 2023 income was about $38,500 from all sources.

[46] The father testified on April 12, 2024 that he has not looked for work since June 15, 2023. He has taken no steps to retrain or upgrade his education. He says he stays at home all day. He will go out to see his psychiatrist and to do grocery shopping. He says he has difficulty focusing and sleeping, feels exhausted and has extreme anxiety.

[47] The father said that his psychiatrist has told him not to return to work. The father had no idea when he may be able to work again.

[48] The father said he receives financial help from family and friends to meet his expenses. He stated on April 12, 2024 that he was $2,500 in arrears of rent and must leave his residence by the end of June.

[49] The parties agreed that the father has paid $4,000 for child support since this case started in May 2023.

Part Six – Analysis of the father’s evidence

[50] The father was a very poor witness. He was neither reliable nor credible.

[51] The father was also a combative witness. He blamed all his problems on the mother. He felt aggrieved that she was seeking child support from him. There was no merit to his complaints about her.

[52] The father has treated the mother and the children poorly. He terminated his apartment lease in September 2022 on short notice to the mother. The mother and the children had to move into a hotel and then a shelter. He provided them with no financial support even though he was earning over $70,000 annually. The father showed no insight into the impact this had on the children. When asked about this, he deflected and verbally attacked the mother.

[53] Despite the temporary court order to pay the mother child support of $1,528 each month starting on September 1, 2022, the father paid no support until May 2023. He left his family in dire financial circumstances.

[54] The father became evasive and answered tangentially when he was asked hard questions on cross-examination. When he was asked how he expects the children to be financially supported without his help, he again responded by verbally attacking the mother.

[55] The father showed absolutely no interest in returning to work. He testified that he has not even considered looking for work. He showed no interest in retraining to do other work. He showed no interest in advancing his education. It became apparent to the court that the father would not do any of these things if it meant he had to pay child support to the mother.

[56] The court finds it is not a coincidence that the father only raised having mental health issues after the mother started her application. According to the father’s testimony at trial, he was having these issues for two years before the case started due to the mother’s conduct. However, he did not seek any medical help. He continued to work full-time.

[57] The father did not see a psychiatrist until July 2023. The court finds it is not a coincidence that this was around the time when the mother was moving to strike his Answer/Claim.

[58] The father paid no child support while he vacationed in Jamaica from November 2023 until January 2024. This is not indicative of someone acting in good faith.

[59] The father claimed his mental health prevents him from driving a vehicle. However, the court accepts the mother’s evidence that she twice observed him driving a vehicle.

[60] The father made little effort to comply with court orders. This was why his Answer/Claim was struck on the financial issues by Justice O’Connell on July 19, 2023.

[61] The father has paid no support to the mother since the trial started. He has not paid anything towards the two outstanding costs orders.

[62] The father was given every opportunity to present his case to the court, including the following chances:
a) Although his Answer/Claim was struck, he was given extensive rights of participation at the hearing.
b) He was permitted to late-file his trial affidavits.
c) The court excused his non-compliance with section 52 of the Evidence Act.
d) The trial was adjourned three times over the mother’s objections to permit him to produce a psychiatrist for cross-examination. The last adjournment was lengthy to permit him to obtain another psychiatrist, if necessary.

[63] The father abused these opportunities. He made no effort to find work, retrain or improve his education. He did not obtain or attempt to obtain a new psychiatrist. He did not comply with the order to provide an updated financial statement. Instead, he chose to leave the country and no longer participate in this case. The mother was unable to complete his cross-examination.

[64] The court draws an adverse inference against the father arising from this conduct.

[65] The medical evidence filed by the father was insufficient to prove he is unable to return to work as a truck driver at the income he was previously earning.

[66] The father filed a three-line handwritten note from his family doctor dated June 17, 2023 that said the father is unable to work due to depression. The note has no evidentiary value for the following reasons:
a) There is no way to assess if this is based on the father’s self-reporting.
b) There is no indication about how often the father saw the doctor.
c) No evidence, such as a CV, was given about the doctor’s qualifications to give this opinion.
d) No detail was given about the father’s depression. How long had he been depressed? What was the severity of the depression?
e) No mention was made of a treatment plan for the father.
f) No mention was made about the father’s compliance with a treatment plan. Nothing was mentioned about what work the father can perform, either on a full-time or part-time basis.
g) Nothing was mentioned about the ability of the father to retrain or upgrade his education.
h) No prognosis was given.
i) The doctor was not produced for cross-examination.
j) The clinical notes and records of the doctor were not produced.

[67] The father filed a sparse handwritten letter from his psychiatrist dated August 8, 2023, a very short report from the psychiatrist dated January 3, 2024, and a sparse handwritten letter from the psychiatrist dated March 15, 2024. The court is not giving any weight to the opinions in these letters due to the failure of the father to produce the psychiatrist for cross-examination or to file his clinical notes and records.

[68] The psychiatrist’s reports were very problematic. They were devoid of detail. They lacked detail about the father’s prognosis, his ability to obtain other work, retrain or upgrade his education. It is unclear how much of the reports were based on the father’s self-reporting. No real treatment plan was set out or commentary made about the father’s level of compliance with a treatment plan. No CV or evidence about the psychiatrist’s expertise was provided. Production of the psychiatrist’s clinical notes and records and cross-examination of the psychiatrist were essential for the court to give the reports any weight.

[69] The court makes the following findings of fact:
a) The father is deliberately under-employed or unemployed.
b) The father does not have a valid medical excuse for not working.
c) The father has been capable of working full-time as a truck driver since the start of this case and has been capable of earning annual income of at least $70,000.
d) There is nothing preventing the father from returning to work and earning annual income of at least $70,000. He is choosing not to do so.

Part Seven – The child support order

[70] The mother asks that the father pay her child support of $1,397 each month, starting on June 1, 2022. This is the guidelines table amount for three children, based on an annual income of $70,000.

[71] The mother is not seeking retroactive support from the father. She is only seeking prospective support. Any support claimed after an application is issued is prospective support, and is presumptively payable. See: Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (Ont. C.A.). This presumption was not rebutted by the father.

[72] The evidence supports the order sought by the mother.

[73] The parties agreed that the father has paid $4,000 for child support since this case started.

[74] This order will create child support arrears of $40,704, calculated as follows:
$1,397 x 32 months = $44,704
Less payments made - $4,000
Balance: $40,704

[75] The father has shown no interest in paying child support or complying with court orders. This is not an appropriate case for making a payment order. The father will have to make payment arrangements directly with the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

Part Eight – Costs

8.1 Positions of the parties

[76] The parties made costs submissions at trial. They provided the court with sealed offers to settle.

[77] The mother sought costs of $6,000 if she was successful. The father sought costs of $4,000 if he was successful.

8.2 Legal considerations

[78] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867 set out that modern costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes:
(1) to partially indemnify successful litigants;
(2) to encourage settlement;
(3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and
(4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly under subrule 2(2).

[79] Costs can be used to sanction behaviour that increases the duration and expense of litigation, or is otherwise unreasonable or vexatious. In short, it has become a routine matter for courts to employ the power to order costs as a tool in the furtherance of the efficient and orderly administration of justice. See: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, paragraph 25.

[80] Costs awards are discretionary. Two important principles in exercising discretion are reasonableness and proportionality. See: Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840.

[81] An award of costs is subject to the factors listed in subrule 24(12), subrule 24(4) pertaining to unreasonable conduct of a successful party, subrule 24(8) pertaining to bad faith, subrule 18(14) pertaining to offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the costs sought by the successful party. See: Berta v. Berta, 2015 ONCA 918, at paragraph 94.

[82] Subrule 24(1) sets out that the successful party is presumed to be entitled to costs.

[83] Subrule 24(12) reads as follows:

24 (12) In setting the amount of costs, the court shall consider,
a) the reasonableness and proportionality of each of the following factors as it relates to the importance and complexity of the issues:
(i) each party’s behaviour,
(ii) the time spent by each party,
(iii) any written offers to settle including offers that do not meet the requirements of rule 18,
(iv) any legal fees, including the number of lawyers and their rates,
(v) any expert witness fees, including the number of experts and their rates,
(vi) any other expenses properly paid or payable; and
b) any other relevant matter.

[84] In determining the appropriate quantum, the court should consider the amount that the unsuccessful party could reasonably have expected to pay in the event of lack of success in the litigation. See: Arthur v. Arthur, 2019 ONSC 938.

[85] The court must also consider the father’s financial circumstances when making a costs order. See: MacDonald v. Magel, 67 O.R. (3d) 181 (Ont. C.A.). However, ability to pay will be less of a mitigating factor when the impecunious party has acted unreasonably, or where their claim was illogical or without merit. See: D.D. and F.D. v. H.G., 2020 ONSC 1919.

8.3 Analysis

[86] The mother served an offer to settle on the father dated April 29, 2024. This did not attract the costs consequences set out in subrule 18(14) as it was not delivered at least 7 days before the start of the trial on April 12, 2024. The offer to settle was considered under subrule 18(16) and in determining the mother’s reasonableness.

[87] The father served two non-severable offers to settle. Neither offer was close to being more favourable to the mother than the trial result. They did not attract the costs consequences set out in subrule 18(14).

[88] The court will order the father to pay the mother’s costs fixed at $6,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, for the following reasons:
a) The mother was the successful party at trial. The presumption that she is entitled to costs was not rebutted.
b) The case was important to the parties. It was made more complex, difficult and expensive because the father did not comply with court orders and the rules.
c) The mother acted reasonably.
d) The mother made an offer to settle after the first day of trial that was more favourable to the father than the trial result. He should have accepted it.
e) The father did not act reasonably. He did not comply with court orders and the rules. He failed to provide updated financial disclosure. He did not attend on the continuation of the trial. He has not paid any child support since the trial started.
f) The fees and rates claimed by the mother are reasonable and proportionate. She is only claiming a portion of her total legal fees, as costs were awarded at other steps in the case.
g) The father should have reasonably expected to pay these costs if he was unsuccessful.
h) The father can afford to pay these costs by returning to work.

[89] The mother asks that the entire amount of costs be payable as support and enforced as an incident of support by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office pursuant to clause 1(1)(g) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

[90] The court has discretion to allocate what portion of the costs are attributable to support, particularly when there are multiple issues being litigated. See: Sordi v. Sordi, 2011 ONCA 6.

[91] Here, the costs claim only relates to the issue of child support. The court will make the order sought by the mother.

Part Nine – Conclusion

[92] A final order shall go as follows:
a) The father shall pay the mother child support of $1,397 each month, starting on June 1, 2022. This is the guidelines table amount of support for three children, based on an annual imputed income to the father of $70,000.
b) The father shall be credited with support paid of $4,000 since June 1, 2022.
c) A Support Deduction Order shall issue.
d) The father shall provide the mother with complete copies of his income tax returns and notices of assessment by June 30th each year.
e) The father shall immediately advise the mother when he returns to work. He shall provide her with the name, address and contact number of his employer. He shall provide her with copies of his first three pay stubs.
f) The father shall pay the mother $6,000 for her costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
g) Pursuant to clause 1(1)(g) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, this costs award shall be payable as support and enforced as an incident of support by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

[93] The court appreciates that enforcement of this order will be challenging for the mother. Court staff are to send a copy of this decision to the legal department of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office. Suspension of the father’s passport may be one enforcement mechanism that may be effective in these circumstances.

[94] The court thanks counsel for their professional presentation of this case.

Released: January 14, 2025

Justice Stanley B. Sherr