Court File and Parties

Court File No.: D43409/23 Date: August 25, 2025 Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

K.H.S. Applicant

- and -

K.S. Respondent

Before: Justice S.B. Sherr

Counsel:

• Ari Rubin, for the Applicant
• The Respondent Acting in Person

Heard: August 7, 2025

Reasons for Decision

Part One – Introduction

[1] This trial was about the respondent's (the mother's) child support obligations for the parties' two children (the children). The parties previously resolved the parenting issues. The children live with the father and exercise parenting time with the mother.

[2] The parties agreed that the mother should pay the applicant (the father) child support starting on January 1, 2023. However, they disagreed about what the mother's income should be imputed at for the purpose of the child support calculation.

[3] The father asks that the mother's annual income be imputed differently in three stages as follows:

• January to September 2023 - $32,240
• October 2023 to December 2024 - $220,000
• After January 1, 2025 - $50,000

[4] The father asks that support arrears be paid in equal instalments over 36 months.

[5] The mother asks that her annual income be assessed at $15,800 for the purpose of this calculation. This results in a monthly payment of $196 under the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines). She asks that payment of any support arrears be deferred until March 2026.

[6] The parties were the only witnesses at trial. They provided most of their direct evidence by affidavits, financial statements and document briefs. The mother was permitted to file additional documents at trial and give further oral evidence. The parties were both cross-examined.

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

a) What is the mother's annual income for each year she is required to pay child support? Should income be imputed to her in any of those years, and if so, how much?

b) What amount does the mother owe the father for child support?

c) How should any child support arrears be paid?

Part Two – Background Facts

[8] The parties began cohabiting in 2014.

[9] The parties had three children together. The children in this case are 9 and 5 years old. The parties' third child died, when 13 months old, in December 2022.

[10] The parties separated very shortly after their child's death. They have remained separate and apart since then. The father lives with the children at his parents' home. The mother lives on her own.

[11] The father issued this application on January 4, 2023, for parenting and child support orders.

[12] On January 12, 2023, the court made a temporary without prejudice order that the children reside with the father. Day parenting time was ordered for the mother.

[13] On August 4, 2023, after a contested motion, the court maintained the children's primary residence with the father. It increased the mother's parenting time to include overnights. The mother was represented by counsel at that time.

[14] On November 7, 2023, the court ordered extended holiday parenting time for the mother. The case was referred to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

[15] On July 9, 2024, on consent, the court ordered the mother to pay temporary child support to the father of $196 each month, starting on July 1, 2024, based on her represented annual income of $15,800. This amount was subject to adjustment regarding both the amount and the start date. The court also ordered the mother to provide the father with specified financial disclosure within 45 days.

[16] On September 16, 2024, the parties consented to temporary parenting orders, including a holiday schedule. The mother agreed to provide specified financial disclosure to the father within 45 days.

[17] The mother did not comply with the financial disclosure orders. The father moved to strike her Answer/Claim.

[18] The mother's counsel subsequently brought a motion to be removed from the record. This was ordered on December 18, 2024.

[19] On December 20, 2024, the court found the mother in breach of the two financial disclosure orders. It adjourned the remedy phase to give her 60 more days to comply.

[20] On February 21, 2025, the court again adjourned the father's motion and gave the mother a further 45 days to produce the ordered disclosure. She was ordered to pay costs of $1,000 to the father.

[21] The mother has not paid anything towards these costs.

[22] On April 28, 2025, the parties reached an agreement on the parenting issues that was incorporated into a final order. The children have their primary residence with the father, and he has decision-making responsibility for them. The mother has specified parenting time. The mother made partial financial disclosure and the father withdrew his motion to strike her Answer/Claim. Costs of this step were reserved.

[23] On June 24, 2025, this focused trial was organized.

[24] The parties agreed that the mother has paid a total of $1,372 towards child support since their separation.

Part Three – The Mother's Income

3.1 Legal Considerations

[25] The court may impute income to a party pursuant to section 19 of the guidelines.

[26] 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

b) The Ontario Court of Appeal in Kohli v. Thom, 2025 ONCA 200, 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) A court must also consider whether the under-employment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse. If the court is satisfied that one of these reasons has been established, it cannot impute income to the party. See: Lavie v. Lavie, 2018 ONCA 10, at para. 28.

d) 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. 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.

e) 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.

f) 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.

g) 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.

h) 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. 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.

i) A self-employed person has the onus of clearly demonstrating the basis of his or her net income. This includes demonstrating that the deductions from gross income should be taken into account in the calculation of income for support purposes. See: Whelan v. O'Connor.

j) The self-employed have an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive records of income and expenses, from which the recipient can draw conclusions and the amount of child support can be established. See: Meade v. Meade. This includes the obligation to present information in a user-friendly fashion. A recipient should not have to incur expense to understand it. See: Reyes v. Rollo.

k) The payor must prove that any medical excuse for being underemployed is reasonable. See: Rilli v. Rilli.

l) 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 and Stoangi v. Petersen.

m) 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).

n) Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to them. See: Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548; Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583.

o) The court may impute income where it finds that a party has hidden or misrepresented relevant information respecting their income to the other party or to the authorities. This includes cases where the evidence indicates that a party earns cash income that they do not declare for income tax purposes. See: Kinsella v. Mills, 2020 ONSC 4785; Prillo v. Homer, 2023 ONCJ 8.

p) The court can also impute income where the evidence respecting income is not credible for any other reason. See: Heard v. Heard, 2014 ONCA 196, at paras. 33-35; Gostevskikh v. Gostevskikh, 2018 BCSC 1441; M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207.

q) 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.

r) A person's lifestyle can provide the basis for imputing income. See: Aitken v. Aitken, [2003] O.J. No. 2780 (SCJ); Jonas v. Jonas, [2002] O.J. No. 2117 (SCJ); Price v. Reid, 2013 ONCJ 373; Prillo v. Homer, supra.

[27] The above is a non-exhaustive list and as such, the court has discretion to impute income based on other circumstances.

3.2 Positions and Evidence of the Parties

3.2.1 The Father

[28] The father submitted that the mother has not accurately presented her annual income to the court or to the Canada Revenue Agency (the CRA). He asked to impute additional annual income to her for each year starting in 2023.

[29] The father submitted that the mother was deliberately unemployed from January 1, 2023 until September 30, 2023 and was capable of earning a minimum wage income. At the time, this was $32,240.

[30] The father claimed that the mother earned substantial money working as an escort from October 1, 2023 until December 31, 2024. He provided evidence of significant deposits flowing through her bank accounts. He asked to impute an annual income of $220,000 to her for this period.

[31] Lastly, the father alleged that the mother has been deliberately unemployed since January 1, 2025, and should be earning $50,000 annually as a dental assistant.

[32] The father claimed that the mother has lived an extravagant lifestyle at the expense of the children. He said that she often picks up the children driving different luxury vehicles. He stated she buys expensive electronics and goes to expensive restaurants.

[33] The father provided screenshots of the mother posting photographs of herself on social media holding large sums of money.

[34] The father testified that the mother is determined not to pay child support to him and has threatened to leave the jurisdiction and not see the children if he continues to pursue this claim.

[35] The father said that the mother was enraged at the $1,000 costs order made against her and told him and his lawyer outside of court that day she would never pay it.

[36] The father also claimed that:

a) The mother has not disclosed all of her bank accounts.

b) The mother has intermingled her funds with her boyfriend and has not provided a paper trail of where her money has gone.

c) The mother did not provide the bulk of the information he requested in his Request for Information.

d) The mother did not respond to his Request to Admit.

e) The mother has earned additional undisclosed cash income selling drugs. He says that she has admitted this to him.

3.2.2 The Mother

[37] The mother asked the court to order child support at $196 each month, starting on January 1, 2023, based on an annual income of $15,800, even though she said she has not earned this much.

[38] The mother deposed that she was on social assistance between January and June of 2023. She said she was accepted into a dental assistant program starting on October 16, 2023. She received a combination of student loans and grants to support herself.

[39] The mother testified she started working as an escort in October 2023 and ended this work in July 2024. She said she did not make much money as an escort as she was only allowed to keep about twenty percent of what she earned. She said she accurately declared this income and her expenses on her 2024 income tax return.

[40] The mother said that she graduated from the dental assistant program on March 7, 2025. She has not worked as a dental assistant. She testified that she cannot afford the $750 required to take her qualification exams. More importantly, she said that she does not feel emotionally ready to work as a dental assistant, as she is still dealing with her grief of the loss of her child, the stress of this court proceeding and the trauma of having been trafficked for sex. She said that she struggled to complete her dental assistant program because of these stressors. She is attending counseling and attached a letter to her affidavit from her counselor confirming her attendance and commitment to this process.

[41] The mother also testified that:

a) She is presently on social assistance.

b) She lives in subsidized housing and pays rent of $135 each month.

c) She has relied on support from friends and family to survive.

d) She has "burned a lot of bridges" with her friends and family and their support is unlikely to continue.

e) She has debts in excess of $112,000.

f) She has to repay money for student loans because she paused taking her program in 2023 due to the stressors in her life. Her student grants received in 2023 were converted to loans.

g) She has not sold drugs since the fall of 2022.

h) She has not lived an extravagant lifestyle. She said the social media posts of her holding large sums of her money were from when she received her student loans. She said she took out cash and posted this on social media.

i) She did not rent expensive cars. She previously owned a Mercedes-Benz that was stolen in May 2023. She said her father gave her a Nissan Altima to drive between September 2023 and May 2024. She said her father sometimes lent her his Mercedes-Benz to pick up the children. She deposed that her father demanded that she return the Nissan Altima to him after his car was stolen.

j) She has disclosed all her bank accounts. The additional accounts referred to by the father are dormant.

[42] The mother claims that she has accurately declared her income to the CRA. Her notices of assessment show income of $4,574 in 2023 and $10,627 in 2024.

[43] The mother said that the significant deposits into her bank accounts in 2023 and 2024 were from a variety of sources, including student loans and grants (a total of $57,013) and from friends and family. She said she also processed e-transfers received by another escort and other persons who did not have bank accounts. She said these deposits are not her income. She also said that many of the deposits shown in the accounts were funds she transferred between her own accounts.

[44] The mother provided a statement from the National Student Loans Service Centre for the period from March 31, 2022 until March 31, 2024, setting out grants and loans paid to her. It confirmed that the grants paid to her in 2023 were converted to loans. It showed that she received a student grant of $7,292 on February 6, 2024.

[45] The mother filed a funding summary at trial from the Ontario Student Assistant Program (OSAP) for June 3, 2024 until October 31, 2024. It showed that she received student grants of $15,180 during this time.

[46] The mother did not file evidence of student grants and loans she received after October 31, 2024.

[47] The mother deposed that she soon plans to get a minimum wage job as she cannot "continue like this" and needs to support herself.

3.3 Analysis

3.3.1 January 1, 2023 to September 30, 2023

[48] The court will order the child support proposed by the mother for this period of $196 each month, based on an annual imputed income to her of $15,800.

[49] The mother was deliberately unemployed or underemployed during this time. However, the court finds that her unemployment or underemployment was justified by her health needs – in this case her mental health.

[50] The parents went through a traumatic event in December 2022 with the death of their child. This trauma was exacerbated by subsequent investigations into the child's death by the police and the Children's Aid Society.

[51] The father also did not work during this time. He is still not working. It is not realistic to expect that the mother should have been working full-time so soon after the child's death.

[52] Lastly, the mother was on social assistance during 2022. She did not leave a job to avoid her child support obligations.

[53] The small imputation of income for this period is justified because the mother had some funds flowing to her in addition to social assistance. She claimed at trial she did not start working as an escort until October 2023. This was contradicted by an affidavit she filed on August 1, 2023 where she admitted she had previously done some escorting work that year. She also had funds to make her car payments.

3.3.2 October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2024

[54] This was the most challenging time frame for the court to assess the mother's income because she:

a) Provided incomplete financial disclosure. Much of the disclosure she provided raised more questions than answers about her income.

b) Did not disclose all of her bank accounts.

c) Was moving significant funds between various bank accounts and was unable to provide any particulars of these transfers.

d) Was comingling funds with other persons, including a boyfriend. His accounts were not produced.

e) Said she was accepting e-transfers for other persons. She provided no evidence supporting this statement, or any accounting of what funds were deposited or transferred for these persons.

f) Provided no documentary evidence of her escorting expenses.

g) Was unable to explain many of the sources of her deposits into her bank accounts.

h) Gave no explanations regarding her bank withdrawals.

i) Only partially complied with the father's Request for Information. She also did not respond to the father's Request to Admit.

[55] The court draws an adverse inference against the mother for her failure to provide timely, complete and comprehensible financial disclosure.

[56] The imputation analysis was further complicated because the mother was not a credible nor a reliable witness. Her evidence was inconsistent, scattered and sometimes contradicted by her documentation. At times, she was evasive and argumentative. She told partial truths. She frequently confused dates. She often gave explanations of events that made little sense.

[57] The mother represented in a financial statement sworn on July 8, 2024 that she was earning $15,876 annually, primarily from OSAP. She did not disclose her escorting income. The mother admitted at trial that she lied to the court because she did not want to admit that she was working as an escort. She said she was also afraid that she would lose her subsidized housing if this income was disclosed.

[58] The mother conceded in cross-examination that "I left a lot of things unsaid".

[59] When asked why she did not pay child support from her income earned as an escort the mother answered that she did not feel it was right to pay child support from money she had earned while being trafficked. The court found this answer disingenuous. The mother was spending considerable money from her escorting income on herself.

[60] The father filed the mother's RBC bank statements. The amount of $110,421 was deposited into the account between October 2023 and December 2024. The father broke down the amounts received for five months based on these statements. He attributed the e-transfers going into the account to escorting revenues. He broke down the deposits as follows:

	Total deposits	E-transfers - escorting
November 2023	$27,968	$12,126
December 2023	$12,390	$12,390
February 2024	$18,724	$8,000
March 2024	$10,829	$10,829
April 2024	$10,415	$10,415
Total	$80,326	$53,760

[61] Additional escorting revenues were likely deposited into other accounts. The father produced the mother's Toronto Dominion account that also shows considerable unexplained deposits running through it. The mother did not dispute the father's assertion in his Request to Admit that over $75,000 was deposited into this account during this time.

[62] The mother's RBC account statements show declining deposits during the fall of 2024. It appears the mother did not stop doing escort work in July 2024. However, she began slowing down close to that time. In 2025, she had very few deposits into that account.

[63] The father's calculation of the mother's escorting income also does not include cash income she received. The mother acknowledged that some customers paid in cash and sometimes cash was distributed to the escorts at the end of the evening. She could not tell the court how much cash she received.

[64] The mother said that many of the deposits in her accounts were not for her. Further, she had to pay expenses from her escorting revenues. She said she might have been able to keep 20% of what she earned. She provided no corroborating evidence.

[65] The mother deposed that she netted just over $10,000 in 2024 from escorting work after expenses. This evidence does not correlate with the activity in her bank accounts. The court does not accept her evidence.

[66] The court prefers the father's evidence that the mother was leading a high lifestyle during this time. She was leasing and driving expensive vehicles, buying expensive items and spending a lot of cash.

[67] The mother gave convoluted evidence about her vehicles. She said she owned a Mercedes-Benz at the start of 2023, despite being on social assistance. She said she crashed the car. She said she was conned into signing ownership over to a "charming man" she met who said he would fix it for her and then give it back to her. He did not do this. She said he stole the car from her. She said that she was accused of being part of an insurance scam and now owes the bank over $47,000 for the car. She said she confronted this man in 2023 and it led to her being charged with assault. She said the charges against her have been withdrawn.

[68] The mother said that in September 2023, after her Mercedes-Benz was stolen, she entered into an agreement with her father. She said he gave her his Nissan Altima. She said he agreed to gift the car to her when she completed her dental assistant program. She agreed to pay the lease payments of $1,750 each month. It does not escape the court's notice that she maintained these payments and paid no child support until the court order in July 2024 for only $196 each month.

[69] The mother said her father took back the Nissan Altima from her in July 2024. He claimed that she had stolen the car from him and reported this to the police. She testified that she is facing charges for automobile theft. These charges remain outstanding.

[70] This leads to how much income the mother was likely earning during this time.

[71] The mother received at least $22,472 for student grants in 2024. Student grants are included in income and grossed up as they are non-taxable. See. Mwenda v. Matituka, 2018 ONCJ 503, per: Justice Ellen Murray; Fiorenza v. Mitic, 2024 ONCJ 467.

[72] The court will assess the mother's annual grant income at $20,000 for this period. It recognizes that the period in question is 15 months and not 12 months. However, the mother only produced student assistance statements up until October 31, 2024, so she likely received further grants. Also, the amount earned over 12 months would need to be grossed up because no tax was paid on it.

[73] The court will impute the mother's annual income arising from escort work during this period at $55,000, inclusive of any gross-up of income arising from her failure to declare all her income to the CRA and paying lower taxes than someone earning the same amount of money who does pay their taxes.

[74] The court bases this imputation of income on the mother's e-transfers into her bank accounts, the likelihood she received additional cash income, and the real possibility that she deposited additional income into other undisclosed accounts or into the accounts of other people. The court also accepts that the mother had expenses arising from her escort work. However, it does not accept her evidence, without any supporting documentation, that 80% of her revenue went to expenses.

[75] The mother's annual income will be imputed at $75,000 for this period, being her escort income of $55,000 plus her student grants of $20,000. The guidelines table amount for two children at this income is $1,211 each month.

3.3.3 Support After January 1, 2025

[76] The court accepts the mother's evidence that she has not done any escort work in 2025 and that she completed her dental assistant course on March 7, 2025. She has been on social assistance since March 2025 and receives about $500 each month. She also receives subsidized housing that is geared to her income.

[77] The father is not asking to impute income to the mother at the same level she earned as an escort. However, he believes she should be earning $50,000 annually as a dental assistant. He attached a Job Bank Canada search indicating that this is the median annual income for dental assistants.

[78] The court finds that the mother made a reasonable career choice to complete her education in 2025.

[79] The mother could not work as a dental assistant until she passed her qualifying exams. A decision to take two months to focus on studying for these exams would have been reasonable.

[80] The court also appreciates it might have taken the mother another couple of months to find employment after she completed her exams.

[81] If the mother had taken these steps, the court would not have imputed any income to her in 2025 prior to September 1, 2025. Her unemployment would have been justified.

[82] However, the mother did not take the dental assistant qualifying exams and she did not look for any work. This was not reasonable and the court finds that she was deliberately unemployed, without a valid excuse, after April 1, 2025.

[83] The mother said she could not afford the $750 to pay for her exams. This was not credible as there had been huge amounts of money flowing through her accounts in 2024. The exam fee would have been a small portion of these funds. She could have easily afforded this payment.

[84] At trial, the mother put more emphasis on the fact that she didn't feel it would be right for her to be a dental assistant at this time. She said she was under too much stress and did not want to put patients at risk. The mother provided no medical evidence of a mental health issue that would preclude her from working. The letter from her counselor did not state that she was incapable of working as a dental assistant. The court finds that the mother has been capable of doing this work.

[85] The mother chose not to do any work after March 7, 2025. She provided no evidence of any attempts to find work. The mother testified that she will soon look for minimum wage jobs. Nothing precluded her from seeking this work after March 7, 2025.

[86] It was apparent to the court that the mother resents the idea of paying child support to the father and is resisting paying a fair amount to him. The court bases this finding on the following:

a) She did not pay him any child support until ordered to do so in July 2024, despite paying large monthly amounts for vehicles and earning substantial income.

b) She has paid him no child support since the final parenting order on April 28, 2025.

c) She misrepresented her income to him and to the court.

d) She did not provide him with timely, complete or comprehensible financial disclosure.

e) She hid income.

f) Her trial affidavits were filled with anger about how she feels he has treated her.

g) The court accepts the father's evidence that the mother threatened to leave the jurisdiction and the children if he pursued his child support claim. It also accepts his evidence that she told him at court that she would never pay the costs order. She has paid nothing towards it despite an ability to do so.

[87] The court will impute an annual income to the mother of $15,800 for the first eight months of 2025. She earned no income for the first three months, other than some public assistance, but should have been earning some income by April 1, 2025, when she chose not to pursue employment as a dental assistant.

[88] The court will impute an annual income to the mother of $40,000, starting on September 1, 2025. She should have been working full-time at the latest by then as a dental assistant.

[89] The mother would have started in an entry level position as a dental assistant, so it is not fair to impute the median income set out by Job Bank Canada to her. The income being imputed to the mother is just above the current minimum wage for a full-time employee.

[90] The guidelines table amount for two children based on an annual income of $40,000 is $597 each month.

Part Four – Calculation of Support Owing and Payment of Arrears

[91] This order will create support arrears of $19,045, calculated as follows:

January 1, 2023 to September 30, 2023	$196 x 9 months	$1,764
October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2024	$1,139 x 15 months	$17,085
January 1, 2025 to August 31, 2025	$196 x 8 months	$1,568
Total		$20,417
Less support paid		$1,372
Balance owing		$19,045

[92] The father proposed that the mother pay the support arrears created by this order over 36 months. The mother asked that payment of arrears be deferred until March 2026 to allow her to get back on her feet.

[93] The court recognizes that the mother has limited financial means. It is only imputing an annual income of $40,000 to her. The court will permit her to pay the arrears at $200 each month. It will also defer the payment of the arrears until January 1, 2026, so she can organize her financial affairs and start working.

[94] However, this indulgence is based on the mother maintaining her child support payments in good standing. The order will set out if she is more than 30 days late in making any ongoing or arrears support payment, the entire amount of the arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.

Part Five – Conclusion

[95] A final order shall go on the following terms:

a) The mother shall pay the father child support of $597 each month, starting on September 1, 2025. This is the guidelines table amount for two children based on her annual imputed income of $40,000.

b) The mother's child support arrears are fixed at $19,045, as calculated in this decision.

c) The mother may pay the child support arrears at the rate of $200 each month, starting on January 1, 2026. However, if she is more than 30 days late in making any ongoing or arrears support payment, the entire amount of arrears then owing shall immediately become due and payable.

d) Nothing in this order shall prevent the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from collecting arrears from any government source, such as income tax or HST/GST refunds, inheritances, or lottery or prize winnings.

e) The Director of the Family Responsibility Office is requested to adjust its records in accordance with this order.

f) The mother shall provide the father with complete copies of her income tax returns, including all schedules and attachments, and her notices of assessment, by June 30th each year.

g) A support deduction order shall issue.

[96] If either party seeks their costs, they are to serve and file written submissions by September 11, 2025. The submissions may also include a request that leave of the court is required prior to the other party starting any further proceedings in this court. The other party will then have until September 25, 2025 to make a written response (not to make their own costs submissions).

[97] The submissions should not exceed three pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle. The submissions should be either delivered to the trial coordinator's office on the second floor of the courthouse or emailed to the trial coordinator's office.

Released: August 25, 2025

Justice Stanley B. Sherr