Court File and Parties

Date: September 22, 2025

Court File No.: D44739/24

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Fadamilare Anthony Oshungbemi Deborah Adebayo, for the Applicant

Applicant

- and -

Fatimah Taylor Stephanie Okola, for the Respondent

Respondent

Heard: September 16, 2025

Justice: S.B. Sherr

Endorsement

Part One – Introduction

[1] There are two motions before the court regarding the parties' daughter (the child). The child will turn two years old in October 2025.

[2] The parties have finalized the issues of the primary residence of the child and decision-making responsibility for her. The child resides with the respondent (the mother) and the mother has decision-making responsibility. There are temporary without prejudice orders in place for the father to exercise day parenting time with the child and for him to pay the mother child support of $565 each month, based on his reported 2022 income of $52,578.

[3] The mother alleges that the father has sheltered money in his corporation to reduce his child support obligations and avoid income taxes. She seeks an order for temporary child support based on an imputed annual income to him of $236,167. She asks that child support start on January 1, 2024.

[4] The mother also seeks temporary orders that she be permitted to obtain or renew government documentation for the child and travel internationally with her without the father's consent.

[5] The father seeks specified temporary parenting time with the child, including overnight and holiday visits. He also seeks the right to travel internationally with her and a reciprocal order that either party must reasonably consent to such travel. He seeks the right to consent to the mother obtaining or renewing any government documentation for the child. He asks that no changes be made to the existing child support order.

[6] The mother agrees that the father should have temporary overnight parenting time with the child. However, she wants this time to increase gradually, and at a slower pace than proposed by him. She opposes him traveling internationally with the child.

[7] The court relied on the affidavits and financial statements filed by the parties and their submissions on this motion.

[8] The issues on these motions are:

a) What temporary parenting time orders are in the child's best interests?

b) Is it in the child's best interests to order that the mother may obtain or renew government documentation for her without the father's consent?

c) Is it in the child's best interests to permit the mother to travel internationally with her without the father's consent?

d) Is it in the child's best interests to permit the father to travel internationally with her at this time?

e) What temporary child support order should be made? In particular:

i) What income, if any, should be imputed to the father?

ii) When should the support order start?

Part Two – Background Facts

[9] The father is 50 years old. He is the owner of a business that operates group homes for persons with disabilities.

[10] The mother is 44 years old and is employed by a university.

[11] The parties never cohabited.

[12] The child was born in October 2023. She has always lived with the mother.

[13] The father initially paid the mother $1,100 each month for child support. He reduced his payments to $600 each month starting in January 2024.

[14] The father issued his application in January 2024.

[15] The mother filed her answer/claim on March 1, 2024.

[16] The parties attended their first case conference on May 17, 2024. It was adjourned, as the father sought DNA paternity testing.

[17] The father delayed obtaining the DNA testing. Eventually, the testing confirmed he was the child's biological father.

[18] The parties returned to court for their next case conference on December 16, 2024. They consented to the mother having temporary decision-making responsibility for the child. They also agreed on a temporary without prejudice basis that the father start supervised parenting time with the child at Renew Supervision Services. They agreed to the existing child support order.

[19] The court heard an urgent travel motion on January 21, 2025, when the father refused to consent to the mother traveling with the child to Barbados. The court permitted the trip without the father's consent and ordered him to pay the mother's costs fixed in the amount of $2,500.

[20] On March 5, 2025, the parties finalized the issues of primary residence, decision-making responsibility for the child, rights to information and communication. On a temporary without prejudice basis, they consented to an order that the father have day parenting time with the child, with the length of the visits gradually expanding.

[21] On August 16, 2025, both parties sought to argue these motions and filing timelines were ordered.

Part Three – Parenting Time

3.1 Legal Considerations

[22] Any proceeding with respect to children is determined with respect to the best interests of the particular child before the court in accordance with the considerations set out in subsection s 24 (2) to (7) of the Children's Law Reform Act (the Act).

[23] A temporary motion is meant to provide a reasonably acceptable solution on an expeditious basis for a problem that will be fully canvassed at subsequent conferences or resolved at a trial. The status quo should be maintained until trial unless there is material evidence that the child's best interests require an immediate change. See: Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002; Costello and McLean, 2014 ONSC 7332; Munroe v. Graham, 2021 ONCJ 253; Sain v. Shahbazi, 2023 ONSC 5187.

[24] Subsection 24 (2) of the Act provides that the court must give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.

[25] Subsection 24 (3) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the court to consider related to the circumstances of the child.

[26] The list of best interests considerations in the Act is not exhaustive. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736. It is also not a checklist to be tabulated with the highest score winning. Rather, it calls for the court to take a holistic look at the child, his or her needs and the persons around the child. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.

[27] Subsection 24 (6) of the Act states that in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the child's best interests.

[28] The court has taken these factors into consideration, where relevant, in determining what parenting time orders are in the child's best interests.

3.2 Positions of the Parties

[29] The father seeks a regular parenting time schedule that can be summarized as follows:

a) Every Tuesday overnight.

b) For 4 weeks (2 visits), every other Saturday from 9 a.m. until Sunday at 5 p.m.

c) For the next 4 weeks (2 visits), every other Friday from 5 p.m. until Sunday at 5 p.m.

d) Then, every other Friday at 5 p.m. until a drop-off at daycare on Monday at 9 a.m.

[30] The father seeks Christmas holiday parenting time and parenting time on the child's birthday. The mother agreed with his proposals for this parenting time and they will be ordered.

[31] The father deposed that he has had very positive parenting time with the child and they have formed a close bond. He attached supervision observation notes from Renew Supervision Services that confirmed this. He said he has his home set up for overnight visits.

[32] The father attested that the child has transitioned well with the increases in unsupervised parenting time. He feels she will benefit from a more robust parenting time schedule.

[33] The father said he has a flexible work schedule, and can accommodate frequent visits and parenting time.

[34] The father is of Nigerian heritage. The mother is of Caribbean origin. He wants the child to benefit from learning and being exposed to both cultures.

[35] The father believes that the mother has unreasonably restricted his parenting time with the child.

[36] The mother agrees that the child's visits with the father have been positive and that overnight visits should start. She feels it is in the child's best interests to have a more gradual increase in parenting time than suggested by the father.

[37] The mother denies that she has unreasonably restricted the father's parenting time with the child. She points out that the father chose to obtain DNA paternity testing and then delayed getting it done for more than six months. This meant the child did not know him for the first year of her life and that parenting time had to be implemented gradually to develop their relationship. She said she has consented to gradual increases in parenting time in the child's best interests. She deposed that the child's relationship with the father is important and that it is also important for the child to be exposed to the father's culture.

[38] The mother stated that the child thrives on routine. She wants the parenting time to be child focused. She does not feel it is in the child's best interests to be commuting between Durham, where the father lives, and Toronto, where she lives, except on weekends.

[39] The mother's proposal for the father's temporary parenting time can be summarized as follows:

a) One overnight on alternating weekends for 3 visits (6 weeks).

b) Then, two overnights on alternating weekends.

c) Wednesday evenings from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. in Toronto.

3.3 Analysis

[40] The evidence informs the court that parenting time should take place more often than proposed by the mother but less than proposed by the father.

[41] The child's visits with the father have been positive and the child has formed a bond with him. However, she has not yet had overnight visits with him. There is usually an adjustment period for a child this age when they have never spent a night away from their primary caregiver.

[42] The court also finds it is in the child's best interests, at this time, to only commute between Durham and Toronto on weekends. She has a routine going to daycare and long travel time may disrupt that. However, the court is not as concerned with the child traveling one-way from Durham to Toronto on Monday mornings every other week, as proposed by the father.

[43] The court will order regular temporary parenting time between the father and the child as follows:

a) Starting on September 27, 2025, for 2 visits, alternate Saturdays from 9 a.m. until Sundays at 5 p.m.

b) Starting on October 24, 2025, for the next 3 visits, alternate Fridays with pick-up from daycare at 5 p.m. until Sundays at 5 p.m.

c) Starting on December 5, 2025, alternate Fridays with pick-up from daycare at 5 p.m. until drop-off at daycare on Monday at 8:30 a.m.

d) Every Wednesday from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. in Toronto.

Part Four – Government Documentation and Travel

[44] The mother seeks to dispense with the father's consent to obtain or renew government documentation for the child and to travel internationally with her. The father opposes these requests.

[45] It does not necessarily follow that if a parent is granted decision-making responsibility of a child that the right to obtain government documentation for the child without the other parent's consent or to travel with the child outside of Canada without the other parent's consent will be ordered. These are parental rights distinct from who has decision-making responsibility for the child, and without a dispensation order from a court, the consent of a parenting time parent is usually required by government authorities. These are important parental rights that are not to be dispensed with lightly. See: R.B.J. v. B.N.R.J., 2020 ONCJ 399; D.E.S.A. v. N.B., 2025 ONCJ 279; Dessye v. Lopez, 2025 ONCJ 399, per Justice Sara Mintz.

[46] The mother has good reasons to seek this relief. She successfully brought a motion to dispense with the father's consent for her to travel with the child to Barbados in January 2025 for her grandfather's funeral. The court found the father had unreasonably withheld his consent and ordered costs against him.

[47] The mother has subsequently traveled with the child internationally on two occasions – once for work purposes, and once for vacation. On both occasions the father signed the travel consents but only after delay, the involvement of counsel, and putting the mother through some emotional distress. The evidence informs the court that the father is using the requirement of his consent to take back some control he feels he has lost in this matter. This conduct is not child focused.

[48] It is in the child's best interests for the mother to obtain or renew her government documentation for her and for her to experience the benefits of international travel with the mother without obstruction from the father.

[49] The father expressed concerns about the frequency of the mother's travel with the child and does not want it to affect his parenting time. The mother has always proposed make-up time for the father when she travels. She provides him with a travel itinerary. She is prepared to give him copies of all government documents she obtains for the child. She is being very reasonable.

[50] The court will make the orders sought by the mother.

[51] The court finds it is premature to permit the father to travel internationally with the child. The child will only start having 3 consecutive overnights with him in early December and the child will need to adjust to this, and being away from the mother, before the length of parenting time is significantly expanded. However, if this parenting schedule progresses well, there is no reason the father's travel request should not be ordered in the future. The parties should keep this in mind when negotiating a final settlement.

Part Five – Child Support

5.1 Positions of the Parties

[52] The mother is seeking to impute an annual income of $236,167 to the father for the purpose of the temporary child support analysis. She asks that temporary child support start on January 1, 2024.

[53] The mother deposed that:

a) The father is a successful businessman who runs multiple group homes in the Durham region. He is the sole shareholder and director of the company that operates these homes.

b) In August 2023, the father proposed they hire a full-time nanny to assist with childcare. He said this could be paid through his corporation. The mother said she expressed her reservations with this arrangement.

c) On October 30, 2023, she and the father agreed he would pay child support to her based on his annual income of $120,000, although she suspected he was earning much more. The father paid her child support of $1,100 for both October and November 2023.

d) On December 18, 2023, the father sent her a message that his accountant had advised him to take an annual salary of $60,000 from his corporation and he would be reducing his child support payments to be based on this income, starting in January 2024.

e) The father paid her no support between March and December 2024.

f) The father has delayed in providing financial disclosure, the disclosure is incomplete and it raises more questions than answers. She requested a summary of all salaries paid by the corporation to its employees. The father refused to produce this.

g) Her estimate of the father's income is based on the $60,000 salary he claims his corporation pays him and the total shareholder equity reflected in the corporation's May 31, 2024, year-end financial statement (2024 statement).

[54] The father deposed that:

a) He started his business operating group homes for people with disabilities in June 2022. The business is incorporated. He confirmed he is the corporation's sole shareholder, director and operator.

b) The business is funded by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services through the Children's Aid Societies (the Ministry).

c) The business also operates unlicensed homes known as Outside Paid Resources. This model does not have guaranteed clients, so earnings fluctuate.

d) The corporation pays high rental costs because landlords are reluctant to rent their properties to group homes.

e) The corporation pays staff salaries, repairs and the cost of groceries and medications not covered by government funding.

f) The corporation employs more than 20 staff members and 6 contractors.

g) Retained earnings are essential to meet the operating costs of the business.

h) He said the corporation pays him an annual salary of $60,000, and that this is an accurate reflection of his income.

i) The corporation's 2025 year-end fiscal statement (2025 statement) shows it suffered a loss of $262,014.

5.2 Legal Considerations

[55] The court must determine the father's income in accordance with the guidelines. Section 2 of the guidelines provides that "income" means the annual income determined under sections 15 to 20. Where the parties do not agree on what the payor's income is, section 16 of the guidelines states that "subject to sections 17 to 20, a parent's or spouse's annual income is determined using the sources of income set out under the heading "Total income" in the T1 General form issued by the CRA and is adjusted in accordance with Schedule III." See: Isse v. Mohamud, 2022 ONCJ 337.

[56] If relying on a payor's most recent personal income tax return would not be the fairest way in which to determine their income, section 17 of the guidelines provides that the court can determine a fair and reasonable amount having regard to the payor's income over the last three years and "any pattern of income, fluctuation of income or receipt of a non-recurring amount".

5.2.1 Imputation of Corporate Income

[57] When an individual solely owns a corporation, they control how much they are paid, whether through salary or dividends. They need to show what they pay themselves is a reliable indicator of what they are actually earning. See: Crightney v. Garcia, 2024 ONCJ 431.

[58] Section 18 of the guidelines comes into play when the payor is the sole shareholder of a corporation. This section gives the court discretion to attribute some or all of the pre-tax income of a corporation to the shareholder, director or officer personally or, in the alternative, to attribute an amount less than or equal to the pre-tax corporate income that is commensurate with the services that the parent provides to the corporation.

[59] Whenever section 18 of the guidelines comes into play, the onus is on the shareholder, director or officer to show that corporate monies, whether retained earnings or pre-tax corporate income, are not available for support purposes. See: Nesbitt v. Nesbitt, 2001 MBCA 113, paras. 19 & 21; Hausmann v. Klukas, 2009 BCCA 32, paras 51-61. That is because the payor parent knows more about the business than the recipient and is therefore in the best position to explain why some or all of the company's pre-tax income is not available for support. See: Elder v. Dirstein, 2012 ONSC 2852; Fiorenza v. Mitic, 2024 ONCJ 467.

[60] Section 18 of the guidelines makes it clear that the court should first consider whether expenses should be added back to the corporation's pre-tax income, and then whether all or part of the adjusted pre-tax income should be attributed to a parent's income for support purposes. See: Ward v. Murphy, 2022 NSCA 20.

[61] The court is not required to add any pre-corporate income to the payor's income. This is discretionary. In Ward, the court set out these factors:

a) One should not interfere with corporate decisions to meet corporate sustainability.

b) The onus is on the shareholder parent to establish the income is not available for support purposes.

c) What is the nature of the business?

d) Is there a business reason for retained earnings?

e) What is the historical practice for retained earnings?

f) What degree of corporate control does the payor exercise?

g) Are arms-length shareholders involved?

h) Depreciation.

i) Possible economic downturns.

j) Return on invested capital.

[62] Under the "unlimited rule", the court is not limited to attributing only the corporate pre-tax income of the previous year. Rather, the court can combine sections 17 and 18 of the guidelines so as to consider a "pattern", or average, of corporate pre-tax income. See: Mason v. Mason (2016), 2016 ONCA 725; Nesbitt v. Nesbitt (2001), 2001 MBCA 113.

[63] In Dreesen v. Dreesen, 2021 ONCA 557, the court stated that the onus of proving the need for retained earnings in a corporation is on the party trying to justify the reduction of income. They have the obligation to produce evidence, including documentation to ground a broader consideration of the nature of the corporations' business and why there are legitimate calls on its corporate income for the purposes of that business. See Kowalewich v. Kowalewich, 2001 BCCA 450, at para. 58; Thompson v. Thompson, 2013 ONSC 5500, at paras. 91-93.

5.2.2 Imputation of Personal Income

[64] The court can also impute income to the father pursuant to section 19 of the guidelines as it considers appropriate.

[65] The jurisprudence for imputation of income when there is a claim that the payor is not accurately reporting their 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. See: Drygala v. Pauli.

b) 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.

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) 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. This principle also applies where the person's employment income is derived from a corporation that he or she fully controls. See: MacKenzie v. Flynn, 2010 ONCJ 184; Yocheva v. Hristov, 2019 ONSC 1007; Poulin v. Poulin, 2017 ONSC 64.

f) 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; Sobiegraj v. Sobiegraj, 2014 ONSC 2030; Lu v. Zhao, 2012 ONSC 5354, aff'd 2014 ONCA 12.

g) 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.

h) 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.

i) 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.

5.3 Analysis of the Father's Income

[66] The court finds that the father did not provide timely, complete and comprehensible financial disclosure. He was unable, through his counsel, to make sense of his corporate financial statements. He provided no evidence that expenses he claimed were not covered by the corporation's contract with the Ministry. He provided no direct evidence from the corporation's accountant who might have been able to answer many of the questions that will be set out below.

[67] The father did not file an updated personal financial statement for this motion, as required by subrule 13 (12) of the Family Law Rules. His last sworn financial statement was February 27, 2025. An updated financial statement was important to determine how the father financed the corporation's business losses reflected in the 2025 statement.

[68] For these reasons, the court draws an adverse inference against the father.

[69] The father did not meet his onus to show the salary the corporation pays him is a reliable indicator of his income.

[70] The father's corporate financial disclosure raised the following unanswered questions:

a) Why didn't he increase his income when the corporation's income increased from $324,787 in its 2023 fiscal year-end statement (2023 statement) to $1,441,287 in its 2024 statement?

b) Why didn't he increase his income when the corporation's assets increased from $104,685 in the 2023 statement to $438,566 in the 2024 statement?

c) Why did the amount due to shareholders increase from $23,100 in the 2023 statement to $152,308 in the 2024 statement?

d) Why was the shareholder amount due to him in the 2024 statement not listed as an asset on his last personal financial statement?

e) Why was there a huge difference in travel, vehicle and supply expenses claimed in the 2024 and 2025 statements?

f) Why did the rent expenses go from $8,000 in the 2023 statement to $359,708 in the 2024 statement and back down to $73,113 in the 2025 statement?

g) Why did the payroll jump from $149,588 in the 2024 statement to $595,630 in the 2025 statement, when the gross revenue went down to $1,006,596? Perhaps, if the father had disclosed payroll details, as requested by the mother, the court would have an explanation.

h) How did the father finance the purported corporate loss of $262,014 in the 2025 statement? If he had filed an updated personal financial statement, as required, this might have been explained.

i) And, if he financed a corporate business loss, why did he not disclose to the mother, when requested, the details of any loan application to do so?

j) Why did the corporation's assets jump from $394,564 in the 2024 statement to $729,183 in the 2025 statement when the corporation was purportedly losing significant money? What are the "other assets" of $210,827 listed in the 2025 statement?

k) Why did the amount due to shareholders jump from $117,507 in the 2024 statement to $613,596 in the 2025 statement? Why was this not reported by the father as an asset in his personal financial statement? Where did these funds come from?

[71] The father is running a business grossing over one million dollars a year. Based on the evidence he provided, it is not credible that he is only earning $60,000 annually.

[72] The challenge for the court is to determine what is a reasonable amount for the corporation to pay the father.

[73] The mother's estimate of the father's income is too high. It is not fair to include the entire corporate net profit before tax and retained earnings from the 2024 statement in his income. The corporation has to pay several staff and maintain multiple sites. It is appropriate that the corporation retain some of its earnings to meet these obligations.

[74] The court will take a conservative approach in its assessment of the father's income at this time. The trial judge will be in a better position to assess his income after the evidence is thoroughly presented and tested and will be able to adjust the amount ordered in this decision. However, this does not mean that the court will permit the father to pay temporary child support based on the very low income he chooses to take from the corporation. The child requires a fair amount of child support now.

[75] The court accepts the mother's evidence that the parties agreed in October 2023 that the father would pay child support based on his represented annual income of $120,000, even though she suspected he was earning more. This is likely closer to the father's actual income and the court will base its temporary child support order on it.

[76] The court will not gross up the father's income on a temporary basis. See: Sarafinchin v. Sarafinchin; Prillo v. Homer, 2023 ONCJ 8. If the trial judge finds that the father deducted personal expenses in his corporate financial statements, these should be added back and grossed up. See: Fiorenza v. Mitic, 2024 ONCJ 467. However, if the trial judge only orders additional corporate pre-tax income and retained earnings be added to the father's personal income, those amounts are not grossed-up. See: Van Boekel v. Van Boekel, 2020 ONSC 5265. This is an exercise best left to the trial judge.

[77] The court strongly recommends that the father retain a Certified Business Valuator to conduct an income analysis.

5.4 The Start Date for Support

[78] The mother is claiming temporary child support from the start of this case. This is presumptively payable. See: MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, at para. 22. The father did not rebut this presumption.

[79] The guidelines table support amount for one child based on an annual income of $120,000, starting on January 1, 2024, is $1,068 each month.

[80] The guidelines table amounts changed on September 10, 2025. Starting on October 1, 2025, the father's child support payments shall increase to $1,091 each month.

Part Six – Conclusion

[81] A temporary order shall go on the following terms and conditions:

a) Temporary parenting time between the father and the child shall now be as follows:

i. Starting on September 27, 2025, for 2 visits, alternate Saturdays from 9 a.m. until Sundays at 5 p.m.

ii. Starting on October 24, 2025, for the next 3 visits, alternate Fridays with pick-up from daycare at 5 p.m. until Sundays at 5 p.m.

iii. Starting on December 5, 2025, alternate Fridays with pick-up from daycare at 5 p.m. until drop-off at daycare on Mondays at 8:30 a.m.

iv. Every Wednesday from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. in Toronto.

v. The child's birthday from 3 p.m. with drop-off at daycare the next day at 8:30 a.m.

vi. From December 24, 2025 at 4 p.m. until December 25, 2025 at 4 p.m.

b) If the daycare is closed, the father shall exchange the child at the mother's home.

c) The mother may obtain or renew government documentation for the child without the father's consent. She shall provide him, on request, with copies of these documents.

d) The mother may travel outside of Canada with the child without the father's consent. She shall provide him with an itinerary of the trip at least 7 days in advance and provide him with contact numbers.

e) If the mother is traveling internationally with the child during the father's regular parenting time, she shall offer him make-up parenting time to take place within the month after she returns to Canada.

f) The father's request to travel internationally with the child is dismissed.

g) The father shall pay the mother child support of $1,068 each month starting on January 1, 2024. This is the guidelines table amount for one child based on an annual imputed income to him of $120,000.

h) Starting on October 1, 2025, the child support payments shall increase to $1,091 each month.

i) The father shall be credited with child support payments made since January 1, 2024, as reflected in the records of the Family Responsibility Office, or as acknowledged, in writing, by the mother.

j) A support deduction order shall issue.

k) The father shall serve and file an updated sworn financial statement within 14 days, with all attachments required by the Family Law Rules.

[82] If either party seeks costs, they shall serve and file written submissions by October 6, 2025. The other party will then have until October 20, 2025 to serve and file their written response (not to include their own claim for costs). The submissions shall not exceed 3 pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle. They are to be either delivered or emailed to the trial coordinator's office.

[83] The court has scheduled the next date for a settlement conference. If the case is not resolved at that time, it will be placed on the next available trial sittings.

[84] The court thanks counsel for their professional presentation of this matter.

Released: September 22, 2025

Justice S.B. Sherr