Homeward v. Miller, 2026 ONCJ 213
CITATION: Homeward v. Miller, 2026 ONCJ 213
DATE: April 9, 2026
Court File Number: FO-15-81787-02
Ontario Court of Justice
47 Sheppard Ave. E., North York, ON
Applicant: Liana Maria Ruth Homeward
Counsel: Pamila Bhardwaj
Respondent: Ziggy Anthony Miller
Endorsement
Justice J.S. Daudlin
Reasons for Judgment – Focused Hearing (Heard April 1, 2026)
Part One – Introduction
This was a focused hearing on child support arising from the father’s amended motion to change heard on April 1, 2026. The father sought a retroactive and prospective reduction of his child support obligation. The mother opposed the requested reduction and sought an increase in ongoing child support to reflect minimum wage.
The hearing proceeded by way of written direct examination and oral cross-examination of the father and the mother, followed by closing submissions.
Part Two – Background
There is an existing final order made on consent of the parties by Justice Zisman on October 17, 2018, requiring the father to pay child support for the parties’ two children in the amount of $447 per month, based on income imputed at minimum wage (then $29,120), together with a monthly arrears payment.
On January 31, 2025, the father issued a Motion to Change and subsequently amended it.
The mother filed a response to Motion to Change on October 1, 2025.
Part Three – The parties’ positions
The father asked that child support be reduced to $200 per month as of April 1, 2026. He also sought adjustments to arrears from January 1, 2021 forward, based on his assessed income. In his submissions, the father maintained that he was willing to assist financially but said he was not able to pay more, that he never earned the income imputed to him in the final order, having consistently been in receipt of social assistance, that he lost his job in 2023 and had subsequently not been able to find work. In 2025, the father enrolled in an online college program for which he received OSAP, which replaced the social assistance funding he had been receiving.
The mother asked that the father’s amended motion be dismissed and that child support be increased to $555 per month for two children, based on the current minimum wage, commencing January 1, 2026. The mother submitted that the father had not met the legal threshold to vary support downward, particularly because existing order is already grounded in a minimum‑wage imputation at a time when the father was in receipt of social assistance. The mother further submitted that the father’s reliance on schooling did not justify reduced support on the record before the Court, and that an adverse inference was available in relation to the state of financial disclosure and the overall financial picture presented.
Part Four – Issues to be determined:
- The issues for determination were:
a. Whether the father or the mother established a material change in circumstances since the existing final order.
b. If the threshold were met, the appropriate amount of child support payable and effective date.
Part Five – Legal framework and governing principles
The court adopts the framework set out in Colucci v. Colucci 2021 SCC 24.
A party seeking to vary child support under a final order must first establish a material change in circumstances. The threshold is significant: absent a material change, a final order is not revisited simply because one party wishes to re-argue the issue.
Where an existing order is already based on an income imputed at minimum wage, a party seeking a reduction must demonstrate why it is no longer reasonable to attribute at least minimum‑wage earning capacity to that party. If, and only if, the material change threshold is met, the Court then determines the appropriate support amount under the Child Support Guidelines, including whether income should be imputed.
Part Six – Analysis and conclusion
6.1 Material change
The Court is not satisfied that either the father or the mother has established a material change in circumstances since the existing final order that would warrant a variation of child support.
The existing child support order is grounded in an imputation of income at minimum wage. In practical terms, the order does not assume that the father is earning a particular career income. Rather, it proceeds on the basis that the father has the capacity to earn at least minimum wage and must pay Guideline support on that basis. Any party seeking to vary that order bears the onus of demonstrating, with a sufficient and reliable evidentiary foundation, that this baseline assumption is no longer reasonable.
On the evidence presented at this focused hearing, the Court is not satisfied that it is no longer appropriate to impute at least minimum‑wage earning capacity to the father attributed to him in 2018. The father did not establish that his circumstances have materially worsened so as to justify a downward departure from that baseline. At the same time, the Court is not satisfied that the evidence establishes a material improvement in the father’s circumstances sufficient to justify an upward variation beyond what was contemplated when the final order was made in 2018.
With respect to the father’s request for a reduction, the evidence of employment‑search efforts was thin and largely unparticularized. While the father testified that he had applied for work and asserted that he had proof of additional applications, the record lacked the basic particulars that would ordinarily allow the Court to assess whether he has made reasonable and sustained efforts to secure employment at or above minimum wage. There was no coherent chronology of job‑search activity, no list of positions applied for with dates, no application materials or responses, and no independent confirmation of work‑search requirements or compliance. On this record, the Court is not satisfied that the father demonstrated an inability to earn at least minimum wage.
The father’s reliance on schooling did not fill that evidentiary gap. While the father linked his current circumstances to school and to business‑related activities associated with his studies, the evidence did not establish the practical constraints schooling imposes on employability or earning capacity. The record did not clearly address whether the program is full‑time or part‑time, the weekly time commitment, the father’s availability for employment outside of class hours, or why schooling should operate to reduce support where the imputed income is already set at minimum wage. The Court was not provided with a clear, concrete plan demonstrating that any departure from the existing baseline would be necessary, time‑limited, and proportionate, or that the father was nevertheless maximising his earning capacity while in school.
The Court also considered the evidence relating to the father’s current sources of income and financial support. The father is no longer in receipt of Ontario Works and is presently receiving OSAP funding for the 2025–2026 academic year in a total amount of $29,175, consisting of $15,265 in non‑repayable grants and $13,910 in student loans. The OSAP documentation confirms that the father’s tuition and education‑related expenses are addressed through loan funding and direct payments to the educational institution, while the grant portion of the OSAP funding is tax‑free and available to the father to meet his ordinary living expenses.
Courts have consistently held that OSAP grants may properly be included in income and grossed‑up for child‑support purposes where they are tax‑free, recurrent, generated through academic participation, and used to pay living expenses rather than education costs. In Mwenda v. Matituka, 2018 ONCJ 503, the Court identified several factors supporting the inclusion of OSAP grants as income in such circumstances, including that the grants are earned through expected academic work, are paid as of right, recur over time, contribute significantly to living expenses, and are distinct from loan funding used for education costs. That approach has been applied more recently in Fiorenza v. Mitic, 2024 ONCJ 467 and in K.H.S. v. K.S., 2025 ONCJ 436, where student grants were included in income and grossed‑up. Consistent with that jurisprudence, the Court has considered the grossed‑up value of the father’s OSAP grants as income available to him during the relevant period.
However, when assessed on the totality of the evidence, the Court is not satisfied that this change reflects a material change in the father’s earning capacity. The transition from Ontario Works to OSAP funding represents a change in the source of income available to the father, not a demonstrated increase in his capacity to earn income beyond the minimum‑wage baseline reflected in the existing order. The OSAP grants do not support a finding that the father’s income has decreased so as to justify a reduction, nor do they establish that he now has the capacity to earn more than what was contemplated when minimum‑wage income was imputed in 2018.
The Court also considered the parties’ evidence regarding the father’s two business ventures, including the online “healthy to the end” juice business and a wall‑mounting business. The evidence did not establish that either venture is currently operating at capacity or generating income. More importantly, even if the Court were satisfied that those businesses were operational and functioning at capacity—which it is not—the evidence does not demonstrate that they generate, or are capable of generating on a sustained basis, income exceeding the $29,120 earning capacity already imputed to the father. Accordingly, the evidence relating to these business activities does not support a finding that the father presently has the capacity to earn more than what was contemplated in the existing order.
Accordingly, the Court is not satisfied, on the totality of the evidence, that either party has established a material change in circumstances warranting a variation of child support.
6.2 Notice of education completion and changes in income source
While the Court is not satisfied that either party has established a material change in circumstances at this time, this conclusion should not be taken as a determination that the father’s circumstances are static or incapable of improvement. The Court expects that the father will make diligent and sustained efforts to secure employment as his circumstances permit, including but not limited to employment consistent with his education and skill set.
The father is expected to promptly advise the mother in writing if and when he obtains employment, if his source of income changes, and when he completes his business program. Such developments may be relevant to any future consideration of child support, should reliable evidence establish a material change in earning capacity at that time.
Part Seven – Costs
With respect to costs, this was a focused hearing on a motion to change in which both parties advanced arguable positions. Neither party was substantially successful, and the Court is not satisfied that the circumstances justify an award of costs. In the exercise of the Court’s discretion, and having regard to the nature of the issues and the manner in which the matter was litigated, there shall be no order as to costs.
For these reasons the following orders shall issue.
Orders:
The father’s motion to change is dismissed.
The mother’s cross-motion to change is dismissed.
The child support provisions of the final order dated October 17, 2018 shall remain in full force and effect.
The father shall make diligent and ongoing efforts to obtain employment, including employment consistent with his education, skills, and experience, as his circumstances permit.
The father shall promptly notify the mother in writing of any change in his source of income, including but not limited to obtaining employment, commencing self‑employment, or receiving income from business activities.
The father shall notify the mother in writing when he completes his business management program, or any other post‑secondary program in which he is currently enrolled.
There shall be no costs of these proceedings.
April 29, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., is vacated.
Signed: Justice J.S. Daudlin