DATE: February 17, 2026

COURT FILE NO. D46130/25

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

PARGOL MAJLESI

SHIVANI SHARDA, for the APPLICANT

APPLICANT

• and – ARASH DAMANPAK-RIZI

ACTING IN PERSON

RESPONDENT

HEARD: FEBRUARY 13, 2026

JUSTICE S.B. SHERR

REASONS FOR DECISION

Part One – Introduction

[ 1 ] This trial was about what spousal support, if any, the respondent should pay to the applicant.

[ 2 ] The applicant seeks spousal support from the respondent in the amount of $970 each month, for a duration of 2.5 years. She asks to impute the respondent’s annual income at $144,000 for the purpose of this analysis.

[ 3 ] The respondent submits that the applicant is not entitled to spousal support. He further submits that he has no ability to pay spousal support because he has been unable to work since being in a motor vehicle accident (the accident) in October 2023. He is in receipt of social assistance. He asks that the applicant’s claim for spousal support be dismissed. [^1]

[ 4 ] The court relied on the affidavits and financial statements filed by the parties. It also relied on a document brief filed by the applicant, and medical reports and documents filed by the respondent at a prior court appearance. [^2] At trial, the respondent was permitted to file a brief medical note from his family doctor. The parties both testified and were cross-examined. No other witnesses testified at the trial.

[ 5 ] A Farsi interpreter was available for the applicant at trial. At her request, she only used the interpreter when needed.

[ 6 ] The issues for this court to decide are as follows:

a) Is the applicant entitled to spousal support?

b) If so, what, if any, income should be imputed to the applicant for the purpose of the spousal support analysis?

c) What, if any, income should be imputed to the respondent for the purpose of the spousal support analysis?

d) If spousal support is payable, what should be the start date, duration and amount of the spousal support order?

Part Two – Brief background facts

[ 7 ] The applicant is 34 years old. The respondent is 38 years old.

[ 8 ] The parties married in Iran in December 2019.

[ 9 ] The respondent sponsored the applicant to immigrate to Canada. She arrived in Canada in October 2020. She now has permanent residence status.

[ 10 ] The parties have no children.

[ 11 ] The respondent financially supported the applicant after she arrived in Canada. He is an experienced carpenter. He ran two businesses during their relationship. He ran a construction business with three employees. He also had a 50% interest in a cannabis business.

[ 12 ] The applicant started working part-time at retail stores in 2021.

[ 13 ] The applicant had limited English skills when she arrived in Canada. She took English classes while working and returned to school in September 2024. She is presently attending college to become a paralegal.

[ 14 ] The respondent’s accident happened in October 2023 while he was riding an e-bike. He was in hospital for three weeks and in a rehabilitation clinic for another six weeks. He received accident benefits from his insurer until January 2025. He then received social assistance payments.

[ 15 ] The parties separated in October 2024. They have not reconciled.

[ 16 ] The applicant issued her application on May 21, 2025.

[ 17 ] The respondent issued his answer/claim on July 3, 2025.

Part Three – Is the applicant entitled to spousal support?

3.1 Legal considerations

[ 18 ] Section 30 of the Family Law Act (the Act) states that every spouse has an obligation to provide support for himself or herself and for the other spouse, in accordance with need, to the extent that he or she is capable of doing so.

[ 19 ] Subsection 33 (8) of the Act sets out the purposes of spousal support and subsection 33 (9) sets out the considerations for the determination of the amount, if any, and duration of spousal support. The court has considered these subsections in making its decision.

[ 20 ] Spousal support is not merely a consideration of needs and means. In determining the appropriate amount of spousal support, compensatory and non-compensatory considerations should be taken into account in an effort to equitably alleviate the economic consequences of the breakdown of the relationship. See: Rioux v. Rioux , 2009 ONCA 569 , [2009] 97 O.R. (3d) 102 (OCA). Entitlement can be based on compensatory, non-compensatory or contractual grounds. See: Bracklow v. Bracklow .

[ 21 ] Where compensation is not the basis, a support obligation may arise from the marriage relationship itself when a spouse is unable to become self-sufficient. It can be based on need. Under this model, spousal support will be based on economic hardship resulting from the breakdown of the marriage, but not necessarily the roles assumed during the marriage. See: Bracklow , supra .

[ 22 ] In determining need, courts ought to be guided in part by the principle that the spouse receiving support is entitled to maintain the standard of living to which she was accustomed at the time cohabitation ceased. The analysis must consider the recipient’s ability to support herself, in light of her income and reasonable expenses. See: Gray v. Gray , 2014 ONCA 659 .

[ 23 ] The word “need” is not limited to one’s basic needs. It can be interpreted to cover situations where a spouse suffers a significant decline in the standard of living he or she enjoyed during the relationship. See: McIntyre v. Winter , 2020 ONSC 4376 ; Nixon v. Lumsden , 2020 ONSC 147 .

3.2 Analysis

[ 24 ] The applicant claims she is entitled to spousal support on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. [^3] The respondent submits she is not entitled to spousal support.

[ 25 ] The applicant established a minor compensatory claim for spousal support and a non-compensatory claim for spousal support for the following reasons:

a) The applicant was studying Urban Design in Iran. She gave up her studies and left her family support system in Iran to come to Canada to join the respondent. She spoke little English. Her marketability in the workforce has been delayed and compromised by her move to Canada.

b) The applicant was financially dependent on the respondent during their relationship.

c) The parties lived a comfortable lifestyle during their marriage. The respondent bought several pieces of jewelry for the applicant. He provided her with a car. They lived together in a house.

d) The applicant suffered an economic disadvantage by the breakdown of the relationship. Her standard of living plummeted. The respondent took back her car. She has had to rely on student loans and family support to survive. [^4]

e) The applicant needs support to complete her education and become economically self-sufficient.

[ 26 ] The respondent submitted that the applicant has not made suitable efforts to become self-sufficient. The court disagrees. She worked part-time soon after coming to Canada. She realized she needed to upgrade her English skills and education to become more marketable. She is now taking a paralegal course. It ends in April 2026. She will need to do 240 hours of job placement before she can write her licensing exams. She hopes to work as a legal assistant before she writes her exams. She anticipates writing the exams in October 2027. The court finds this is a reasonable career path.

Part Four – Should any income be imputed to the applicant?

[ 27 ] The answer to this question is no. The applicant continues to work part-time while going to school full-time. Her career path is reasonable. Her efforts to become self-sufficient are reasonable. The applicant is earning annual income of $12,000. The court will use that income for the purpose of the spousal support analysis.

Part Five – What, if any, income should be imputed to the respondent?

5.1 Position and narrative of the applicant

[ 28 ] The applicant asks the court to impute annual income of $144,000 to the respondent. She alleges the following:

a) The respondent only missed two to three months of work after the October 2023 accident. She says he worked full-time starting in 2024.

b) The respondent only suffered a broken leg and had no other injuries in the accident.

c) The respondent ran a successful construction business with three employees. He also paid $200,000 for a 50% share in a cannabis business in 2022 or 2023. She believes he received $6,000 each month for his share of profits.

d) She and the respondent completed an application to rent a home in Toronto in July 2024. The respondent represented to the landlord that his income was $12,000 monthly. The respondent paid $24,000 to the landlord for a 10-month advance of rent. She produced a copy of the lease and lease application confirming these representations.

e) The respondent operates his businesses in cash. His income tax returns do not accurately reflect his income.

f) The respondent continued to run his businesses while collecting accident benefits and social assistance. His bank and credit card statements show frequent gas purchases and purchases of building materials that indicate he is operating his businesses.

g) The respondent is leading a lifestyle inconsistent with the nominal income he claims to be earning.

h) The respondent only provided partial financial disclosure.

i) The respondent is dishonest. He told her that he owned a home and a had a business in interior design to induce her to come to Canada. This was false. He took back the car he gifted to her when they separated.

5.2 Position and narrative of the respondent

[ 29 ] The respondent deposed that:

a) He has multiple physical injuries that prevent him from doing any work. He deposed that he broke his leg, had meniscus tears in both knees, one knee requires further surgery, he broke his right shoulder bone, he is scheduled for surgery on his right elbow in March 2026, and he has injuries to his back, right arm, and right wrist. He has seen multiple specialists. He sees his family doctor every two weeks and attends physiotherapy weekly.

b) He has not worked since the accident in October 2023. He received $800 bi-weekly from the insurer until those benefits expired. He then went on social assistance. He presently receives monthly social assistance payments of $733. He has been approved for ODSP payments and should start receiving them by April 2026.

c) His mother gives him additional money most months to meet his basic needs. He estimated she gives him about $1,000 each month. In some months, he said she gives him $1,500.

d) He could no longer operate his construction business after the accident and dissolved it. He had his employees complete one job in 2024. However, he lost money on the project.

e) He had $400,000 when he met the applicant and has lost all of it.

f) His business partner in the cannabis business disappeared after taking his investment funds of $200,000. He cannot find him. He issued a lawsuit against him. He earned nothing from this business. He was only an investor and not involved in its operations. The business is no longer in operation.

g) He lost $100,000 he put down in 2019 as a deposit for a condominium that was in pre-construction. He walked away from the agreement when real estate prices dropped, and he lost the deposit. He deposed he is being sued for failing to close this agreement.

h) He has assumed all the family debts. He deposed in his June 20, 2025 financial statement that these debts are close to $105,000.

i) He sold his work tools over the past two years and received about $15,000 for them.

j) He sleeps in a car parked in his mother’s backyard because of a dispute with his father.

k) He will not be able to work for a long time.

5.3 Legal considerations

[ 30 ] 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:

a) Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?

b) If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of a child or reasonable health needs?

c) If not, what income is appropriately imputed?

[ 31 ] The test for imputing income for child support purposes applies equally for spousal support purposes. See: Rilli v. Rilli , [2006] O.J. No. 4142 (SCJ.).; Kanwal et al v. Zaman et al , 2025 ONSC 5274 .

[ 32 ] The case law for imputation of income in these circumstances sets out the following:

a) 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.

b) 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 .

c) The receipt of ODSP or Workplace Safety and Insurance Board benefits 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 ODSP. 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 ; Bougataya v. Turkmen , 2023 ONCJ 341 .

d) 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 (C.A.), at paras. 33-35 ; Gostevskikh v. Gostevskikh , 2018 BCSC 1441 (S.C.); M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207 .

e) 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 .

f) 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 .

g) 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 .

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

i) 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).

j) However, the failure to provide such evidence is not an absolute bar to a party resisting a claim for imputation of their income based on medical reasons. If the court believes the party’s evidence about their medical impairments, that can be a sufficient basis not to impute income. There is a small segment of litigants who have legitimate medical issues, but who are too overwhelmed by the process to obtain the necessary medical evidence to corroborate it. Their medical issues are often the very reason they are overwhelmed and cannot produce this evidence. When the court finds this is happening, it is left to assess the credibility and reliability of the party’s evidence. See: M.D. v. A.H ., 2026 ONCJ 46 .

k) Even if the court accepts that the party has health-related challenges that may impact their income earning capacity, it must consider the nature and extent of the impact and whether the party could work on a part-time basis or in a less demanding position. See: Bentley v. Bentley , 2009 CarswellOnt 562 (S.C.J.) ; Kinsella v. Mills , 2020 ONSC 4785 .

5.4 Analysis

5.4.1 Should income be imputed to the respondent because he can work?

[ 33 ] The answer to this question is no.

[ 34 ] The respondent suffered major injuries in his motor vehicle accident. The applicant acknowledges that he was hospitalized and in a rehabilitation clinic for two to three months after the accident and afterwards had physiotherapists, massage therapists and a personal support worker come regularly to the home. He also went weekly to a clinic for physiotherapy.

[ 35 ] The respondent provided documentary evidence confirming his weekly attendance at a pain clinic.

[ 36 ] The respondent provided a medical report from his family doctor. The family doctor, who was a participant expert [^5] , set out the following in his report dated June 30, 2025:

a) The respondent had been under his care since September 10, 2024.

b) The respondent was hospitalized for three weeks and was in a rehabilitation facility for 6 weeks.

c) The respondent had an operation on both of his knees in October 2024.

d) The respondent has chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain, specifically the head, neck, shoulders and back.

e) For the past nine months, the respondent has received interventional treatment in the form of nerve block therapy on a weekly basis to manage his chronic pain symptoms.

f) The respondent’s injuries have significantly impaired his functional capacity and ability to engage in regular employment. He has been unfit to work since the accident.

[ 37 ] The respondent also provided a brief note from his family doctor dated February 3, 2026. The doctor wrote:

It is verified that Mr. Arash Damanpak-Rizi visits this clinic at 6 Finch Avenue West, Toronto once a week every Tuesday for intervention pain management. His treatment is ongoing for long term. This letter is issued upon his request for transportation.

[ 38 ] The respondent filed a practitioner’s report, dated June 25, 2025, from Dr. Saba Hadipoor, of the Yonge Cummer Rehabilitation Clinic. She is a participant expert. She wrote that:

a) The respondent has attended the clinic since February 12, 2025.

b) The respondent completed sixty-six sessions of multiple treatments including physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage.

c) The respondent’s improvement is minimal to moderate, but he needs frequent treatment to be able to do his activities of daily living and be able to return to work.

d) The respondent’s list of diagnoses include:

i) Fracture of the shaft of the tibia.

ii) Post-concussion syndrome.

iii) Scoliosis.

iv) Contusion of the hips.

v) Contusion of the knee.

vi) Injury to other muscles and tendons at the shoulder and upper arm level.

vii) Headaches.

viii) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

ix) Anxiety Disorders.

x) Sleep Disorders.

xi) Sprain and strain of the cervical spine.

xii) Sprain and strain of the thoracic spine.

xiii) Chronic mechanical low back pain.

xiv) Rotator cuff tendinopathy.

xv) Disorders of the patella.

xvi) Elbow strain.

xvii) Unspecified injuries of the wrist and the hand.

[ 39 ] The applicant did not cross-examine the participant experts. She asserted that the respondent was working full-time, notwithstanding the medical evidence.

[ 40 ] The applicant minimized the respondent’s injuries at trial. She maintained he only broke his leg. She claimed to have no knowledge about why the respondent had a large scar on his right arm. [^6] The respondent had surgery on both knees in October 2024. The medical reports corroborated that the respondent suffered multiple severe injuries to various parts of his body. The applicant lived with the respondent until October 2024. She knew his injuries were more severe than she stated.

[ 41 ] The court treated the applicant’s evidence that the respondent was working full-time, starting early in 2024, with considerable caution. Her minimization of the respondent’s injuries undermined her credibility. Her credibility was also impaired because she sought to impute annual income of $144,000 to the respondent. This was an unrealistic request. The medical evidence and bank and credit card records of the respondent filed did not come close to supporting her assertions.

[ 42 ] The respondent’s job skills are in construction – particularly in carpentry. The medical evidence satisfies the court that the respondent is incapable of doing this work and may be incapable of doing this work for a long time.

[ 43 ] The respondent focused on his physical injuries at trial. However, it became evident to the court during the trial that the respondent is also suffering from significant mental health issues.

[ 44 ] The respondent struggled to present his case coherently at trial. He was emotional and lacked focus. He had trouble tracking questions and answered them tangentially. He presented as very anxious. He spoke very quickly, raced between thoughts, and would quickly become animated and upset. He talked about a suicide attempt two weeks ago.

[ 45 ] The court asked the respondent if he was receiving help for his anxiety. He provided detailed information. He named the psychiatrist he is seeing every week. He set out two medications he is taking every day to control his anxiety. It was apparent to the court that the respondent was unaware that presenting medical evidence about his mental health challenges would assist his position.

[ 46 ] This case is like M.D. v. A.H. , supra , where this court found that the nature of the litigant’s mental health issues made it difficult for her to gather and present the required medical evidence to corroborate them. Here, the court observed the respondent and finds that he has serious mental health issues that impair his ability to work.

[ 47 ] The court finds that the respondent is barely functional, physically, and emotionally. He is not presently capable of retraining. He is not employable. No income will be imputed to him based on an ability to work.

5.4.2 Should income be imputed to the respondent for any other reason?

[ 48 ] The analysis of the respondent’s income was complicated because he was not a credible nor a reliable witness regarding the financial issues. The court makes these findings for the following reasons:

a) The respondent was evasive when asked questions about his income history, claiming at times that he could not remember because of his pain medication.

b) In 2024, the respondent represented to a prospective landlord that he was earning $12,000 each month. This was false.

c) The respondent testified at various times that he previously earned $50,000 to $60,000, $100,000, and $140,000 annually. His 2022 notice of assessment shows an income of $9,600. He reported annual income under $28,000 in his 2023 income tax return. He significantly underreported his income to the Canada Revenue Agency prior to the accident.

d) He provided partial financial disclosure. He did not provide any corporate tax returns or financial statements from his businesses.

e) He exhibited a poor memory of dates and events. He testified he was receiving monthly insurance benefits until the fall of 2025 and then went on social assistance. However, a review of his bank records show that he received his last payment from his insurer in January 2025 and then went on social assistance. At another point he testified that his accident benefits ended because he had received the maximum benefits of $67,000. However, his bank records only showed bi-weekly payments of $800. [^7] He conceded his memory has been poor since the accident. The court finds that the respondent was not trying to deceive the court about his accident benefits – he was agitated and could not provide accurate information to the court.

f) He gave confusing evidence about his living arrangements. In his one financial statement filed, sworn on June 20, 2025, he deposed that he was not paying rent to his parents. At trial, he said he was paying $500 each month to them for rent. He also claimed he was living in his car in the backyard of this home. He said he was receiving $1,000 each month from his mother to support him. This made little sense if she was also charging him $500 each month for rent.

[ 49 ] The applicant alleged the respondent’s bank and credit card statements show that he is leading a lifestyle beyond the revenue he claims to be receiving. The court disagrees with the applicant. The court carefully reviewed the bank and credit card statements – especially the respondent’s 2025 statements. The statements show that the respondent is living a very modest lifestyle. There are no extravagances. Most of the expenses in the statements are for trips to fast food outlets or to variety stores. The respondent acknowledged he spends about $100 to $150 each month on cannabis. The court does not view this expense as extravagant given the pain he is enduring.

[ 50 ] The respondent’s statements show high fuel costs. The applicant alleges this proves the respondent is still running a business. She also alleged there were purchases for the respondent’s businesses on the statements. The court prefers the respondent’s explanation that he has high fuel costs because he is frequently traveling from his parents’ home in King City to Toronto for medical and physiotherapy appointments. The court did not see payments for supplies in the respondent’s bank or credit card statements during 2025 that would lead to an inference that he was operating a business.

[ 51 ] The respondent testified that some of the deposits in his bank account are from the sale of his tools. He could not identify which deposits were from these sales and provided no documentary evidence of them. The court treated this evidence with caution.

[ 52 ] Where a party receives regular gifts from his or her parent, the court may impute the amount of those gifts as income for support purposes. See: Bak v. Dobell 2007 ONCA 304 ; Korman v. Korman, 2015 ONCA 578 ; Marello v. Marello , 2016 ONSC 835 . Courts look at whether the gifts are regular and are likely to continue. See: Horowitz v. Nightingale , 2015 CarswellOnt 204 (SCJ) ; R.A.K. v. M.Z., 2023 ONCJ 476 . However, courts should be careful not to impute income from gifts, when so doing would have the effect of transferring a support obligation. See: Whelan v. O’Connor ; Malkov v. Stovichek-Malkov , 2017 ONSC 6822 .

[ 53 ] The respondent acknowledged that his mother has regularly given him money to meet his basic needs since he has been in receipt of social assistance. He was unsure how much she has given to him. At one point he estimated the monthly amounts at $1,000. He said some months it might have been as high as $1,500. This is consistent with the deposits in his bank account. The respondent deposed these were gifts, not loans. There is no expectation he will repay his mother for them.

[ 54 ] The court will impute additional income of $14,000 to the respondent in 2025 arising from the gifts he received from his mother.

[ 55 ] The court is not prepared to impute the amount of $14,000 annually to the respondent once he starts receiving ODSP in April 2026. The maximum ODSP monthly payment for a single person is $1,408 each month ($16,896 annually). It is unlikely his mother will subsidize his expenses to the same extent once his social assistance payments increase. The court will impute $8,000 annually to the respondent’s income for gifts, starting on April 1, 2026.

[ 56 ] The respondent testified he was pleading with friends to help support him. It is likely that some of the deposits in his bank accounts are from these sources. However, these gifts are not recurrent. There is no assurance he will receive similar gifts moving forward. The court will not include these gifts in the respondent’s income.

5.5 Is any spousal support payable?

[ 57 ] The Court of Appeal in Fisher v. Fisher , 2008 ONCA 11 , stated that the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (the SSAG ) , while only advisory, are a useful starting point to assess the quantum and duration of spousal support, once entitlement is established. The court wrote:

[103] In my view, when counsel fully address the Guidelines in argument, and a trial judge decides to award a quantum of support outside the suggested range, appellate review will be assisted by the inclusion of reasons explaining why the Guidelines do not provide an appropriate result. This is no different than a trial court distinguishing a significant authority relied upon by a party.

[ 58 ] At Chapter 6 (a) of the SSAG Revised User’s Guide, April 2016 (RUG) , Professor Rollie Thompson and Professor Carole Rogerson (the authors), describe the treatment of social assistance payments in spousal support cases as follows:

There are some notable differences in “income” for spousal support purposes under the Advisory Guidelines, as compared to the income of a spouse determined for child support purposes.

Social assistance is not income for spousal support purposes, whatever its name, even if it’s called Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) or Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) or some other confusing name (SSAG 6.2). ODSP still appears to fool some lawyers and judges, who erroneously treat it as income for the recipient and thus understate the spousal support range. For examples of correct treatment of ODSP and social assistance, see Fountain v. Fountain , 2009 CarswellOnt 6342 (S.C.J.) ; Quattrochiocchi v. Quattrociocchi , [2008] O.J. No. 5341 , 2008 CarswellOnt 7977 (S.C.J.) ; and Stano v. Stano , 2014 BCSC 1677 .

[ 59 ] At section 6.2 of the SSAG , the authors write:

Turning to the payor spouse, a payor who receives social assistance is by definition unable to support himself or herself and thus has no ability to pay. See: Kortlever v. Kortlever, [2007] B.C.J. No 758 .

[ 60 ] In section 3 of the RUG, referencing Chapter 4 of the SSAG , the authors write:

A zero range for amount should not be confused with a lack of entitlement. It may simply reflect a current inability to pay, especially under the with child support formula.

[ 61 ] In 2025, the court has imputed annual gift income to the respondent of $14,000. He also received an accident benefit of $568. The mother’s income was $12,000. It is not surprising that, with the exclusion of the respondent’s social assistance payments the SSAG generate zero monthly support payments.

[ 62 ] Starting on April 1, 2026, the court has imputed annual gift income of $8,000 to the respondent. His social assistance payments remain excluded under the SSAG. The mother’s annual income will continue to be $12,000. The SSAG generate zero monthly support payments.

[ 63 ] The respondent’s misfortunes have left him in a difficult financial situation. He is dependent on his mother to meet his monthly needs. He has debts close to $105,000 and no present ability to pay them.

[ 64 ] The court finds the respondent has no present ability to pay spousal support to the applicant.

5.6 Review of spousal support

[ 65 ] The applicant is entitled to spousal support. The respondent cannot presently pay it to her. However, the respondent has an active lawsuit for damages arising from the accident. If he receives a settlement or judgment for lost wages, he may acquire the ability to pay spousal support. The court will require the respondent to immediately provide the applicant with the details of any settlement or judgment he receives, together with his counsel’s reporting letter about what portion is for pain and suffering, what portion is for lost wages, what portion is for recovery of expenses, and what portion is deducted for legal fees.

[ 66 ] The applicant may seek a review of this order if the respondent receives a settlement or judgment from his civil claim. [^8] She may also seek a review if the respondent fails to respond to requests for information about this claim after one year. [^9]

Part Six – Conclusion

[ 67 ] A final order shall go as follows:

a) The applicant is entitled to spousal support.

b) No spousal support is ordered because the respondent presently does not have the ability to pay it.

c) The respondent shall immediately notify the applicant if he receives a settlement or judgment arising from his motor vehicle accident. He shall promptly provide the applicant with his counsel’s reporting letter setting out all details of the settlement or judgment including:

i. What portion is for pain and suffering.

ii. What portion is for loss of income.

iii. What portion is for recovery of expenses.

iv. What amount has been deducted for legal fees.

d) The applicant may seek a review of this order if the respondent receives a settlement or judgment arising from his motor vehicle accident. She may also seek a review if the respondent fails to respond to requests for information about this claim after one year.

e) The court is not inclined to order costs in these circumstances. However, if any party still seeks costs, they are to serve and file written submissions by March 3, 2026. The other party will then have until March 17, 2026 to make written response. The submissions should not exceed three pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs.

f) All other claims made by the parties not addressed above are dismissed.

Released: February 17, 2026 __________________________

Justice Stanley B. Sherr

[^1]: The respondent included a claim for spousal support in his answer/claim. He did not pursue that claim at trial. This was the right decision. His claim had no merit.

[^2]: The court advised the parties at that court appearance the respondent’s documents would be admitted as evidence at trial.

[^3]: The applicant did not claim entitlement to spousal support on a contractual basis. The sponsorship agreement had expired.

[^4]: The applicant testified that her student loans exceed $20,000.

[^5]: A participant expert is a person who is not engaged to provide expert opinion evidence for the purposes of litigation, but who provides expert opinion evidence based on the exercise of his or her skills, knowledge, training or experience while observing or participating in the events at issue. See: Subrule 20.2 (1) of the Family Law Rules .

[^6]: The respondent showed his injured arm in court.

[^7]: The respondent provided bank and credit card statements starting in August 2024. It is possible that the insurer paid a lump sum to the respondent prior to August 2024. It is more likely that the respondent’s evidence about his insurance benefits is inaccurate.

[^8]: The applicant produced a text from the respondent to his cousin claiming he expected to receive two million dollars in his lawsuit. The applicant should have reasonable expectations about this lawsuit. The respondent is prone to hyperbole. He was trying to borrow money from his cousin. He faces hurdles in his lawsuit. He was reporting very modest annual income to the Canada Revenue Agency before the accident. There may also be an issue as to who was at fault for the accident based on comments made by the respondent at trial.

[^9]: The court made findings about the imputation of gifts to the father’s income in this decision so that this issue will not have to be addressed on a subsequent review.