Court File and Parties

CITATION: Williamson v. Jones, 2026 ONSC 445

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00001674-0000

DATE: 20260127

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Steven Williamson, Appellant

AND: Deanna Jones, Respondent

BEFORE: Fitzpatrick, O’Brien, and Tranquilli JJ.

COUNSEL: Michael Hunter, for the Appellant Deanna Jones, Self-Represented

HEARD: January 22nd, 2026

Endorsement

O’Brien J. (orally):

[1] The appellant, Mr. Williamson seeks to quash the order of the motion judge, Di Luca J., dated July 29, 2025, which dismissed his motion for an order retroactively terminating the child support for his adult son for the period June 1, 2023 to June 1, 2025. The amount in issue is $8,533. The amounts were deducted from the appellant’s pay by the Family Responsibility Office. The appellant sought to have the respondent repay this amount for what he considered to be overpayments of child support.

[2] The motion judge concluded the parties’ son remained entitled to child support during the period in issue. He found the parties’ son likely was unable to become self-supporting during the period because of his intellectual issues, including Autism Spectrum Disorder. His conditions impeded his ability to continue post-secondary education and contributed to his inability to obtain gainful employment.

[3] This court will only interfere in the motion judge’s decision if there is an error of law or a palpable and overriding error of fact. In this case, we do not find any such error.

[4] The respondent’s agreement that she was not seeking child support for the parties’ son after June 1, 2025 does not constitute an admission that the motion judge should have relied on at the motion. There were no agreed facts underpinning the parties’ resolution of child support for the later time frame. The son was also younger during the period in issue on the motion. The agreement was also made without prejudice to the appellant’s claim for repayment for the earlier period. In fairness, it also must be without prejudice to the respondent’s claim on this motion. Overall, the agreement about the later time frame does not constitute a formal admission that would affect the time period at issue in the motion. This ground of appeal is dismissed.

[5] In response to the appellant’s second argument, the motion judge was entitled to accept the respondent’s affidavit evidence that the parties’ son had Autism Spectrum Disorder and learning disabilities. Their son had attempted post-secondary education in 2022 but did not complete it. The motion judge found he also worked from August 2023 to December 2024 but was laid off. At the time the respondent swore her affidavit, he had been unemployed for approximately seven months. Considering this evidence, there was no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the parties’ son was unable to become self-supporting during the period June 1, 2023 to June 1, 2025.

[6] The cases relied on by the appellant are distinguishable. They do not address the repayment of child support for a discrete period of time and were each decided on their own facts. The motion judge was entitled to decide this case on the basis of the evidence before him particularly considering the requirement in r. 2 of the Family Law Rules to decide cases justly and in ways that are appropriate to their importance and complexity. In Sheridan v. Schultz, 2024 ONSC 4393, for example, the mother, who claimed child support, had provided evidence about the son’s abilities and capacities that the trial judge found was not credible. Among other things, she was not transparent about the degree to which the child was working and had testified during the trial that the child was independent.

[7] The cases relied on by the appellant do not warrant interference in the motion judge’s finding of mixed fact and law.

[8] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent appeared on the motion but did not file materials. No costs are ordered.

O’Brien J.

I agree: _______________________________ Fitzpatrick J.

I agree: _______________________________ Tranquilli J.

Delivered orally: January 22, 2026

Written reasons released: January 27, 2026