Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-1588 DATE: 20210210 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: ASMA DASSIN, Applicant AND BILLY JHON PERPIGNAN, Respondent

BEFORE: Madam Justice Julie Audet

HEARD: In writing

Endorsement

[1] This matter is proceeding under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 13 and Rule 37 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg 114/99. The applicant mother currently resides in Calgary, Alberta and the respondent father currently resides in Ottawa, Ontario.

[2] The parties were never married and never cohabited together. They had one sexual intercourse which resulted in the applicant mother becoming pregnant with the parties’ child, Trinity Renae Perpignan-Dassin, born on February 12, 2018 (“Trinity”).

[3] On December 10, 2019, the mother filed an Application in Alberta seeking a child support order for Trinity’s benefit, retroactive to the date of her birth. The father was served with the Application and all related materials by special service on October 29, 2020. He did not file any responding materials, however, I am informed that a person named “Shirley” contacted the court on behalf of the respondent on December 8, 2020 to advise that the respondent was then incarcerated and unable to attend court hearings or reply to court documents. No information was provided as to how long the father was, or would be, incarcerated for. At the time of this hearing before me (in writing), no documents had yet been filed by the respondent and his whereabouts are unknown.

[4] The evidence before me convinces me that the respondent is the biological father of the child. He has admitted so in various text exchanges with the mother and referred to her as his daughter. I have no difficulty, based on the evidence before me, to declare the respondent to be Trinity’s father.

[5] The mother seeks a child support order retroactive to the birth of the child, based on an imputed income of $50,000. She indicates that, following Trinity’s birth, she suffered from post-partum depression and experienced financial hardship, which, combined with her responsibilities as a young single mother, made her unable to mentally focus on seeking financial assistance for her child. This is the reason why she did not initiate her Application until December 2019.

[6] The mother also testifies that she has no information about the father’s sources of income or past employment history, other than the fact that “Randstad connected him with work before”. She adds that the father stole $400 worth of gift cards that were given to her for Trinity’s benefit, and $1,200 cash that the mother had saved while working during her pregnancy. She asks the court to order the return of these funds.

[7] The court does not have the jurisdiction to order the return of the funds allegedly stolen from the mother by the father in the context of this proceeding. However, considering all the circumstances of this case, I am more than prepared to make an order for child support retroactive to the first day following Trinity’s birth, namely, March 1, 2018.

[8] I am not prepared, however, to impute to the father an annual income of $50,000 for the purpose of child support, as I simply have no evidence supporting an ability on the part of the father to earn this level of income. While I appreciate that without the father’s participation in this proceeding, information regarding his income is not available to the mother, in order to impute anything more than minimum wage income the court needs to have at least some evidentiary basis upon which to base such a finding. This is not the case here.

[9] This said, I see no reason not to impute at least minimum wages to the father. In Ontario, a payor working full-time (40 hours per week) and earning minimum wages would earn $29,29,640 per annum ($29,120 in 2018). Based on that income, the father should have paid child support in the amount of $248 per month from March 1, 2018 to and including December 1, 2018, and $253 per month from January 1, 2019 thereafter, and I so order. My order to that effect is without prejudice to the mother’s right to seek a retroactive variation to March 1, 2018 if evidence later discovered reveals that the father earned a higher income during those years.

[10] The mother also seeks a contribution to the child’s daycare expenses. However, other than a statement that she had childcare expenses on the day she filed her Application, the mother has provided no supporting documentation confirming this. The court has no evidence confirming the period of time during which daycare expenses were incurred, how much it actually cost during each of those years, or an explanation as to why daycare expenses were needed.

[11] While the mother has filed a sworn financial statement, she has not provided any income tax returns, notices of assessment or other proof of her income. Her evidence with respect to her income for the years in question is vague and unclear; she estimates that in 2019, she will earn approximately $30,000, but it is not clear whether her income comprises of social assistance or employment income, or a combination of both. She indicates that she did not work in 2017 and 2018, but her sources of income, if any, and the amount earned, if any, during those years are not mentioned.

[12] If the mother was not employed outside of the home and/or in receipt of social assistance benefits during any or part of the past three years, one has to question why she would have needed daycare services for the child. If there is a reason for this, it was not explained. Further, the mother might very well have been entitled to some government subsidies as a low-income single parent for some or all of the daycare expenses she allegedly incurred. Not having received her tax returns makes it impossible for this Court to assess which portion of those expenses, if any, the father would have an obligation to contribute to.

[13] For all the above reasons, the mother’s claim for a contribution to the child’s daycare expenses is dismissed on a temporary basis. She shall have 90 days from the date of this order within which to provide the court with the missing documentary evidence referred to above and upon receipt of same, I will reconsider this issue. Otherwise, her claim for contribution towards the child’s daycare expenses for the years 2018 to present will be dismissed.

Order

[14] The following order is hereby made:

On a final basis:

1- The respondent father shall pay to the applicant mother child support for the benefit of the child, Trinity Renae Perpignan Dassin, born on February 12, 2018, as follows:

a. Commencing on March 1, 2018 to and including December 1, 2018, $248 per month based on an imputed income of $29,120 per annum (Ontario Tables);

b. Commencing on January 1, 2019 and every month thereafter until further varied, $253 per month based on an imputed income of $29,640 per annum (Ontario Tables).

c. Paragraph 1 above is without prejudice to the mother’s right to seek a retroactive variation to March 1, 2018 if evidence later discovered reveals that the father earned a higher income during those years.

d. in her monthly child support in the event that evidence later reveals that the father earned a higher income during those years.

On a temporary basis:

2- The applicant’s claim for a contribution to the child’s daycare expenses is dismissed on a temporary basis.

3- The applicant shall have 90 days from the date of this order within which to provide the court with the missing documentary evidence supporting her claim for a contribution to the child’s daycare expenses. Upon receipt of same, I will reconsider this issue. If none is received, the applicant’s claim for contribution to daycare expenses for the years 2018 and 2019 shall be automatically dismissed.

Madam Justice Julie Audet Date: February 10, 2021