COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-76175-01
DATE: 2021 09 07
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
ZUBAIR JAMIL
Applicant
Self-Represented Applicant
- and -
SUMERA IQBAL
Respondent
Self-Represented Respondent
HEARD: March 22-24, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
Shaw J.
Overview
[1] The applicant/father, Mr. Jamil, seeks to vary an order for child and spousal support. On April 1, 2016, following a six-day trial, Mr. Jamil, was ordered to pay child support for his two children in the sum of $1,037 per month. He was also ordered to pay spousal support in the sum of $500 per month for seven years commencing January 1, 2015 and ending January 1, 2022. These support orders
were based on a finding that Mr. Jamil earned an imputed income of $70,000. Mr. Jamil was also ordered to pay retroactive child and spousal support in a lump sum amount of $12,428 for the period of December 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016.
[2] Mr. Jamil seeks an order to retroactively decrease the amount of child and spousal support owing to the respondent/mother, Ms. Iqbal, based on a change in his income since the order was made. He has also remarried and has another child. He seeks to terminate his spousal support obligation as Ms. Iqbal has also remarried. Mr. Jamil also seeks an order he not be required to obtain life insurance to secure his support obligation, as ordered by the trial judge, on the basis he cannot afford to obtain life insurance.
[3] Ms. Iqbal opposes the relief on the basis that Mr. Jamil continues to avoid his financial disclosure obligations. She submits that an income should continue to be imputed to him, as found by the trial judge, as he has made insufficient efforts to obtain employment and owns a business in Pakistan.
Background and Review of the Court Proceedings
[4] Mr. Jamil and Ms. Iqbal were married on July 19, 2005, separated on September 11, 2012, and divorced on December 25, 2016. They have two children who are 12 and 9 years of age. The children have always resided with Ms. Iqbal. By his choice, Mr. Jamil has limited, if any, contact with his children, although there is an access order. Following the trial conducted in January 2016, Mr. Jamil moved
to Pakistan in the summer of 2017 and returned to Canada permanently in February 2020. He has not seen his children or made any efforts to contact them since his return to Canada.
[5] Mr. Jamil commenced divorce proceedings on October 5, 2012. On August 11, 2014, Trimble J. ordered that Mr. Jamil pay interim spousal support of
$637 per month and interim child support of $829 per month based on an imputed income of $60,000 for Mr. Jamil, and ODSP income of $4,116 for Ms. Iqbal. At that time, arrears of child support were fixed at $14,380 and spousal support at $9,246 for the periods of September 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, and July 1, 2013 to July 31, 2014. These amounts were subject to readjustment at trial once findings were made regarding Mr. Jamil’s and Ms. Iqbal’s incomes.
[6] In the original proceedings, there were two orders made for Mr. Jamil to produce disclosure. One order was made on June 27, 2014, and the second on October 25, 2015. As Mr. Jamil worked in the Information Technology (“IT”) industry and operated his own business, the orders included disclosure regarding his business income.
[7] On January 19, 2016, the parties signed Minutes of Settlement that resolved some of the issues regarding retroactive support. Mr. Jamil agreed to pay child and spousal support arrears for 21 months based on an imputed income of
$60,000. Total arrears payable were fixed at $32,109 for the period ending
December 31, 2014, and were paid from Mr. Jamil’s share of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home. The parties also agreed that their agreement on the arrears was without prejudice to Ms. Iqbal’s claim to impute an income to Mr. Jamil and seek support for the period of January 2015 onwards.
[8] The trial was heard in January 2016 after the parties reached the agreement on retroactive support. The trial dealt with parenting issues, determination of income, entitlement and quantum of spousal support, quantum of child support,
s.7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.
[9] At trial, Mr. Jamil’s evidence was that he held a degree in Science and Information Technology and a Bachelor of Commerce. He also had a diploma in computer science and Microsoft certification as a Systems Engineer. He testified he was also a Microsoft Certified Professional and a Citrix Professional Certified Administrator, but said his certification was outdated and that he did not have the funds to upgrade. His evidence was that he was unemployed and had no income, despite efforts to find employment. He also claimed he was heavily in debt to his parents and three friends. Nonetheless, he proposed paying child support based on an imputed income of $26,000.
[10] Mr. Jamil owned and operated his own IT business, SIMZ Solutions Inc. His line 150 income from his personal income returns was as follows:
2009
$65,000 approximately
2010
$35,000 approximately
2011
not provided
2012
$25,000
2013
$37,500
2014
$15,100
[11] He testified that he earned $3,600 in 2015.
[12] A business valuator, called by Ms. Iqbal as an expert witness, testified that despite the information in his income tax returns, Mr. Jamil’s income for 2012 to 2014 was as follows:
2012
$76,000
2013
$82,000
2014
$60,600
[13] ln his reasons, the trial judge rejected Mr. Jamil’s position that he had no income and had made diligent efforts to secure employment. The trial judge also found that Mr. Jamil had under-reported his income and made the following findings as it relates to the issues of income and support:
• Mr. Jamil’s evidence of debts owing to his parents and friends in the sum of
$50,100 was rejected as no documentation was filed to verify that he owed this money;
• Mr. Jamil’s evidence that his certification with Microsoft and Citrix was outdated, or that he did not have funds to upgrade, was rejected as the trial
judge noted that Mr. Jamil had funds, or access to funds, to pay for trips to Mexico in 2012 and 2013, and to Pakistan in 2014 and 2015;
• Mr. Jamil was very tardy in complying with financial disclosure orders and had not produced invoices for his company, SIMZ Solutions Inc.;
• Mr. Jamil’s efforts to secure employment were woefully inadequate for someone who said they were diligently seeking employment in their field, as Mr. Jamil only sent 25 job applications over a one-year period, did not look for employment outside the GTA, and never asked his former employer for employment;
• There were several sizeable deposits and withdrawals from his personal and business bank accounts;
• Mr. Jamil under-reported his income and failed to take necessary steps to update his IT certification;
• Mr. Jamil was deliberately unemployed, and his unemployment status was a by-product of his unwillingness to meet his support obligations to Ms. Iqbal;
• He “lost” his job one month after Justice Trimble’s August 2014 order, and failed to make a single support payment after that date;
• Mr. Jamil was the main breadwinner while married to Ms. Iqbal during their seven-year marriage;
• Ms. Iqbal left her employment when she became pregnant with their first child and was the main caregiver for both children;
• Ms. Iqbal was unemployed at the time of trial, and lived with family who were supporting her in addition to what support she received from the government;
• Ms. Iqbal earned $2,100 in 2012, $4,616 in 2013 and $7,795 in 2014;
• Ms. Iqbal’s ability to obtain employment was frustrated by the high cost of daycare;
• She was entitled to spousal support on both a compensatory and non- compensatory basis;
• It was imperative that Ms. Iqbal receive an opportunity to obtain an education to enhance her chances of earning a well-paying job; and
• Mr. Jamil was to secure a life insurance policy in the amount of $250,000 with Ms. Iqbal and the children named as irrevocable beneficiaries.
[14] I will not review the various findings made by the trial judge regarding the property or parenting issues.
[15] At the time of trial, there were two outstanding cost orders from prior motions that Mr. Jamil had not paid. On December 16, 2014, he was ordered to pay $3,600 in costs, and on October 2, 2015, he was ordered to pay $3,500. He was also ordered to pay costs of the trial fixed in the sum of $40,000 within four months of the release of the judgment.
[16] On May 30, 2016, one month after the release of the trial decision, Mr. Jamil filed for bankruptcy. As a result, Ms. Iqbal never received payment of the costs Mr. Jamil was ordered to pay or the lump sum arrears of support of $12,428. He was discharged from bankruptcy on March 1, 2017.
[17] In January 2017, nine months after the trial decision was released, Mr. Jamil went to Pakistan and remarried in April 2017. He returned to Canada at some point and then returned to Pakistan on a permanent basis in the summer of 2017. This second marriage ended, and he remarried for a third time in January 2018. He has a child from his third marriage. In February 2020, he returned to Canada with his spouse and child, and is now living here permanently. I heard no evidence regarding his spouse’s employment or income.
[18] As a result of his non-payment of support, FRO suspended Mr. Jamil’s driver’s licence. He was granted a refraining order in June 2017 after he commenced this motion to change on June 22, 2017, fourteen months after the trial decision. After obtaining that order, Mr. Jamil returned to Pakistan.
[19] In his original application, Mr. Jamil sought an order that his income be fixed at $10,500 for the purpose of calculating child support and that spousal support be terminated forthwith. At the hearing of this application, his submission is that his income be fixed at $35,000 for the purpose of calculating child support.
[20] At the time he commenced this application, the total arrears of support owing were $39,530.13. By the time of this trial, the arrears totalled $106,302.01. Simply put, Mr. Jamil has made little effort to pay support voluntarily since January 2016.
[21] A dispute resolution hearing was conducted on November 6, 2017, and Mr.
Jamil was ordered to file an updated affidavit within 14 days. He failed do so until October 11, 2018, one year later.
[22] The motion to change was first before the court for a hearing on October 16, 2018, and was adjourned at the request of Ms. Iqbal to January 15, 2019. The presiding judge ordered Mr. Jamil to file an updated affidavit, his income tax returns from Canada or Pakistan from 2016 to 2018, and banking documentation and pay stubs to prove his income during those years. Ms. Iqbal was also ordered to produce her income tax returns.
[23] On January 15, 2019, Dennison, J. found that the matter could not be determined without viva voce evidence as there were too many credibility issues with respect to Mr. Jamil’s credibility. She also noted that Mr. Jamil failed to file any tax returns from Pakistan, where he said he was working. She ordered that he pay into court the sum of $5,000 before proceeding any further, as he was not living in Ontario and had previously not paid cost orders before declaring bankruptcy. She also ordered that he provide copies of his tax returns from Pakistan for the period from 2016 to present, all personal and/or corporate bank account statements from 2016 to present, and any financial documentation in his possession with respect to Naveed Garden Marriage Lawn (“Naveed Garden”), a banquet hall in Pakistan that Ms. Iqbal said he owned and operated.
[24] A settlement conference was then scheduled for June 19, 2020. The presiding judge noted that the parties had not exchanged tax returns as ordered by Dennison J., but did so at the start of the conference. In addition, Mr. Jamil did not file any records for Naveed Garden. At the start of the conference, Mr. Jamil prepared and submitted an affidavit that he did not have an interest in that business and did not have any business documentation in his possession.
Issues and Position of the Parties
[25] Mr. Jamil’s position is that there has been a material change in his financial circumstances since the original order, as he never earned the income imputed to him. He is prepared to pay ongoing child support based on an imputed income of
$35,000. He requests an order that spousal support be terminated based on the remarriage of both parties.
[26] With respect to the arrears owing, his position is that they should be fixed at
$40,000 and repaid at the rate of $100 per month. At that rate, the arrears would be paid off in approximately 33 years.
[27] He also asks that he not be required to obtain life insurance as it will cost him $500 per month and he cannot afford it.
[28] Ms. Iqbal’s position is that there has been no change in Mr. Jamil’s circumstances and that no variation should be granted. Her position is that an income ought to be imputed to Mr. Jamil on the basis that he owns Naveed Garden, for which he has not provided financial disclosure, and that he has failed to make meaningful efforts to secure employment since his return to Canada.
Review of the Evidence
[29] Only Mr. Jamil and Ms. Iqbal testified at this trial.
[30] As the party seeking a retroactive variation of a final order, the onus is on Mr. Jamil to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that there has been a change in his financial circumstances since the making of the original order. I will therefore review the evidence as it relates to Mr. Jamil’s income and employment
since the original order, his efforts to find employment, and the evidence regarding his alleged ownership of Naveed Garden.
a) Mr. Jamil’s Employment and Income
[31] According to the income tax returns filed as evidence, Mr. Jamil’s income since 2016 has been as follows:
2016
$15,000
2017
$ 4,700
2018
$ 4,251
2019
$ 5,659
2020
$15,131
[32] The tax returns for 2018 and 2019 were from Pakistan.
[33] According to his financial statement sworn August 20, 2020, his income was
$15,106.08, which included CERB of $10,000 and $4,165 from Ontario Works. He had just over $8,000 in bank accounts. His bank account at Scotiabank with a balance of $5,540 is frozen.
[34] In an updated financial statement sworn March 8, 2021, Mr. Jamil swore that his income is $21,799.92 from CERB benefits. His three bank accounts have a total balance of $6,828, including the Scotiabank account that remains frozen. He has no other assets or debts.
[35] Mr. Jamil testified that, after the trial in 2016, he worked as a freelancer on computer systems. As he had limited work, he decided to return to Pakistan where he lived previously until his move to Canada in 2003. I heard no evidence of what efforts Mr. Jamil made to either upgrade his education or training, or secure employment before he moved to Pakistan.
[36] While in Pakistan he worked as an event manager for the NG Events and Venue Organization (“NG”). His evidence is that he was paid 60,000 rupees per month working for NG. Based on the exchange rate at the time, he was earning between $660 and $750 per month in Canadian dollars. He worked 40 hours per week. His duties were to arrange supplies for events. Although I heard no evidence about any connection between NG and Naveed Garden, the initials are the same and both businesses are connected to event planning, so they may be related in some fashion.
[37] As proof of his employment and income while living in Pakistan, Mr. Jamil filed a letter from NG dated August 17, 2017, offering him employment as an event manager earning 60,000 rupees per month. He also filed bank statements from the Pakistan Muslim Commercial Bank which showed cheque deposits of 60,000 on a regular monthly basis. He did not file any pay slips from NG as he said his pay was directly deposited into his bank account.
[38] He testified that since his return to Canada in February 2020 he has supported himself and his new spouse and child on CERB benefits and Ontario Works.
b) Mr. Jamil’s Job Search
[39] Mr. Jamil testified about his educational background and his outdated IT certificates. He testified he does not have funds to upgrade his education or training. Similar evidence was rejected by the trial judge.
[40] Mr. Jamil’s evidence is that since his return to Canada he has been looking for a job but has been unsuccessful to date. As evidence, he filed 200 job applications that he submitted through Indeed, an online employment website for job listings.
[41] On cross-examination, Mr. Jamil testified that he received some calls from recruiters about jobs, but no offers. His evidence is that COVID-19 has impacted his ability to find employment in his field.
[42] Ms. Iqbal questioned Mr. Jamil about a promotional video he recorded in 2016 talking about the training and education he received from NetSoft, a technology college that trains students for certifications in software such as Microsoft and Citrix. In that video, he said he recommended NetSoft for a “better future, better job…” He talked about the hours of training he received and how beneficial it was for him, as he held several certifications and took many courses
through NetSoft. In the video, Mr. Jamil said he has been “employing [his] IT technical skills in IT industry for 10 plus years.” He said NetSoft helped with resume preparation and interview training. He also claimed that with training from NetSoft, “your financial will get better” and “there are lots of advantages like lots of good monies you will be making after joining NetSoft.” Further, he said he was spending about 40 to 50 hours per week on his education, and that he would like to update his Citrix training.
c) Naveed Garden
[43] Mr. Jamil testified he has no proprietary interest in Naveed Garden, which he says is a marriage hall. He testified the business is owned by his father, Jamil Uddin. I did not permit Mr. Jamil to file an affidavit from Mr. Uddin, as Mr. Uddin was not available to be cross-examined by Ms. Iqbal.
[44] Both parties filed as evidence documents from the government of Pakistan, called the Federal Board of Revenue, dealing with the ownership of Naveed Garden. Mr. Jamil’s evidence is that if he owned a business, it would be listed in these documents, but it is not.
[45] It is not in dispute that citizens of Pakistan are given an identity number from the government of Pakistan, similar to social insurance numbers in Canada. That thirteen-digit number, known as CNIC (Computerized National Identity Card), is listed on the Federal Board of Revenue documents.
[46] Mr. Jamil filed two records from the Federal Board of Revenue. The first is in the name of Jabil Uddin, his father, and lists Naveed Garden, which Mr. Jamil says is evidence that his father owns the business. The document lists the address for Naveed Garden as C-1 Block No 2, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, Karachi East Gulshan Town. It is not in dispute that this is the address for Naveed Garden.
[47] Mr. Jamil also filed a gas bill for Naveed Garden with his father’s name on it, as further evidence that his father owns the business. As the date of the gas bill is October 2011, it is outdated and has limited evidentiary value.
[48] Mr. Jamil filed a second Federal Board of Revenue document in his name, dated July 6, 2020, which lists his address as No A-33, Block No 3, Gulshan-Iqbal, Karachi East Gulshan Town. He testified that this address is his parents’ home, where he lived in Pakistan. There is no reference to Naveed Garden, or any other business, on this document. Mr. Jamil says this is evidence that he does not own Naveed Garden.
[49] On cross-examination, Ms. Iqbal asked Mr. Jamil about two other Federal Board of Revenue documents. Her first document, dated June 24, 2020, named Mr. Jamil, listed his CNIC number and his address, and identified an associated business called “Commission Agent,” which had an address of C 1/2 Gulshan E Iqbal, Karachi. Mr. Jamil’s evidence is that “Commission Agent” refers to the time he worked as a real estate agent before moving to Canada in 2003. His evidence
is that the business address on that document no longer exists, as the business itself no longer exists. He also testified that the address for Naveed Garden is different than the address listed for “Commission Agent.”
[50] It is not clear to me why the document filed by Ms. Iqbal refers to Mr. Jamil’s business as a Commission Agent, while the document filed by Mr. Jamil, dated one month later, does not list any business. Mr. Jamil’s explanation is that the document he filed was the most recent document.
[51] Ms. Iqbal asked Mr. Jamil about a second Federal Board of Revenue document, also in his name, dated June 24, 2020. According to Ms. Iqbal, this second document was searched using the business identification number (NTN) 1044811-0. All businesses in Pakistan are assigned an NTN, and her evidence is that this number is for Naveed Garden. Using that number to search, the Federal Board of Revenue document lists Mr. Jamil, and again under “business” lists Commission Agent. It does not identify the business as Naveed Garden.
d) Ms. Iqbal’s Employment and Income
[52] Ms. Iqbal testified she worked from November 2016 until April 2016 on a part time contract at Centennial College doing clerical work. She was then on employment insurance benefits until July 2018, after which she worked as an administrative assistant for one month.
[53] In May 2019, a recruiting agency connected her with employment at the TD Bank as an anti-money laundering analyst. This contract ended in October 2019. She has not worked since. She receives CERB of $1,800 per month, and Canada’s Child Benefit of $1,100 per month.
[54] In January 2019 she remarried. Her husband still lives in Pakistan and has two children of his own. He does not provide her with any financial support. Ms. Iqbal travelled to Pakistan to be with her new husband in November 2019 and returned in January 2020. She is currently looking for employment in Canada
[55] She and the children live in the basement apartment of her parents’ home.
She has been unable to pay for any further education to upgrade her skills as she supports the children.
[56] According to her income tax returns, Ms. Iqbal’s income has been as follows:
2016 $2,902
2017 $27,328
2018 $34,118 ($13,946 of which was EI)
2019 $16,584
Legal Principles
[57] Unfortunately, as a self-represented litigant, Mr. Jamil did not refer to any applicable legislation or jurisprudence in support of his application to change.
[58] Mr. Jamil is seeking an order to vary child and spousal support under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp) on the grounds that he has experienced a material change in circumstances. According to s. 17(4.1) of the Divorce Act, the party seeking to vary spousal support must prove there has been a material change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstance of either
former spouse since the making of the spousal support order. In order to be considered “material,” the change must be one that “would likely have resulted in different terms” if those circumstances had been in existence at the time of the original order: Willick v. Willick, 1994 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670, at p. 688.
[59] When considering motions to change child support, the court must consider
s. 14 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 (the “Guidelines”) in determining whether a change in circumstances has occurred that will support a variation order. According to the Guidelines, any new circumstance that would result in a different order for the support of the child will constitute a change. The change must be such that if it had been known at the time, the order made would likely have resulted in different terms.
[60] Since this trial ended, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, dealing with the issue of retroactive changes to child support. At para. 113, the court set out the test to be applied under s. 17 of the Divorce Act as follows:
(1) The payor must meet the threshold of establishing a past material change in circumstances. The onus is on the payor to show a material decrease in income that has some degree of continuity, and that is real and not one of choice.
(2) Once a material change in circumstances is established, a presumption arises in favour of retroactively decreasing child support to the date the payor gave the recipient effective notice, up to three years before formal notice of the application to vary. In the decrease context, effective notice requires clear communication of the change in circumstances accompaniedby the disclosure of any available documentation necessary to substantiatethe change and allow the recipient parent to meaningfully assess the situation.
(3) Where no effective notice is given by the payor parent, child support should generally be varied back to the date of formal notice, or a later date where the payor has delayed making complete disclosure in the course of the proceedings.
(4) The court retains discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity where the result would otherwise be unfair. The D.B.S. factors(adapted to the decrease context) guide this exercise of discretion. Those factors are: (i) whether the payor had an understandable reason for the delay in seeking a decrease; (ii) the payor’s conduct; (iii) the child’s circumstances; and (iv) hardship to the payor if support is not decreased (viewed in context of hardship to the child and recipient if support is decreased). The payor’s efforts to pay what they can and to communicate and disclose income information on an ongoing basis will often be a key consideration under the factor of payor conduct.
(5) Finally, once the court has determined that support should be retroactively decreased to a particular date, the decrease must be quantified. The proper amount of support for each year since the date of retroactivity must be calculated in accordance with the Guidelines. [Emphasis in original.]
[61] Throughout Colucci, the court repeatedly commented on the importance of financial disclosure and the duty of the payor, seeking to change his/her support obligation, to provide full and honest disclosure. At para. 62, the court commented that the payor must disclose sufficient reliable evidence for the court to determine when and how far their income fell. The evidence must be reliable, accurate and
complete. At para. 110, the court noted that “[i]f the payor fails to provide all
relevant evidence required for the court to fully appreciate their true income during
any part of the period of retroactivity, the court may draw an adverse inference against the payor.”
[62] The court may impute income to a party pursuant to s. 19 of the Guidelines where it is appropriate to do so. Circumstances that may warrant imputation of income include where a parent is deliberately under-employed. Drygala v. Pauli (2002), 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (Ont. C.A.) is the leading authority when dealing with imputing income. In that case, the court held, at para. 32, that in meeting the legal obligation to support their child, a parent must earn what he or she is capable of earning. This principle was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Lavie v. Lavie, 2018 ONCA 10, 8 R.F.L (8th) 14, at para. 24, where the court found that to find intentional underemployment and impute income, there is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations.
[63] When dealing with a finding of imputed income at trial, as in this matter, the court in Colucci commented as follows, at para. 63:
Of course, a payor whose income was originally imputed because of an initial lack of disclosure cannot later claim that a change in circumstances occurs when he or she subsequently produces proper documentation showing the imputation was higher than the table amount for their actual income. The payor cannot rely on their own late disclosure as a change in circumstances to ground a variation order (Gray, at paras. 33-34). This would “defeat the purpose of imputing income in the first place” and act as “a disincentive for payors to participate in the initial court process” (Trang v. Trang, 2013 ONSC 1980, 29 R.F.L. (7th) 364, at para. 53).
[64] It is also important to be mindful of the court’s direction in Willick that a motion to change is not an appeal of the original order. At pp. 687-688, Sopinka J.
stated that in a variation application, it must be assumed that, at the time the original order was made, the court accurately assessed the needs of the child. As such, the correctness of the original order must not be reviewed and it will only be varied if the requirements under s. 17(4.1) of the Divorce Act are satisfied.
[65] It is also important to consider the objectives set out in s. 1 of the Guidelines.
Those objectives include, (a) establishing a fair standard of support that ensures that a child benefits from the financial means of their parents; (b) reducing conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of support more objective;
(c) improving the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the level of support; and (d) ensuring consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances.
[66] The court must also distinguish between two scenarios. First, cases where a parent seeks relief from payment of arrears based on a current inability to pay. Second, cases where arrears accumulated due to a change in the parent’s circumstances, which affected his or her ability to make support payments when they became due. In this case, Mr. Jamil submits there was a material change in his circumstances when the child support arrears came due, as his income was reduced significantly and affected his ability to pay child support at the time. Under those circumstances, the court may find it is appropriate to decrease the amount of child support owed during the period affected by the material change, and reduce or rescind the resulting arrears accordingly.
Analysis
a) Has there been a Material Change in Circumstances?
[67] In my view, there are three time periods to consider when assessing whether there has been a material change in circumstances. The first is the period of 17 months after the end of the original trial until Mr. Jamil moved to Pakistan and began to work for NG. This was the period before this application was commenced. The second is when he lived in Pakistan and worked for NG. The third is the period since his return to Canada in February 2020.
January 2016 to June 2017
[68] Dealing with this first period, before Mr. Jamil moved to Pakistan, I heard no evidence that Mr. Jamil requested a variation before he commenced this application. Applying the principles in Colucci, at para. 113, any variation would therefore begin on the date he gave formal notice of this application in June 2017, as there was no prior effective notice of a request to vary support. On that basis, any variation would commence in June 2017, at the earliest.
[69] The court also noted in Colucci, at para. 113, that the court retains discretion to depart from the presumptive date of retroactivity if the result would otherwise be unfair. The court listed certain factors to consider. In my view, when I consider those factors, there is no basis to vary support prior to the commencement of this application based primarily on Mr. Jamil’s conduct.
[70] With respect to that conduct, Mr. Jamil has made little effort to pay support since the order was made. I heard no evidence with respect to what, if any, attempts Mr. Jamil made to secure employment after the trial ended in 2016. His evidence was he could not find work and so moved to Pakistan in the summer of 2017, one and a half years after the trial. He relies on the income declared in his income tax returns for 2016 and 2017 in support of his position that his earnings were nominal during those years.
[71] I also heard detailed evidence about why his training and certifications were outdated, and how this impaired his ability to find employment in the IT field. The trial judge rejected similar evidence and found that Mr. Jamil had not made diligent efforts to secure employment. Mr. Jamil did not appeal that decision. He cannot now come to court and rely on the same evidence to support his position that an income should not be imputed to him. In doing so, Mr. Jamil is essentially trying to appeal the original order through a back door, by way of a motion to change.
[72] Mr. Jamil testified he travelled to Pakistan in December 2016 and January 2017, before moving there on a permanent basis in June 2017. I heard no evidence with respect to the reasons for those trips, how much it cost, or how he paid for those trips. Again, as found by the trial judge, if Mr. Jamil intended to find employment, he could have used the money spent on travel to Pakistan to upgrade his training and make himself more marketable. He could have gone back to school at NetSoft, which he spoke highly of in his 2016 video testimonial.
June 2017 to February 2020
[73] The second period to consider is when Mr. Jamil moved to Pakistan in June 2017 and accepted employment with NG, earning nominal income. According to his income tax returns, he earned between $4,200 to $5,659 during the time he lived in Pakistan.
[74] With respect to this period, there are two relevant issues to consider. The first concerns Mr. Jamil’s decision to move and accept a job paying less than he could have earned in Canada, even on a part-time basis earning minimum wage. The second issue is whether Mr. Jamil owns Naveed Garden and, if he does, whether any additional income ought to be imputed to him. If I find he owns Naveed Garden, I must also consider whether I should draw an adverse inference from Mr. Jamil’s failure to provide full financial disclosure for the business as previously ordered.
[75] I will deal first with Naveed Garden. Mr. Jamil’s evidence is that the business is owned by his father and he relies on documents from Pakistan’s Federal Board of Revenue as proof that he does not have an ownership interest in the business. Ms. Iqbal filed similar documents that, she says, supports the fact Mr. Jamil owns Naveed Garden.
[76] While both parties filed documents and agreed they were from the government of Pakistan, it is not clear to me that Ms. Iqbal’s documents prove Mr.
Jamil owns Naveed Garden, even though I note questionable coincidences. First, Mr. Jamil was employed by a business called NG, which was an event marketing company. These initials could be for Naveed Garden, which happens to be a venue where events, such as weddings, can be held. While there may be a connection between the businesses, this is not sufficient evidence that Mr. Jamil owns Naveed Garden.
[77] I also question why one of Ms. Iqbal’s documents refers to Mr. Jamil as having a business as a Commission Agent, while one of Mr. Jamil’s documents, dated one month later, does not.
[78] I note the addresses for the two businesses are very similar: Naveed Garden being C-1 Block No 2, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, Karachi East Gulshan Town, and Commission Agent being C 1/2 Gulshan E Iqbal, Karachi. The parties dispute whether these addresses are the same, and based on the evidence I am not prepared to find that they are.
[79] I cannot resolve the conflicting evidence regarding Naveed Garden based on the documents filed as exhibits. The documents filed by Ms. Iqbal do not name Naveed Garden as a business owned by Mr. Jamil, even though she searched by business identification number. The Federal Board of Revenue documents filed by Ms. Iqbal raise suspicion regarding Mr. Jamil’s claims that he does not own Naveed Garden. Suspicion on its own, however, is not a sufficient basis for a
finding of ownership, nor basis to draw an adverse inference against Mr. Jamil for his failure to disclose any financial records regarding the business.
[80] I am not satisfied there is cogent evidence that Mr. Jamil is the owner of Naveed Garden when he denies any ownership and filed documents which seem to corroborate his claim that the business is owned by his father. While NG may be related to Naveed Garden, that does not mean that Mr. Jamil has an ownership interest in Naveed Garden. As a result, I am not prepared to make any adverse inference against him based on his failure to provide disclosure for the business. I am also not prepared to find that the Federal Board of Revenue documents filed by Mr. Jamil are inaccurate or have been fraudulently manipulated, as claimed by Ms. Iqbal. There is insufficient evidence before this court to support that finding.
[81] What is concerning, is Mr. Jamil’s choice to move to Pakistan and accept a job paying him significantly less than he could have earned in Canada, even at minimum wage. He did so while aware of his child and spousal support obligations. According to the statement of arrears from FRO, after he moved to Pakistan in the summer of 2017, the total amount of support paid by Mr. Jamil was only $1,626. It appears that when he moved to Pakistan, he ignored his support obligations.
[82] It makes little economic or financial sense for Mr. Jamil to have chosen to move to Pakistan to make such a modest income. If he recognized and accepted his responsibility to pay support to Ms. Iqbal, he would have remained in Canada
and earned a greater income simply by working a minimum wage job. He could have also focused his efforts on updating his training, as he said was necessary to obtain a job in the IT field. I note that during this time period, Ms. Iqbal was able to earn significantly more income working on a part-time basis in Canada. This underscores the finding that had Mr. Jamil remained in Canada, he would also have earned significantly more income than he earned while living in Pakistan.
[83] I am troubled with the failure of Mr. Jamil to recognize and appreciate his responsibility to Ms. Iqbal and his children. After the parties separated, it appears Mr. Jamil did not voluntarily pay support, or paid insufficient support. At the first motion, in August 2014, Trimble J. fixed arrears of support at $23,626 dating back to the date of separation. After that order was made, Mr. Jamil allegedly lost his job. By the time of trial in 2016, support arrears continued to accrue, and he was ordered to pay a lump sum amount. The trial judge also commented that Mr. Jamil’s unemployment status was a by-product of his unwillingness to meet his support obligations to Ms. Iqbal. In my view, his decision to move to Pakistan and accept a very low-paying job demonstrates his continued unwillingness to meet his support obligations.
[84] The evidence also supports a pattern of behaviour where Mr. Jamil ignores court orders relating to financial disclosure. This behaviour existed prior to the original trial and has continued since this motion to change was commenced. A party seeking to reduce his support obligation on the basis of a change in financial
circumstances should come to court with full financial disclosure. The court should not be required to make basic production orders, such as filing income tax returns and banking records. Even after such orders were made by Dennison J., a further order was made at the settlement conference because of Mr. Jamil’s ongoing non- compliance.
[85] As noted in Colucci (at para. 48), and countless other decisions before it, timely and full disclosure is one of the core underpinning principles of family law litigation. The court should not step in to make disclosure orders for the most basic financial disclosure, particularly when the moving party seeks relief from a prior court order. This behaviour cannot be condoned or sanctioned by the court. As noted in Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6, at paras. 11-13, financial disclosure should not require court orders to obtain production.
[86] Thus, I am not prepared to grant Mr. Jamil any relief for the support arrears that accrued between June 2017 and February 2020 while he lived in Pakistan and chose to work at a low-paying job.
[87] Mr. Jamil’s evidence is that he has not seen his children since he returned to Canada because he does not have a car and public transportation takes too long to travel to and from Ms. Iqbal’s home. He gave this same reason at trial in 2016. The excuse rings hollow. A committed parent would take public transit if it was the only way to see their children, regardless of the length of time it takes to
travel. In my view, Mr. Jamil’s failure to see his children or pay support reflects a troubling indifference and cavalier attitude to his role as a parent.
[88] Mr. Jamil has demonstrated a pattern of disregard and indifference towards his support obligations. In my view, he has essentially turned his back on Ms. Iqbal and his children. Ms. Iqbal has been left to raise and care for the children on her own without any kind of support or assistance from Mr. Jamil, financial or otherwise. She has instead relied on her family for that support.
[89] Mr. Jamil cannot walk away from his responsibilities. He cannot move to another country and simply ignore the support order. His children have a right to support and he has an obligation to secure employment that enables him to support them.
February 2020 to March 2021
[90] The third period to consider is from February 2020, when Mr. Jamil returned to Canada, to the date of this trial. He testified he could not find employment during this time, despite sending approximately 200 applications. Again, he relies on his outdated training and inability to pay for updated training as an explanation for his failure to find work in the IT industry. He also relies on the negative impact of COVID-19 on the job market in general.
[91] I will address COVID-19. No evidence was led with respect to how COVID- 19 specifically impacted Mr. Jamil’s ability to find employment. This court can take
judicial notice of the COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on Canadians, and the current state of medical knowledge of the virus, including its mode of transmission and recommended methods to avoid transmission: R. v. Morgan, 2020 ONCA 279, at para. 8. In my view, the court cannot, however, take judicial notice of how COVID- 19 impacts employment in a particular industry. Furthermore, given the number of jobs that Mr. Jamil applied for via Indeed, it appears that the issue may not be the lack of jobs but perhaps Mr. Jamil’s outdated qualifications. Having said that, I am prepared to accept the COVID-19 would have had some impact on Mr. Jamil’s ability to find employment for some period of time after his return to Canada.
[92] I will now address Mr. Jamil’s claim that he has diligently been looking for employment since returning to Canada. He claims that despite this diligence, he has been unable to find employment in the IT field. In my view, this assertion is tied directly to Mr. Jamil’s claim, once again, that his training is out of date and he needs funds to update his certification.
[93] Mr. Jamil presented at trial as a very well-spoken and intelligent person.
This is reflected in his education. He would have known that updated training is key to finding a job in the IT field and that it would make him a more attractive candidate. I therefore have reason to doubt the sincerity of his job search, as Mr. Jamil was fully aware of the need for updating his certificates. Furthermore, his past and ongoing behaviour demonstrates his intention to avoid paying child or spousal support to Ms. Iqbal. In making this finding I have considered the following:
• Mr. Jamil allegedly lost his job after the first interim order for support and did not pay any of the support ordered by the motions judge;
• He did not pay outstanding cost orders;
• More than one order was made for financial disclosure;
• The trial judge found that Mr. Jamil had been deliberately unemployed and that it was a by-product of his unwillingness to meet his support obligations;
• Mr. Jamil filed for bankruptcy shortly after release of the trial decision. As a result, Ms. Iqbal did not receive the ordered payment of costs or lump sum retroactive support;
• Mr. Jamil moved to Pakistan and accepted a job paying no more than $5,700 per annum, substantially less than the $70,000 the trial judge imputed to him; and
• He has made no effort to pay any support for approximately 3.5 years.
[94] I am troubled with Mr Jamil’s failure to update his training. Mr. Jamil has an extensive educational background. I have considered Mr. Jamil’s 2016 video testimonial where he spoke so highly of the training he received from NetSoft. Despite this testimonial, there is no evidence that he has applied to return to school at NetSoft to upgrade or update his training. I expect that constant changes in technology require frequent updating in the IT industry. Mr. Jamil’s excuse that he had no funds to upgrade rings hollow, as it did with the trial judge, particularly as five years have passed since the original trial was heard. Since the trial in January 2016, Mr. Jamil has had over five years to secure funding to return to school. His priority ought to have been upgrading his training if he planned to remain in the IT field, which I assume he did, as that is the focus of his recent job searches.
[95] Mr. Jamil’s outdated qualifications and inability to pay to upgrade his training is not a material change in circumstance because this evidence was previously rejected by the trial judge. While I accept Mr. Jamil’s evidence that he needs to upgrade his training, I reject his evidence that he has been unable to pay for such upgrades since the trial in January 2016. Since that time, he could afford several trips to Pakistan. Those funds could have, and should have, been used to upgrade his training.
[96] Mr. Jamil returned to Canada right before the COVID-19 pandemic struck.
While I am not prepared to take judicial notice of the impact of COVID-19 on the IT industry specifically, I am satisfied that there would have been some initial impact on Mr. Jamil’s ability to find employment, warranting a retroactive variation of his support obligation.
[97] I also must consider, however, Mr. Jamil’s failure to produce his income tax returns, even after ordered by Dennison J. in 2019. A second order was made by Price J. in June 2020 at the initial settlement conference. As noted in Colucci, at para. 113, if a payor has delayed making complete disclosure in the course of the proceedings, the commencement date for any variation may be a date other than the date of formal notice.
[98] Based on Mr. Jamil’s pattern of non-disclosure and his failure to provide income tax returns until two orders by this court, I am not prepared to make any variation in support prior to July 2020.
[99] I am prepared to grant a variation on the basis of a material change in circumstances as a result of Mr. Jamil’s inability to find employment as a result of his return to Canada shortly before COVID-19 which caused a significant and historical interruption to all aspects of our daily lives – including employment. I am prepared to grant a change for the period of July 1, 2020 to April 1, 2021 while Mr. Jamil continued to receive CERB benefits. During that time, he shall pay support based on his CERB benefit of $21,700 per annum.
[100] Attached at Schedule A to these reasons are the DivorceMate calculations I prepared as neither party filed any such calculations. Based on both parties being in receipt of CERB, Mr. Jamil is to pay child support of $333 per month for the period of July 1, 2020 to April 1, 2021. The quantum of spousal support is reduced to zero. FRO is to adjust its records so that the support accruals are adjusted based on this support order during that period.
[101] Mr. Jamil remains underemployed. He should be earning what he is capable of earning in the IT industry. Since his return to Canada, he has had sufficient time to upgrade his education. While Mr. Jamil says he cannot afford to upgrade, he led no evidence with respect to the cost or length of time it would take to upgrade
his certification or whether there is any government funding available to him to assist in upgrading. I therefore find, as the original trial judge found, that an income ought to be imputed to him commencing May 1, 2021. This is just over one year after his return to Canada which would have given him more than sufficient time to upgrade his education.
[102] In 2016, Mr. Jamil agreed to fix the amount of arrears owing based on an imputed income of $60,000. The trial judge imputed an income to him of $70,000 based on expert evidence regarding his earnings operating his own business. As there is no evidence that Mr. Jamil has operated his own business, I find that an income ought to be imputed to him of $60,000 as that is the income Mr. Jamil agreed to impute to himself in 2016. Based on that income, the quantum of support owing shall be varied, and Mr. Jamil shall pay child support of $915 per month commencing May 1, 2021 as per the attached Schedule B DivorceMate calculations. His spousal support obligation is reduced to zero based on this income and Ms. Iqbal being in receipt of CERB.
[103] Payment of the arrears of support, to be recalculated by FRO based on these reasons, shall be paid at the rate of $500 per month commencing May 1, 2021.
[104] Mr. Jamil is to immediately notify Ms. Iqbal when he obtains employment and provide her with particulars of his employment and documentation, such as
pay slips, concerning his rate of pay. He is also to provide her with his income tax returns and Notice of Assessment or Re-Assessment each year.
[105] Should Ms. Iqbal be required to bring a court application for production of financial documents or disclosure from Mr. Jamil regarding his income, the court hearing the matter should consider these reasons in fixing costs against Mr. Jamil.
b) Spousal Support and Life Insurance
[106] Mr. Jamil’s application to terminate spousal support is dismissed. At trial, Andre J. found that Ms. Iqbal was entitled to support on a compensatory and non- compensatory basis for a period ending January 2022. Mr. Jamil’s view is that spousal support ought to be terminated as Mr. Iqbal has now remarried, as has he.
[107] While Ms. Iqbal has remarried, that remarriage does not disentitle her to support. However, it is a factor to consider. In this case, her husband does not live in Canada or provide her with any support. Furthermore, her entitlement to support is based on the circumstances of her marriage to Mr. Jamil and the end of that marriage. Her entitlement continues and there shall be no termination of spousal support. The quantum of spousal support shall be varied as per the finding set out herein regarding Mr. Jamil’s income.
[108] Mr. Jamil seeks an order that he should not have to obtain life insurance, as he says it is too costly. He did not appeal the trial decision or file any evidence regarding the cost to obtain such a policy. There is no evidence of what steps he
took to obtain life insurance. As the life insurance is to secure his support obligations in the event of his death, he must forthwith comply with the decision of the trial judge. He shall provide Ms. Iqbal with documentation confirming that he has obtained the required insurance. Should he fail to provide confirmation of this life insurance by November 1, 2021, he shall pay costs to Ms. Iqbal in the sum of
$10,000. This order is made pursuant to rule 1(8)(a) of the Family Law Rules which provides that an order for costs may be made if a person fails to obey an order.
COSTS
[109] Should either party seek costs and if they cannot reach an agreement, they are to file their cost outline and submissions, of no more than two pages (double- spaced, 12-point font), and any relevant offers to settle by October 15, 2021. If no cost submissions are filed by that date, I will presume that costs are settled and I will make no further order as to costs.
L. Shaw J.
Released: September 7, 2021
SCHEDULE "A"
ather Male 4 Resident of
Child Support Guidelines (CSG)
Monthly $
Father
Mother
nnual uidelines ncome
60 000
21 600
CS Table mount (current)
15
0
Child Support (Table)
915
0
ncome
mployment income 60 000
Tools One 2021
Test 1: Jamil v Iqbal - Calc 5 - 0000
Prepared by: September 2 2021
Mother Female 40 Resident of
ncome
Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Monthly $ Length of marriage/cohabitation: 7 years
Other taxable income
(CERB)
21 600
Recipient's age at separation: 40 years
Children Age Lives with Table Amt Claimed by Child 1 12 Mother Yes Mother Child 2 Mother Yes Mother
Youngest child finishes high school years from the date
of separation.
Dependant credit claimed by Mother.
"With Child Support" ormula
The formula results in a range for spousal support of $0 to
$0 per month for an indefinite (unspecified) duration subject to variation and possibly review with a minimum duration of 3.5 years and a maximum duration of years from the date of separation.
SSAG Considerations: The results of the SSAG formula must be interpreted with regard to: Entitlement; Location within the Ranges; Restructuring; Ceilings and Floors; and Exceptions.
Support Scenarios Monthly $
A SSAG Low
B SSAG Mid
C SSAG High
Father
Mother
Father
Mother
Father Mother
ross ncome
5 000
1 800
5 000
1 800
5 000 1 800
Taxes and Deductions
(1 157)
36
(1 157)
36
(1 157) 36
enefits and Credits
0
1 362
0
1 362
0 1 362
Spousal Support
0
0
0
0
0 0
Child Support (Table)
(915)
915
(915)
915
(915) 915
et Disposable ncome ( D )
2 28
113
2 28
113
2 28 113
adult in household
child in household
shared/summer child in household
Payor's D /Contribution
ercent o I
1
5
1
5
1 5
CS Special xpenses pportioning %
73.5%
26.5%
73.5%
26.5%
73.5% 26.5%
fter-tax Cost/ enefit of Spousal Support
0
0
0
0
0 0
v. 2021.7.8 (c) 2021 DivorceMate Software nc. Page 1 of 3
Child Support Calculation etails
ross mployment ncome Other Taxable ncome
Father Mother
60 000 0
0 21 600
Line 15000 Total Income Annual Guidelines Income
0 000 21 00
0 000 21 00
of Children for whom party pays CS Table mount
CSG Table Amount
2 0
915 0
Child Support (Table)
915
SSAG etails Monthly $ SSAG Low SSAG Mid SSAG High
Father
Mother
Father
Mother
Father
Mother
uidelines ncome
5 000
1 800
5 000
1 800
5 000
1 800
Spousal Support
0
0
0
0
0
0
Child Support (Table)
( 15)
0
( 15)
0
( 15)
0
otional Table mount
0
(332)
0
(332)
0
(332)
Taxes and Deductions
(1 157)
36
(1 157)
36
(1 157)
36
enefits and Credits
0
1 362
0
1 362
0
1 362
D ($)
2 28
2 866
2 28
2 866
2 28
2 866
I I ( )
50 5
9 5
50 5
9 5
50 5
9 5
otional Table Amount
Monthly $
of Children for otional amount
0
2
0
2
0
2
otional Table Amount
0
( 2)
0
( 2)
0
( 2)
Taxes and eductions
Annual $
ine 26000 Taxable ncome
5 718
21 600
5 718
21 600
5 718
21 600
Federal ncome Tax
(6 33)
525
(6 33)
525
(6 33)
525
Provincial ncome Tax
(3 78)
( 6)
(3 78)
( 6)
(3 78)
( 6)
CPP and
(3 6 )
0
(3 6 )
0
(3 6 )
0
Taxes and eductions ( nnual)
(1 0)
29
(1 0)
29
(1 0)
29
Taxes and eductions (Monthly)
(1 157)
(1 157)
(1 157)
Bene its and Credits
Annual $
ine 23600 et ncome (Family)
5 718
21 600
5 718
21 600
5 718
21 600
Combined Child enefits (Fed/Prov)
0
1 78
0
1 78
0
1 78
ST/HST Credit(s)
0
1 863
0
1 863
0
1 863
Bene its and Credits ( nnual)
0
1 1
0
1 1
0
1 1
Bene its and Credits (Monthly)
0
1 2
0
1 2
0
1 2
SSAG uration In ormation
Years of marriage/cohabitation
7
Mother's age at separation
0
Years until youngest child finishes high school
Marriage/cohabitation period of 20 years or more
no
"Rule of 65" (Mother's age plus marriage/cohabitation period)
no
Support Scenario etails Monthly $ A SSAG Low B SSAG Mid C SSAG High
Father
Mother
Father
Mother
Father
Mother
ross ncome
5 000
1 800
5 000
1 800
5 000
1 800
Taxes and Deductions
(1 157)
36
(1 157)
36
(1 157)
36
enefits and Credits
0
1 362
0
1 362
0
1 362
Spousal Support
0
0
0
0
0
0
Child Support (Table)
( 15)
15
( 15)
15
( 15)
15
et Disposable ncome ( D )
2 28
113
2 28
113
2 28
113
v. 2021.7.8 (c) 2021 DivorceMate Software nc. Page 2 of 3
Support Scenario etails (cont'd)
A SSAG
Low
B SSAG Mid
C SSAG High
Gross Income
Annual $
ine 15000 Total ncome
60 000
21 600
60 000
21 600
60 000
21 600
Spousal Support Received
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gross Income ( nnual)
0 000
21 00
0 000
21 00
0 000
21 00
Gross Income (Monthly)
5 000
1 00
5 000
1 00
5 000
1 00
Taxes and eductions
Annual $
ine 26000 Taxable ncome
5 718
21 600
5 718
21 600
5 718
21 600
Federal ncome Tax
(6 33)
525
(6 33)
525
(6 33)
525
Provincial ncome Tax
(3 78)
( 6)
(3 78)
( 6)
(3 78)
( 6)
CPP and
(3 6 )
0
(3 6 )
0
(3 6 )
0
Taxes and eductions ( nnual)
(1 0)
29
(1 0)
29
(1 0)
29
Taxes and eductions (Monthly)
(1 157)
(1 157)
(1 157)
Bene its and Credits
Annual $
ine 23600 et ncome (Family)
5 718
21 600
5 718
21 600
5 718
21 600
Combined Child enefit (Fed/Prov)
0
1 78
0
1 78
0
1 78
ST/HST Credit(s)
0
1 863
0
1 863
0
1 863
Bene its and Credits ( nnual)
0
1 1
0
1 1
0
1 1
Bene its and Credits (Monthly)
0
1 2
0
1 2
0
1 2
v. 2021.7.8 (c) 2021 DivorceMate Software nc. Page 3 of 3
SCHEDULE "B"
Tools One 0 1
Test 1: Jamil v Iqbal - Calc 1
Prepared by: September 1 2021
Father Male, 0, Resident of ON
ncome
Cautions/Overrides
SSAG - Father's ncome between $20,000 and $ 0,000; SSAG may not apply
Other taxable ncome
(CERB)
21,700
Child Support Guidelines (CSG) Monthly $
Father Mother
Mother Female, 0, Resident of ON
ncome
Annual Gu del nes ncome 21,700 21, 00 CSG Table Amount (current) 0
Other taxable ncome
(CERB)
21, 00
Child Support (Table) 333 0
Children Age Lives with Table Amt Claimed by
Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) Monthly $
Length of marriage/cohabitation: 7 years
Ch ld 1 12 Mother Yes Mother
Ch ld 2 9 Mother Yes Mother Youngest ch ld f n shes h gh school 9 years from the date of separat on
ependant cred t cla med by Mother
Recipient's age at separation: 0 years
"With Child Support" Formula
Required input for duration: Age of Recipient at Separation
SSAG Considerations: The results of the SSAG formula must be interpreted with regard to: Entitlement; Location within the Ranges; Restructuring; Ceilings and Floors; and Exceptions.
Support Scenarios Monthly $
A SSAG Low
B SSAG Mid
C SSAG High
Father Mother
Father Mother
Father Mother
Gross ncome
1,808 1,800
1,808 1,800
1,808 1,800
Taxes and educt ons
(128)
(128)
(128)
enef ts and Cred ts
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
Spousal Support
0 0
0 0
0 0
Child Support (Table)
(333) 333
(333) 333
(333) 333
et sposable ncome ( )
1, 11
, 1
1, 11
, 1
1, 11 , 1
adult n household
ch ld n household
shared/summer ch ld n household
Payor's /Contr but on
ercent o I
1
1
1
CSG Spec al Expenses Apport on ng %
0 1%
9 9%
0 1%
9 9%
0 1% 9 9%
After-tax Cost/ enef t of Spousal Support
0
0
0
0
0 0
v 2021 7 8 (c) 2021 vorceMate Software nc Page 1 of
Child Support Calculation etails
Other Taxable ncome
Father Mother
21,700 21, 00
Line 15000 Total Income Annual Guidelines Income
1 00 1 00
1 00 1 00
of Ch ldren for whom party pays CSG Table Amount
CSG Table Amount
2 0
333 0
Child Support (Table)
333
SSAG etails Monthly $ SSAG Low SSAG Mid SSAG High
Father Mother
Father Mother
Father Mother
Gu del nes ncome
1,808 1,800
1,808 1,800
1,808 1,800
Spousal Support
0 0
0 0
0 0
Ch ld Support (Table)
( ) 0
( ) 0
( ) 0
ot onal Table Amount
0 ( 2)
0 ( 2)
0 ( 2)
Taxes and educt ons
(128)
(128)
(128)
enef ts and Cred ts
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 11 2,8
1, 11 2,8
1, 11 2,8
I I ( )
33 0 0
33 0 0
33 0 0
otional Table Amount
Monthly $
of Ch ldren for ot onal amount
0
2
0
2
0
2
otional Table Amount
0
(33 )
0
(33 )
0
(33 )
Taxes and eductions
Annual $
ne 2 000 Taxable ncome
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
Federal ncome Tax
(88 )
2
(88 )
2
(88 )
2
Prov nc al ncome Tax
( 9)
(9 )
( 9)
(9 )
( 9)
(9 )
CPP and E
0
0
0
0
0
0
Taxes and eductions (Annual)
(1 533)
9
(1 533)
9
(1 533)
9
Taxes and eductions (Monthly)
(1 )
3
(1 )
3
(1 )
3
Bene its and Credits
Annual $
ne 2 00 et ncome (Fam ly)
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
Comb ned Ch ld enef ts (Fed/Prov)
0
1 , 78
0
1 , 78
0
1 , 78
GST/HST Cred t(s)
77
1,8
77
1,8
77
1,8
Bene its and Credits (Annual)
3
1 3 1
3
1 3 1
3
1 3 1
Bene its and Credits (Monthly)
1 3
1 3
1 3
SSAG uration In ormation
Years of marr age/cohab tat on
7
Mother's age at separat on
0
Years unt l youngest ch ld f n shes h gh school
9
Marr age/cohab tat on per od of 20 years or more
no
"Rule of " (Mother's age plus marr age/cohab tat on per od)
no
Support Scenario etails Monthly $
A SSAG Low
B SSAG Mid
C SSAG High
Father Mother
Father Mother
Father Mother
Gross ncome
1,808 1,800
1,808 1,800
1,808 1,800
Taxes and educt ons
(128)
(128)
(128)
enef ts and Cred ts
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
Spousal Support
0 0
0 0
0 0
Ch ld Support (Table)
et sposable ncome ( )
1, 11 , 1
1, 11 , 1
1, 11 , 1
v 2021 7 8 (c) 2021 vorceMate Software nc Page 2 of
Support Scenario etails (cont'd)
A SSAG
Low
B SSAG Mid
C SSAG High
Gross Income
Annual $
ne 1 000 Total ncome
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
Spousal Support Rece ved
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gross Income (Annual)
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
Gross Income (Monthly)
1 0
1 00
1 0
1 00
1 0
1 00
Taxes and eductions
Annual $
ne 2 000 Taxable ncome
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
Federal ncome Tax
(88 )
2
(88 )
2
(88 )
2
Prov nc al ncome Tax
( 9)
(9 )
( 9)
(9 )
( 9)
(9 )
CPP and E
0
0
0
0
0
0
Taxes and eductions (Annual)
(1 533)
9
(1 533)
9
(1 533)
9
Taxes and eductions (Monthly)
(1 )
3
(1 )
3
(1 )
3
Bene its and Credits
Annual $
ne 2 00 et ncome (Fam ly)
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
21,700
21, 00
Comb ned Ch ld enef t (Fed/Prov)
0
1 , 78
0
1 , 78
0
1 , 78
GST/HST Cred t(s)
77
1,8
77
1,8
77
1,8
Bene its and Credits (Annual)
3
1 3 1
3
1 3 1
3
1 3 1
Bene its and Credits (Monthly)
1 3
1 3
1 3
v 2021 7 8 (c) 2021 vorceMate Software nc Page of
COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-76175-01
DATE: 2021 09 07
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
ZUBAIR JAMIL
Applicant
- and -
SUMERA IQBAL
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
L. Shaw J.
Released: September 7, 2021