REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

[1] Ms. Lange and Mr. Tait were in a relationship for a short period in late 2013 and early 2014. Ms. Lange learned she was pregnant with Mr. Tait’s child after their relationship ended. In fact, Ms. Lange was in a relationship with Mr. Lange when she found out she was pregnant.

[2] Ms. Lange gave birth in September 2014.

[3] Ms. Lange told Mr. Tait about the pregnancy in June 2014. They briefly discussed child support and parenting issues but, in the end, Mr. Tait played no role in their daughter’s life while Ms. Lange and Mr. Lange were together and paid no child support.

[4] Ms. Lange and Mr. Lange represented to the world that Mr. Lange was the biological father of Ms. Lange’s daughter. Mr. Lange treated her as his own daughter. He was there when she was born. He told his parents and his son from a previous relationship she was his daughter. She called Mr. Lange “Papa.” She called Mr. Lange’s parents “Oma” and “Opa.” Mr. Lange was listed as her father at her school and for extended health coverage.

[5] When Ms. Lange and Mr. Lange got married in August 2017, Ms. Lange changed her daughter’s last name to Lange as well and added Mr. Lange to her daughter’s birth certificate as her father. For the first five years of her life, nobody knew Mr. Lange was not her biological father.

[6] Ms. Lange and Mr. Lange separated in January 2020 and in April 2021, Ms. Lange filed an application seeking a parenting order and child support from Mr. Lange. In his answer, Mr. Lange added Mr. Tait as a respondent and sought an order that Mr. Tait pay child support.

[7] Ms. Lange brought this motion for interim child support from both Mr. Lange and Mr. Tait. She is seeking $1,738.80 per month from Mr. Lange. She was also seeking $745 per month from Mr. Tait. Ms. Lange argues that Mr. Lange and Mr. Tait should pay a proportionate amount of child support based on the table amount that would be owing based on their combined income of $314,639, which would be $2,484 per month. She argues that, based on their respective incomes, Mr. Lange should pay 70% of the total and Mr. Tait should pay 30% of the total.

[8] Ms. Lange abandoned her motion against Mr. Tait because he agreed to pay $745 per month in child support on an interim, without prejudice basis. I am, therefore, only deciding whether Mr. Lange should be ordered to pay interim child support.

[9] Mr. Lange argues that Ms. Lange’s motion should be adjourned until Mr. Tait’s income can be determined. Mr. Tait’s reported income in 2021 was $95,512. Mr. Lange argues that Mr. Tait is intentionally underemployed and a much higher income should be imputed to him for the purpose of child support. However, he argues that he needs more financial disclosure to accurately assess Mr. Tait’s earning capacity. Mr. Lange brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure from Mr. Tait. Mr. Lange argues that Ms. Lange’s support motion should be adjourned until his disclosure motion is decided and any disclosure order is produced.

[10] In the alternative, Mr. Lange argues the Court should exercise its discretion and not order him to pay any child support. He argues that Mr. Tait has the primary child support obligation. He argues that he should not be required to pay any child support because Ms. Lange and Mr. Tait have enough money to support the child without any contribution from him.

[11] I am not prepared to adjourn Ms. Lange’s motion for interim support. I order Mr. Lange to pay $1,609 per month in child support on an interim, without prejudice basis. Finally, Mr. Tait is ordered to produce his income tax returns and notices of assessment for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Should Ms. Lange’s motion be adjourned pending a determination of Mr. Tait’s Income?

[12] Mr. Lange argues that Ms. Lange’s motion should be adjourned until after his disclosure motion is decided and after Mr. Tait produces full financial disclosure. Mr. Lange takes the position that Mr. Tait has the primary obligation to pay child support as the biological father. He argues that his child support obligation is secondary as the person who stood in the place of her parent. Mr. Lange also argues that the court cannot fairly determine his child support obligation, even on an interim basis, without accurate information about Mr. Tait’s income or earning capacity.

[13] Section 5 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines deals with support orders against someone who stood in the place of a parent. The Court can order a person who stood in the place of a parent, like Mr. Lange, to pay child support in any amount the court considers appropriate having regard to the Guidelines and any other parent’s legal duty to support the child: Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 5. In other words, I have discretion to order Mr. Lange to pay an amount that is less than what would be prescribed by the formula in the Federal Child Support Guidelines if he were the biological father of Ms. Lange’s child.

[14] Mr. Tait’s declared income in 2021 was $95,512. Mr. Lange argues that Mr. Tait is intentionally underemployed because he retired in 2017 at the age of 47. Mr. Tait is earning investment income but is also living off savings and depleting his capital. Mr. Lange argues that based on Mr. Lange’s net worth and his annual budget, an annual income of $325,000 or $350,000 should be imputed to Mr. Tait for the purpose of his child support obligations.

[15] Mr. Lange argues that it would be unfair to decide his child support obligation before Mr. Tait makes full financial disclosure and before the Court can fairly decide what income should be imputed to Mr. Tait. I disagree.

[16] Adjourning this motion is not in the best interests of their child. She has not received any child support from Mr. Lange since he and Ms. Lange separated. It would be unfair to Ms. Lange’s daughter to further delay a decision on whether Mr. Lange should be paying child support. Any order I make will be without prejudice to Mr. Lange’s ability to argue at trial that he should not be required to pay any child support. If he overpays child support, that can be rectified at trial. Their daughter should not have to suffer while Mr. Lange disputes his obligations to her.

Should Mr. Lange be required to pay interim child support?

[17] Mr. Lange admits he stood in the place of a parent to Ms. Lange’s daughter for the first five years of her life: Divorce Act, s. 2(2)(b). He is the only father she knew for the first five years of her life. He held himself out as her biological father. He let her believe he was her biological father. His name was added to her birth certificate as her father.

[18] Ms. Lange’s daughter is a “child of the marriage” and Mr. Lange has all the rights and obligations he would have if he were her biological father: Chartier v. Chartier, 1999 707 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 242 at para. 39. Mr. Lange cannot unilaterally withdraw from his relationship with Ms. Lange’s daughter or from his obligation to pay child support: Chartier at para. 32.

[19] Mr. Lange is right that I have discretion to order him to pay an amount for child support that is less than what would be prescribed by the Federal Child Support Guidelines if he were her biological father. Because Mr. Lange stood in the place of a parent, I can order whatever amount I consider appropriate, having regard to the guidelines and any other parent’s duty to pay child support: Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 5. Nonetheless, the presumption is that the table amount is appropriate and the burden is on Mr. Lange to rebut that presumption: Francis v. Barker, 1999 659 (SCC), [1999] 3 SCR 250 at 252, Kobe v. Kobe and Dirks, 2002 78089 at para. 28, Ballmick v. Ballmick, 2005 ONCJ 101 at para. 24.

[20] Mr. Lange argues that I should exercise my discretion and not order him to pay any child support. Mr. Lange argues that Mr. Tait has the primary obligation to support Ms. Lange’s daughter. He argues that Mr. Tait should be imputed with an annual income of $350,000 and should be ordered to pay $2,739 per month in child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines, s. 4. Mr. Lange also argues $2,739 from Mr. Tait is “more than enough” to support the child and, as a result, I should exercise my discretion to reduce his child support obligation to zero.

[21] Mr. Lange also argues it would be unfair to require him to pay child support because he supported the child for the first five years of her life while Mr. Tait had a “holiday” from his child support obligation. After their preliminary discussion about child support and parenting issues, Ms. Lange did not pursue Mr. Tait for child support while she was with Mr. Lange. It was only when Mr. Lange’s relationship with Ms. Lange was ending that he appears to have taken issue with Mr. Tait’s failure to pay child support.

[22] The evidence on this motion does not support an interim finding that Mr. Tait should be imputed with an annual income of $350,000. Whether an annual income of more than $95,512 should be imputed to Mr. Tait will have to be decided at trial on a full record once disclosure is complete. But even if I were to impute to Mr. Tait an annual income of $350,000, I would not reduce Mr. Lange’s support obligation to zero.

[23] Both Mr. Lange and Mr. Tait have a legal obligation to pay child support: Chartier at para. 42. I appreciate that Mr. Lange asserts his legal obligation to support Ms. Lange’s child is secondary to Mr. Tait’s obligation. However, the obligation of multiple parents to support a child are joint and several: Chartier at para. 42. To avoid prejudicing their child, Mr. Lange is required to pay child support while he litigates Mr. Tait’s obligation and contribution. Mr. Lange can seek a remedy at trial if he overpays child support: Chartier at para. 42.

[24] Contrary to what Mr. Lange suggests, the issue is not whether Mr. Tait is in a financial position to fully provide for their daughter’s needs. Child support is no longer simply about ensuring that children have enough to meet their basic needs. Child support is designed to ensure every child enjoys a standard of living commensurate with their parents’ income: DBS v SRG, 2006 SCC 37 at para. 45.

[25] Courts have employed a variety of methods to determine how to apportion child support obligations between a biological parent and someone who stands in the place of a parent. Sometimes, the Court orders both parents to pay the full table amount on their own income. Sometimes, the Court orders each parent to pay a percentage of the total support owing based on their combined income. And sometimes, the Court orders one parent to pay the full table support based on their income and orders the other parent to pay a “top up” amount.

[26] Depending on the method used, Mr. Lange’s child support obligation will be between $1,557.71 a month on the low end and $1,796.71 a month on the high end – a difference of only $239 per month.

[27] Ms. Lange argues that I should order Mr. Lange to pay a proportionate amount of the table support based on Mr. Lange’s and Mr. Tait’s combined income. Mr. Tait’s reported income in 2021 was $95,512. Mr. Lange’s reported income in 2021 was $219,127. Their combined income was $314,639. The table support for one child on an income of $314,639 is $2,484.40 per month. Mr. Lange’s income represents 70% of their combined income. If Mr. Lange pays 70% of the table support on their combined income, his share would be $1,738. Mr. Tait’s share would be $745 per month, which is what Mr. Tait has agreed to pay.

[28] If, on the other hand, I ordered Mr. Lange to pay the table amount of child support on his income of $219,137, he would be required to pay $1,796.71 per month. If Mr. Tait were to pay the full table support on his reported income of $95,512, he would owe $875 per month (not $745 per month as he has agreed to pay). If Mr. Lange and Mr. Tait both paid table support on their respective annual incomes, the total monthly child support would be $2,671.17 (as compared to $2,484 if the child support is calculated based on their combined incomes).

[29] If I were to employ a “top up” method, Mr. Lange’s contribution would be $1,609 per month. The table amount of child support on Mr. Lange’s and Mr. Tait’s combined income of $314,639 is $2,484 per month. If Mr. Tait were to pay the full table support on his income of $95,512, he would owe $875 per month. If Mr. Lange were required to “top up” the child support to $2,484 per month, his share would be $1,609 per month.

[30] Even if I were to impute an income of $350,000 to Mr. Tait on an interim basis, that would not significantly change Mr. Lange’s contribution on any of the methods of calculation routinely employed by the court. If both were required to pay the full table amount, Mr. Lange would still owe $1,796.21 per month. Mr. Tait’s support obligation on an imputed salary of $350,000 would be $2,739 per month.

[31] If Mr. Lange and Mr. Tait each paid a proportionate share of the support on their combined income using an imputed income of $350,000 for Mr. Tait, Mr. Lange’s portion would be $1,661.93. Under this scenario, their combined incomes would be $569,127. The table child support on an income of $569,127 is $4,316.71 per month. Mr. Lange’s income would represent 38.5% of their combined income so his contribution would be $1,661.93.

[32] If a “top up” method was used to calculate their respective contributions, Mr. Lange’s monthly portion would be $1,577.71. Again, the table child support on a combined income of $569,127 would be $4,316.71 per month. If Mr. Tait was required to pay the full table support on an imputed income of $350,000, he would pay $2,739 per month. If Mr. Lange was required to “top up” the child support paid by Mr. Tait, his contribution would be $1,577.71 per month (or $4,316.71 - $2,739).

[33] In other words, imputing an annual income to Mr. Tait of $350,000 on an interim basis would significantly increase Mr. Tait’s child support obligation (from $745 per month to a possible $2,739 per month) but it would not significantly reduce Mr. Lange’s obligation.

[34] As an alternative to his position that he should not be required to pay any support, Mr. Lange proposed a “subtraction method” for calculating his contribution. He argues that the total child support owing by him and Mr. Tait should be $1,796.71 based on his income. He argues that I should add back the $31,835.08 in capital losses Mr. Tait claimed on his income taxes in 2021 and calculate his support obligations based on an income of $127,347.08. Mr. Lange argues that Mr. Tait’s support obligation should be $1,125.57. Mr. Lange argues that Mr. Tait’s obligation should be subtracted from the total support owing ($1,796.71 - $1,125.57) and he should be ordered to pay the difference, which would be $671.14.

[35] The “subtraction method” proposed by Mr. Lange is not in the best interests of his daughter. There is no principled reason to cap the child support to the amount owing on Mr. Lange’s salary alone. Mr. Lange and Mr. Tait are both fathers to Ms. Lange’s daughter. She is entitled to benefit from both her father’s incomes even if that means she has a standard of living that is higher than it might be if only one father was supporting her: Guillemette v. Guillemette, 2008 3214 at para. 38.

[36] In my view, the fairest way to calculate Mr. Lange’s child support obligation on an interim basis is to employ the “top up” method. As the biological parent, Mr. Tait does have the primary obligation to pay child support: LMA v. PH, 2014 ONSC 1707 at paras. 108 and 204, Shen v. Tong, 2013 BCCA 519 at para. 58. In my view, on an interim basis, Mr. Tait should be paying the full table amount on his reported income, which would be $875 per month. Ms. Lange agreed to accept $745 per month to resolve her motion against Mr. Tait. She was free to do that. But I am not bound by her agreement when deciding how the support obligation should be apportioned between Mr. Tait and Mr. Lange.

[37] I recognize that it is not always appropriate to calculate child support based on the combined incomes of the two contributing parents, which will result in less child support being paid than if both parents are ordered to pay the full table amount on their own income: Mayer v. Mayer, 2013 ONSC 7099 at para. 88. However, in the context of this case, where there is a dispute between the two fathers about their respective incomes and there is a history of both fathers not paying support (albeit at different times and for different periods), the best way to ensure the child is properly supported pending a trial without creating a risk of significant overpayments by either father is to combine their incomes and apportion the support obligation between them based on their combined incomes.

[38] Ms. Lange’s motion for interim child support is granted. On an interim, without prejudice basis, starting September 1, 2022 and on the first day of every month thereafter, Mr. Lange shall pay child support in the amount of $1,609. This order is without prejudice to Mr. Lange’s right to argue at trial that he should not have been required to pay any child support or that his child support obligation should be lower. If this order results in an overpayment or underpayment by either father, that can be accounted for and rectified at trial.

Disclosure

[39] Mr. Lange brings a cross-motion for disclosure from Mr. Tait.

[40] Full and frank disclosure of relevant financial information is crucial to the fair resolution of family law matters. However, disclosure must also be proportionate: Saunders v. Saunders, 2015 ONSC 926 at para. 13 - 15, Tonogai v. Tonogai, 2021 ONSC 2366 at para. 25. The time and expense involved in gathering (or producing) the disclosure requested must be balanced against the relevance of the information sought to the issues in dispute.

[41] Mr. Tait acknowledges he has an obligation to support his daughter. As of September 1, 2022, he agreed to pay $745 per month in child support. The issue at trial will be whether an income should be imputed to Mr. Tait for child support purposes. Mr. Lange takes the position that the court should impute an income to Mr. Tait between $325,000 and $350,000.

[42] Deciding whether to impute an income to Mr. Tait will not be straightforward. Mr. Tait retired in 2017 when he was 47 years old. His primary source of income now is investment income. Mr. Tait admits that his spending now exceeds his income. Mr. Tait’s budget shows expenditures of $16,444.94 per month or $197,339.28 per year. He uses his RRSPs and capital to support himself.

[43] Before he retired, Mr. Tait’s income was very high. Mr. Tait was the President and CEO of several companies in the mining and exploration industry. Mr. Tait was involved in family court litigation in 2008 with his former spouse. On an interim support motion in that case, the Court found that Mr. Tait’s income was $4,579,612 in 2006, $3,228,468 in 2007 and $6,632,626 in 2008.

[44] Mr. Tait’s reported income since his retirement has been much lower and has fluctuated significantly. In 2018, his reported income was $343,424. In 2019, his reported income was $117,480. In 2020, his reported income was just $6,616. In 2021, his reported income was $95,512.

[45] Mr. Lange argues that Mr. Tait should, at a minimum, be imputed an income commensurate with his lifestyle. Mr. Lange has requested a significant amount of financial disclosure from Mr. Tait which he says is relevant to the issue of what income should be imputed to Mr. Tait.

[46] Mr. Tait has agreed to provide some of the disclosure requested but argues the rest of Mr. Lange’s request is disproportionate and a fishing expedition.

Income Tax Returns from 2014 to 2020

[47] Mr. Lange seeks disclosure of Mr. Tait’s income tax returns from 2014 (when Ms. Lange gave birth to their daughter) to 2020 (when Mr. Lange and Ms. Lange separated). Mr. Lange argues the tax returns are required to assess what income should be imputed to Mr. Tait for child support purposes.

[48] Mr. Tait is required to produce a copy of his personal income tax returns for the last three years: Family Law Rules, Rule 13(3.1), Child Support Guidelines, O.Reg 391/97, s. 21(a). Mr. Tait has produced his 2021 tax return. He has also produced notices of assessment for 2018, 2019 and 2020. Mr. Tait must produce his 2019 and 2020 tax returns.

[49] Mr. Tait argues that what he was earning in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 is not relevant to the issue of what income should be imputed to him now. He argues that information about his income from eight years ago is too remote to be of assistance. I disagree.

[50] Mr. Tait retired at 47. I am not criticizing him for making that decision. However, the Court will have to decide whether an income should be imputed to him. At trial, the Court could find that his decision to be retired is an intentional decision to be underemployed for the purpose of s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines. The Court will then have to decide what Mr. Tait could earn if he were not retired. Mr. Tait’s income before he retired is relevant to what he might be able to earn now. It will not be determinative, but it is relevant.

[51] In addition to providing his three most recent tax returns, Mr. Tait is also required to produce his full income tax returns and notices of assessment for 2015, 2016 and 2017. It will not be onerous or disproportionate for Mr. Tait to produce tax returns for the three years prior to his retirement.

Monthly bank and investment statements

[52] Mr. Lange seeks disclosure of monthly statements for the last 12 months from all of Mr. Tait’s bank accounts, investment accounts, RRSPs, TFSAs, credit cards and lines of credit. Mr. Lange argues these statements are relevant for several reasons. First, he argues the bank statements will reveal Mr. Tait’s net worth. Second, he argues they will show whether Mr. Tait is using his acquired capital reasonably. Third, he argues they will show how Mr. Tait is funding his current lifestyle without a significant income.

[53] Mr. Tait has agreed to produce statements for his investment accounts and redacted statements that show deposits into any existing bank accounts. Those are the statements Mr. Lange needs to calculate Mr. Tait’s net worth and his ability to earn income on his capital. Mr. Lange does not need other records to make an argument about imputing an income based on Mr. Tait’s ability to earn income from capital.

[54] Mr. Tait admits his current expenditures exceed his income. He is funding his lifestyle using his investment income, capital and RRSPs. While Mr. Lange is entitled to information about Mr. Tait’s income and earning capacity, he is not entitled details about how Mr. Tait spends his money.

[55] Mr. Tait is not required to produce any bank statements other than those he has agreed to produce – statements from his investment accounts and deposits into his other bank accounts.

[56] Mr. Tait is a minority shareholder in Juno Corp., a privately held company. He owns 2,383,000 shares in Juno Corp. Mr. Tait paid $408,000 for the shares over several years.

[57] Mr. Lange seeks a valuation of Mr. Tait’s shares in Juno Corp. and financial statements from Juno Corp. for the last three years. Mr. Lange is also seeking documentation about Mr. Tait’s acquisition of shares in Juno Corp. and a “tracing of the source of funds for the purchase of those shares.” Finally, Mr. Lange seeks a copy of Juno Corp.’s shareholders agreement.

[58] Mr. Tait was cross-examined on the affidavit he filed on this motion. He was questioned about his purchase of Juno Corp. shares and the value of his shares. He testified his mother gave him $300,000 towards the purchase of the shares. He testified that he purchased some shares at $0.80 per share and some at $2.00 per share. He also testified the latest round of financing for Juno Corp. was done at $2.00 per share.

[59] Mr. Tait has agreed to produce some information about his investment in Juno Corp. He undertook to produce information about when he purchased shares in Juno Corp. and how much he paid for the shares. Mr. Tait has also agreed to request financial statements from Juno Corp. from the last three years if Mr. Lange signs a non-disclosure agreement.

[60] Mr. Tait cannot do anything more than request copies of the financial statements from Juno Corp. He is only a minority shareholder. He is not the majority shareholder or a director of the company. He, therefore, cannot force the company to give him their financial statements.

[61] Mr. Lange is not entitled to any information about Mr. Tait’s interest in Juno Corp beyond what Mr. Tait has already undertaken or agreed to provide. Requiring a valuation of the recently acquired shares in a privately held company would be very costly and time-consuming. Mr. Tait has provided information about the price he paid for the shares and the value attributed to the shares during a more recent round of financing. It would be disproportionate to require Mr. Tait to conduct a valuation of those shares. The issue in this case will be Mr. Tait’s income earning capacity, not the division of family property. Mr. Lange has enough information to make an argument about the value of the Juno Corp. shares and how Mr. Tait’s ownership interest in Juno Corp. should inform the imputation of income.

[62] Mr. Tait is not required to produce a tracing of the money he used to purchase the shares. He is not required to produce shareholder statements. He is not required to produce a valuation of the shares. If Juno Corp. refuses to produce the financial statements to Mr. Tait, Mr. Lange will have to bring a third-party records application if he wants to obtain those.

[63] Mr. Lange seeks a “status and tracing” of Mr. Tait’s investments in eight other companies: Lexam VG Gold Inc., Merc International Minerals Inc., Southern Star Resource Inc., Superior Copper Corporation, VG Gold Corp., Westchester Resources Inc., White Pine Resources Inc. and WSR Gold Inc. Mr. Lange argues that these records are relevant to the issue of what Mr. Tait earned before he retired.

[64] I have already ruled that Mr. Tait is required to produce his income tax returns for the three years before he retired. If Mr. Tait still owns shares in any of these companies, that information will be disclosed in the investment account statements that Mr. Tait has agreed to produce. With Mr. Tait’s income tax returns and statements from his investment accounts, Mr. Lange will be able to argue what income should be imputed to Mr. Tait for the purpose of child support. Requiring Mr. Tait to also provide a status and tracing for investments he had in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 is disproportionate to the issues in this case. Mr. Tait is not required to produce a status or tracing for his investments in Lexam VG Gold Inc., Merc International Minerals Inc., Southern Star Resource Inc., Superior Copper Corporation, VG Gold Corp., Westchester Resources Inc., White Pines Resources Inc. and WSR Gold Inc. other than what is contained in his income tax returns for 2015, 2016 and 2017.

[65] Mr. Lange also seeks copies of the shareholders agreements in any entity in which Mr. Tait has a shareholding. I am not satisfied that the shareholders agreements are relevant to any issue at trial. Even if they were possibly relevant, requiring Mr. Lange to produce shareholders agreements for every entity in which he holds shares would be disproportionate. Mr. Tait is not required to produce any shareholder agreements.

Information about child support payments to Mr. Tait’s other child

[66] Mr. Lange is seeking production of documentary evidence about any child support (table support and s. 7 expenses) he has paid for his 19-year-old child from his previous marriage. He argues that the court could use this information to infer his income when he was paying child support for his other child, which is relevant to the imputation of income in this case. I disagree.

[67] As far as I am aware, Mr. Tait’s child support payments for his first child are not subject to a final order. The Court made an interim order in 2008. Whatever arrangement Mr. Tait has with his former spouse in relation to child support, it is not based on a final order. Mr. Tait and his former spouse were free to reach whatever deal they wanted about child support. Mr. Tait’s support payments may or may not be based on his actual income.

[68] I have ordered Mr. Tait to produce his income tax returns and notices of assessment for the three years before he retired. Mr. Lange has Mr. Tait’s income tax returns and notices of assessment for the last three years. Six years of income information will provide much more reliable information than what he is paying in child support for another child from a previous relationship.

[69] I am also concerned that ordering Mr. Tait to produce information about his child support payments will unnecessarily infringe his other child’s privacy. His other child is now 19 years old. The information Mr. Lange seeks may disclose what school Mr. Tait’s other child attended, whether his other child is in university, whether his other child has any significant medical issues or learning disabilities. It is not reasonable or proportionate to require Mr. Tait to disclose information about his other child as well as the information he is required to produce about his income.

Conclusion and Order

[70] Ms. Lange’s motion for interim support is granted. Mr. Lange’s disclosure motion is granted in part.

[71] I encourage the parties to agree on the issue of costs of these motions. If they are unable to do so despite their best efforts, each party may file written cost submissions of no more than 3 pages double-spaced together with any relevant offers to settle by November 25, 2022.

ORDER:

Starting on September 1, 2022 and on the first of each month thereafter, Mr. Lange shall pay $1,609 in child support for his daughter.
A support deduction order shall issue.
Within 20 days, Mr. Tait shall produce the following items of disclosure:

a. His personal tax returns and notices of assessment for 2015, 2016 and 2017;

b. His personal tax returns for 2019 and 2020;

c. Monthly statements for the last 12 months for his investment accounts; and

d. Redacted bank statements showing all deposits to his personal bank accounts for the last 12 months.

Within 20 days, Mr. Tait shall request from Juno Corp. a copy of its financial statements for the last three years. If Juno Corp. gives Mr. Tait its financial statements, those financial statements shall be produced to Mr. Lange and Ms. Lange if they both sign a non-disclosure agreement.
If Juno Corp. does not agree to produce its financial statements, Mr. Tait shall produce to Mr. Lange his request for the statements and Juno Corp.’s response.

Davies J.

Released: November 15, 2022

Revised: November 30, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-22898

DATE: 20221115

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

REBEKA LANGE

Applicant

– and –

RONALD LANGE and JOHN TAIT

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION

Davies J.

Released: November 15, 2022

Revised: November 30, 2022

Lange v. Lange, 2022 ONSC 6412

Case Summary

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

Should Ms. Lange’s motion be adjourned pending a determination of Mr. Tait’s Income?

Should Mr. Lange be required to pay interim child support?

Disclosure

Income Tax Returns from 2014 to 2020

Monthly bank and investment statements

Information about child support payments to Mr. Tait’s other child

Conclusion and Order

ORDER:

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 5

Legal Tests 1

Legislation 2

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

Should Ms. Lange’s motion be adjourned pending a determination of Mr. Tait’s Income?

Should Mr. Lange be required to pay interim child support?

Disclosure

Income Tax Returns from 2014 to 2020

Monthly bank and investment statements

Records related to Juno Corp.

Records related to Mr. Tait’s other investments

Information about child support payments to Mr. Tait’s other child

Conclusion and Order

ORDER:

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 5

Legal Tests 1

Legislation 2