COURT FILE NO: FS-13-18528-0001 FS-13-18528-0002

DATE: 2024-08-08

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

THOMAS CHRIS O’CONNOR Applicant

– and –

KRISTINE ANNE GALKA Respondent

Julie Hannaford and Jamie Ahn, for the Applicant

Self-Represented

HEARD: January 9, 11, and February 8, 2024, orally and January 19, 2024, in writing

RHINELANDER, J.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

[1] The Respondent, Kristine Galka, brought a motion (Motion #1) to change the Final Consent Orders of Stevenson, J. dated January 30, 2015 (Stevenson Order), and Pinto, J. dated April 6, 2021 (Pinto Order). Ms. Galka seeks to change:

i. Section 7 expenses:

a. to increase fixed amount of $15,000 to $52,513, (this amount does not include private school tuition paid in addition to the fixed amount);

b. payment of tuition only for private school (in addition to the fixed amount above) to payment of all expenses at private school including school uniforms, books, necessary and mandatory technical equipment

such as Apple laptop, iPhone, accessories including airpods and/or headphones, school student account, and any/all trips including clothing, accessories, and meals;

c. to require the Applicant, Thomas O’Connor, to pay for all of A.’s medical and dental expenses effective immediately; to pay the dental offices directly for all A.’s dental services;

d. to reimburse Ms. Galka for all funds deducted from monthly child support and personal loans taken to pay for A.’s section 7 special and extraordinary expenses for the past two years of $98,542, that have exceeded the fixed amount of $15,000; and

e. to require Dr. O’Connor to pay for university applications, and all tuition, housing, books, and meals for university in the future.

ii. the date the fixed amount for section expenses are payable to Ms. Galka from May 1 to January 1 of each year;

iii. the monthly child support currently calculated in compliance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines based on Dr. O’Connor’s income, to a fixed monthly amount of $10,000 that shall not change or vary at any time even in the event of a material change of circumstances whether the change was foreseeable, unforeseeable, foreseen or unforeseen;

iv. to require Dr. O’Connor to pay Ms. Galka the equivalent of two years imputed income for a total of $80,000 for his failure to parent A. as set out in the Stevenson Order; and

v. parenting time from a 65/35 split to a schedule that permits Dr. O’Connor to see A. when his schedule permits including holidays, school days, vacation time, and to arrange the times and dates with Ms. Galka in advance and Dr. O’Connor is no longer required to provide his hospital work schedule.

[2] Dr. O’Connor, brought a cross-motion seeking to recover overpayments of child support and section 7 expenses, totalling $20,292, and if successful on this motion, that Ms. Galka not be permitted to seek relief from the court if costs remain outstanding.

[3] Oral submissions were heard on Motion #1 on January 9 and 11, 2024. Ms. Galka sought to rely upon receipts and documents to support her claim that section 7 expenses had dramatically increased since 2021. These materials had not been disclosed or provided to Dr. O’Connor in advance of the motion. The materials were sent to his counsel’s office the morning of January 11, 2024. Dr. O’Connor was provided an opportunity to review the materials. Written submissions were received by the court January 19, 2024.

[4] On January 17, 2024, Ms. Galka served and filed a further motion (Motion #2) seeking:

i) an interim disbursement from Dr. O’Connor of $10,000 to retain counsel for the motion to change that was argued on January 9 and 11, 2024;

ii) immediate payment of $10,000 for current section 7 expenses;

iii) full financial disclosure from Dr. O’Connor, including, but not limited to a forensic analysis and two updated independent reports: an income report and valuation report, income tax returns for First Hx, copies of all his bank and credit card statements, going back to 2018; and

iv) non-party disclosure from Dr. O’Connor’s mother regarding her purchase, mortgage, and appraisal of a property she bought in 2018 (Creemore property), and income tax statements from his current common-law partner, and real estate re-evaluations for both the Creemore property and Dr. O’Connor’s partner’s home, which she solely owns and where he resides.

[5] Motion #2 was heard February 8, 2024. For reasons set out below Motion #2 is dismissed.

[6] With respect to Motion #1, only Ms. Galka’s request to change parenting time is granted. All other changes sought by Ms. Galka are dismissed.

[7] Dr. O’Connor’s cross-motion for overpayments of child support and section 7 expenses, is granted subject to recalculations.

Background

[8] The parties met in or around 2006, when both were employed by Trillium Health Centre (THC). The parties cohabited between 2008 to 2013, did not marry, and have a daughter, A., who is 15 years old.

[9] The mother had a career as a television journalist before changing directions to work as a media consultant focussed on health care in the Province of Ontario under contract at the THC. The mother has a degree in Political Science and Mass Communications from York University. Following the birth of A., the mother took a one-year maternity leave. She returned to work for a short time, but a decision was made for her to stay home and care for their daughter until she started school. The mother made approximately $70,000 per annum when she stopped working.

[10] The father was and continues to work as a critical care physician in the intensive care unit at THC where he has worked for over 30 years. The father was the founder and former president of Think Research and is currently the Chief Executive Officer of FirstHx Corporation, a start up company focussed on medical software.

[11] After separation, the primary residence of the child was with the mother. The Stevenson Order was arrived at on consent and resolved child support, spousal support, and parenting on a final basis. Dr. O’Connor agreed to pay monthly spousal support of $7,899 commencing February 1, 2015, to December 1, 2019. Dr. O’Connor was also responsible for paying table child support of $4,430 per month based on his 2015 income of $578,000.

[12] Child support was to be reviewed annually in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines and/or varied at any time in the event of a material change of circumstances, whether the change was foreseeable, unforeseeable, foreseen, or unforeseen. The parties are required to exchange section 21 disclosure annually.

[13] The Stevenson Order set out examples of several types of activities or expenses that may be considered section 7 expenses if agreed upon or awarded through arbitration [emphasis added]. These included extracurricular activities, such as camp, tutoring and educational programs, private school, counselling, speech therapy, medical expenses over and above insurance coverage, dental expenses over and above insurance coverage, orthodontics, and optical expenses over and above insurance coverage.

[14] The parties agreed to joint decision-making for major issues or decisions involving A., that included, but was not limited to, issues regarding health, counselling, therapy, education, religion, permanent changes to A.’s appearance, summer camp, and extra-curricular activities. If the parties could not agree, a dispute resolution process was set out in the Stevenson Order.

[15] Pursuant to the Stevenson Order, Dr. O’Connor had parenting time with A. on alternate weekends, and Tuesdays after school to Wednesday mornings in Week 1 and Thursday after school to Friday mornings in Week 2. Neither party was to schedule A. for extra-curricular activities that fell on the other party’s time, without the written consent of the other party or an arbitration award. An exception was built in that accommodated Dr. O’Connor’s schedule but is not relevant for this motion.

[16] Dr. O’Connor was ordered to maintain his current coverage of medical/dental/health insurance for the benefit of A. for so long as the benefit is available to him. For purposes of calculating agreed upon section 7 expenses, Ms. Galka’s portion was to be calculated based on the greater of any actual income or an imputed income of $40,000. Proof of payment and/or receipt was to be provided to the other party and reimbursement given within fourteen (14) days.

[17] The Stevenson Order included a Schedule that identified a parenting plan and recommendations for the parties including guidelines and principles. One such term was “the parents shall make every effort to protect the child from the parent’s anger and/or frustration regarding the other parent” and “the parents shall not speak with the child, directly or indirectly about specific parental differences and disagreements, including those related to financial issues, specific concerns about the other parent, and parenting arrangements.”

[18] A term of the Schedule regarding extracurricular activities specifically stated that if the child was enrolled in an activity that impacted both parents’ time, and that both parents did not consent to, the other parent is not obligated to take the child to that activity.

[19] In December 2019, Ms. Galka brought a motion to change the Stevenson Order to increase child support and extend spousal support indefinitely. Pending the motion to change being heard, Ms. Galka brought a motion to compel Dr. O’Connor to pay for A. to attend private school. Dr. O’Connor was opposed to A. attending private school and did not agree that having her change schools in grade 7 was appropriate. Ms. Galka, contrary to the Stevenson Order, encouraged A. to apply for private schools and brought the motion on an urgent basis, rather than attend arbitration,

as offers of admission were imminent and responses would be necessary. That motion was dismissed by Akbarali, J. on February 2, 2021.

[20] On April 6, 2021, Pinto, J. ordered on consent, that terms of the Stevenson Order be changed and/or amended regarding section 7 expenses. Dr. O’Connor agreed to pay the private school tuition for A. but did not agree to pay any of the collateral expenses such as uniforms, technology, trips, meals, etc. To reduce the discord regarding proof of section 7 expenditures and reimbursement of same, it was agreed that a fixed amount of $15,000 would be paid every year by the 1st day of May. Ms. Galka no longer had to provide proof of an expense or wait for reimbursement, nor did she require Dr. O’Connor’s consent to enroll A. in extracurricular activities. The Pinto Order did not change all terms of the Stevenson Order and although Ms. Galka did not require Dr. O’Connor’s consent to enroll A. in activities, she was still bound by other terms of the Order including not scheduling activities during his parenting time absent written consent.

[21] The Pinto Order was clear that Ms. Galka was not entitled to any reimbursement for any section 7 expenses for A. over and above the $15,000. Provided Dr. O’Connor paid this amount each year, Ms. Galka was not permitted to make any demands for payments beyond the

$15,000 amount. [emphasis added]

[22] It also ordered that Ms. Galka “will not be entitled to seek payment from Chris for any other ancillary costs for the school, including but not limited to, uniforms, supplies, trips, books, electronics, or activities”. Ms. Galka acknowledged and confirmed that if any of the ancillary costs fell into arrears such that it caused A. to be deregistered, she had no claim against Dr. O’Connor for payment.

[23] Within a year of the Pinto Order, Ms. Galka commenced motions for increased child support. Ms. Galka commenced this motion to change in May 2023 alleging Dr. O’Connor had intentionally reduced his income to avoid paying child support. It was conferenced on May 26, 2023, before Vella, J. and orders made regarding timelines and disclosure to be exchanged.

[24] After receiving evidence on Motion #1 to change child support, section 7 expenses, and parenting, and two days before further submissions were due regarding receipts provided by Ms. Galka in support of special and extraordinary expenses, Ms. Galka filed Motion #2. Motion #2 requested disbursements and disclosure relating to Motion #1, and an opportunity to respond to Dr. O’Connor’s submissions regarding the receipts and documents she disclosed during Motion #1. Motion #2 was not conferenced in advance as required by the Order of Akbarali, J. nor did Ms. Galka obtain leave for the motion from the conference judge. Dr. O’Connor did not object to Motion #2 being heard but requested it be dismissed, and an Order that Ms. Galka shall be required to seek leave from this Court to bring further motions.

[25] The impetus to all the motions Ms. Galka has filed over the past two years and the two before this court, relate specifically to child support and Dr. O’Connor’s income.

Issues

[26] The issues to be determined on the two motions are as follows:

i) Are the additional requests for disclosure reasonable and proportionate?

ii) Does Ms. Galka meet the test for interim disbursements?

iii) Should Dr. O’Connor be required to provide an immediate payment of $10,000 towards section 7 expenses?

iv) Has there been a material change in circumstances that warrants an increase for section 7 expenses?

v) Has Ms. Galka discharged her onus and established that Table Child Support is inappropriate pursuant to s.4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines?

vi) Should the court vary the Stevenson Order regarding the parenting time schedule?

vii) Has Dr. O’Connor breached terms of the Stevenson Order that entitle Ms. Galka to financial compensation?

viii) Has there been an overpayment of child support and section 7 expenses between May 1, 2021, and November 17, 2023?

Analysis

i) Are the additional requests for disclosure reasonable and proportionate?

[27] Courts have held repeatedly that full, fair, and frank financial disclosure is one of the most important obligations in family law matters. Its importance cannot be understated, and its obligations are set out in Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules which serve to provide consistency in the production of financial disclosure. However, the information requested must be relevant and proportionate and not merely a fishing expedition.

[28] In Boyd v. Fields, [2006] O.J. No. 5762, 2006 CarswellOnt 8675, Perell, J. stated,

Full and frank disclosure is a fundamental tenet of the Family Law Rules. However, there is also an element of proportionality, common sense, and fairness built into these rules. A party’s understandable aspiration for the outmost disclosure is not the standard. Fairness and some degree of genuine relevance, which is the ability of the evidence to contribute to the fact-finding process are factors. I also observe that just as non-disclosure can be harmful to a fair trial, so can excessive disclosure be harmful because it can confuse, mislead, or distract the trier of fact’s attention

from the main issues and unduly occupy the trier of fact's time and ultimately impair a fair trial. [para 12]

[29] Justice Rogers went further in Chernyakhovsky v. Chernyakhovsky, 2005 6048 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 944 at paragraphs 6 and 8, where she explained the approach to be taken regarding disclosure, as follows:

¶ 6 The new approach to fact finding under the Family Law Rules has been to make disclosure a given. Fact-finding is not to be a battleground. There ought to be an orderly, prompt request for disclosure with an organized speedy reply. The process is not to go on forever and the case is to move on because the facts point to a resolution or to the necessity of a trial. Obtaining the factual evidence is no longer a game of hide and seek.

¶ 8 The courts must, however, be clear that the disclosure process cannot be used to cause delay or to reap tactical advantage. The court must consider the burden certain disclosure requests bring for the disclosing party. Is the probative value of the sought-after disclosure so great in relation to the difficulty of obtaining the disclosure that said disclosure would be ordered and sanctions imposed for failure to comply? How does the disclosure request fit into the overall context of the case? Is the issue for which disclosure is requested a central issue in the case? Or is it peripheral? Does the cost of obtaining the disclosure outweigh the value of the issue in the case? Is there a more expeditious and cheaper way of getting the same information? As the case develops, is the disclosure still related to an important issue in the case? As always, the court must balance these competing interests to ensure fairness.

[30] This is a further motion seeking to change terms of a final order that addressed special and extraordinary expenses and child support. Since the date of separation, Dr. O’Connor has provided his full tax returns including schedules, and notices of assessment each year. In earlier litigation initiated in 2019 by Ms. Galka, where she sought indefinite spousal support and an increase in child support, an Income Report for Dr. O’Connor was prepared by aP Valuations dated July 24, 2020. The author of the report conducted an in-depth analysis of Dr. O’Connor’s income between 2016 to 2019. The report identified Dr. O’Connor’s professional income earned from the THC, additional income from Think Research, and investments arising from dividends and capital gains.

[31] Dr. O’Connor was terminated from Think Research Corporation at the end of 2020 when the company went public. He received severance pay for eighteen months and shares which were locked in for a defined timeframe. All severance pay collected was declared as income for tax purposes. When the shares were no longer subject to the lock down period, Dr. O’Connor sold some of these shares. This was reported on his income tax returns and the capital gains were grossed up for the purposes of calculating child support. If, and when, Dr. O’Connor decides to sell his remaining shares in TRC, and the proceeds are paid to him, it will be reported as part of his income for purposes of calculating child support.

[32] These events had an impact on Dr. O’Connor’s total income but had little effect on his professional income earned at the THC as explained below. After leaving Think Research, Dr. O’Connor was invited to become involved with FirstHx, a start-up company. Dr. O’Connor invests his spare time in this company and although he does not receive any financial remuneration, he has been provided with shares and options. This new venture is speculative but is hoped to become successful.

[33] An urgent case conference was held on May 26, 2023, and Vella, J. ordered Dr. O’Connor to produce documents relating to FirstHx regarding his ownership and/or beneficial interest, income and income entitlement including any compensation package that may exist; the financial statements of FirstHx; and Dr. O’Connor’s time records from 2021 to 2022 to show his hours of work including OHIP billings from 2021 to date and his corresponding time schedules. There was no indication before this court that Dr. O’Connor failed to comply with this order.

[34] Ms. Galka seeks an Order that Dr. O’Connor must obtain an updated income report and a valuation report prepared by aP Valuations for the period January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023. The report prepared in 2020 included the full income of Dr. O’Connor for 2019 so that would be duplicitous. Each year, Ms. Galka receives a copy of Dr. O’Connor’s tax return and notices of assessment. Further, his lawyer provides a letter explaining any gross ups to his income, any non- recurring income, or reductions and the amount of child support payable for that year.

[35] Reviewing the 2020 report, it is clear Dr. O’Connor’s professional income throughout those four years ranged between $376,000 to $498,000. This income was derived from his work at the hospital based on his regularly scheduled 18 weeks. Dr. O’Connor’s professional income in 2021 was approximately $458,000, and in 2022 was approximately $468,000 before deductions. Both these years are within the range of his professional income earned between 2016 to 2019. Ms. Galka was provided copies of his OHIP billings pursuant to Vella, J.’s order for 2021 and 2022, and has a copy of his hospital schedule. She can readily add that up to confirm or contradict what was stated as his income. I see no basis to order an updated income report or valuation report and find that this would be an unnecessary expense.

[36] Ms. Galka argued that Dr. O’Connor has hidden assets and owns properties in Bermuda and Florida based on his 2022 tax return. The return shows Dr. O’Connor has an investment portfolio with the Bank of Montreal (BMO). Some of his investments are in investments trusts which generate income from Bermuda and the United States. In 2022, the investment generated income from Bermuda was $1,122.05 and $4,487.47 from the U.S. These sums were reported on his income tax. The total of the tax paid was $352.24. A review of Dr. O’Connor’s tax returns confirmed this income was derived through his investment portfolio and are not properties he owns, contrary to Ms. Galka’s assertions.

[37] Some of the items Ms. Galka seeks are overbroad, unreasonable, and disproportionate to the issues, have been disclosed, or are not relevant to these proceedings. Ms. Galka continually accused counsel to Dr. O’Connor of playing a game of “look over here not over there”, however, it is Ms. Galka who is instrumental in playing the game. Counsel for Dr. O’Connor repeatedly makes efforts to answer questions raised by Ms. Galka, however, none are satisfactory unless it results in more monies payable to her.

[38] Ms. Galka has received full financial disclosure. Despite this, Ms. Galka continues to believe and argue that Dr. O’Connor has hidden assets and additional income to avoid having to pay child support. In addition to arguing that Dr. O’Connor owns properties in Bermuda and Florida, she claims he owns the Creemore property. Ms. Galka argued this property was purchased in 2020 immediately after Dr. O’Connor transferred shares to a third party. When confronted with evidence that the property was purchased by Dr. O’Connor’s mother in 2018, she changed the date she alleged the property was purchased and now points to income from 2017 allegedly used to purchase the property. It is important to note, the parties were involved in a further round of litigation between 2019 to 2021, and Ms. Galka was represented by counsel and a full income report was prepared covering that timeframe.

[39] Despite Ms. Galka’s fixation that Dr. O’Connor owns the Creemore property that she initially alleged he purchased in 2020 for $1 million dollars, the Property Identification Number (PIN) search showed this property was purchased by Mary O’Connor on December 10, 2018, for

$827,000. Ms. Galka argued that was not possible as his mother does not work, had limited income, and is 80 years old. There is a mortgage registered on the property for $700,000. The mortgagor is the Royal Bank of Canada, and the mortgagees are Mary and Dennis O’Connor, Dr. O’Connor’s parents. Both are non-parties to these proceedings.

[40] Ms. Galka failed to acknowledge that both Dr. O’Connor’s parents were listed on the mortgage for the property and demanded that Dr. O’Connor disclose all banking records related to the purchase of this property and mortgage payments. There is nothing to suggest that Dr. O’Connor’s parents are not financially able to purchase the property and there has been no evidence presented that Dr. O’Connor purchased the property. Messages included in Ms. Galka’s materials include references to the cousins going to the Creemore property, several of them tried tubing while up there, and a family dinner with cousins and grandparents. The Creemore property appears to be akin to a family cottage which may be used by any/all the family members and used more frequently by some members than others.

[41] Ms. Galka’s “evidence” that he owns the Creemore property is based on the frequency with which he uses the property. There is no dispute he uses the property frequently and he has acknowledged contributing to some of the maintenance costs. There is no evidence, however, that he owns it. Based on the acknowledgment that Dr. O’Connor uses the Creemore property, Ms. Galka demanded to see his full bank account statements to determine how much and what contribution he makes to the property. This is not relevant or necessary for the purposes of calculating child support.

[42] Ms. Galka requested all bank statements, credit card statements for accounts set out in Dr. O’Connor’s December 22, 2023, financial statement. Additionally, she seeks statements for all accounts he held from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019, and from May 1, 2021, to December 2023. What Ms. Galka seeks is overbroad and disproportionate to the issue to be determined. Dr. O’Connor has provided full, fair, and frank disclosure regarding his total yearly income since the parties separated. Ms. Galka is not entitled to information regarding how and where he spends his money nor is it relevant for purposes of calculating child support.

[43] Ms. Galka also requests an evaluation of a home owned by Dr. O’Connor’s current partner, in addition to her income tax statements for 2021 and 2022. There is no obligation for Dr.

O’Connor’s current partner to pay child support or to provide disclosure of her income. It is only in very limited circumstances where this would be warranted, and this is not one of them. Despite this, Dr. O’Connor provided a copy of a PIN search of his partner’s home which demonstrated it was purchased by her on October 9, 2009, and a mortgage exists for the home solely in her name.

[44] Ms. Galka relied upon Marshall v. Marshall, 1000 833, and Pearse v. Pearse, 2010 BCSC 117, for the proposition that the court can consider the overall means of Dr. O’Connor’s household to determine child support. Both cases are distinguishable and the facts very different. In each of those cases, it was the household income of the recipient that was considered regarding contributions to section 7 expenses as opposed to the payor’s household income.

[45] In Angulo v. Angulo, 2019 ONSC 1456, the court held that a former spouse is not entitled to the “full financial picture” of a spouse’s new partner by right. Such disclosure would be extensive and intrusive. Kristjanson, J. held in Politis v. Politis, 2018 ONSC 323 at para. 17:

Compelling the production of personal income, asset and other financial information of new life partners is highly invasive of personal privacy and generally of minimal relevance. The privacy interests of third party new partners must be carefully balanced against the interests of the parties to the family law proceeding, and any production order carefully scrutinized.

[46] Ms. Galka continues to not be satisfied with disclosure and has convinced herself that Dr. O’Connor has hidden assets and income without any proof or evidence to substantiate her claims. Dr. O’Connor’s income is very transparent and fully disclosed to Ms. Galka each year, unfortunately, in the absence of the additional income Dr. O’Connor received from Think Research, his overall income has decreased in recent years which has impacted table child support, a fact Ms. Galka refuses to accept.

[47] Ms. Galka requests for further disclosure area not reasonable and proportionate and are therefore dismissed.

ii) Does Ms. Galka meet the test for interim disbursements?

[48] Rule 24(18) of the Family Law Rules provides authorization for a court to “make an order that a party pay an amount of money to another party to cover part or all of the expenses of carrying on the case, including a lawyer’s fees”. It seeks to level the playing field between the parties to ensure the just determination of issues between parties and recognizes there may be circumstances where one party cannot afford to pursue justice given the disparity in financial resources available to that party. Morton v. Morton, 2015 ONSC 4633.

[49] The power to order interim disbursements is discretionary and a “court’s discretion should be exercised to ensure that all parties can equally provide or test disclosure, make or consider offers, or possibly go to trial…”. Fiorellino-Di Poce v Di Poce, 2019 ONSC 7074 at para 14.

[50] The onus is on the person seeking an interim disbursement to demonstrate the following:

a. The interim disbursements for which an advance payment is requested are important to matters in issue in the proceeding as a whole;

b. The disbursements are necessary and reasonable given the needs of the case and the funds available. If the disbursements are for payment of an expert, the moving party must demonstrate a clear need for the services of the expert;

c. The moving party is incapable of funding the requested amounts;

d. The claim or claims being advanced in the case must be meritorious as far as can be determined on the balance of probabilities at the time of the request for disbursements; and

e. The imposition of the payment on the responding party will not cause undue hardship to the payor: Morton, para. 97, citing Stuart v. Stuart, 2001 28261 (ONSC), [2001] O.J. No. 5172 (S.C.), at para section 7, 11-13. Ibid, paragraph 12.

[51] Ms. Galka seeks an interim disbursement of $10,000 to retain legal counsel to conclude this motion. Ms. Galka expressed that she would like to retain a family law lawyer who had represented her previously in this matter. Ms. Galka claims she is not in a financial position to retain counsel without assistance from Dr. O’Connor. This amount would be merely a deposit towards legal fees based on the email exchange with the lawyer. In response to Ms. Galka’s question, “what deposit do you need, if you were to take this on”, the lawyer’s response was “$10,000”. This is not reflective of the full legal fees for this matter.

[52] Ms. Galka brought Motion #2 at the conclusion of Motion #1, thereby, causing the matter to become further protracted. To permit Ms. Galka to commence this litigation all over would be unfair. Ms. Galka seeks to go on a fishing expedition funded by Dr. O’Connor. Ms. Galka has failed to meet her onus that there is a meritorious claim to be determined on the balance of probabilities at the time of the request for disbursements and failed to establish that requiring Dr. O’Connor to pay these fees would not cause him undue hardship. Further, I am not satisfied the disbursement is necessary and reasonable given the needs of this case and Ms. Galka’s very capable submissions.

iii) Should Dr. O’Connor be required to provide an immediate payment of $10,000 for section 7 expenses?

[53] The parties have continued to be involved in litigation for over ten years. A Final Order, the Stevenson Order was issued January of 2015. Ms. Galka brought a motion to change terms of that order in 2019, which resulted in the Pinto Order. The Pinto Order changed the method and mechanism for how section 7 expenses would be paid. The Pinto Order is very clear and requires Dr. O’Connor to pay a fixed amount of $15,000 each year (excluding tuition for private school) towards A.’s annual section 7 expenses. This amount shall be paid by May 1 of each calendar year. Ms. Galka had overspent in 2023 and requested an advance of the 2024 section 7 lump sum payment on April 30, 2023. It is clear Ms. Galka has difficulty managing her finances and makes no effort to budget. I see no reason to order Dr. O’Connor to provide Ms. Galka with an immediate advance payment of $10,000.

iv) Has there been a material change in circumstances that warrants an increase for section 7 expenses?

[54] Ms. Galka seeks to change the Pinto Order that changed paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Stevenson Order. Paragraph 15 of the Stevenson Order required both parties to contribute to A.’s section 7 expenses in accordance with their incomes. Ms. Galka’s income was imputed at $40,000 or her actual income whichever was higher for this purpose. Contribution and/or reimbursement was to occur within 14 days of proof of payment by email. Paragraph 16 enumerated several items that constituted section 7 expenses if agreed upon or awarded. [emphasis added]

[55] Under the Pinto Order, the parties agreed on consent that a fixed amount of $15,000 each year would be paid by Dr. O’Connor for section 7 special and extraordinary expenses. This amount was in addition to tuition only for A. to attend private school. It eliminated the need for Ms. Galka to provide proof of payment and/or to obtain his agreement or seek arbitration for matters that constituted section 7 expenses. It also set a spending limit or ceiling on section 7 expenses that Dr. O’Connor would be responsible for. Any section 7 expenses that exceeded the fixed amount were solely the responsibility of Ms. Galka. Term 1 of the Pinto Order included the following:

For clarity, Kristine will not be entitled to any reimbursement for any expenses for

A. and will not be required to account to Chris for any expenses for A. Provided that the amount of $15,000.00 is paid each year for these expenses, Kristine will refrain from making any demands for payments beyond the $15,000.00 amount.

[56] The terms of the Pinto Order were clear - provided the above sum was paid, Ms. Galka was not entitled to any further payment or reimbursement for section 7 expenses for A. Since the Pinto Order, A. has been enrolled in additional extracurricular activities, participated in several class trips, and required new and/or additional technical equipment, including but not limited to Apple laptops, iPhones, airpods/headphones.

[57] In Olaveson v. Olaveson, 2007 CarswellOnt 3975 (Sup. Ct.), the court found that the basic costs for registration and equipment commonly associated with a community hockey program should not be considered extraordinary and that Guidelines Tables are intended to cover the usual common costs of raising children, which would include the ordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.

[58] Ordinary extra-curricular expenses are deemed to be included in the table child support. A custodial parent does not have carte blanche to enroll a child in any number of extra-curricular activities and then look to the non-custodial parent to share or cover all the costs. Forrester v. Forrester, 1997 1546, para. 4. Vogelsang, J. specifically stated, “The guidelines do not grant a licence to a custodial parent to inject a child into lavish additional activities and demand automatic payment.”

[59] Ms. Galka seeks to increase the fixed amount of section 7 expenses to $52,513.40 per annum in addition to the $40,000.00 tuition Dr. O’Connor pays for A. to attend private school for a total of $92,513.40. It is important to note that Dr. O’Connor was not in agreement that A. attend private school. Despite his position, Ms. Galka encouraged A. to apply and when Dr. O’Connor would not relent to covering the fees necessary, she brought a motion to compel him to pay. This

motion was dismissed by Akbarali, J. on February 2, 2021. Ultimately, Dr. O’Connor relented to pay only the tuition fees as part of the Pinto Order. In exchange, a cap was set regarding what Dr. O’Connor had to contribute to section 7 expenses. Ms. Galka is required to be financially responsible for all other expenses related to A.’s attendance at private school including but not limited to, uniforms, school trips and activities, books, meals, and all technical needs for her to fully participate in class. The funds for these expenses may come from any income Ms. Galka receives, including monthly child support, or can be paid from the annual fixed amount of $15,000. Per the Pinto Order, Dr. O’Connor is not responsible to cover any additional expenses beyond the tuition fees, the annual fixed sum of $15,000.00, and monthly child support as calculated according to the Guidelines.

[60] Ms. Galka argues that A.’s section 7 expenses have increased by 300% to 400% in two years since the Pinto Order. Ms. Galka filed documents on Motion #1 that she sought to rely upon to support her position. A review of these documents demonstrated that several items Ms. Galka seeks payment for are not proper section 7 expenses. Furthermore, the receipts included within the documents are not evidence of, nor does it establish a 3-4X increase in section 7 expenses.

[61] Some of the expenses claimed by Ms. Galka that are not section 7 expenses are the cost of school uniforms, payment for cord blood bank, car rentals, car repairs and maintenance, gas, preparing A. for vacations with Dr. O’Connor, clothing, make-up, and veterinary bills nor are these expenses extraordinary. Many of these costs do not exceed what Ms. Galka should reasonably be expected to cover, when considering her annual imputed income of $40,000, and non-taxable child support of approximately $52,800 in 2023.

[62] Upon a review of the documents submitted by Ms. Galka, the cost of A.’s competitive / recreational dance program increased by approximately $300 from 2021 to 2023. The fees were slightly less in 2022. The approximate cost for A.’s dance is $2,500 per year.

[63] Ms. Galka argued that A. has figure skated since she was four years old. This was not in dispute; however, it was unclear if she also participated in synchronized skating from that age or if this became a new activity after separation. No evidence was introduced whether A.’s home club has a synchronized skating team that A. had previously skated with, and if so, why she changed clubs for this activity and if there was a difference in fees between the clubs. Ms. Galka told the court A. is currently skating with the Oakville Edge Juvenile synchronized skating team. She stated it is the top team in the province and fees increase with the better clubs.

[64] Clearly, A. did not skate with the Oakville club until this past season. Evidence produced by Ms. Galka showed try-out fees for this team and another for Gold Ice in the spring of 2023. The fees to skate on this team are approximately $5000 not including travel expenses and team accessories.

[65] The approximate fees for A. home club, Silver Blades Skating Club were $3500 in 2021,

$4500 in 2022, and $2500 in 2023. This demonstrated a decrease in costs as opposed to an increase.

[66] Ms. Galka added the second skating club to A.’s schedule and it is not reasonable or appropriate to suggest an activity A. has been involved with since she was four has increased threefold in cost. This additional club is not a necessary or reasonable expense that Dr. O’Connor

should be expected or required to cover. Furthermore, this activity occurs on Tuesday evenings and Sundays. No evidence was produced that Dr. O’Connor agreed to this activity in writing. If the parenting term was to strictly be complied with as demanded by Ms. Galka, Dr. O’Connor would not be obliged to take A. to this activity on Tuesday evenings or on the alternate weekends pursuant to the Stevenson Order. A. nonattendance for weekly practices would likely affect A.’s ability to remain on the team.

[67] Ms. Galka points to the cost of school activities and trips and that she has no income and is not able to fund these. On several occasions, Ms. Galka texted or sent messages to Dr. O’Connor demanding he send money so A. could participate in a trip or have funds to eat while on the trip. She insists Dr. O’Connor should cover all costs related to private school over and above the tuition.

[68] Ms. Galka repeatedly referred to Dr. O’Connor relying on a “look over here not over there” game when examining his income and assets, but this is more consistent with the game Ms. Galka has been playing. She points to invoices and bills for ongoing section 7 expenses, additional activities, and school trips that she continues to enroll A. in and/or agree to her participating in with the expectation that Dr. O’Connor must pay.

[69] I don’t find there is a material change in circumstances other than Ms. Galka has opted to continue to enroll and register A. for activities and fails to create a budget in line with the monthly child support and fixed amount she receives for section 7 expenses. Like Forrester v. Forrester, Ms. Galka continues to solely determine what to enroll or register A. in with the expectation that Dr. O’Connor be responsible for all expenses.

[70] Presently, Dr. O’Connor contributes $55,000 annually towards section 7 expenses. Ms. Galka’s request to increase this amount over $90,000 is dismissed. Further, Ms. Galka’s request for a lump sum payment of $98,542 to reimburse her for alleged section 7 expenses is dismissed.

v) Has Ms. Galka discharged her onus and established that Table Child Support is inappropriate pursuant to s.4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines?

[71] In Ridley v. DeRose, 2017 ONCJ 877, Tobin, J. held as follows:

[131] Section 4 of the Guidelines provides the Court with two options when dealing with a payor whose income is over $150,000.00 per year.

[132] The first option is to award Table support and an amount for special and extraordinary expenses.

[133] The second option arises if the Court considers the first option to be inappropriate.

[134] If the second option is found to be appropriate, then child support will be determined in a three-step process:

a) Table support is calculated on the payor’s first $150,000.00 of income;

b) In respect of the payor’s income in excess of $150,000.00, the Court must determine an amount it considers appropriate having regard to:

(i) the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the children;

(ii) the financial ability of each parent to contribute to the children’s support.

c) An amount for special or extraordinary expenses is determined.

[135] There is a presumption that Table support is the appropriate amount to award: Francis v. Baker, 1999 659 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250 para. 42.

[136] A payor who wants the Court to order a different amount bears the onus of rebutting that presumption by “clear and compelling evidence”. Francis v. Baker, supra para.

43. The onus is to demonstrate on the evidence that the Table amount of support would be inappropriate.

[137] The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the meaning of the word “inappropriate” in the context of s. 4 in Francis v. Baker, supra. The Court held that “inappropriate” is to be broadly defined to mean “unsuitable” rather than merely “inadequate” (para. 40).

[72] There is a presumption in favour of Table Child Support. In Francis v. Baker, the court clearly stated that the party seeking to deviate from the presumption bears the burden of establishing that the amount is inappropriate, and there must be clear and compelling evidence to depart from the Guidelines amounts.

[73] Section 10 of the Guidelines allows for either spouse to apply for an amount of child support that is different from the Guidelines on the basis that he or she would otherwise suffer “undue hardship”. There is a high threshold standard in establishing undue hardship. The hardship must be exceptional, excessive, and disproportionate. The onus is on the person seeking to increase or decrease Table Child Support based on hardship. Morrone v. Morrone, 2007 CarswellOnt 7392.

[74] In this case, Ms. Galka seeks to increase Table Child Support to a monthly fixed sum of

$10,000. According to the Guidelines, child support in this quantum would equate with a payor earning an annual income upwards of $1.3 million dollars. Based on the evidence before this court, Dr. O’Connor has never earned an annual income anywhere near that amount. There is a presumption in favour of using the Guidelines and the onus of showing that this approach is inappropriate is on the party so claiming, that is Ms. Galka. (Lewi v. Lewi (2006), 2006 15446 (ON CA), 80 O.R. 321 (OntCA), citing Francis v. Baker, 1999 659 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250)

[75] It is not in dispute that Dr. O’Connor works at the THC as a physician in the intensive care unit and he is scheduled to work 18 weeks a year. Ms. Galka does not take issue with this and acknowledged Dr. O’Connor works hard and he should not be expected to work more. The concern, according to Ms. Galka, is that Dr. O’Connor gives up shifts at the hospital to take on other responsibilities such as CEO at FirstHx and this has a direct impact on his income. Ms. Galka, on several occasions argued that it is the income from THC that pays for all of A.’s extracurricular activities, such as skating and dance, not his income from Think Research and now FirstHx.

[76] Ms. Galka argued that each shift or day Dr. O’Connor gives up at THC he loses approximately $50,000 to $100,000 of income, thereby affecting child support. Elsewhere in her materials, Ms. Galka suggested the amount for each lost day of work at THC is equivalent to a loss of income of $25,000 to 50,000. If I was to accept her bald assertions with no evidence to support this argument, Dr. O’Connor would earn between $3 million to $12 million dollars per year solely from his shifts in the ICU at THC (18 weeks x 7 = 126 x $100,000 = $12,600,000 or divided by 2 if the rate is $50,000 per day = $6,300,000 per annum; 126 x $25,000 = $3,150,000).

[77] This does not make sense, nor does it compute. Dr. O’Connor’s total income, including his earnings from THC, never exceeded $1M per annum.

[78] Every year commencing in 2021, counsel for Dr. O’Connor sends a letter to Ms. Galka with the child support calculation for that calendar year. The letters identify Dr. O’Connor’s Line 15000 income and provide an explanation for monies added to this amount for expenses, capital gains, dividends, and non-recurring income. Ms. Galka can easily reconcile the contents of the letter with Dr. O’Connor’s full income tax returns for errors.

[79] Ms. Galka’s primary argument was that Dr. O’Connor was reducing his income by giving up shifts to attend meetings for Think Research and now for FirstHx. It was readily conceded that Dr. O’Connor gave up shifts to attend meetings for Think Research between 2014 to 2019. However, he received remuneration from Think Research to perform those duties. Counsel for Dr. O’Connor explained this in a letter to Ms. Galka and advised Dr. O’Connor received more remuneration for attending meetings on behalf of Think Research than a day/week at THC. This is evident in Dr. O’Connor’s tax returns whereupon his income was much higher. Dr. O’Connor’s total income has decreased the past few years as he was terminated from Think Research in 2020 when it went public. His total income for purposes of calculating child support was higher in 2020 and 2021 as he received severance pay from the company and was able to sell and/or cash out some of his shares. This was also set out in the annual letter sent to Ms. Galka.

[80] Currently, Dr. O’Connor is involved with a start up company, FirstHx. He advised he does not receive any remuneration for this work but has received nominal shares and stock options. Should the company succeed, the shares and stock options will increase in value. Unlike Think Research, Dr. O’Connor has not had to travel, nor has he given up shifts to perform work for FirstHx.

[81] Dr. O’Connor stated he typically bills between $20,000 to $25,000 per on call week at the THC. This figure may fluctuate depending on his services. This figure is more consistent, and representative of the professional income declared on his income tax. Dr. O’Connor’s net professional income between 2016 to 2022 ranged from $376,000 to $498,000. This professional income is derived from his work at the hospital based on his regularly scheduled 18 weeks. Dr. O’Connor stated he worked 121 of 126 days in 2021, and 121 of 125 days in 2022, and was on schedule to work all his shifts for 2023. Ms. Galka has been provided with his hospital schedule and OHIP billings for 2021 and 2022 and could readily confirm if this was not the case.

[82] It is clear the increased income of Dr. O’Connor was attributable to his work at Think Research. The very employment Ms. Galka sought to curtail. Dr. O’Connor’s departure from

Think Research was out of his control. Any reduction in his professional income from THC is due to a decline in ICU bed numbers with the decline of the pandemic and reduction of nurses in 2022.

[83] Ms. Galka erroneously argues that Dr. O’Connor’s income has dropped because of a decision to pursue self-employment. She relies on Lawson v. Lawson, 2006 26573 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 3179, for the proposition of a party choosing to pursue self-employment and whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances if the decision impacts the parent’s child support obligations. That is not the case here as set out above.

[84] Ms. Galka further argues that it is improbable that Dr. O’Connor is receiving no remuneration from FirstHx as its CEO. She relied upon the success FirstHX appears to have and recent hires the company has made. She argues he is deliberately not receiving remuneration to avoid paying child support. There is no evidence to support this beyond Ms. Galka’s assertions. First Ms. Galka argues his work at the external companies has reduced his income from THC, which is the bread and butter that pays for all of A.’s activities. The next moment, Ms. Galka argued if he is working at FirstHx, he must receive a salary more than $500,000, comparable with other CEOs for his work. Again, there is no evidence before this court to support that. Dr. O’Connor explained his compensation consists entirely of stock options which are currently nominal in value. He disagrees with Ms. Galka’s assertions that he has intentionally chosen to defer to compensation or bonuses.

[85] Having considered the test in Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (Ont.CA), I find no basis to impute additional income to Dr. O’Connor pursuant to the criteria set out in section 19 of the Guidelines.

[86] Ms. Galka argues that child support should be increased due to financial hardship. Ms. Galka pointed out that child support dropped by $2,000 in one year. Ms. Galka requested monthly child support be fixed at $10,000. She requires stability to provide for A. who has and will continue to suffer undue hardship if this amount were not ordered.

[87] Ms. Galka seeks to increase base child support to an amount, that in her opinion, is more reflective of Dr. O’Connor’s earnings, savings, ability to pay, and future earnings. Child support is calculated annually based on Dr. O’Connor’s total income. To guess whether there may be future success of FirstHx at this time is premature. Ms. Galka’s request to increase child support is a veiled attempt to collect both child support and spousal support. Although child support may offset and contribute to daily life needs, it is not meant to operate as spousal support or maintenance.

[88] Ms. Galka claims Dr. O’Connor illegally deducts section 7 expenses from base child support which he is not allowed to do. These actions have effectively reduced the amount of funds that A. requires for her basic monthly life needs.

[89] Contrary to Ms. Galka’s claim, Dr. O’Connor has not illegally deducted section 7 expenses from child support. There are two issues that have resulted in circumstances where Ms. Galka has received an amount lower than what she had anticipated. The first situation is where Ms. Galka has overspent funds and sought an advance from Dr. O’Connor from future monthly payments. The second situation occurs in May of each year when Dr. O’Connor calculates table child support for the current year based on the previous year’s total income.

[90] An example of the first situation is a message sent to Dr. O’Connor on May 2, 2023, where Ms. Galka requested Dr. O’Connor to advance the 2024 section 7 expenses – a year in advance. Dr. O’Connor is not required to pay this sum until April 30, 2024. Ms. Galka continued to send messages to Dr. O’Connor throughout May and June, including the following:

You have unilaterally imploded A.’s life

1. A. cannot afford to attend school – unless A. walks 12 km each way

2. every single extracurricular activity gone moving forward

3. no food left – will walk to church food bank together tomorrow You did this … We have no funds to live.

[91] On other occasions where Ms. Galka has demanded funds, Dr. O’Connor has made clear it is an advance against future payments. On March 4, 2022, Dr. O’Connor advanced $2500 to Ms. Galka from the month of May child support payment. In the fall of 2022, Dr. O’Connor advanced Ms. Galka child support payments for January and February of 2023.

[92] Ms. Galka categorizes the annual recalculation and deduction for advanced payments as a financial downward tailspin from which she is never able to recover. The summer of 2022 had a significant impact on Ms. Galka where Table Child Support decreased for 2022, and the recalculation was only done in May of that year. Dr. O’Connor immediately reduced child support for overpayments from January 2022 to May 2022, in addition to advances. Ms. Galka went from receiving $6,789 to $2,675 for the months of June, July, and August. Ms. Galka was provided notice of the decreased support on May 30, 2022, two days before it took effect. I acknowledge the impact this had on Ms. Galka but it is not sufficient to demonstrate undue hardship to increase child support beyond table amounts.

[93] An urgent case conference was held May 26, 2023, before Vella, J. who ordered Ms. Galka to produce her bank account and credit card statements from January 2021 to December 2023, whether held solely or jointly, including all TD Canada Trust accounts; all correspondence with the Canada Revenue Agency; and any documentation evidencing personal loans of Ms. Galka from 2021 to date.

[94] Ms. Galka failed to comply with that Order. Her banking and credit card statements are incomplete. Additionally, the documents Ms. Galka provided to support her request for an increase of funds for section 7 expenses revealed that she has undisclosed credit and debit cards. Ms. Galka testified under oath at questioning on November 27, 2023, that she did not have any credit cards. Yet many of the receipts provided were paid by a Visa card including one from January 2, 2024, to the dance academy A. attends.

[95] The questioning of Ms. Galka also revealed many other inconsistencies between her sworn affidavits and her sworn testimony. Ms. Galka claimed her mother contributes $1000 a month towards A.’s section 7 expenses, however, elsewhere she swore her mother lives on a small monthly pension of only $400 per month. Ms. Galka swore she had a $200,000 loan attributable to legal fees payable to TD Canada Trust. The document produced was a home equity flexline in the name of her parents with a credit limit of $100,000 with a balance owing less than that amount.

[96] Ms. Galka made claims of monthly expenses on her financial statement that she was unable to substantiate. One such expense was for $598 payable to Humber College for tuition. When questioned regarding what she was studying, her response was “it’s none of your business”.

[97] Not only do the receipts disclosed on January 11, 2024, reveal information about Ms. Galka, so do the incomplete bank statements she disclosed. The statements establish the monthly child support received by Ms. Galka are used for more than A.’s daily needs, and in fact are used to support Ms. Galka and her life needs and these are not “basic life needs”.

[98] In July of 2023, Ms. Galka cancelled Dr. O’Connor’s parenting time with A. as A. had a hair appointment at Taz. Ms. Galka requested Dr. O’Connor reimburse her $146 for the haircut. Ms. Galka swore in her December 7, 2023, affidavit that A. has her hair cut twice a year and the family has been using “Taz hair salon since Ava was a toddler”. If A. only has her hair cut twice a year, the only other person incurring the bi-weekly expense at Taz ranging between $62 to $80 is Ms. Galka. The banking documents disclosed by Ms. Galka show she spent over $1800 at Taz over a nine-month period. A further $700 was spent at nail salons. The total of $2500 could easily have been applied to the school trip to British Columbia in June 2023, that Ms. Galka cancelled, blaming Dr. O’Connor for not advancing funds; or two pairs of skates and 4 pairs of Bloch point ballet shoes; or three years of gas; or any other number of items Ms. Galka seeks funds for. In fact, this amount would have covered the cost of a new laptop, the fees for the past season at Silver Blades Skating Club or Sean Boutilier Academy of Dance.

[99] The case conference heard in May was set on an urgent basis because Ms. Galka claimed an urgent financial need. Three weeks later, she advised Dr. O’Connor she would be in Paris, France with A. in August and they could coordinate their schedules to transition A. between them. It is unclear how desperate and dire Ms. Galka’s financial circumstances are when she can finance a trip to France with A. just a few weeks after telling the court she had to rely on a food bank.

[100] On October 27, 2023, Ms. Galka messaged Dr. O’Connor regarding the monthly fees for A.’s dance and skating and asked, “… Please do not deduct child support to pay for section 7 expenses. Child support pays for basic life expenses which are extraordinary on its own.” [Emphasis added]. The examples I set out above are only the tip of the iceberg of many other expenditures Ms. Galka makes regularly for herself and that are clearly not for A. and are not basic life expenses.

[101] It is clear Ms. Galka relies on the child support to maintain her lifestyle, contrary to her statement in court when clarifying her understanding of the Pinto Order during submissions,

My understanding of that order is everything you said, except that the rest of it was to come out of my expenses, because the only income is child support. So, I have no personal income, so that is the child’s money not my money, so that goes to life needs. [Emphasis added]

[102] It is also evident that Ms. Galka may have another source of income that she has failed to disclose. What remains unclear is what the source is and whether it is social assistance, and if so, whether she disclosed to the Ministry of Community and Social Services that she receives child support and the quantum. Ms. Galka produced at Exhibit R of her December 7, 2023, affidavit

confirmation that A. was eligible for Healthy Smiles Ontario and can receive free dental services until July 31, 2024. This program provides free preventive, routine, and emergency dental services, and are only valid if A. or her family receive Ontario Works, Temporary Care Assistance, the Ontario Disability Support Program, or Assistance for Children with Severe Disabilities as of August 1, 2023. To continue to receive free dental services after July 31, 2024, a new application may be required. Ms. Galka swore in an affidavit that she and A. had to resort to temporary social assistance. Her application and approval were never introduced as evidence in these proceedings.

[103] Ms. Galka pointed to errors in Dr. O’Connor’s financial statement and his failure to include his BMO investment portfolio. I am satisfied with the explanation provided by Dr. O’Connor in his subsequent affidavit regarding the omission.

[104] Ms. Galka has failed to discharge her onus to deviate from the Guidelines when determining monthly child support for A. nor has she established financial hardship. There is no basis upon which to increase child support above table amounts.

vi) Should the court vary the Stevenson Order regarding the parenting time schedule?

[105] Ms. Galka seeks to vary the Stevenson Order regarding parenting time. It is her position that Dr. O’Connor is in clear violation of the Stevenson Order regarding parenting time. It is her position that A. is nothing more than an afterthought, and the only time Dr. O’Connor spends with

A. is when its convenient. There is no dispute there has been a clear departure from the Stevenson Order. The basis for the departure is not agreed upon and is commented on below. Dr. O’Connor does not oppose this term being varied.

[106] Therefore paragraphs 7 to 10 of the Stevenson Order are deleted and replaced with the following:

Dr. O’Connor will coordinate with Ms. Galka through Our Family Wizard for parenting time with A. including holidays, school days, and vacations, with reasonable notice where possible. Dr. O’Connor is no longer required to provide his hospital work schedule to Ms. Galka.

vii) Has Dr. O’Connor breached terms of the Stevenson Order that entitle Ms. Galka to financial compensation?

[107] Ms. Galka seeks financial compensation of $80,000 from Dr. O’Connor for his failure to comply with the final parenting order of Stevenson, J. and to assist her in obtaining retraining. She maintains that Dr. O’Connor does not exercise his parenting time, fails to attend special school events, and extra-curricular activities. When he does show up, it is a fleeting appearance. Ms. Galka likened herself as Dr. O’Connor’s personal assistant. Because Ms. Galka is required to parent A. 100% of the time, she has accrued additional expenses and lost out on opportunities to obtain retraining to enter the workforce. Ms. Galka arrives at this sum as an equivalent of two years of her imputed income.

[108] In Akbarali, J.’s ruling of February 2, 2021, dismissing Ms. Galka’s motion to compel Dr. O’Connor to pay for private school, the Court noted, “there is no evidence that the respondent has formulated any plan to become self-sufficient”. This remains the case today and is confirmed by Ms. Galka’s history and current banking records.

[109] Between February 1, 2015, to December 1, 2019, Ms. Galka received $7,899.00 a month in spousal support from Dr. O’Connor. In addition, child support for 2015 was calculated at

$4,430.00 per month. Ms. Galka neglected to declare the spousal support as income and failed to pay taxes on that amount. For the five-year period, Ms. Galka received over $12,000.00 a month from Dr. O’Connor. During this time, Ms. Galka made very little, if any effort, to become self- sufficient. She claimed to have enrolled in classes during that time but failed to provide any proof. When asked what she is currently studying at Humber College, she refused to say, and failed to provide receipts and/or invoices contrary to her undertakings during questioning.

[110] There has clearly been a departure from the parenting schedule agreed to in 2015 and made part of the Stevenson Order. The parties agree the parenting schedule went into flux in 2020. Dr. O’Connor explained he was required at the hospital seven days on and seven days off due to the Covid-19 pandemic. When not at the hospital, Dr. O’Connor was required to self isolate. During this time, he made efforts to maintain contact with A. virtually. It is his position that Ms. Galka has interfered in his relationship with A. In her pursuit of an endless stream of money, she has caused “collateral damage” to his relationship with A. He hopes that as A. grows older and is no longer under the influence of Ms. Galka, they can establish the resemblance of a relationship.

[111] To support his assertion that Ms. Galka has interfered with his relationship with their daughter, Dr. O’Connor directed the court to text messages Ms. Galka sent him from A.’s phone on April 30, 2023, at 12:16 am:

A in urgent need of funds You are a horrible human.

And a worse father. We are out of food. Out of gas.

will be pulled out of every event, extra curricular for noncompliance of payment. I pleaded for funds.

A will read this in morning.

You Chris OConnor with the greatest intent deliberately destroyed every thing A has worked for and loves in her life. Further A unable to attend school with no transportation no available funds for a subway.

So you want to see A to physically see pain in her face for what you have done? You are incapable of loving anything or anyone in life.

Love does not destroy. You are a monster.

Go live your life and f@&* off. [word modified]

[112] Dr. O’Connor replied that Ms. Galka should not be writing this type of material on A.’s phone and to please use Our Family Wizard. Messages continued to be sent from A.’s cell phone to Dr. O’Connor threatening to send information to FirstHx to have him terminated. Dr. O’Connor requested a copy of Ms. Galka’s bank records in exchange.

[113] The following month, Ms. Galka demanded money to purchase equipment for A. to attend a school trip to British Columbia happening in June 2023. Ms. Galka requested $1200 to purchase equipment for the trip, followed by a list sent from the school five days later, which doubled the price to $2400. Dr. O’Connor suggested Ms. Galka purchase less expensive items, pointing out a sleeping bag could be purchased on Amazon for $50 versus $375 at Mountain Equipment Coop. He refused to provide the funds. On June 15, 2023, Ms. Galka emailed Dr. O’Connor to advise A. was not going on the trip and the cancellation was directly attributable to him for not paying for the trip. A. was not happy with her father, and this again interfered with his relationship with their daughter.

[114] Dr. O’Connor argued Ms. Galka routinely attempts to extort him for additional funds. The parties agreed A. would be picked up in France on August 13, 2023, after her vacation with Ms. Galka. A few weeks before the trip, Ms. Galka insisted Dr. O’Connor send $1900 to cover the cost of a new laptop. If Dr. O’Connor did not send the funds, Ms. Galka would cancel their flights for a credit implying the funds would go towards the laptop. This did not make sense, because cancelling the flights to obtain a credit does not refund the monies of the flights. Dr. O’Connor refused to pay. In retaliation, Ms. Galka refused to sign a consent form. A motion was scheduled to dispense with her consent. She signed the form shortly after 1:00 a.m. the day the motion was returnable. Ms. Galka confirmed in her affidavit that A. had a wonderful time in France with each of her parents.

[115] Ms. Galka’s insistence on involving and including A. in the litigation has clearly impacted her relationship with her father. Ms. Galka’s influence dates back many years and includes the motion to have attend A. attend private school. When Dr. O’Connor did not agree to A. applying to and attending private school, Ms. Galka informed A. it was because he refused to pay. Ms. Galka’s actions has directly impacted Dr. O’Connor’s relationship with A. and therefore has also impacted his parenting time with A. I do not find that Dr. O’Connor has intentionally breached this term of the Stevenson Order.

[116] Other terms of the Stevenson Order have been breached. The parties were ordered to communicate through Our Family Wizard to the extent reasonable and possible, unless agreed upon in writing. The Pinto Order reinforced this condition and specifically ordered the parties to communicate only through Our Family Wizard as required by the provisions of the Final Order of Stevenson, J., except in the event of a medical emergency. The text messages sent from Ms. Galka to Dr. O’Connor are but one example of Ms. Galka breaching both the Stevenson and Pinto Orders.

[117] Ms. Galka’s behaviour of including A. in the litigation is a breach of the Stevenson Order pursuant to Schedule A, Part B, clause 6 wherein “the parents shall not speak with the child, directly or indirectly about specific parental differences and disagreements, including those related to financial issues, specific concerns about the other parent and parenting arrangements.”

[118] Ms. Galka has also breached the Stevenson Order by scheduling extracurricular activities during Dr. O’Connor’s scheduled parenting time. Schedule A sets the terms of these activities and specifically sets out that mutual consent of both parents is required for enrolment in any activities that overlap with both parents’ time with the child. There is no evidence before this court that Ms. Galka discussed or obtained the written consent of Dr. O’Connor to register A. in activities scheduled for Tuesday evenings and weekends. Currently, A. skates in Oakville on Tuesday evenings and Sunday afternoons. She also has activities, Thursday and Friday evenings, and Saturdays. All days that impact Dr. O’Connor’s parenting time and required his consent, failing which he is not obligated to take A. to that activity. As a result of Ms. Galka’s breach, and to ensure A. can participate in these events, the responsibility to transport A. is Ms. Galka’s which is a direct result of her own actions.

[119] Ms. Galka has also failed to consult with Dr. O’Connor regarding decision making on major issues. When disagreements arose, Ms. Galka did not follow the proposed resolution process as set out in the Stevenson Order.

[120] Although I have determined Dr. O’Connor did not intentionally breach the Stevenson Order regarding parenting due to the pandemic and the actions and interference of Ms. Galka, I do find that he has breached other terms of that agreement.

[121] Dr. O’Connor has failed to maintain coverage of medical/dental/health insurance for the benefit of A. for so long as the benefit is available to him. There is no evidence to suggest the benefit is no longer available to him. Dr. O’Connor shall obtain such coverage for the benefit of

A. until she is no longer a child of the marriage or until she no longer qualifies as a dependent with the insurer. Any claims for medical/dental/health shall first be submitted to the insurer. Any amounts owing after are the responsibility of Ms. Galka and payable from the fixed amount provided for section 7 expenses or from the monthly child support.

[122] Both parties failed to participate in Family Counselling pursuant to the Stevenson Order. At this point, I do not see what it would achieve to insist on the enforcement or compliance with this term. Therefore, clause 11 of the Stevenson Order is deleted.

[123] The Stevenson Order, term 28, required the parties to exchange updated income disclosure to the other party each year within thirty (30) days of the anniversary of the Order in accordance with section 24.1 of the Guidelines. Therefore, the Order requires Dr. O’Connor to provide this information no later than March 1 of each year and February 29 in a leap year. This term was not changed by the Pinto Order.

[124] The Pinto Order was specific to recalculating support payable for 2021 based on Dr. O’Connor’s 2020 income. Clause 2 reads, “The Applicant Christopher O’Connor shall provide income disclosure for the calendar year 2020, including a calculation of his income pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines by May 15, 2021, and will adjust his table child support obligations for the period commencing January 1, 2021, by May 31, 2021, and will provide a calculation of his table support obligations on the same date.” No where in the Order does it suggest this term should continue in future years. Thereafter, Dr. O’Connor was required to follow the Stevenson Order and provide updated financial disclosure as set out in that Order.

[125] I have found that Ms. Galka’s own actions have contributed to the disruption of the parenting schedule and her own breaches can not be ignored. Ms. Galka’s request for financial compensation is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

viii) Has there been an overpayment of child support and section 7 expenses between May 1, 2021, and November 17, 2023?

[126] Dr. O’Connor seeks an Order that he has overpaid child support of $19,292 and section 7 expenses of $1,000 between May 1, 2021, and ending November 17, 2023. He seeks to offset the table child support overpayments against his current child support obligations in a monthly amount.

[127] As stated above, the Pinto Order did not replace term 28 of the Stevenson Order. It only addressed the calendar year of 2020 and made provisions to adjust the table child support obligations between January 1, 2021, and May 31, 2021. This term did not address future years or change the Stevenson Order.

[128] By calculating child support in May of each year, it has had significant financial implications to Ms. Galka as she has limited information regarding Dr. O’Connor’s income until she receives a letter from counsel at the end of May.

[129] To address the issue of overpayments/underpayments, the Stevenson and Pinto Orders are changed retroactively to May 31, 2021. It is therefore ordered that Dr. O’Connor shall provide income disclosure for each calendar year, including a calculation of his income pursuant to the Guidelines by May 15 of each year, and will provide a calculation of his table support obligations on the same date for as long as child support is payable, commencing May 31, 2021. For the purposes of paying child support, the period will be June 1 to May 31, and will not coordinate with the calendar year.

[130] The above change will provide Ms. Galka with two weeks notice of any increase or decrease in child support payable. For clarity, should child support increase in any given year, Ms. Galka is not entitled to receive additional funds for the months of January to May of that year, as she will receive the increased child support the following January to May. Likewise, should table child support decrease effective June 1 of any given year, Dr. O’Connor is not entitled to deduct monies from the monthly child support paid between January to May 31 as an overpayment as he will continue to pay the decreased amount the following January to May. To avoid any confusion, Dr. O’Connor is entitled to repayment of any overpayments resulting from advances of monthly child support. As my Order is retroactive to June 1, 2021, this will result in a recalculation of any overpayments and monies already collected.

[131] In calculating table child support, Dr. O’Connor is not entitled to reduce table child support by netting out Ms. Galka’s contributions to section 7 expenses. The Pinto Order requires Dr. O’Connor to pay a fixed amount towards section 7 expenses. Anything over and above that amount is the responsibility of Ms. Galka, therefore, there should be no deductions as the fixed amount is not based on a percentage of the parties’ incomes. In calculating any overpayments due to Dr. O’Connor, this shall be considered where Dr. O’Connor reduced the monthly child support payable. For example, table child support was $6,389 for 2022, however, Dr. O’Connor deducted

$206/month as Ms. Galka’s section 7 contributions, resulting in a monthly child support payable of $6,183. The correct amount payable to Ms. Galka should have been $6,389.

[132] I found Dr. O’Connor breached the Stevenson Order by not maintaining dental, health, and medical benefits for A. as he was required. Any expenses incurred were to be submitted to the insurer with any remaining amount payable in proportion to their incomes from 2015 to 2021. After the Pinto Order, onwards, any amounts not covered by the insurer are payable by Ms. Galka from the fixed sum she receives for section 7 expenses.

[133] Ms. Galka provided invoices for orthodontic treatments A. received in 2022. The invoiced amount was $7,350. I have determined Dr. O’Connor should be responsible for 50% of this amount for not having obtained or maintained dental benefits as required by the Stevenson Order. This amount shall be deducted from any overpayment owed to Dr. O’Connor from Ms. Galka.

[134] I find that Dr. O’Connor overpaid section 7 expenses in the amount of $1,000 in 2022.

[135] I find that Dr. O’Connor has overpaid child support between May 1, 2021, to November 17, 2023, for advances of child support. However, the amount he claimed is subject to recalculations given my findings above.

[136] Dr. O’Connor may seek reimbursement for any overpayments from child support in such an amount that does not cause A. or Ms. Galka any hardship and shall not exceed $500 per month.

[137] As an aside, Dr. O’Connor had previously s expressed concern regarding Ms. Galka’s ability to manage money and had offered to assist her in obtaining financial counselling. Ms. Galka, at that time, was offended and dismissed this offer of assistance. It is highly recommended by the Court that Ms. Galka accept Dr. O’Connor’s offer.

Disposition

[138] Ms. Galka’s request for further disclosure is dismissed.

[139] Ms. Galka’s request for an interim disbursement of $10,000 to retain legal counsel is dismissed.

[140] Ms. Galka’s request for an immediate payment of $10,000 for section 7 expenses is dismissed.

[141] Ms. Galka’s request to increase the fixed amount for section 7 expenses and for a lump sum payment of $98,542 to reimburse her for alleged section 7 expenses is dismissed.

[142] Ms. Galka’s request to change Table Child Support to a fixed amount of $10,000 is dismissed.

[143] The Stevenson Order is changed to delete paragraphs 7 to 10 and replace it with the following: Dr. O’Connor will coordinate with Ms. Galka through Our Family Wizard for parenting time with A. including holidays, school days, and vacations, with reasonable notice where possible. Dr. O’Connor is no longer required to provide his hospital work schedule to Ms. Galka.

[144] Ms. Galka’s request for financial compensation for breaching the parenting provision of the Stevenson Order is dismissed.

[145] I find that Dr. O’Connor overpaid section 7 expenses in the amount of $1,000 in 2022.

[146] I find that Dr. O’Connor has overpaid child support between May 1, 2021, to November 17, 2023, for advance payments of child support. However, the amount claimed is subject to recalculations given my decision.

[147] Dr. O’Connor shall provide income disclosure for each calendar year, including a calculation of his income pursuant to the Guidelines by May 15 of each year, and will provide a calculation of his table support obligations on the same date for as long as child support is payable, commencing May 31, 2021. For the purposes of paying child support, the period will be June 1 to May 31, and does not run parallel with the calendar year.

[148] Dr. O’Connor shall obtain and maintain dental, health, and medical coverage for A. so long as child support remains payable.

[149] Dr. O’Connor may seek reimbursement for any overpayments from child support in such an amount that does not cause A. or Ms. Galka any hardship and shall not exceed $500 per month.

[150] The parties may attend before me to settle the order once the calculations are completed or provide a draft order in word format to the Family Trial Office to my attention.

[151] Ms. Galka shall obtain leave of the court prior to bringing any further motions.

[152] Dr. O’Connor may provide costs submissions of no more than three pages double spaced, along with a bill of costs and any offers to settle, within 14 days. Ms. Galka shall have 14 days to respond, with the same page limits. There shall be no reply submissions. These submissions may be sent to the Family Trial Office to be brought to my attention and uploaded on Case Center, formerly CaseLines.

Date: August 8, 2024

COURT FILE NO: FS-13-18528-0001 FS-13-18528-0002

DATE: 2024-08-08

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

THOMAS CHRIS O’CONNOR

– and –

KRISTINE GALKA

Applicant

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Rhinelander J.

Released: August 8, 2024