COURT FILE NO.: FC58/18-01 DATE: October 4, 2024

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

Jennifer Laureen Cormier Applicant

David R.S. Pentz, for the Applicant

• and -

Kevin Norman Cormier Respondent

Self-represented, for the Respondent

HEARD: September 11, 12, 13, 16, 2024

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MITROW J.

INTRODUCTION

[1] This trial involves a motion to change brought by the applicant, Jennifer Laureen Cormier (“Ms. Cormier”) in relation to child support. Ms. Cormier seeks a variation of child support back to January 1, 2021 in order to adjust the table amount of child support in accordance with the income of the respondent, Kevin Norman Cormier (“Mr. Cormier”). The motion to change was commenced on January 10, 2023.

[2] Mr. Cormier in his response to motion to change, does agree to some historical adjustment of his child support payments based on his increased income. However, on an ongoing basis, Mr. Cormier seeks to pay no child support alleging that he is unable to work because of health reasons.

[3] The parties were married in 1999 and separated in April 2017. The parties are not divorced. The parties have five children: Jacob, born in 2001; Olivia, born in 2003; Jade, born in 2004; Kayla born in 2007; and Noah born in 2009. At all material times, Ms. Cormier’s entitlement to the table amount of child support was based on the children residing in her primary care.

[4] The issues in this case are as follows:

1. At what time did the three eldest children cease being dependants entitled to child support?
2. What is Mr. Cormier’s income for 2021 and 2022 for the purpose of calculating child support?
3. What is Mr. Cormier’s income commencing January 1, 2023, and should income be imputed to Mr. Cormier?
4. What adjustments regarding child support should be made to the existing final order?

[5] In relation to child support, this case involves only table amount of child support. While some post-secondary education expenses were incurred, Ms. Cormier’s position at trial was that any such expenses were covered by the child who attended a post-secondary institution. Ms. Cormier is not pursuing any s. 7 claim against Mr. Cormier regarding post-secondary education or other expenses.

[6] The only witnesses who testified in this trial were both parties and Mr. Cormier’s current partner.

[7] For reasons that follow the final order set out below provides for child support adjustments back to January 1, 2021, child support arrears are quantified and ongoing child support payments are set out.

THE EXISTING FINAL ORDER

[8] The existing final order which is the subject of the motion to change is the final order of Price J. dated November 27, 2020 (“the final order”).

[9] Pursuant to the final order, Mr. Cormier was required to pay table child support to Ms. Cormier in the amount of $987 per month commencing October 1, 2020 based “upon a projected annual income of $40,560.” The table amount set out in the final order was for only four children. No table amount of child support was payable for the eldest child, Jacob, as he was not a dependant at the date of the final order.

[10] Given that the parties are not divorced, the final order would have been made pursuant to the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. Accordingly, the order to be made pursuant to the motion to change is also under the Family Law Act.

ISSUE #1: AT WHAT TIME DID THE THREE ELDEST CHILDREN CEASE BEING DEPENDANTS ENTITLED TO CHILD SUPPORT?

[11] The issues in relation to each child remaining a dependant for support purposes pursuant to the Family Law Act relate only to the three eldest children, Jacob, Olivia, and Jade. The two youngest children have continued to reside in the primary care of Ms. Cormier since the date of the final order and they have always remained dependants entitled to the table amount of child support.

[12] In relation to the child Olivia, Ms. Cormier testified that Olivia completed high school in June 2021 and that she had attained age 18 in May 2021. Olivia did not continue with post-secondary education and began working after completing high school. Mr. Cormier did not dispute that evidence.

[13] Accordingly, I find that the child support is payable for Olivia up to and including June 30, 2021. It is also noted that during closing argument, Mr. Cormier did not dispute that finding.

[14] Regarding the child, Jade, it was Ms. Cormier’s evidence that Jade quit high school in November 2022 at which time she moved in with Mr. Cormier. Jade attained age 18 in December 2022. At that time, Jade lived with Mr. Cormier briefly before moving back with Ms. Cormier.

[15] There was evidence from Mr. Cormier’s partner, which I accept, that Jade had reached out to Mr. Cormier’s partner in or about October 2022 to ask if she can reside with Mr. Cormier and his partner. Mr. Cormier’s partner advised Jade that Jade first would need to speak to her mother about this.

[16] The issue regarding Jade was very minor; it was whether Ms. Cormier’s entitlement to support for Jade should terminate December 2022 or whether it should terminate at the end of October 2022 as proposed by Mr. Cormier.

[17] Ms. Cormier failed to specify in her evidence when during the month of November Jade quit school and moved in with Mr. Cormier. Mr. Cormier failed to address the issue of when Jade came to live with them; however, the evidence from Mr. Cormier’s partner indicated that the topic of Jade moving in to live with them was broached during October 2022.

[18] It is noted that Mr. Cormier would have been entitled to child support for Jade for the brief period of time that she lived with him and prior to her eighteenth birthday which was in December 2022. Mr. Cormier did not advance any child support claim for Jade.

[19] I find that Ms. Cormier’s entitlement to support for Jade should terminate effective October 31, 2022.

[20] Regarding the parties’ eldest child, Jacob, Ms. Cormier gave detailed evidence regarding Jacob’s residence and attendance at school.

[21] As indicated earlier Jacob was not included in the final order for table amount of child support. That order commenced child support payments in October 2020, and as indicated previously, at that time Jacob was not a dependent child. Ms. Cormier testified that Jacob had graduated from high school but that he was unsure about his post-secondary plans.

[22] It was Ms. Cormier’s testimony that effective September 2021 that Jacob attended a program at Fanshawe College on a full-time basis and that he lived with her for that academic year commencing September 2021.

[23] In September of 2022, Jacob attended another program at Fanshawe College on a full-time basis. According to Ms. Cormier, Jacob did not complete that program and he stopped attending Fanshawe College in or about February 2023.

[24] Soon thereafter, Jacob obtained a full-time job at a nursing home and afterwards, according to Ms. Cormier, he lived for a period of time with Mr. Cormier.

[25] Although Ms. Cormier maintained that when Jacob stopped attending Fanshawe College in or about February 2023 that he was still residing with her, Ms. Cormier was content to request that child support should be payable for Jacob only to the end of December 2022. However, Mr. Cormier maintained that Jacob was not residing with Ms. Cormier when he started living with Mr. Cormier. It was Mr. Cormier’s evidence that Jacob had been living with another person with whom he was involved in a romantic relationship and that while attending Fanshawe College Jacob was no longer living with Ms. Cormier.

[26] The issue in relation to Jacob centers around the period of time prior to the end of December 2022, given that Ms. Cormier is not claiming any table amount of child support after that time.

[27] Ms. Cormier did acknowledge that during the academic year commencing September 2022 that Jacob was spending time overnight at his partner’s residence and that this began to gradually increase to around half of the nights by approximately the end of December 2022.

[28] Mr. Cormier submitted that support for Jacob should terminate effective August 2021. I reject that position. It is not grounded in the evidence. Further, in August of 2021, there was no support payable for Jacob pursuant to the final order.

[29] Ms. Cormier submits that support should start for Jacob effective September 2021 because that is when he commenced attending at Fanshawe College while residing at all material times with Ms. Cormier.

[30] I am satisfied on the evidence that support for Jacob should commence September 1, 2021 and that it should terminate effective December 31, 2022. Although Jacob was spending increasing amounts of time with his partner towards the end of that period of time, I am satisfied that Jacob still maintained a residence with Ms. Cormier, that Jacob had not moved out and that Jacob was spending time at his partner’s residence since it was closer to Fanshawe College than Ms. Cormier’s residence, and it was convenient for Jacob to stay at his partner’s residence.

ISSUE #2: WHAT IS MR. CORMIER’S INCOME FOR 2021 AND 2022 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CHILD SUPPORT?

[31] It must be noted at outset that Ms. Cormier endured significant frustration because of Mr. Cormier’s failure to provide full and complete financial disclosure such as income tax returns and notices of assessment for the relevant years.

[32] Mr. Cormier was subject to multiple court orders to provide various financial disclosure including his income tax disclosure. He failed to comply fully with the orders. His explanations at trial for his failure to do so, I find, were not credible and were without merit.

[33] For example, Mr. Cormier failed to provide his 2022 income tax return and notice assessment as ordered. It was only during the trial that Mr. Cormier provided his 2022 income tax return, followed later during the trial by his 2022 notice of assessment. The 2022 notice of assessment was particularly relevant because Mr. Cormier’s 2022 income tax return was not accurate, having failed to include a T4 from one of his employers. Mr. Cormier never did provide his 2023 notice of assessment, as ordered, even though he stated that that document was available.

[34] Mr. Cormier’s failure to provide financial disclosure as ordered by the court, within the time limits as ordered, constitutes unreasonable behaviour.

[35] There is no dispute that for 2021 and 2022, that Mr. Cormier’s income for child support purposes is as follows pursuant to line 15000 of his notices of assessment for those years:

• 2021: $73,056
• 2022: $64,296

ISSUE #3: WHAT IS MR. CORMIER’S INCOME COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2023, AND SHOULD INCOME BE IMPUTED TO MR. CORMIER?

[36] Ms. Cormier seeks imputation of income to Mr. Cormier in the amount of $35,360 based on minimum wage ($17/hour x 52 weeks x 40hrs/week) commencing in the year 2023 and also thereafter. Mr. Cormier opposes the imputation of income. He submits that for 2023 his income should be as set out in his 2023 income tax return (T1 General – condensed) which shows his line 15000 income in the amount of $19,412. Commencing in 2024, Mr. Cormier submits that his income should be the amount that he receives from Ontario Works.

[37] For reasons explained below, I find that income should be imputed to Mr. Cormier.

[38] Mr. Cormier did not finish high school as a teenager. He testified he was expelled while in grade 11. Thereafter he entered the workforce. Mr. Cormier did testify that later, as an adult, he obtained his high school graduation diploma.

[39] Mr. Cormier has a lengthy history of gainful employment, much of it involving manual labour. At the time of trial, Mr. Cormier was 49 years of age. In the more recent past, Mr. Cormier was employed in the residential construction industry.

[40] There was no dispute that in or about 2015, being several years prior to separation, that Mr. Cormier injured his back at home while lifting an air conditioner. Mr. Cormier had been working for a construction company at the time. As a result of this back injury, Mr. Cormier was off work.

[41] He had a good benefit plan with his employer and attended for various treatment, including physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Mr. Cormier received disability benefits through his employer’s benefit plan. He returned to work briefly for that same employer where his work duties were modified, but that proved to be unsuccessful. Mr. Cormier then was approved to attend a government-funded “second careers” program. He attended Fanshawe College for a year and successfully completed the project management program. Mr. Cormier was in receipt of employment insurance benefits while attending the program.

[42] Mr. Cormier’s evidence, and also Ms. Cormier’s evidence, was that the foregoing process of Mr. Cormier convalescing from his injury and attending Fanshawe College, and then obtaining new employment, took approximately two years.

[43] Following completion of the Fanshawe program, Mr. Cormier was able to obtain employment with a company that installed leaf filters in eavestroughs. Mr. Cormier had responsibility for that employer on a regional basis within Ontario. He described the physical aspect of his work with that company as ranging between 15-20%. This employment did not last long, as Mr. Cormier testified that he was “let go.” Mr. Cormier did not elaborate as to the circumstances leading to his termination of employment.

[44] Mr. Cormier’s next employment was with a new business that provided flooring. He testified he enjoyed this employment, describing it as 5-10% physical with the balance of his responsibility being directed at getting the business operational. Mr. Cormier left this employment after eight to nine months as he had concerns about the business owner’s failure to pay suppliers, which in turn impacted the viability of the business.

[45] Mr. Cormier then returned to working in residential construction doing “back framing.” Most of his work was physical labour. Mr. Cormier testified he was able to tolerate that work, explaining it was “with repercussions” and that he “pulled through” and that he was excited that he could do the physical labour.

[46] Soon thereafter, Mr. Cormier started working at Hayhoe Homes (“Hayhoe”), a well established local business involved in the construction of residential homes. This employer was unionized. Mr. Cormier worked with the “back framing” crew. He described his job as 85-90% physical labour.

[47] Mr. Cormier eventually quit his job with Hayhoe. He provided two separate records of employment from Hayhoe. The first record of employment indicated that Mr. Cormier worked at Hayhoe from December 9, 2020 to April 10, 2021. The reason for issuing that record of employment was described as “illness or injury.” However, the second record of employment from Hayhoe indicated that Mr. Cormier commenced his employment on April 19, 2021 (being only nine days after the termination date on the first record of employment) and that he continued to work there until September 7, 2022, at which time he “quit” according to the record of employment. The foregoing suggests that Mr. Cormier was employed by Hayhoe for almost 21 months except for the period of nine days referred to earlier. During cross-examination, when asked, Mr. Cormier was not sure why the first record of employment was issued.

[48] However, what is clear, is that Mr. Cormier did quit his job at Hayhoe in September 2022. This is confirmed in his exchange of emails and correspondence with the human resources department, including his letter of resignation. In this correspondence, and also during his testimony, Mr. Cormier confirmed that he quit his job because of alleged workplace harassment. Further, Mr. Cormier testified that he sent in his resignation letter on the advice of his union representative. The plan was that Mr. Cormier would quit and then get called back to work elsewhere.

[49] In his resignation letter, Mr. Cormier refers to having worked for Hayhoe for “2+ years” and that he is sending his resignation letter “with a heavy heart.” Given the indication in the resignation letter that Mr. Cormier worked for Hayhoe over two years, it puts into question whether Mr. Cormier has provided all the records of employment for Hayhoe (given that the records of employment that were provided show total employment of approximately 21 months).

[50] Mr. Cormier failed to provide T4 slips with his 2022 income tax return. Unfortunately, this was typical of Mr. Cormier’s ongoing breach of his responsibility to provide court-ordered financial disclosure that was full and complete. Mr. Cormier’s financial statement sworn March 21, 2023, prepared when he had counsel, indicated that in 2022 Mr. Cormier’s income included employment insurance benefits of $9,433. It is clear that Mr. Cormier collected employment insurance after quitting his job at Hayhoe.

[51] I find that Mr. Cormier exercised questionable judgment in quitting his gainful and remunerative employment at Hayhoe. At that time, Mr. Cormier had dependent children and he was responsible for supporting them. At the least, Mr. Cormier should have looked for, and secured, new employment prior to quitting his well-paid job at Hayhoe.

[52] Mr. Cormier then obtained employment, also in the construction industry, with Brecas Management Inc. (“Brecas”). This employment started in 2022 and ended in 2023. However, it is unclear how long Mr. Cormier worked for Brecas in 2023 because he failed to produce the T4 slip. There is a record of employment from Brecas that indicates Mr. Cormier worked there for five days, ending March 31, 2023. This record of employment makes no reference to the period of time that Mr. Cormier did work for Brecas during 2022. This was raised with Mr. Cormier during cross-examination, but he could not explain this discrepancy except to state that there must be another record of employment from Brecas.

[53] Mr. Cormier estimated that 40-50% of his workday at Brecas was manual labour. His other duties were administrative in nature, including ordering materials, some supervision of the work crews, coordinating the various trades on the job sites and setting up and attending for inspections at the job sites.

[54] Mr. Cormier’s hourly rate at Brecas was a little over $29, and his employment at Brecas was full-time. He claimed that he left Brecas when he was served with Ms. Cormier’s court documents (as noted earlier, the motion to change was issued January 10, 2023). However, Mr. Cormier’s evidence as to when he left Brecas is not reliable considering the one record of employment showing that he worked there in March 2023.

[55] Mr. Cormier claimed he left Brecas because he was unable to work full-time hours anymore. Mr. Cormier characterized his departure from Brecas as being related to health issues.

[56] Thereafter, Mr. Cormier was in receipt of employment insurance benefits, following which his income consisted of Ontario Works. At the time of trial, his Ontario Works benefit was $659 per month.

[57] Mr. Cormier testified that his health issues prevent him from working. He provided a medical report from his family physician, Dr. Austin, and a medical report from Dr. Surkont, who was the medical director at the Tillsonburg Pain Clinic.

[58] The report from Dr. Austin includes:

a. Mr. Cormier has a variety of chronic conditions including lumbar disc disease, gastritis, sleep apnea and depression; b. Mr. Cormier has developed “of late” a chronic pain condition in keeping with myofascial pain syndrome (“MPS”); c. MPS is a chronic pain disorder that affects groups of muscles; d. The pain feels like a deep constant ache and can radiate to surrounding areas; MPS often can lead to mood and sleep changes and has done so for Mr. Cormier; e. Mr. Cormier is engaged in treating his depression and insomnia; he takes chronic pain medication and sees a pain specialist for myofascial treatments weekly; f. Pacing is an important piece of myofascial pain management; overuse and repetitive work jobs and abrupt physical demands can create widespread pain and fatigue; g. Mr. Cormier has had a hard time increasing his activity levels due to combination of fatigue, depression, pain and low blood sugar episodes; h. Mr. Cormier is described as motivated to increase his work outside the home; psychiatry and endocrinology referrals are pending to optimize his treatment plan and function.

[59] The undated medical report from Dr. Surkont noted that Mr. Cormier has severe chronic pain syndrome, degenerative disc disease and myofascial pain syndrome. He also tested positive for fibromyalgia. Mr. Cormier was described in the report as being compliant with all treatments but that he continues to have “pain symptoms impacting his daily functioning.”

[60] Mr. Cormier gave evidence regarding his health that included:

a. His back injury persists but he uses stretching exercises that he learned in physiotherapy to contain the pain; b. He receives weekly injections at the pain clinic; he described the pain clinic as “phenomenal” and that he experiences pain relief for two to three days; c. Mr. Cormier has been referred to an endocrinologist to manage his diabetes, for which he has been prescribed pill medication; and d. Mr. Cormier described being affected by anxiety and depression for which he has been prescribed medication.

[61] Mr. Cormier described himself as being well versed in dealing with injuries and pain. His testimony included that he loves construction work, that he is “stubborn” and does not give up when it comes to persevering and returning to work despite health issues.

[62] Mr. Cormier described his short-term goal as attending for his various doctor appointments to address his health issues. As for his long-term plan, Mr. Cormier hopes that he will receive benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sched. B, (“ODSP”), and that he will be able to access assistance through various professionals to coordinate a career path for him.

[63] Mr. Cormier did testify, however, that he has been applying for work; during cross-examination he confirmed that he applied for employment as a sales associate at a car dealership and also a lumber yard. Mr. Cormier agreed that these were jobs he could do.

i) Imputation of income

[64] The starting point is s. 19(1)(a) of the Ontario child support guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97, (“guidelines”):

Imputing income

19. (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,

(a) the parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse;

[65] Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CarswellOnt 3228 (Ont. C.A.), is a leading case dealing with imputation of income. The discussion in Drygala includes the following:

a. Drygala establishes that “intentional” under-employment or unemployment within the meaning of s.19(1)(a) requires no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income can be imputed (paras. 25, 26); b. A plain reading of s. 19(1)(a) is that there is no bad faith requirement (para. 36); c. In Drygala, a parent was intentionally unemployed in order to pursue further education; it was held that as a general rule, a parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income, and that once it has been established that a parent is intentionally unemployed or under-employed that the burden shifts to that parent to establish what is required by virtue of his or her educational needs (para. 38).

[66] Mr. Cormier is deliberately unemployed. The burden shifts to Mr. Cormier to demonstrate that his “reasonable health needs” (s. 19(1)(a)) prevent him from working; or alternatively, if his reasonable health needs do not prevent from working, that his reasonable health needs affect the amount of time that he can work, the jobs that he can do and the income that he can reasonably earn.

[67] I find that Mr. Cormier has failed to discharge the burden, which falls on him, to prove on a balance of probabilities that he is incapable of working due to his reasonable health needs. The medical reports do not support that conclusion, nor do they state, that Mr. Cormier is unable to work.

[68] Despite his health issues, Mr. Cormier continued to work at Hayhoe Homes doing mainly manual labour until September 2022, and Mr. Cormier quit that employment for reasons unrelated to any health issue. Mr. Cormier’s issues relating to his back, including back pain, are historic since in or about 2015. Mr. Cormier has a record of working at various jobs since that time that include significant components of manual labour. Most recently, Mr. Cormier had employment with Hayhoe and Brecas that had manual labour components. The medical reports do not discuss the extent, if any, that Mr. Cormier’s current symptoms were present while he was working at Hayhoe and later, Brecas. The evidence adduced by Mr. Cormier is insufficient to conclude that he had new symptoms, and a new diagnosis, while working at Brecas which allegedly made it impossible for him to continue working there, or anywhere else.

[69] Also noteworthy is Mr. Cormier’s evidence that he has continued to apply for jobs that he agrees he is able to do.

[70] However, Mr. Cormier has satisfied the court that the extent of his ability to work and earn an income has been adversely affected by the confluence of his various health needs coupled with the need to attend ongoing medical appointments, including recent referrals.

[71] Ms. Cormier’s position that $35,360 income should be imputed to Mr. Cormier is based on the assumption of full-time minimum wage income, using $17/hour as minimum wage.

[72] In Ontario, the minimum wage is adjusted annually depending on the Consumer Price Index, on October 1 of each year starting in 2022; and the general minimum wage in effect for Ontario on October 1 for 2022, 2023 and 2024 is, respectively, $15.50, $16.55 and $17.20. (See Employment Standards Act, ss. 23, 23.0.1 and 23.1; and Ontario Ministry website summarizing minimum hourly rates.)

[73] I agree with Ms. Cormier that it is appropriate to use minimum wage rates for Mr. Cormier, as it is more likely than not, that Mr. Cormier will not be able to earn income at the same hourly rates that he was accustomed to in the construction industry, at least in the near term.

[74] While I agree that minimum wage is appropriate, I do not agree that Mr. Cormier is capable of full-time hours. Accordingly, for 2023, I impute to Mr. Cormier income at minimum wage rates but less than full-time, in the amount of $25,000 annually.

[75] Effective July 1, 2024, I impute to Mr. Cormier an income of $30,000 at minimum wage, which is less than full-time hours but an increase from the amount imputed to him as of January 1, 2023. This increase takes into account the time that has passed since Mr. Cormier last worked.

[76] I am satisfied on all of the evidence that Mr. Cormier is capable of earning an income at minimum wage rates, but working less than full-time hours. I find also that Mr. Cormier has demonstrated some credibility issues as exposed during his cross-examination, in particular, his cross-examination regarding a recent financial statement he filed prior to trial. I am not prepared to rely on Mr. Cormier’s self-report that he is incapable of working.

ISSUE #4 WHAT ADJUSTMENTS REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD BE MADE TO THE EXISTING FINAL ORDER?

[77] Table A below shows the monthly child support payments owing by Mr. Cormier based on the incomes discussed above starting with the year 2021. It is noted that in his response to motion to change that Mr. Cormier acknowledges his obligation to pay table amount of child support based on his actual increased income for 2021 and 2022.

i) Table A

Year	Mr. Cormier’s annual income	Monthly table amount: 4 children	Monthly table amount: 3 children	Monthly table amount: 2 children
2021	$73,056	$1,732	$1,452
2022	$64,296	$1,516	$1,286
2023	$25,000 (imputed)			$376 (continues until June 30, 2024)
2024	$30,000* effective July 1, 2024 (imputed income)			$459 (effective July 1, 2024)

*for 2024, the imputed income for 2023, $25,000 continues for the first 6 months

[78] Table B below shows the additional child support arrears that result for 2021 and 2022 as a result of Mr. Cormier’s increased income for those years; and table B also shows the reduction in child support arrears for 2023 and 2024 that results from using imputed incomes for those years for Mr. Cormier. Finally, table B also takes into account changes in child support resulting from the changes in status for the three eldest children as dependants.

ii) Table B

Period	Children	Monthly Table Amount	Actual Support Payable	Support Payable per Final Order	Impact on Arrears
2021
January to June	4	$1,732	6 x $1,732 = $10,392	6 x $987 = $5,922	$4,470
July, August (remove Olivia)	3	$1,452	2 x $1,452 = $2,904	2 x $987 = $1,974	$930
September to December (add Jacob)	4	$1,732	4 x $1,732 = $6,928	4 x $987 = $3,948	$2,980
2022
January to October	4	$1,516	10 x $1,516 = $15,160	10 x $987 = $9,870	$5,290
November, December (remove Jade)	3	$1,286	2 x $1,286 = $2,572	2 x $987 = $1,972	$598
Total additional arrears for 2021 and 2022					$14,268
2023					Reduction in arrears for 2023 and 2024
January to December (remove Jacob)	2	$376	12 x $376 = $4,512	12 x $987 = $11,844	$7,332
2024
January to June	2	$376	6 x $376 = $2,256	6 x $987 = $5,922	$3,666
July, August	2	$459	2 x $459 = $918	2 x $987 = $1,974	$1,056
Total reduction in support arrears (January 1, 2023 to August 31, 2024)					$12,054

[79] An updated statement of arrears from the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) was filed showing accrued arrears totalling $16,204.73 as at August 31, 2024. These arrears must be adjusted to reflect the calculations shown in table B as follows:

a. arrears per FRO statement as at August 31, 2024: $16,204.73 b. add arrears for 2021 and 2022 per table B: $14,268 c. deduct child support arrears reduction from January 1, 2023 to August 31, 2024 per table B: ($12,054) d. adjusted total child support arrears as at August 31, 2024: $18,418.73

[80] The foregoing adjusted arrears are rounded to $18,000.00 as at August 31, 2024.

[81] I decline to order a payment plan for the arrears. Most of the arrears are attributable to Mr. Cormier’s increases in income for 2021 and 2022. Mr. Cormier should have been aware of his increased child support obligation at that time. Further, the final order required Mr. Cormier to provide annual updated income disclosure which Mr. Cormier failed to do, as evidenced by the numerous disclosure orders made against him in this proceeding, and his failure to comply with those orders, as discussed earlier in these reasons.

[82] For the years 2021 and 2022, Mr. Cormier’s income was substantially greater than the income used in the final order. Mr. Cormier failed to plan financially for his increased child support obligation when he had the available income. If Mr. Cormier fails to pay the child support arrears, then he will need to deal with the FRO regarding any enforcement measures that are taken.

FINAL ORDER

[83] I make the following final order pursuant to the Family Law Act:

1. The final order of Price J. dated November 27, 2020 is varied by vacating paragraph 1 of the said final order.
2. The child support arrears owing by the respondent to the applicant are fixed in the amount of $18,000.00 as at August 31, 2024.
3. Commencing September 1, 2024, the respondent shall pay ongoing child support to the applicant for the children, Kayla and Noah, in the amount of $459 per month, based on an annual imputed income of $30,000 pursuant to s. 3(1)(a) of the Ontario child support guidelines.
4. The respondent shall provide income disclosure to the applicant as follows: a. If the respondent obtains employment, or changes employment, he shall advise the applicant in writing within 14 days, providing full details and proof as to income, hourly rates or wages and the name of the employer; b. For all employment income and for all income from any other income source including government, the respondent shall provide to the applicant on the first day of January, April, July and October copies of all pay statements, from any employment or other income source, confirming all income received during the immediately preceding three months; c. For every year commencing in the year 2025: i. By the end of February, the respondent shall provide to the applicant copies of all T4 slips, or similar slips, from all employers and from all other income sources for the immediately preceding calendar year; and ii. By May 1, the respondent shall provide to the applicant complete copies of his T1 general income tax return, together with all T4 slips and any similar slips and together with his notice of assessment, and notice of re-assessment, if any, for the immediately preceding calendar year; if any notice of assessment, or notice of re-assessment, has not been received by May 1, then the respondent shall provide a copy to the applicant within 10 days of receipt; d. The respondent’s obligation to provide income disclosure as set out in this paragraph shall continue for so long as the child, Kayla, and/or the child, Noah, remains a dependent child within the meaning of Family Law Act.
5. Both parties may make written costs submissions. The costs submissions shall be typed, shall not exceed three pages and shall be double-spaced, minimum font 12. The written costs submissions may also include copies of any offers to settle, time dockets and bills of costs. Any authorities referred to in the written costs submissions shall be hyperlinked. The written costs submissions shall be served and filed with the court in the usual manner with proof of service by November 6, 2024.

“Justice Victor Mitrow”

Justice Victor Mitrow

Released: October 4, 2024