Lidstone v. Simonar, 2025 ONSC 1746

Court File No.: 3621/16
Date: 2025-03-19
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
Norman Gregory Thomas Lidstone (Applicant)
and
Crystal Mary Anne Simonar (Respondent)

Appearances:
Applicant: Self-Represented
Respondent: Self-Represented

Heard: March 13, 2025
Judge: Varpio

Supplemental Reasons for Judgment

[1] I heard submissions regarding the following issues in this matter, after the release of my decision at 2024 ONSC 6324:

1. The “no trespass”;
2. Support; and
3. Costs.

No Trespass

[2] Currently, the mother is subject of a “no trespass” court order whereby she cannot attend at the children’s school. She submitted that this should be changed in so far as she is an active member of the school community (i.e. PTA and the like), and that it is unusual for a parent to be unable to attend the school when they are so involved.

[3] With that said, I refer to my previous reasons and indicate that the children are at an age whereby their views and preferences ought to take more weight. Equally, the children need not be burdened with the added stress of unwanted visits, social worker visits, and the like (see my previous reasons in this regard).

[4] As such, the “no trespass” order shall remain in place but if the children wish for their mother to attend at the school, they will advise OCL of their wishes and then any possible orders can be made at that time.

Support

[5] The mother is currently on social services support, having been a highly paid employee in the Alberta oil fields (as was the father). The mother now lives in Sault Ste. Marie with a small child (not with the father) and she was recently injured. In fact, she attended court on a number of occasions in a walking cast and the like. [1]

[6] With respect to arrears, Richard J. dealt with this matter in January 2024 and found that the mother, “at a bare minimum”, owes $18,142.12 in arrears. This did not, of course, contemplate arrears for 2023 and 2024. The mother’s line 26000 income in 2023 was $79,634.29. Support on that basis would amount to $1,206/month. The mother paid $337 per month which amounts to a $889/month underpayment, or $10,428 for the year.

[7] There has been a child support order in place since January 2024, (when Richard J. ordered that the mother pay $1,211/month in child support). I am content that the mother could not have paid that much commencing in February 2024 since she was injured at that time. As per the father, the mother made one full support payment in 2024, which I take to mean that the mother paid $1,211 in that year. That is probably the amount she ought to have paid for the year since she was unable to work due to her injury and her young child. As a result, the mother has no arrears from 2024.

[8] In total, therefore, given Richard J.’s arrears calculations (which I accept), and the $10,668 underpayment from 2023 (coupled with the mother’s medical inability to work after February 2024), I hereby assess child arrears at $28,570.12 for the period of time ending December 31, 2024.

[9] As for ongoing support, I am satisfied that the mother should not be imputed with income she earned previously in Alberta because:

1. It would be unreasonable to expect the mother to continue working in Alberta when her children reside in Sault Ste. Marie;
2. She has a young child (around 2 years old) whom she presumably cannot leave unattended so as to fly off to Alberta to make money; and
3. She is injured, the impact of which is likely to materially and negatively impact her ability to earn a large salary.

[10] It is the case, however, that the mother will likely be able to earn minimum wage, or $31,000 per annum in Sault Ste. Marie. While her injury may impede her from working in physical labour, the mother could clearly get a minimum wage job that was not physically demanding. As such, imputation at $31,000 per year is reasonable, commencing January 1, 2024. This amounts to support payable at the amount of $264/month. The mother shall also pay arrears at a rate of $100/month, given her current financial situation.

[11] With respect to spousal support, the father abandons his claim for a clawback. With respect to ongoing spousal support, that is terminated on a final basis given the reasons given by Richard J. on January 17, 2024.

[12] On a go-forward basis, the mother shall provide the father with medical files as they relate to her foot injury. The parties will also exchange Notices of Assessment. All this will be done by July 1st of every year. This is because the mother owes a considerable amount of money, whose repayment rate is being kept low because of her current financial situation. The father has the right to know if the mother is capable of working more meaningfully than she is at the current moment and, as such, the mother ought to produce to the father any medical documentation that either supports or rebuts her claim that she cannot make a good living as a result of her injury.

Costs

[13] The conduct of this matter has been outrageous on the mother’s part. She has protracted the litigation at several instances and has wasted considerable court time. I have no hesitation finding that the mother has been the cause of the overwhelming amount of litigation in this matter and that the amount of money spent by the father in dealing with this case has been unreasonable as the money need not have been spent in the first place.

[14] Indeed, the mother has already filed another contempt motion before the court, which I will deal with separately.

[15] The father filed nine legal bills, of which I will consider seven as two of the legal bills cover the duplicate time periods. As such, I will consider only the smaller bill (of the duplicated time periods) for my calculations.

[16] In total, the father has spent $14,286.19 in legal fees, plus a considerable amount of time when he represented himself.

[17] I consider Rule 24 that governs costs. Specifically, I note that the father is presumptively entitled to costs and that the mother’s conduct must be a factor when I decide how much to award. Rule 24(8) states that “[i]f a party has acted in bad faith, the court shall decide costs on a full recovery basis and shall order the party to pay them immediately”.

[18] It is clear from these reasons and from my reasons at 2024 ONSC 6324 that the mother has acted in bad faith. She has attempted to put her interests ahead of those of her children. Although she clearly loves her children, she cannot bring herself to behave in a way that is acceptable. Rather, she keeps trying to undertake litigation that can only be seen as frivolous and vexatious.

[19] Therefore, her conduct is “in bad faith” and it therefore rises to the level where full indemnity ought to be paid immediately.

[20] I hereby order that the mother pay $14,286.19 in costs to the father. Despite the Rules stating that the costs be payable forthwith, the mother shall nonetheless have 24 months to do so because she appears to have no means to pay such an award. I recommend that she begin paying this sum in increments so that she is not overwhelmed by the amount to be paid at one time.

Varpio
Released: March 19, 2025

Endnote

[1] I was provided with Ms. Simonar’s social services applications which I hereby make an Exhibit on the motion. From this filing, I infer that the mother’s injury is meaningful and that she cannot earn the money she did in Alberta.