Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FS-23-34401
Date: 2025-05-13

Between

Natasha Taciuk
– and –
Christopher Taciuk

Applicant: Self-Represented
Respondent: Leah Simeone, for the Respondent

Heard: April 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14, 2025

Reasons for Decision

M. Kraft, J.

Nature of Trial

[1] This was a 4.5-day trial that proceeded on an uncontested basis to address the respondent’s claims for retroactive and prospective child support for the parties’ 17-year-old son, N. Issues regarding security for child support and an incident relating to the child’s future travel were also determined. The applicant, Natasha Taciuk (“Natasha”), sought, among other things, spousal support from the respondent, Christopher Taciuk (“Chris”).

[2] For oral reasons given on April 8, 2025, I struck Natasha’s pleadings. I determined that Natasha was permitted to participate in the trial only with respect to Chris’ claims relating to parenting, to address her latest sworn financial statement and to make closing submissions.

Brief Background

[3] The undisputed facts in this case are as follows:

a. In the Spring of 2007, Chris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (“MS”). MS is an incurable, degenerative disease, which impacts patients with increasing disability over time.

b. The parties were married on August 23, 2007.

c. Their son, N., was born on February 6, 2008. He is currently 17 years old and in Grade 11.

d. Natasha has a daughter from another relationship, named A. She is an independent adult and not part of these proceedings.

e. Chris stopped working as a creative director on September 14, 2014, due to his MS. Christopher receives monthly LTD payments of $6,045.57, which are non-taxable in his hands. He began receiving his LTD payments on February 7, 2015. In addition, Chris receives CPP-D payments of $1,833.61 monthly, of which $264 is attributable to N. as a dependant. The CPP is taxable in Chris’s hands. Chris has no other source of income other than LTD and CPP-D. His income is fixed and will not increase.

f. Prior to the marriage, Natasha worked in various roles, including as a receptionist, editorial assistant, executive assistant, and project coordinator. In 2007, Natasha earned approximately $40,000 a year.

g. During the marriage, Natasha attended Humber College and obtained a Diploma in Public Relations. She graduated in 2012. Upon completing the Diploma, Natasha completed an internship at the Royal Ontario Museum for 6 months.

h. In 2016, Natasha started a business called The Wellness Maven, which featured her own line of organic skincare products. Natasha’s income from The Wellness Maven was not disclosed in this action.

i. Throughout the marriage, Chris repeatedly asked Natasha to seek employment and contribute to the family’s expenses.

j. During the marriage, Natasha received Child Tax Benefits for N.

k. In 2016 and 2017, Natasha consulted with at least two family law lawyers and considered separating. These lawyers sent letters to Chris.

l. The parties separated on April 20, 2022. This was the day that Natasha wrote Chris a letter advising that she wanted to separate and proposed that the parties remain living in the matrimonial home together to keep normalcy for N. and share their parenting responsibilities.

m. The parties lived separate and apart in the matrimonial home for 15 months from April 20, 2022, until July 31, 2023.

n. The parties resolved their property issues on July 28, 2023.

o. The matrimonial home was sold and after July 31, 2023, N. resided with both parents equally on a week on/week off parenting schedule. Natasha moved into her father’s three-bedroom rental apartment and Chris moved into his mother’s three-bedroom house.

p. After July 31, 2023, even when N. was residing with Natasha, Chris would drive N. to and from school since Natasha does not drive.

q. Natasha was served with Chris’ Request for Information (“RFI”) seeking financial disclosure, information regarding jobs for which she had applied and information about the courses she was taking. Natasha never responded to Chris’ RFI or provided fulsome financial disclosure to him.

r. Starting September 1, 2024, N. decided to live primarily with Chris and remains living with him. N. and Natasha speak on the phone periodically. Natasha testified that she has not seen N. since December 28, 2024.

s. After separation, Natasha did not provide Chris with financial disclosure or details regarding her income, business revenue, ongoing educational pursuits, or efforts to seek employment. On March 7, 2024, Natasha refused to obtain a vocational assessment regarding her skills and employability when asked by Chris to do so.

t. The parties decided to give their evidence-in-chief by affidavit for trial as set out in the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form (“TSEF”) on May 7, 2024, and agreed that Natasha’s Trial Affidavit would be served 60 days before trial and Chris’ Trial Affidavit would be served 35 days before trial.

u. Natasha failed to serve and file her trial materials by December 12, 2024, as ordered by Hood, J. on May 7, 2024, and set out in the parties’ TSEF. Chris did comply with the timelines set out in the TSEF and served his Trial Affidavit, Exhibit Brief, Document Brief and Trial Record on Natasha on January 6, 2025.

v. Upon Natasha’s request, at the exit pre-trial on January 27, 2025, Diamond, J. reluctantly adjourned the first trial scheduled to commence on February 10, 2025, because she did not have a lawyer and had not taken the steps to be ready for trial. Diamond, J. set new timelines for the delivery of Natasha’s trial materials and ordered the trial peremptory to Natasha. She was also ordered to pay Chris the sum of $1,000 on account of costs thrown away.

w. Natasha failed to serve and file her trial materials by the extended deadline of February 28, 2025, as set out in the Order of Diamond, J. dated January 27, 2025.

x. Natasha failed to pay Chris costs as ordered by Diamond, J. on January 27, 2025.

y. In the last year or so, Natasha took digital marketing courses at York University but failed to provide Chris with disclosure regarding these courses or what employment she plans to pursue with these qualifications.

z. Natasha is currently working part-time at Shoppers Drug Mart for minimum wage.

aa. Since the separation, Natasha pays for N.’s cell phone and gym membership. Chris has paid for the remainder of N.’s s.7 expenses, including but not limited to, his extracurricular involvement in snowboarding, tutoring, driver’s education, leadership activities, school trips and orthodontia, without contribution from Natasha.

bb. Other than N.’s orthodontia expense, Natasha does not agree that she should have to contribute proportionately to N.’s snowboarding costs, tutoring, driver’s education, school trips or future car insurance. Her submission is that Chris made a unilateral decision to incur these expenses and she cannot afford to contribute to these s.7 expenses.

[4] According to Natasha, during the time that the parties were living separate and apart in the matrimonial home, Chris regularly tried to involve N. in their marital dispute creating a loyalty bind for N. Natasha believes that N.’s decision to reside with Chris starting September 1, 2024, was influenced by Chris and she blames Chris for the fracture in her relationship with N. It was clear that this was the source of much pain for Natasha. Given that N. is 17 years of age and has expressed clear views and preferences about where he will reside, it is not appropriate for any parenting order to be made by this court.

[5] According to Chris, the parties always lived beyond their means and throughout the relationship, he asked Natasha to work, earn an income, and contribute to the family’s expenses. Chris blames Natasha for the family’s precarious financial circumstances as he testified that she “refused” to obtain full time employment during the marriage and after the separation.

Issues to be Determined at Trial

[6] The issues to be determined at trial are:

a. Whether Natasha owes Christopher retroactive child support (table and s.7 expenses) starting September 1, 2024, to the current date?

b. Whether income should be imputed to Natasha for child support purposes and if so, in what amount?

c. What is Natasha’s ongoing child support obligation for N.?

d. Should Natasha be ordered to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy, naming N., as a beneficiary of the policy, as security for her child support obligation?

e. Should an order be made to allow N. to travel with either parent without the consent of the other parent?

Litigation History

[7] On February 6, 2023, Natasha issued the application, in which she sought, among other things, a divorce; child support; decision-making responsibility of N.; spousal support; equalization of net family property; a non-depletion order; exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and the sale of the matrimonial home. In her application, Natasha alleged having experienced family violence including physical and financial coercive control by Chris over their 15-year relationship. Natasha was represented by Nan Zheng when her application was issued.

[8] Natasha scheduled an urgent case conference before Chris filed his Answer. The parties attended the urgent case conference before Myers, J. on March 28, 2023, where they agreed to request that the OCL become involved to complete a Voice of the Child (“VoC”) report, to list the matrimonial home for sale, hold back $50,000 of the net sale proceeds, and disburse the remainder of the net proceeds of sale equally. A regular case conference was scheduled for July 28, 2023.

[9] Chris filed his Answer and Claim on April 19, 2023, taking the position that Natasha’s allegations of family violence were baseless; there were no grounds upon which she was seeking sole decision-making responsibility or primary residence of N.; Natasha had no entitlement to spousal support; and there were no grounds to justify any restriction of his parenting time to N.; or for an unequal division of net family property. Chris sought an order appointing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”); imputing income to Natasha of no less than $55,000 a year; that the matrimonial home be sold; that he should have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home pending its sale; and that Natasha be responsible for her own support. Chris was represented by David Acri when he filed his Answer/Claim.

[10] There was a VoC report completed by the OCL on April 20, 2023. Ilena Bisgould, the OCL clinician, was assigned to this matter on April 4, 2023. Her report identifies that she was asked to address the issues of 1) determining N.’s views and preferences around primary residence and parenting time and why; and 2) determining whether N. reports or appears to exhibit signs of being subjected to emotional abuse. Important points from the VoC report can be summarized as follows:

a. N.’s dad drives him to school. He said his mom does not drive.

b. N. said that he is close to his mom, but they don’t spend a lot of time together because of his age, and because they have different interests.

c. N. said that his relationship with his mom is positive. He said that they get along well with each other, and he likes how she cares for him. N. said that his mom asks him how he’s doing, and if he needs help. N. said that he is able to talk to his mom about his feelings, but he doesn’t because he hasn’t needed to.

d. N. said that he has never felt unsafe with his mom, and he doesn’t feel stressed while with his mom.

e. N. said that his relationship with his dad is also positive, and there isn’t anything he dislikes about the relationship. N. said that he and his dad have a lot to talk about, because they have more in common with each other due to their similar interests. N. said that his dad plays video games like him, they have similar taste in music, and his dad talks to him about what’s new with computers. N. was asked if he felt safe with his dad, and he replied “100%”. He said that he does not feel stressed while with his dad.

f. N. said that after he was born, his mom was more the stay-at-home parent who took care of him and his sister, while his dad worked. N. said that his dad can’t work at this time because he has MS.

g. At the second interview, N. said that his dad had since talked to him and told him that it was most likely that he and his dad would move in with his paternal grandma. N. said that his dad told him that they could see if it’s convenient, and if he didn’t like it, then they could move somewhere closer to the school.

h. At the first interview, N. said that he has two healthy parents that have the ability to take care of him, and that the decision about where he will live will depend on how it will impact on his school and his friends. N. said that if both of his parents move somewhere that is close to his school, he could share his time with them equally by alternating weeks. At the second interview, N. said that he didn’t know where he would prefer to live after his parents move and that he would need to try living at both places. If he liked one place more than the other, then he could live there more.

i. N. said that his parents do not yell at him or call him names, and he hasn’t been subjected to abuse.

j. N. said that the future decision around where he would live would be based on the home which provides him with easiest access to his school and to his friends, as this is what is more important to him. N. said that both of his parents are capable of caring for him, and while his dad has MS, it does not impact on his parenting. N. said that he feels safe with both of his parents, and he has not been subjected to abuse by either parent.

[11] The matrimonial home was sold, and the transaction was closed on July 31, 2023, at which time N. began living with each parent on a week-on/week-off basis.

[12] On July 28, 2023, the parties attended a case conference before Sugunasiri, J., at which they reached a consent order as follows:

a. They were to have temporary without prejudice joint decision-making responsibility of N.;

b. They were to have a shared parenting schedule of N. on a week on/week off basis on a temporary without prejudice basis;

c. Child support was to commence August 1, 2023, and be determined on a shared parenting schedule;

d. The parties were to disburse the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home with Natasha receiving $195,000; Chris receiving $195,000; and Chris paying Natasha $5,000 from her share of the net proceeds. This resolved the parties’ property issues; and

e. Chris was not dissipating his RRSP prior to the Settlement Conference returnable November 28, 2023.

[13] Chris paid child support to Natasha from August 1, 2023, to September 2024 of $566 a month.

[14] On November 28, 2023, the parties attended a Settlement Conference before Czutrin, J. This conference appears to have been adjourned and a combined SC/Trial Management Conference (“TMC”) was scheduled for April 10, 2024. At this conference, Natasha was represented by Farrah Hudani and Chris remained represented by David Acri.

[15] On December 27, 2023, Chris retained Frances Wood and filed a Notice of Change in Representation.

[16] On May 7, 2024, the parties attended a TMC before Hood, J., at which time the TSEF was signed. The issues for trial listed on the TSEF were decision-making and parenting time of N.; the parties’ respective incomes for child support purposes; spousal support; and divorce. A 9-day trial was scheduled to commence on February 10, 2024, with an exit pre-trial to take place on January 27, 2025. Timelines were set for the parties to serve and file their evidence in chief by way of affidavit, exchange requests to admit, requests for information and exchange trial documents.

[17] On June 18, 2024, Natasha became self-represented.

[18] On July 12, 2024, Chris served his Request for Information seeking disclosure as per the deadlines set out in the TSEF. Natasha never responded to the Request for Information.

[19] On August 22, 2024, Natasha retained new counsel, Hugh Evans.

[20] Starting November 2024, Natasha began self-representing.

[21] On December 2, 2024, Chris brought a motion to require Natasha to respond to his Request for Information, provide financial disclosure and to limit the documents on which she could rely on trial because of her lack of financial disclosure. Given that the TSEF had been signed, motions could only be brought if leave was granted by Hood, J. Hood, J. declined to grant Chris leave to bring the motion.

[22] On January 27, 2025, the parties attended an exit-pre-trial before Diamond, J., at which Natasha was self-represented and Chris was represented by Ms. Simeone (since Frances Wood had been appointed to the bench). Chris had complied with the time deadlines set out in the May 7, 2024, TSEF and filed his Request to Admit, document briefs, Trial Record and Trial Affidavit on January 6, 2025. Natasha failed to comply with any of the deadlines set out in the TSEF. Further, she did not respond to Chris’ Request to Admit and was thus, deemed to admit the truth of the facts and/or authenticity of the documents listed in his Request to Admit. Diamond, J.’s Endorsement notes that Natasha had four lawyers representing her in this proceeding and was requesting an adjournment of the trial because she did not have a lawyer at the time. Reluctantly, Justice Diamond adjourned the Trial and:

a. ordered a new trial date to commence on April 7, 2025, for up to 9 days, peremptory on Natasha.

b. extended the timeline for Natasha to serve and file her Trial Affidavit, Exhibit Book, Financial Statement and NFP Statement and Trial Record was extended to February 28, 2025.

c. granted Chris until March 28, 2025 to file his Trial Affidavit responding to Natasha’s case, Supplementary Exhibit Book and Trial Record if necessary. At that point, Chris had already filed his Trial Affidavit on January 6, 2025 and would have to file supplementary trial materials as a result of the adjournment.

d. granted leave to Natasha to bring a motion to withdraw any deemed admissions before March 7, 2025;

e. granted Chris leave to bring a motion seeking temporary child support;

f. scheduled a new exit pre-trial on March 31, 2025; and

g. ordered Natasha to pay Chris $1,000 for costs thrown away.

[23] On March 6, 2025, Shin Doi, J. heard Natasha’s motion to withdraw or set aside her deemed admissions and dismissed her motion. Shin Doi, J. reserved costs of the motion to the trial judge.

[24] On March 24, 2025, the parties appeared before Nakonechny, J. at To Be Spoken To Court because Natasha sought to adjourn this new trial date again, because she did not have counsel. She also sought an advance lump sum of spousal support and brought an urgent motion in this regard. Given that Diamond, J. had already adjourned the trial once; the fact that Natasha did not seek leave to bring this urgent motion in accordance with the May 7, 2024 TSEF from Hood, J., and the fact that Natasha had not paid the costs ordered by Diamond, J. of $1,000 to Chris, Nakonechny, J. declined to adjourn the trial or permit a motion for the adjournment of the trial prior to the exit pretrial on March 31, 2025. Costs of the TBST attendance were reserved to the trial judge.

[25] On March 31, 2025, the parties attended an exit-pretrial before Diamond, J. Diamond, J.’s Endorsement provides that Natasha had not yet served and filed her Trial Affidavit, Trial Record, Exhibit Book and sworn Financial Statement on February 28, 2025, as per his earlier order, dated January 29, 2025. Whether or not these materials, if late filed, were to be admitted into evidence was left to the trial judge, and Justice Diamond noted that the trial was made peremptory to Natasha and her recent motion to adjourn the trial was dismissed.

[26] Natasha never paid the costs ordered to Chris. Natasha did not serve and/or file her Trial Affidavit, Trial Record, Exhibit Book, or Trial Documents in accordance with the timelines or later. Instead, she uploaded documents onto CaseCentre that had not been served on Chris’s counsel. While Natasha labelled several volumes of documents “Trial Records”, she did not prepare a Trial Record enclosing the parties’ pleadings or prior court orders. In accordance with the Family Law Rules, her “Trial Records” were replete with documents that are not properly part of a Trial Record. As a result, Chris was put to the cost of preparing a Trial Record despite the fact that Natasha is the applicant in this proceeding. Further, Natasha filed a document entitled “Trial Affidavit” on CaseCentre which was not her evidence-in-chief in an affidavit but, rather, simply a 2-page affidavit of service. Natasha did not file a Trial Affidavit with her evidence-in-chief despite the directions set out in the original TSEF, dated May 7, 2025, the Order of Diamond, J., dated January 27, 2025, and the fact that she had a clear example of what a Trial Affidavit consisted of given that she had been served with Chris’ Trial Affidavit on January 6, 2025. Accordingly, there was no evidence before the court on April 7, 2025.

[27] At the commencement of Trial on April 7, 2025, Chris brought a motion to strike Natasha’s pleadings and for the trial to proceed on an uncontested basis. His counsel objected to the court relying on any of the documents Natasha had improperly uploaded onto Case Centre. Natasha opposed the motion. She argued, among other things, that she is not a rule breaker, she is doing her best as a self-represented litigant and she finds it overwhelming to navigate and understand the Family Law Rules. Natasha uploaded documents onto Case Centre demonstrating that she had been diagnosed with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder and asked the court to give her leeway and allow her documents to be relied upon for trial and not strike her pleadings. Natasha acknowledged that she was in breach of various court orders and time deadlines. She also advised the court that she had a legal aid certificate since July or August 2024 but had not been able to find counsel to assist her. I rendered a decision on April 8, 2025, striking Natasha’s pleadings and permitting her to participate in the trial on parenting issues relating to N. only, and to give evidence about her latest sworn financial statement, and to make closing submissions. I gave comprehensive oral reasons for my decisions on April 8, 2025.

[The remainder of the decision, including the analysis of each issue, findings, and the full order, continues as in the original text, with all formatting, spacing, and subheadings as above.]

Order

[97] This court makes the following order:

Divorce

a. Pursuant to s.8 of the Divorce Act, Natasha and Chris who were married at Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii on August 23, 2007, shall be divorced and that the divorce shall take effect 31 days after the date of this order.

Procedural

b. Pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, on April 8, 2025, the applicant’s pleadings were struck. The trial proceeded on an uncontested basis on the respondent’s claims only.

c. Pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the applicant was permitted to give evidence at trial on the issue of parenting and with respect to her financial statement, sworn on February 24, 2025.

Parenting

d. Pursuant to s.16.1 of the Divorce Act, N., born February 6, 2008, shall be permitted to reside with either parent at his sole discretion.

e. Pursuant to s.16.1 of the Divorce Act, the parties shall have joint decision-making responsibility for N., taking into account his preferences.

f. Pursuant to s.16.1 of the Divorce Act, N. shall be permitted to travel with either parent at his sole discretion.

g. Pursuant to s.16.1(4) and (5) of the Divorce Act, the need for the non-travelling parent to consent to N. travelling with the travelling parent and/or the need for the non-travelling parent to sign a travel authorization form is hereby dispensed with.

Child Support

h. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act and s.19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, Natasha shall be imputed with an income of $55,000 a year for child support purposes.

i. Pursuant to s.15.1(4) of the Divorce Act, Natasha shall pay Chris retroactive child support in the sum of $3,549 for the period September 1, 2024, to and including April 1, 2025.

j. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act, Natasha shall pay table child support for N. based on her earning an imputed income of $55,000 a year in the sum of $507 a month starting on May 1, 2025, and on the first day of each following month until further agreement of the parties or court order.

k. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act, Chris’s income for the purpose of determining each parent’s proportionate responsibility toward N.’s s.7 expenses is $121,123 a year, comprising of CPP-Disability benefits of $18,829 annually; CPP Dependent Amount for the child in the sum of $3,174 annually; and non-taxable disability income from Sunlife in the sum of $72,546 annually.

l. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act, Natasha shall pay her proportionate share of N.’s future and ongoing s.7 expenses which amounts to 31.1% of s.7 expenses which shall include:

i. tutoring,

ii. the uninsured cost of N.’s orthodontia,

iii. the uninsured portion of therapy if needed, any uninsured medical or dental expenses,

iv. the cost of N.’s application fees for post-secondary education,

v. ongoing driver’s education, if necessary, and

vi. N.’s portion of car insurance.

m. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act, Natasha shall not contribute to N.’s past or future snowboarding expenses or snowboarding equipment.

n. Pursuant to s.15.1(4) of the Divorce Act, child support for N. shall be reviewed if N. moves away from the respondent’s home to attend full-time post-secondary studies by no later than two months before N. is scheduled to go to school.

o. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act, if N. attends post-secondary education in the future on a full-time basis, Natasha shall contribute her proportionate share of his post-secondary fees, after any bursaries, scholarships and/or student loans are considered, along with N.’s employment income, if any.

p. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act, of the $4,952.57 Chris paid toward N.’s s.7 expenses up to the date of this trial, Natasha shall pay Chris 31.1% of the following retroactive s.7 expenses:

i. Uninsured portions of medical expenses;

ii. Uninsured portions of dental expenses, including orthodontic expenses;

iii. Educational expenses for the child, including but not limited to camp leadership, field trips; and

iv. Driver’s education training.

q. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act, for clarity, Natasha shall pay Chris her proportionate share of 31.1% of the balance of $4,250.00 for N.’s current orthodontic treatment from March 26, 2025, on, in the amount of $1,321.75.

Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act, Natasha shall pay Chris the arrears of her share of the child’s, N.’s special expenses paid solely by Chris as of March 25, 2025, within 30 days (not including his snowboarding expenses).

Security for Child Support

r. Pursuant to s.12 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, Natasha shall immediately apply for and obtain a life insurance policy with a face value of $35,000 to secure her child support obligation. Natasha shall provide Chris with a copy of the life insurance policy along with a copy of the beneficiary designation form naming N. as the irrevocable beneficiary of the policy. For as long as Natasha is required to keep this insurance policy in place, she shall not borrow against the policy or pledge the policy as credit. Annually, Natasha shall provide Chris with proof within 30 days from the anniversary date of the policy that the policy remains in good force and is unencumbered.

s. Pursuant to s.21(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the parties shall exchange income information annually on May 15 of each year, starting on May 15, 2025.

t. The orders for child support and special expenses as well as the enforcement of costs by the Family Responsibility Office as related to the issue of support, shall be binding as against Natasha’s estate in the event of her death.

u. The previously ordered amount of costs of $1,000.00 made by Justice Diamond on January 27, 2025, remains due and payable. The Family Responsibility Office is authorized and directed to enforce this costs order as costs related to the issue of support.

v. SDO to issue.

w. If the parties cannot agree on costs, Chris shall serve and file costs submissions in writing of no more than 3 pages, not including a Bill of Costs or Offers to Settle within 14 days of the release of this decision. Natasha shall serve and file costs submission in writing of no more than 3 pages, not including a Bill of Costs or Offers to Settle, within 7 days of being served with Chris’ costs submissions. Chris shall serve and file reply costs submission of no more than 1 page in writing within 5 days of being served with Natasha’s responding costs submissions.

Released: May 13, 2025