Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FS-23-0028-00
Date: 2025-04-23

Between

Vanessa Danielle Theriault
Applicant
Represented by Peter Howie

-and-

Clinton Gray
Respondent
Represented by Michael Cupello

Heard: April 17, 2025, at Thunder Bay
Justice: R.A. Lepere

Decision on Motion

Introduction

[1] The Applicant had previously brought a motion regarding parenting time and decision-making which was heard by Wojciechowski J. on March 6, 2025 (the “Parenting Time Motion”). Wojciechowski J. made an interim without prejudice order regarding parenting time and decision making on March 6, 2025 and ordered that the Parenting Time Motion was adjourned to March 27, 2025, for the purpose of providing the court with an agreed upon timetable for the parties to bring whatever motions are necessary to address the temporary orders made. Costs of that motion were deferred to the judge hearing the arguments on any motions brought to address the temporary parenting issues or other outstanding matters between the parties.

[2] The parties were back in motions court on March 27, 2025. The Parenting Time Motion was adjourned to a special date on June 30, 2025. The Applicant also commenced this motion for disclosure and a temporary child support order (the “Child Support Motion”). Fitzpatrick J. adjourned the Child Support Motion to April 10, 2025, peremptory on the Respondent. He ordered that the costs of the March 27, 2025, attendance were reserved to the April 10, 2025 hearing date.

[3] The Applicant did not file the necessary confirmation form to have the Child Support Motion heard on April 10, 2025. As such, it was made returnable to April 17, 2025.

[4] It was the position of the Respondent that the Child Support Motion ought to be adjourned to be heard at the same time as the Parenting Time Motion on June 30, 2025. It was his position that he is currently paying child support and the June 30th hearing date is not that far away. Furthermore, since a decision regarding parenting time could impact the child support obligation of the Respondent it makes sense to have both issues determined together. Lastly, there is no urgency given the amount of time that has already passed since this litigation was commenced.

[5] It was the position of the Applicant that the motion ought to proceed as same was made peremptory on the Respondent and there is clear evidence that he is currently underpaying child support based on the income information disclosed.

[6] It was agreed as between the parties that the Child Support Motion would proceed only on the issue of a temporary child support order between now and the determination of the issues at the June 30, 2025, hearing. The Respondent took the position that any temporary order should commence May 1, 2025. It was the Applicant’s position that any temporary order should commence April 1, 2025, as per the relief requested in the motion.

Disposition

[7] For the reasons set out below the following order should issue:

(a) The Child Support Motion is adjourned to June 30, 2025, at 9:00am (CST) to be heard at the same time as the Parenting Time Motion;

(b) An interim, without prejudice order that the Respondent pay child support to the Applicant for the children, Abigail Ivy Jean Gray, born August 3, 2020 (“Abbi”) and Jace Anthony George Gray, born March 22, 2023 (“Jace”), in the monthly amount of $1,613.90 commencing May 1, 2025, until the Child Support Motion is determined following the June 30, 2025 hearing; and

(c) Costs of the March 6, 2025, attendance on the Parenting Time Motion and the March 27, 2025 and April 17, 2025 attendances on the Child Support Motion are reserved to the judge hearing the motions on June 30, 2025.

Position of the Parties

Position of the Applicant

[8] The Applicant asserts that parties have never had a shared parenting schedule. At most the Respondent had the children approximately 30% of the time prior to the order dated March 6, 2025.

[9] Pursuant to the interim without prejudice order made March 6, 2025, the Applicant has the children more than 60% of the time. This will remain the status quo until the Parenting Time Motion is heard on June 30, 2025, and a decision on same is released thereafter.

[10] The Respondent asserts he has been paying $830.00 per month for child support for the two children. However, his payments are at times inconsistent, and he has deducted monies from same to cover the Applicant’s portion of interest owing on a joint line of credit that he has been paying. Based on the payments made to date the Respondent has paid an average of $589.00/month in child support payments.

[11] The Applicant asserts the above noted monthly amount is the table amount for two children based on an annual income much lower than that reported by the Respondent. The Respondent’s income is reported as follows:

• 2022: $81,367
• 2023: $104,676.29
• 2024: $111,658.52
• 2025: $20,929.47 (to March 15, 2025)

[12] Based on the pay stub provided for 2025, the Respondent is projected to earn approximately $100,000.00 this year. The Applicant asserts that this is consistent with the Respondent’s income for 2023 and 2024 and therefore, the position of the Respondent that the 2023 and 2024 years are outliers and he is unlikely to maintain that level of income cannot be accepted.

[13] It is the Applicant’s position that the Respondent should be ordered to pay child support as per the Child Support Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) based on his 2024 income equalling $1,613.90 per month.

Position of the Respondent

[14] The Respondent asserts that the $830.00/month being paid was further to a shared parenting schedule the parties had in place prior to the Order dated March 6, 2025. He also asserts that he has been paying the Applicant’s share of interest owing on a joint line of credit and has deducted same from his child support payment. This is why the amount being paid was less than the table amount.

[15] The Respondent calculates the amount owing based on an annual income of $87,000.00. This results in a table amount for two children equal to $1,320.00. He asserts that the Applicant has annual income of approximately $20,000.00 which gives rise to a child support obligation of $311.00 per month for two children. With the offset his monthly obligation is approximately $1,000.00. When he deducts the Applicant’s share of the interest on the joint line of credit that he has been paying this gives rise to the $830.00/month.

[16] The Respondent asserts that his child support obligations should not be based on his 2023 and 2024 income as these are outliers and are not expected to recur. It was his evidence that he worked more overtime to pay for his lawyer’s bill and the amounts will not be reflective of his income moving forward.

[17] The Respondent asserts that further to the Order of March 6, 2025, he maintains a shared parenting schedule or very close to a shared parenting schedule. Depending on how many times he keeps the children until Tuesday as per the new schedule his parenting time ranges between 35% and 40%. As such, the $830.00/month is still reflective of the child support he should pay pending the hearing of the Parenting Time Motion.

[18] The Respondent asserts that the status quo ought to continue being, a monthly child support payment for the two children to the Applicant in the amount $830.00/month and he will continue to pay the Applicant’s share of the interest on the joint line of credit.

Analysis

[19] I do not find that the current status quo between the parties is a shared parenting schedule. The current schedule has the children with the Respondent for approximately 30% of the time. I have not been provided with anything to suggest that I have discretion to treat this as a shared parenting arrangement in the circumstances.

[20] With respect to the Respondent’s income there is insufficient evidence before me to establish that the income in 2023 and 2024 are outliers and/or that the increase the Respondent earned in those years will not be recurring. In fact, his pay stub to date for 2025 shows that it is anticipated he will earn approximately $100,000.00 for 2025 which is consistent with the 2023 and 2024 incomes.

[21] I have no discretion to depart from the table amount pursuant to the Guidelines in this matter.

[22] Based on the Respondent’s 2024 annual income of $111,658.52 the table amount for two children as per the Guidelines is $1,613.90. This is the amount that the Respondent shall pay on an interim without prejudice basis until a determination of the Child Support Motion following the June 30, 2025, hearing.

[23] While the Applicant requests that this amount be payable back to April 1, 2025, I am not prepared to order same. This motion was brought on March 19, 2025, first returnable on March 27, 2025. I agree with the Respondent in that this matter has been before the Court for some time. In February 2024, Nieckarz J. noted that the matter should proceed to trial. The Applicant has not moved this matter forward in a timely manner. She then filed a flurry of motions in March 2025. The urgency of same is unclear. The increase will commence as of May 1, 2025.

Costs

[24] The parties agreed that the costs of the March 6, 2025, attendance should be reserved to the judge hearing the Parenting Time Motion on June 30, 2025.

[25] The costs of the March 27, 2025, and April 17, 2025, attendances should also be reserved to the judge hearing the Child Support Motion on June 30, 2025, as the outcome following that hearing may have a bearing on the issue of costs.

“original signed by”
R.A. Lepere

Released: April 23, 2025