Addeo v. Blyth, 2025 ONSC 4223

COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-1669-01
DATE: 2025-07-16
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Maria Addeo, Applicant
AND: Ryan Blyth, Respondent
BEFORE: R.S. Jain
COUNSEL: Bryan Teskey, Counsel for the Applicant
HEARD: 2025-07-10

Introduction

[1] This final hearing for the Applicant's Motion to Change the Final Order of Vallee J. dated February 20, 2018 (hereinafter “the Vallee Order”) came before me on July 10, 2025. Parenting issues have been resolved. The children reside in the primary care of the Applicant and have parenting time on alternate weekends with the Respondent per the Final Order of Krause J. May 21, 2024.

[2] The Applicant commenced this Motion to Change on February 21, 2019. The Respondent’s Response to Motion to Change is dated April 3, 2019. Neither party sought any changes to the retroactive or ongoing child support in these original pleadings.

[3] On August 20, 2019, Eberhard J. held a case conference and the parties entered Temporary Minutes of Settlement regarding parenting issues, and also regarding child support. In those Minutes, the parties agreed to provide the Respondent with some temporary relief from paying his arrears of child support. The Respondent was also permitted to amend his Response to Motion to Change to add new claims against the Applicant. He never did so. Despite this, from that point onwards it is clear that both parties were seeking orders regarding retroactive and ongoing child support.

[4] The Applicant served and filed an Amended Motion to Change dated December 15, 2023. The Respondent never served or filed an Amended Response to Motion to Change.

[5] The remaining issues for the Applicant’s Amended Motion to Change seeks orders for retroactive arrears and ongoing child support and s. 7's for three children: Austin (12 years old); Mariah (11 years old) and Gavin (9 years old) – (hereinafter “the children”).

[6] The Respondent opposes the orders sought by the Applicant. However, he didn’t actually make any claims or clarify the orders he is seeking regarding child support. He further says he cannot afford to contribute to the children’s s. 7 expenses, and he doesn’t agree that the dental/orthodontic costs are a necessary or reasonable expense.

[7] As the Respondent had not complied with the disclosure requirements of the Family Law Rules (hereinafter FLR’s) and multiple court orders, the Applicant sought an order denying the Respondent an audience and permission to proceed on an uncontested basis. Pursuant to r. 2 (2-5) of the FLR’s, and for oral reasons given, the court did not grant this request. The court permitted the Respondent to make submissions based on the evidence that was properly before the court.

[8] This matter had been set down to proceed as a long motion during the trial sittings three times, twice by Douglas J. on September 17, 2021; and again, on March 3, 2023; then a third time by Krause J. on November 24, 2023. It was adjourned multiple times and wasn’t reached in the previous trial sittings. It has been outstanding for too long. It needed to come to a final conclusion.

Issues

[9] The questions this court must consider are the following:

1. What is the Respondent’s income? Should the court impute an income to the Respondent? If so, how much?
2. What is the child support amount owed by the Respondent to the Applicant for the children retroactive to December 1, 2023?
3. What is the appropriate ongoing child support amount payable by the Respondent for the three children?
4. Should paragraph 32 of the Order of Eberhard J. dated August 20, 2019, be terminated?

Decision

[10] For the reasons set out below, the court shall impute an income of $97,240 to the Respondent. This is the income that shall be used to calculate child support retroactive to December 1, 2023, and ongoing child support. The appropriate retroactive and ongoing child support amount payable by the Respondent to the Applicant is $1,830 per month for three children. The Respondent owes arrears of child support to the Applicant based on the Vallee Order. Paragraph 32 of the Order of Eberhard J. dated August 20, 2019, shall be terminated.

Law

[11] Before I can make any child support order, I must determine the Respondent’s income. In doing so, I am bound to follow the Child Support Guidelines (hereinafter the CSG’s). Although they are called “Guidelines”, they are the law, and they must be followed. Child support is the right of the children. In determining this matter, the court will be specifically referring to s. 7, 15, 16, 17, 19 of the CSG’s and the Family Law Rules.

[12] The CSG’s contain a chart of the appropriate child support amounts the court sets based on the number of children and the payor’s ability to earn income. The CSG’s also set out requirements for financial disclosure, and what the court can do when those disclosure requirements have not been met (i.e. we can make adverse – or negative findings against a payor and impute income to them). When a payor’s income is in dispute, there is also caselaw that helps guide the court on when it is appropriate to impute income to a payor, and how to determine same.

Background, Facts and Analysis

[13] The parties are the biological parents to the children. They were in a relationship from 2005 to 2015 and separated on a final basis in 2017. They entered into Minutes of Settlement on January 25, 2018, which became the Final Order of Vallee J. dated February 20, 2018 (the “Vallee Order”). The Vallee Order granted the Applicant “sole custody” of all three children and the Respondent regular “access”. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant child support in the amount of $800 per month. The Vallee Order did not indicate the Respondent’s income; however, the Applicant submits the $800 per month amount was agreed between the parties and based on an unverified estimate of the Respondent’s income being approximately $40,000 per year working in construction. The Respondent was required to provide updated income disclosure each year on the anniversary of the Vallee Order.

[14] The Respondent did not provide income disclosure each year. The Respondent also did not consistently pay the $800 per month, so he accumulated significant arrears. Pursuant to the Consent Order of Eberhard J. dated August 20, 2019, (the “Eberhard Order”) the Respondent was provided with some temporary relief from paying the arrears. Paragraph 32 of the Eberhard Order says:

On a temporary without prejudice basis the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) will enforce child support up to $327.00 per month commencing July 1, 2019, pending a resolution based on 2019 income. The current child support order of $800.00 per month to remain in place until varied by order.

[15] The Applicant’s Amended Motion to Change seeks to impute an income to the Respondent of $95,014 (or his Line 150 income, whichever is higher). This would result in the Respondent paying the Applicant child support in the amount of $1,842 per month commencing December 1, 2023.

[16] The motion materials before the court at this hearing requested an order imputing an income to the Respondent of $186,000 (or his Line 15000 income – whichever is higher) and an order for the Respondent to pay her child support in the amount of $3,224 per month commencing December 1, 2023. She seeks a final order fixing the child support arrears owed by the Respondent at $78,908.53 as of April 30, 2025, payable in 30 days.

[17] In the alternative, the Applicant seeks to impute an income to the Respondent of $97,240 (or his Line 15000 income – whichever is higher) and an order for the Respondent to pay her child support in the amount of $1830 per month commencing December 1, 2023. She continues to seek an order that the child support arrears prior to November 2023 be governed by para. 10 of the Vallee Order. She seeks a final order fixing the child support arrears owed by the Respondent at $55,210.53 as of April 30, 2025, payable in 30 days.

[18] In the further alternative, the Applicant seeks an order setting the retroactive child support arrears owing by the Respondent to the Applicant prior to April 30, 2025 at $37,700.53, based on an imputed income of $40,000 per year (the amount outstanding pursuant to the Vallee J. Order) or such higher amount as determined by the court, and that ongoing child support be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant based on an imputed income of $186,000 per year.

[19] The Applicant also seeks an order fixing s. 7 arrears owing by the Respondent to the Applicant as of April 30, 2025, at $2,238.30, and payable within 30 days.

[20] The Applicant seeks an order that the child support arrears prior to November 2023 be governed by para. 10 of the Vallee Order with the Respondent responsible for paying child support of $800 per month for this period. Paragraph 32 of the Eberhard Order is no longer in force and shall be disregarded by the FRO. The FRO shall enforce the child support of $800 per month (exclusive of interest) which is owed for this period and may commence enforcement proceedings against the Respondent.

[21] The Applicant is unable to work. She was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 2010. She has been in receipt of benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) since 2015. She has limited education and has not been employed since Austin was born 12 years ago.

[22] The Respondent is trained as an operating engineer (crane operator). He has worked through the International Union of Operating Engineers (Local 793) who has represented him in his employment with a number of companies over the years. He has taken jobs through Local 793 for many years from 2011 onwards including jobs with Python Construction Inc., North Tunnels Canada Inc., Dibco Underground Co. Inc., Camino Construction Inc., Strong Foundation Inc., Timbel Limited, Linen Structures Ltd., Yukon Construction, Crosstown Obayashi Technicore Constructor and Aecon Construction and Materials Ltd.

[23] The Respondent asserts that he was in a motorcycle accident in 2019 and it impacted his ability to work. He said it was impossible to work as a crane operator after the accident due to his injuries. He claims that he was in receipt of accident benefits and income replacement in the amount of $1,600 per month which annualized would be $19,200 gross income, which translated to a child support obligation of $327 per month. He claimed that prior to the accident, he lost his job and then began working and living in Thunder Bay, employed by his father and another construction company, doing odd jobs and construction demolition. He said he did not work full time, and he was paid cash.

[24] Unfortunately, the majority of the Respondent's responding affidavit for this motion discussed parenting issues, and his submissions included some personal commentary on issues that were not before the court. I advised him that I would be disregarding those parts of his evidence that were not relevant to the issues before the court.

[25] The Respondent advised the court that he has been trying to “get out of the hole” since his motorcycle accident. He said he can’t afford an accountant and he is behind on rent and other monthly expenses. He provided submissions about his ability to work, but none of this was in his evidence. He said that he can’t prove where he is looking for work. He said he goes “where he is called when he is a member of the union.” He said he picks up jobs and work and that his parents lend him money to survive. He said he has been working, but he goes from “job to job.” He said there is “nothing he can do about all the jobs” and that “every time he gets a job and tries to catch up, he loses it shortly afterwards.” He advised the court that last year he made $116,000 and that he “made what he could” the year before that. He said he couldn’t afford to get his medical records because his doctor would have charged him $3000.

[26] The Respondent said that his job searches are just him, “driving around and walking on a job site” and then “waiting for them to call.” He said he doesn’t have a credit card. He said, “construction work is not guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed” and that he “has been working in construction” his “whole life” and the “motorcycle accident put him behind.” He said that he is losing money constantly and cannot pay the support being requested. The Respondent said that he buys the children clothes and backpacks, but it never gets deducted off the child support that he owes. He said that he gets yelled at by the children because they say he is not paying child support. His only evidence to support his submissions is what he has already provided, and he has “provided everything that he can.”

[27] The Respondent’s Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment (ITR’s and NOA’s) show he earned the following:

Year	Income
2016 NOA	$150,078
2017 NOA	$43,736
2018 ITR	$6,343
2019 ITR & NOA	$33,596
2020 ITR & NOA	$14,811
2021 NOA	$0
2022 NOA	$0
2023 NOA	$43,802

[28] The August 20, 2019 Order temporarily reduced the Respondent’s payments to $327.00 per month pending income disclosure (but it did not vary the February 20, 2018 Order). Paragraph 36 of the August 20, 2019 Order outlines a variety of disclosure requirements for the Respondent in relation to this reduction, including but not limited to complete income tax returns, proof of all income for 2018 and 2019, and an affidavit outlining his inability to work. The Respondent did not comply with the disclosure. Despite the Respondent’s claims that he was unable to satisfy the disclosure order dated August 20, 2019, on June 17, 2021, a further order was made for compliance within 60 days. To date, the Respondent has not complied.

[29] The Applicant served a Request for Information dated November 2, 2021, on the Respondent seeking updated disclosure from 2019 to 2021 and, in particular, medical reports. The Respondent maintained that he cannot afford the medical reports showing his inability to work.

[30] The Respondent has not provided any disclosure regarding his claim that he is unable to work. Disclosure requests have been pending for many years. Regardless of this lack of disclosure and the Respondent’s claim regarding his inability to work, the Respondent has been working again in construction and as a crane operator. It is undisputed the Respondent returned to work in October 2023 and worked on a full-time basis for three months, earning $43,803.50 during that period. He has shared limited details about his employment, hourly rate, and proof of year-to-date income of any copies of employment contracts or other details. He has refused to share further details or updates regarding his employment status or income.

[31] Despite the numerous requests for disclosure, the Respondent has not complied. The Respondent has not provided his Income Tax Returns for 2021, 2022, 2023 or 2024. The Respondent has not complied with previous orders for disclosure (even when they were peremptory). The Respondent has not complied with the disclosure Order or costs Order for $1,500 dated February 4, 2025.

[32] Chronic non-compliance with court orders and lack of disclosure seems to be the unfortunate, overwhelming theme of the Respondent’s participation in this matter. He has received the benefit and relief of paying a significantly reduced amount of child support since August 20, 2019, without providing any of the required disclosure to support his assertions.

[33] In order for parents to meet the legal obligation to support their children, they must earn what they are capable of earning. Pursuant to s. 19 of the CSG’s if the court finds that the parent is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, it may impute such amount of income to a parent as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

[34] In determining if income should be imputed, the following three questions must be asked:

1. Is the spouse intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
2. If so, is the intentional under-employment required by virtue of reasonable educational needs?
3. If the answer to question 2 is negative, what income is appropriately imputed in the circumstances?[^5]

[35] There is no requirement of bad faith or intention to evade support obligations inherent in underemployment.[^6] If a parent is earning less than she or he could be, he or she is intentionally underemployed.[^7] When an employment decision results in a significant reduction of child support, it needs to be justified in a compelling way.[^8]

[36] Based upon the evidence before me, and the Respondent’s failure to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so, I find the Respondent is underemployed. I am not satisfied with the Respondent’s evidence to compel me to reduce his legal obligation to support the children prior to December 1, 2023, or afterwards. I find paragraph 32 of the temporary order of Eberhard J. dated August 20, 2019, should be terminated, and the Final Order of Vallee J. dated February 20, 2018, of $800 per month is appropriate, and it should be enforced by the FRO. Arrears of child support have accumulated pursuant to the Final Order dated February 20, 2018. As the Applicant is not seeking to change child support prior to November 30, 2023, those arrears pursuant to the Vallee Order should stand, (even though it is likely that it does not reflect the Respondent's actual earning capacity – which is likely higher, as will be explained below).

[37] Although the motorcycle accident in 2019 may have affected his ability to work for a period of time, it is an undisputed fact that the Respondent did return to work in construction, and sometimes as a crane operator. The Respondent did not provide evidence of how long he was out of work or unable to work. It is clear to the court, that the Respondent does not and will not share employment or income information when it does not help his case. Further, he has benefitted from the delay in final resolution of this matter due to the temporary reduction of his child support in the Order of August 20, 2019.

[38] For these reasons, I will impute such amount of income to the Respondent as I consider appropriate in the circumstances from December 1, 2023, onwards. As the Respondent has not provided reasonable disclosure and has not complied with the prior requests or orders, the court must rely on the CSG’s to calculate and impute income to the Respondent. The court cannot simply guess at the appropriate income to impute to the Respondent. A rational basis for arriving at an imputed income must still be sought.

[39] Pursuant to s. 16 of the CSG’s, subject to s. 17 to 20, a parent's annual income is determined using the sources of income set out under the heading “Total Income” in the T1 General form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency. As the Applicant is seeking a change in child support commencing from December 1, 2023, and the Respondent has not provided his 2023 Income Tax Return, or his 2024 Income Tax Return and Notice of Assessment, ascertaining income for support purposes pursuant to s. 16 of the Guidelines is not possible or practical.

[40] The Applicant estimated that the Respondent would earn an annual income of approximately $175,208 in 2023 based on the $43,802.50 the Respondent claimed that he earned working as a crane operator in Kitchener, Ontario from October 2023 to December 2023.[^9] The Respondent did not provide any evidence regarding why he was allegedly able to suddenly return to full-time work in October 2023.

[41] According to the Respondent’s Financial Statement sworn February 23, 2024, the Respondent was employed at Amcana Crane Rental Inc. earning $15,500 per month. According to the Applicant, when this monthly income is annualized, it is $186,000 per year. In that same Financial Statement, the Respondent’s income for 2023 was stated to be $43,802 pursuant to one T4 from working as a crane operator in Kitchener. In that same Financial Statement, the Respondent claimed his expenses were over $184,000 per year. He disclosed no other debts except for a 407 Toll debt and TELUS cellphone debt totaling $30,000. He attached a paystub from Amcana that disclosed his hourly rate of pay was $60 per hour, for 45 hours per week.

[42] The Respondent’s affidavit dated April 23, 2025, says that he lost his job with Amcana after just four months. He said he was unable to file his taxes for 2024 but he included what appeared to be a self-generated excel spreadsheet with what he said was a “complete printout of all his invoices for the year 2024 adding up to $74,201.85.” During the motion however, the Respondent asserted that he “forgot” to include a T4 for approximately $40,000 in his income for the year 2024. He acknowledged on the record, that his income in 2024 was approximately $116,000. He attached his NOA’s for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.

[43] The Respondent filed a Financial Statement dated April 23, 2025, that says he has been unemployed since February 2025. He stated that his gross income from all sources in 2024 was $72,202 based on his invoices. He stated that his annual expenses are $110,988. He listed the same debts as were listed in his Financial Statement dated February 23, 2024. He attached a contract of employment dated April 7, 2025, as a yard lead hand with Powell Foundations Inc. It confirmed an hourly rate of pay of $35 per hour for 42.5 hours per week. During the motion, the Respondent asserted that he had lost this job. No evidence was provided regarding same.

[44] Based on the evidence before me, I have no doubt that the Respondent has chosen to earn less than he is capable to earning since separation, given his ability to obtain union and non-union work in his field (and his failure to produce evidence of there being no union work). He has purposely hidden his employment status and details when it suited him. This was shown in the Respondent’s own text messages and Instagram or social media postings about his employment. Screenshots from the Respondent’s Instagram account between October and November 2023 show him working and doing overtime as a crane operator. The Respondent’s messages to the Applicant and the Trial Coordinator show he was working as a crane operator in Kitchener, Ontario. In my view, it is alarming that the Respondent continues in his self-serving behavior and refusal to provide disclosure or pay child support in accordance with his income.

[45] Section 17 of the Child Support Guidelines says that if the court is of the opinion that the determination of a parent's annual income under s. 16 would not be the fairest determination of that income, the court may have regard to the parent's income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years.

[46] The Applicant’s position is that, pursuant to s. 17 of the Guidelines, there are patterns of income within the past three years which should help the court ascertain the Respondent’s income for support purposes, such as the annualized income of approximately $175,000 based on the period of time he was working in Kitchener, Ontario (from October, 2023 to December, 2023) as well as an annual income of approximately $186,000 when he was working full-time for Amcana Cranes in February 2024. The Applicant submits that these numbers also correspond with his annual income of approximately $150,000 as noted in his 2016 Notice of Assessment (particularly when taking into account inflation). In any event, Mr. Teskey argued that s. 17 of the CSG’s does not require or limit the court to use an “average” of three year’s income. He said that the court can determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of “any pattern of income.” As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Punzo v. Punzo, 2016 ONCA 957, para 24:

Section 17 does not require an average of three years’ income. It permits a departure from Line 150 income based, in part, on “any pattern of income, fluctuation of income or receipt of a non-recurring amount” evident in the preceding three years. An average is one pattern of income, but it is not the only one.

[47] The Respondent asserted that it is unfair to annualize his income working in construction based upon the job he had with Amcana in February 2024. He said that construction work is unstable. This, in my view is a reasonable assertion. The Respondent’s work pattern certainly has shown that he works many jobs, but he does not hold his jobs long term. I do not find it reasonable to impute an income of $175,000 or $186,000 to the Respondent.

[48] According to the evidence, I find that the Respondent’s pattern working in construction shows that he works for multiple companies each year. The Respondent’s work changes, and his income may fluctuate from job to job. What I find is consistent, is that when the Respondent needs work, he finds work. His skills and experience qualify him for jobs that pay him approximately $45 per hour. Based upon the work history and paystubs of the Respondent, when he working as a Crane Operator, he earns between $45-$60 per hour which if he worked full time (40 hours per week), would annualize to approximately $93,600-$124,800. When he works in construction, but not as a crane operator, he earns approximately $35 per hour. He has maintained living expenses over $100,000 per year despite his claims that he is not working. His most recent Financial Statement sworn April 23, 2025, shows his expenses of $101,988 and he doesn’t list any substantive debts except for the same cell phone and 407 toll bills from 2024. In the April 23, 2025, Financial Statement, he listed an annual income of $67,200. The Respondent did not deny making the social media postings on Instagram in the fall of 2023 wherein he posted things about working as a crane operator and getting overtime. In those posts he bragged about working and working overtime and making a lot of money. None of his postings or evidence indicate that work is unavailable. The Respondent has not provided any banking or credit card disclosure or complied with requests or orders regarding disclosure. The Respondent himself said on the record, that in 2024 he earned $116,000.

[49] In my view, the Respondent is not working to his full potential, (or at least he is not disclosing his full income to the Applicant or the court). The Respondent is an experienced crane operator who has worked a number of construction and crane jobs including union and non-union work. The Respondent can accept or refuse crane jobs at his pleasure. The Applicant’s position is that the Respondent has been under employing himself or underreporting his income since the initial court case started in 2017. The Applicant asserts that the Respondent has an earning capacity that is much higher than $40,000. I agree.

[50] The Respondent has not fulfilled his burden to prove that arrears based on an income of $40,000 (per the Vallee Order) should be eliminated. The Applicant asserts that the arrears owing prior to November 30, 2023 should stand, and that the arrears owed under the Vallee Order be paid. I agree. She further asserts that the Vallee Order did not reflect the Respondent’s actual earning capacity and income and has likely resulted in a large underpayment of support to date. I agree. Even if the Respondent was unable to work for a period of time in 2019, he has received a windfall benefit of paying a very low amount of child support for many years, based on unverified income and ability to work by way of the Vallee Order from 2018 and the Eberhard Order from 2019.

[51] The court cannot trust or rely upon the Respondent’s excel spread sheet stating what his income was in 2024, when so much of his disclosure is outstanding. The Respondent has traditionally earned undisclosed cash income (and received transfers from his parents). In this case, the Respondent has so much significant employment history coupled by such insufficient financial information and evidence for which the court draws an adverse inference against the Respondent. He simply cannot be trusted.

[52] I find the Respondent has a pattern of earning at least $45 per hour as a construction worker or crane operator. In my view, if the Respondent is working to the best of his abilities, he should not earn less than $97,240 per year (the alternative amount of income the Applicant sought to be imputed to the Respondent). Based upon all of the above, with the Respondent’s experience and abilities and pattern of income, the court imputes the Respondent with an annual income of $97,240 per year, (or his line 150000 income on his NOA, whatever is higher). This results in a child support amount payable by the Respondent to the Applicant of $1,830 retroactive to December 1, 2023.

[53] The Applicant provided the court with a FRO Statement of Arrears and a calculation of arrears if the court imputed an income of $186,000 to the Respondent. The court was able to use the same methodology to calculate and confirm that the arrears sought by the Applicant in paragraph 6 of her Notice of Motion dated April 22, 2025 were accurate. This was based on the Court finding in the alternative, and imputing an income of $97,240 to the Respondent with a table child support amount for three children being $1,830 per month. Using these numbers, when the short fall of child support retroactive to December 1, 2023 is added to the outstanding FRO arrears, total arrears now owing as of April 30, 2025 are $55,210.53.

[54] The Calculations of the arrears owing as of April 30, 2025 is as follows:

• $1,830 x 17 months (December 1, 2023 to April 30, 2025) = $31,110.00
• Less $800 (Feb.2018 Order) x 17 months - $13,600.00
• Net Increase in Support from Dec 2023 to April 30, 2025 = $17,510.00
• Net Increase $17,510.00
• Plus Outstanding FRO Arrears + $37,700.53
• Total Support Arrears = $55,210.53

[55] The Respondent acknowledged that he refused to pay for braces for the children. He took the opportunity to criticize the Applicant and said that the children do not brush their teeth in the Applicant’s care and that the hygiene of the children is not good. He confirmed that the Children’s Aid Society has not verified his concerns.

[56] The Applicant is seeking contribution from the Respondent for braces for Austin and eyeglasses for both Mariah and Austin. She is seeking an order that the Respondent’s contribution to s. 7 expenses incurred in the past be fixed at 50% in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Vallee J. Order. The Respondent refuses to pay his 50% for the expenses. I find that the Respondent has unreasonably withheld his consent to these s. 7 expenses for the children, which I find to be reasonable and necessary. The retroactive s. 7 expenses owed by the Respondent to the Applicant are fixed at $2,238.30.

Conclusion and Order

[57] For the reasons set out above, Final Order to go:

1. Commencing December 1, 2023, the Respondent’s income for support purposes is imputed at $97,240, or his line 150 income, whatever is higher.
2. Commencing December 1, 2023, and on the first day of each month thereafter, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant child support for all three children namely Austin Blyth (12 years old), Mariah Blyth (11 years old), and Gavin Blyth (9 years old), in the amount of $1,830 per month.
3. Child Support arrears for the period prior to November 30, 2023, shall be governed by paragraph 10 of the February 20, 2018, Final Order, with the Respondent responsible for paying child support of $800 per month for this period.
4. Paragraph 32 of the August 20, 2019, Order of Eberhard J. is no longer in force and shall be terminated and set aside. Paragraph 32 of the August 20, 2019, Order shall be disregarded by the Family Responsibility Office. The Family Responsibility Office shall instead enforce child support of $800 per month (exclusive of interest) which is owed for this period from February 20, 2018 to November 30, 2023 and may commence enforcement proceedings against the Respondent.
5. Child support arrears for the entire period prior to April 30, 2025, shall be fixed in the amount of $55,210.53 as of April 30, 2025 and payable at a rate of $670.00 per month commencing September 1, 2025, and each 1st of the month thereafter until fully paid.
6. Section 7 arrears owing as of April 30, 2025, shall be fixed in the amount of $2,238.30 and shall be paid on or by 60 days from the date of this Order.
7. All the child support and s. 7 orders shall be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office. SDO to Issue.
8. Any future section 7 expenses that may be incurred shall be paid by the parties in a proportionate manner, in accordance with the Applicant’s actual income and the Respondent’s imputed incomes respectively.
9. Paragraph 6 of the February 4, 2025, Order of Justice Douglas (cost award) shall be amended to read, “Costs of today are to be paid by the Respondent to the Legal Aid Ontario in the fixed amount of $1,500 and said amount shall not be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.”

Costs

[58] Mr. Teskey gave submissions seeking full recovery costs in the amount of $30,306 inclusive of HST and disbursements. He said that despite the parties resolving the parenting issues in 2024, a lot of the court dates would not have been required if the Respondent had complied with the FLR’s, previous court orders and disclosure requests.

[59] As set out in Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867, modern costs rules are designed to foster four fundamental purposes:

a. To partially indemnify successful litigants;
b. To encourage settlement;
c. To discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and
d. To ensure that cases are dealt with justly under Rule 2(2) of the Family Law Rules.

[60] Rule 24(1) creates a presumption of costs in favour of the successful party.

[61] The Applicant has been successful on her motion to change in that the court has imputed an income to the Respondent. However, the court did not impute the Respondent with an income as high as the Applicant was seeking. No offers were exchanged, but this was largely due to the pervasive non-compliance with court ordered disclosure.

[62] I find the Applicant was the successful party on the majority of the issues and she is entitled to costs. It was the Respondent’s persistent noncompliance with previous court orders that was largely responsible for this matter dragging out as long as it did, especially after the Final Order of Krause J. dated May 21, 2024. The Respondent’s behaviour must be discouraged and sanctioned.

[63] I find that the Applicant is not entitled to costs prior to the May 21, 2024, Order of Krause J. A costs order prior to this order would not encourage settlement. Further, paragraph 12 of that Order specifically stated that “Both parties shall bear their own costs.”

[64] The Respondent has not paid the previous costs order of $1,500 of Douglas J. dated February 4, 2025, which were payable forthwith. The Respondent says he cannot pay any costs. He says he simply cannot afford it.

[65] Pursuant to r. 24 (12) of the FLR’s, I find that it is fair and reasonable for the Respondent to pay the Applicant costs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements. The costs award of Douglas J. dated February 4, 2025, shall be added to this, for a total of $6,500.

[66] Final Order to go:

1. Costs in the amount of $6,500 shall be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant on or by 60 days from the date of this Order. Such costs shall be paid to Legal Aid Ontario and shall not be subject to enforcement by the Family Responsibility Office.

JAIN J.
Date: July 16, 2025

[^5]: Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 ONCA 41868 at para 23
[^6]: Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 ONCA 41868 at paras 25, 16 and 36
[^7]: Lavie v. Lavie, 2018 ONCA 10 at paras 24 and 26
[^8]: Riel v. Holland (2003), 67 OR (3d) 417 (CA) at para 23
[^9]: Applicant’s Affidavit dated April 22, 2025 at para 27