Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-24-00041360-0000 Date: 2025-08-15 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Thomas Johnson, Applicant – and – Anne Owusua Agyeman, Respondent

Not Present Self-Represented

Heard: August 15, 2025

Newton-Smith J.

Endorsement

[1] The matter proceeded by way of an uncontested trial.

[2] The Applicant father, Thomas Johnson, filed an Application in this court seeking a simple divorce. The Respondent mother, Anne Owusua Agyeman, sought various relief in her pleadings to which the Applicant did not respond.

[3] The Applicant was subsequently noted in default and the Respondent permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial by way of a Form 23C Affidavit.

[4] The Respondent seeks the following:

• Sole decision-making for the parties' seven children.
• Child support in the amount of $1,740 per month on an imputed income of $60,000 for the Applicant father, commencing August 2022.
• An order dispensing with the Applicant father's consent to apply for and renew all government-issued documents for the children.
• An order dispensing with the Applicant father's consent for the Respondent mother to travel outside of the country with the children.
• An order that the Applicant father not be allowed to remove the children from the Greater Toronto Area without the Respondent mother's consent.

The Evidence

[5] The only evidence on this uncontested trial is the Form 23C Affidavit filed by Ms. Agyeman. It contains the following information.

[6] The parties are both citizens of Ghana.

[7] The Respondent mother, Ms. Agyeman, sponsored the Applicant father, Mr. Johnson's, application for permanent residency in Canada.

[8] Their relationship began in 2008 and they married in 2009. The parties have seven biological children together, the first of whom was born in 2009.

[9] Ms. Agyeman has always been the primary caregiver for the children. She describes a psychologically abusive relationship where Mr. Johnson belittled and humiliated her and refused to care for the children. Once Mr. Johnson received his permanent residence status their relationship deteriorated further.

[10] The parties' first three children, who were born in 2009, 2010 and 2012, have sickle cell anemia. Ms. Agyeman stayed home to care for them. When her maternity leave ended, she returned to her job as a shift manager at Burger King.

[11] In December 2012, Mr. Johnson left the home. The parties reconciled in 2013. In 2014, their fourth child was born.

[12] After the birth of their fourth child, Ms. Agyeman had to resign from her job in order to care for the children. The three youngest were frequently ill as a result of their compromised immune systems.

[13] The parties went on to have three more children, born in 2017, 2019 and 2022. Their fifth child is autistic and non-verbal.

[14] The parties finally separated in August of 2022, a month after the birth of their seventh child. Ms. Agyeman has not seen Mr. Johnson since then. Mr. Johnson last saw the children in 2023 and has never met the youngest child.

[15] Ms. Agyeman is their sole caregiver and a stay-at-home parent. Looking after the seven children, many of whom have complex needs, is a full time occupation leaving her unable to work.

[16] Ms. Agyeman states that from August 29, 2022, until December 1, 2023, Mr. Johnson paid $1,000 per month in child support. She also states that in total, he has paid $12,000 in child support since separation.

[17] On June 27, 2025, the three oldest children were approved for the Starlight Children's Foundation, Once in a Lifetime Wish. The family have been given a "7-day adventure to the most magical place on Earth, Walt Disney World in Orlando Florida".

[18] The last contact which Ms. Agyeman had with Mr. Johnson was by telephone, at which time he told her that he was in the United Kingdom. He has not otherwise responded to multiple attempts on Ms. Agyeman's part to contact him by email or telephone.

[19] During the course of their marriage, Mr. Johnson was secretive about his work and finances. Ms. Agyeman states that she was aware only that he worked in a factory and as a forklift driver. After the parties separated, the children told their mother that he was working as a forklift driver at Tayco Furniture.

[20] Ms. Agyeman states that she is aware that Mr. Johnson has owned land in Ghana, rents an apartment which he has taken the children to, and has a vehicle and life insurance. She states that she is aware that he has been travelling back and forth to the UK and Ghana and recently remarried. The source of her information is social media and their children.

Law and Analysis

Parenting and Decision-Making

[21] When it comes to orders involving parenting and children, the best interests of the children is the only concern of the court. This is required by both the Divorce Act and the Children's Law Reform Act.

[22] Section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) provides that the best interest of the child is the only consideration when making parenting orders.

[23] Section 24(2) of the CLRA provides that in determining the best interests of the child, the primary consideration is the child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security and well being.

[24] Section 24(3) sets out the following list of factors to be considered:

(a) the child's needs, given the child's age and stage of development, such as the child's need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child's relationship with each parent, each of the child's siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child's life;

(c) each parent's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other parent;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child's views and preferences, giving due weight to the child's age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child's care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

[25] As with all parenting orders, decision-making responsibility is determined by the best interest of the child. Section 16.3 of the Divorce Act sets out that decision-making responsibility may be allocated to either spouse, both spouses or a combination thereof.

[26] In considering all of the factors set out in CLRA, there is no question that it is necessary and appropriate for Ms. Agyeman to have sole decision-making responsibility for the children. She has always been their primary caregiver and Mr. Johnson has played little, if any, role in their lives. Many of the children have medically complex needs and require exceptional care that Ms. Agyeman has been delivering throughout their lives without Mr. Johnson's support.

Child Support

[27] Parents have an obligation to support their children in a way that is commensurate with their income. The obligation of parents to support their children, and the children's right to be supported by their parents, exist independent of any legislative enactment or court order. D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, paras. 38-40, 48 and 54.

[28] Section 3 of the Child Support Guidelines sets out a presumptive rule which requires that child support be paid in accordance with the amounts set out in the Guidelines. Those amounts, referred to as "table child support" are based upon income.

[29] Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules and s.21(2) of the Child Support Guidelines create a legal obligation to provide income information. Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines grants the court broad discretion to impute income to a spouse, and specifically where a spouse has failed to provide income information where under a legal obligation to do so.

[30] Mr. Johnson was noted in default. The only information available with respect to his income comes from Ms. Agyeman. Mr. Johnson's last known employment was as a forklift driver. Ms. Agyeman has provided evidence with respect to the median annual Forklift Operator salary in Toronto and hourly wages from various sources. The average hourly pay is approximately $27. The range of salary is between $47,808 and $61,658 not including bonus and benefits.

[31] Ms. Agyeman asks that an income of $60,000 be imputed to Mr. Johnson and has provided evidence to support this imputation of income. He has been known to work as a forklift operator. He was working during the marriage and after. There is no evidence that he is anything other than an able bodied and capable adult with a history in the workforce and the ability to have achieved seniority. He has the means to travel internationally.

[32] I am prepared to impute income to Mr. Johnson of $60,000 for support purposes. Ms. Agyeman cares for their 7 children full time and is not otherwise employed. This results in child support in the amount of $1,740 owing from Mr. Johnson to Ms. Agyeman.

[33] The parties separated in August of 2022. Mr. Johnson began paying some support upon separation but ceased at the end of 2023. Ms. Agyeman's Affidavit evidence is inconsistent with respect to the amount of support already received. She states that he paid $1,000 per month from August 29, 2022, until December 1, 2023. If this had been paid consistently, it would amount to 18 months of support payments. However, she also states that "since August 20, 2022, the Applicant has provided me with $12,000 in child support".

[34] Mr. Johnson should receive credit for the support which he has paid in the amount of $12,000.

Costs

[35] The Respondent seeks costs in the amount of $7,571. This represents the $1,695 cost of filing her Form 23C and the outstanding Costs Orders of $5,876. This request is fair and reasonable.

The Honourable Justice Newton-Smith

Released: August 15, 2025