Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-19-00000631-0000 Date: September 9, 2025

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

Eba Alibdah Applicant

- and -

Mohammad Altawil Respondent

Counsel:

• Marlene Vanderspek, for the Applicant
• Andrew Lequyer, for the Respondent

Heard: June 16-18, 2025

Reasons for Judgment

LATIMER J.

(1) Introduction

[1] In Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll wrote, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less".[1]

[2] In this case, which centers around whether Dad should be providing financial support to his separated spouse and three children, the word in question is income. Is Dad earning income?

[3] He says he is not. While he is working at a grocery store owned by his brother and receiving money at the same time, this is not income, for he is not legally entitled to work in Canada. These are simply two coinciding events happening at the same time. He is a volunteer at the store and the recipient of financial support from family. As he uses the word "income" he has none, nor any corresponding support obligation.

[4] Respectfully, in this case "income" means what the Federal Child Support Guidelines say that it means. For reasons that follow, I find that Dad has diverted income he has received to affect the level of support he is legally obligated to pay. Mom's application for child support is granted.

(2) Introduction to the Issues

[5] This trial exclusively related to claims for child and spousal support.[2] The applicant, Eba Alibdah (Mom), claims that Mohammad Altawil (Dad) has not been providing for their three children post-separation in October 2018. It is submitted he is covertly earning income despite having no legal authority to work in Canada. Dad responds that he has not worked in Canada since 1999 and, while he loves his children very much, there is no money to contribute as income.

[6] I heard this three-day trial in June 2025. The evidence is clear in my mind. I am also the beneficiary of helpful submissions from both counsel and have reviewed my notes in anticipation of drafting this judgment.

[7] The two main witnesses at trial were Mom and Dad. Documentary evidence has been adduced, such as photographs, financial records and social media posts. The Supreme Court of Canada recently summarized witness assessment in *R. v. Kruk*, 2024 SCC 7, at para. 146:

Whether evidence is accepted as fact by the trier of fact will depend on an assessment of the witness's "credibility" and "reliability". Credibility refers to a witness's honesty or sincerity. Reliability, meanwhile, is about the accuracy of the witness's testimony, referring to the witness's ability to observe, recall, and recount events (citation omitted). Assessing credibility and reliability is not a science (citation omitted). Credibility and reliability are assessed based on various factors including the character, demeanor, and conditions and capabilities of the witness, the plausibility and internal consistency of the testimony, and supporting information; it is also assessed in light of its consistency with other facts and evidence (citation omitted).

[8] Justice Chappel of this Court has also provided guidance on credibility and reliability assessment in *McBennett v. Danis*, 2021 ONSC 3610, at paras. 39-41. I instruct myself consistent with these authorities.

[9] In these Reasons, it is not my intention to exhaustively narrate the answers given in court by both witnesses. My role is different from that of the court reporter. I will summarize their testimony as I identify the facts that I accept, with particular attention to the contentious points between the parties. I will then apply the law to my findings of fact.

(3) Background

[10] Both Mom and Dad are originally from Saudi Arabia. They met in 2006 and, eventually, married in 2010. Dad has been living intermittently in Canada since 2007, first arriving as an engineering student at McMaster University. He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2010, the parties married, and thereafter Mom came to Canada on a student visa.

[11] The family has lived in both Saudi Arabia and Canada over the past fifteen years. All three children were born in Canada, and since 2017 Mom has exclusively lived in Canada.

[12] Dad has had regular employment while living in Saudi Arabia, teaching at a college and working with a travel agency. His work with the travel agency permitted the family to take vacations in the summers of 2017 and 2018 throughout Europe. Mom testified, and I did not understand Dad to disagree, that these were expensive vacations, with the family staying in "five-star hotels" and spending considerable amounts of money.

[13] Mom did not always know precisely what sort of work Dad was doing in Saudi Arabia, but it became clear to her that, in 2018, he began spending more money and "let[ting] us buy more fancy stuff" like Louis Vuitton and Burberry bags.

[14] Mom and Dad separated in 2018. At the time, I understood that Mom had been living in Niagara Falls with the children while Dad was living and working in Saudi Arabia. Dad, however, would pay for rent and intermittently provide other money for expenses. Mom would receive this money via e-transfer.

[15] Mom has, except for a six-month period during Covid when she was a personal support worker, not worked in Canada. She has almost exclusively enrolled in a variety of college programs for the express purpose of maintaining her child tax benefits. At the time of trial, she was enrolled in an online course out of Ottawa to be an addiction services worker; the year before she had studied "baking and pastry arts" in Niagara. Provincial OSAP loans have provided the funding for Mom to take these various courses.

[16] In addition to government loans and the child tax benefits, Mom has also received what she described as "loans" from family in Saudi Arabia and friends in Canada. Much like Dad's evidence, which I will review soon, there is a murkiness to the transfer of money in this case. These loans (if that is what they are) are not well-documented, and largely require the court to simply believe what Mom is saying is true.

[17] Dad came to Canada in 2019, and, on Mom's evidence, which I accept on this point, stopped paying rent on the family home. In late 2019, he was arrested for charges involving Mom for which I understand he was ultimately acquitted.[3] While on bail, Dad was not permitted to leave Canada.

[18] Dad testified, and I accept, that since 2019 he has not been legally allowed to work in Canada. He describes coming to Canada in 2019 to stay for a few weeks but was ultimately arrested and his passport was seized by the police. He was ordered to stay until the charges were resolved, and he lost his job at the college in Saudi Arabia because he could not return.

[19] He testified he has had no employment "in any way" since August 2019. He lives with his brother, Abbas, in Mississauga, and relies upon his kindness to survive. He does not pay rent, or for food, or for anything really at all. If he needs to drive, he borrows a family member's car. He never has to pay for gas, he testified.

[20] Dad testified that this reality is common in Saudi Arabia, for family to assist each other financially. In the past he supported his younger family members, and now they are paying him back.

[21] Dad also has another brother, Ali, who owns a grocery store in Mississauga. During Mom's testimony, evidence was adduced in the form of social media that showed Dad interacting with bloggers who attended the store. Dad testified that he was not an employee of the store, he was a "volunteer" who helped with social media for promotional purposes. He accepts that the videos show him wearing store clothing and, at certain times, working behind the counter.

[22] Dad testified he was never paid for his "volunteer" work at the store, but that his family, including Ali, would cover his rent, groceries, and other living expenses. He considers this a loan and intends to repay.

[23] He testified he also volunteered at an Islamic Cultural Centre, twice a week, which permitted his children to attend camp in the summertime. It is for this reason that he can afford to send them to the camp for multiple weeks in the summertime. He has also received money from family to buy his children gifts over the years, such as an expensive "Moose Knuckle" winter jacket and various phones and electronic entertainment devices.

[24] Dad also called two other witnesses, the human resources person at the grocery store and a close friend. Both testified that he did not work at the grocery store, although the friend's evidence was diminished by the fact that he kept calling it "their restaurant", pointing to Dad in court. Regarding the human resources worker, I have difficulty placing much weight on her testimony, as my overall conclusion is that the store – mainly Ali, Dad's brother – knowingly permitted Dad to work, in violation of the law. I accord neither witnesses' testimony weight in the circumstances.

(4) The Key Issue – Has Dad Been Earning Income Since the Date of Separation?

[25] I accept Mom's evidence that the date of separation was October 30, 2018. I reject Dad's testimony that it occurred in 2019. I reject his evidence because, overall, I found him an unsatisfactory witness. While I do accept that he is not legally entitled to work in Canada, I find as a fact that he has been working at the family grocery store since at least January 2021. I find this fact because it accords with the social media posts and the limited aspect of Dad's testimony that I do accept. Specifically, that he worked[4] at the grocery store from 2021 to present day.

[26] I found Dad's overall evidence unbelievable for the following reasons:

1) Financial Statement Reliability

Dad has failed throughout this process to provide reliable information in the Financial Statements. I draw an adverse inference from his continued inability to tell the whole financial story when he provides information to the court: see *Woofenden v. Woofenden*, 2018 ONSC 4583, at para. 38. He is not a credible source of information regarding his finances.

2) Motivation to Conceal Income

Taking a step back, Dad presents as an obviously intelligent individual. He appreciates that he cannot legally work in Canada. He is motivated, I find, to mask his income in order to remain in Canada and appear to not be violating the law. One example, I find, is his approach to the "loan" documents he has filed with the court. In trying to explain away his lifestyle – for example, his ability to eat, clothe himself, rent hotel rooms for lengthy periods of time and purchase expensive gifts for his children – he suggests that he has received loans from a number of individuals, including his brothers. His problem was that there was no documentation for these purported loans. So, in June 2025, he created and filed with the court "loan agreements" that he exclusively prepared and signed. No one else has signed these dubious documents. The letters purporting to be from his lenders are inadmissible hearsay and cannot be considered. Simply put, I find he has prepared and filed false documents in an attempt to corroborate his testimony that his money comes from personal loans. I note as well his later testimony that he was making payments on these loans, which is inconsistent with the language on these "loan agreements".

3) Evasive Testimony

At various times during cross-examination, Dad gave long, unfocused answers to clearly stated questions. For example, when asked in cross if he agreed that he has not provided child support since separation, he delivered a long, hard to follow answer about bank accounts being closed and the criminal court process.

4) Shifting and Tactical Testimony

Overall, Dad's testimony is like his various Financial Statements: a shifting landscape of answers, depending on the moment. His testimony sounded more tactical than truthful. For example, when being cross-examined about paying for the children to stay in a hotel in Mississauga, he initially denied that he booked the room with a credit card. Later, he acknowledged that it was a credit card. I do not accept that his inconsistencies arise from a lack of memory. I find he is intentionally deflecting on questions regarding his finances. When pressed, he constantly fell back on his standard answer – that the money he possessed came from a loan from either family or a friend. But how would you pay back the loans? Sometimes with loans from other people, he said. I reject this line of testimony entirely as obfuscation designed to distract from the true source of his money – from working for his brother at the grocery store.

[27] Having accepted that Dad has been earning income in Canada, the next step is to quantify how much money should be imputed. This is a difficult task in this evidentiary record. Regarding whether Dad possessed money in Saudi Arabia post-separation, I cannot conclude on this murky record. It is Mom's obligation to establish, and I find she has failed to do so here.

[28] Regarding imputation of income in Canada, Mom submits that credible inferences can be drawn from the lifestyle evidence adduced in this case. Specifically, the fancy cars Dad has been seen driving and the expensive gifts he has lavished on his children: see *Bak v. Dobell*, 2007 ONCA 304, para. 41.

[29] In this case, while I accept the children's gifts are evidence of lifestyle earned from work in Canada, the cars have been satisfactorily explained as having been owned by family members. I do not find that Dad has financially contributed to any of the expensive vehicles he has been seen driving in or used to attend court.

[30] Regarding the gifts, I caution myself that my ability to infer income from these decisions is limited. Dad has bought expensive items – clothing and electronics – for his children. I remind myself that people often make poor financial decisions when it comes to personal purchases or purchases for their children, and an expensive purchase does not always go hand in hand with an ability to pay. For example, despite Mom's purported limited financial resources, she is driving a 2022 Mercedes SUV that she acknowledges would have cost at least sixty thousand dollars to purchase. She testified that her ability to do so came from a loan from her father. My point in raising this is as follows: sometimes people's purchases do not match up with their level of income. For that reason, I do not draw much from Dad's lifestyle evidence post-separation.

(5) Imputing Income - Analysis

[31] Section 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines permits a court to impute income of someone in Dad's position if it considers it appropriate in the circumstances. The section provides a non-exhaustive list of relevant circumstances, including (d), applicable when "it appears that income has been diverted" and (f), when "the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so".

[32] In this case, I am satisfied Mom has established a statutory basis to permit the imputation of income on both grounds: *Michaud v. Kasali*, 2016 ONSC 443, at para. 47. However, as Justice McGee explains in Michaud, that is not the end of the exercise. There must be evidence available in the motion record capable of grounding the inference or imputation:

Rule 19(1)(f) of the Rules is no more than an invitation to fill in the blank when a payor fails to provide income information, as it is when a payor is in default, or his pleadings are struck. The amount to be imputed must still be grounded in the evidence. The question to be asked is: what amount is reasonable in the circumstances?

[33] In the present case, I have an individual who I find has been working regular hours for his brother since 2021, and in doing so has been able to house, clothe, provide for himself and make various purchases over the years for his children. This same individual I find untruthful when it comes to his finances. I agree entirely with Mom's closing submissions at paragraph 8: funds being received are being channeled through family to obscure what is happening – Dad is working and receiving income.

[34] In the circumstances before me, given the evidence I have heard about his expenditures and his continued living arrangements in Mississauga, a major city, I am satisfied a basis exists to impute income and, while this process is admittedly imprecise, I am satisfied that amount is at least $70,000. I arrive at this figure given the collection of factors I have reviewed in this judgment, as well as the fact that Dad's undisclosed income has not been subject to tax. $70,000 is a grossed-up amount.

[35] The table amount for $70,000 and three children is $1,397 monthly. I am satisfied Dad owes retroactive child support for the years of 2021 through August 2025. These amounts are as follows:

• 2021 - $16,764
• 2022 - $16,764
• 2023 - $16,764
• 2024 - $16,764
• January to August 2025 - $11,176

[36] The total amount of retroactive child support owed is $78,232. Dad is also obligated to pay $1,397 monthly on a prospective basis, beginning in September 2025.

(6) Spousal Support

[37] I have reviewed and apply sections 15.2 to 15.3(3) of the Divorce Act on this issue. The objectives of a spousal support order, pursuant to s. 15.2(6), ground my decision making on this point.

[38] I find the circumstances of this case unique. While I have found Dad has earned income in Canada for the past four years, I remain aware that he has no legal status in Canada and is presently challenging a deportation order in Immigration Court. I am nevertheless satisfied that, for as long as Dad is in Canada, he will receive income and assistance from his family. For that reason, I have made an order for prospective child support based on an imputed income of $70,000.

[39] Turning to Mom, given her education level and ability to work, I would impute her income at $40,000 presently for the purpose of spousal support. As acknowledged during her testimony, she has deliberately chosen the life of a perpetual student in Canada to maintain government benefits for her family. As a result, she is qualified to work in a great number of fields. She is forty-two years of age. I find she is presently underemployed.

[40] Given the financial difference between Mom and Dad's imputed incomes, Dad's tenuous status in Canada, and given the child support orders being made, I would have chosen to prioritize child support over spousal support at the present time: s. 15.3(1), Divorce Act. However, based on their imputed incomes prioritization is not necessary because no spousal support would be justified in the circumstances.

(7) Conclusion

[41] Dad's attempt to describe work as the separate acts of a) volunteering and b) receiving family loans has failed. Work is work, and work leads to income. His children are entitled to an equitable share of the income his work creates. Despite the murkiness of the financial evidence in this case, on both sides, I am satisfied that the result I have reached is consistent with the principles that underpin the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the Divorce Act.

(8) Disposition

[42] I hereby order on a final basis as follows:

1. The Respondent, Mohammad Altawil, shall pay the Applicant, Eba Alibdah, retroactive child support in the amount of $78,232 forthwith.

2. The Respondent, Mohammad Altawil, shall pay the Applicant, Eba Alibdah, child support of $1,397 monthly, beginning September 2025.

[43] Regarding costs, the parties are encouraged to resolve this issue on their own. If they cannot, the Applicant may file written submissions not exceeding three pages (exclusive of attachments) by September 26, 2025. The Respondent may respond in kind by no later than October 10, 2025.

LATIMER J.

Released: September 9, 2025

Footnotes

[1] Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There (London: MacMillan and Co., 1882), at p. 124.

[2] The parties resolved all other issues on the eve of trial.

[3] I add this exclusively for narrative and draw no inferences of any kind.

[4] He did not use the word "work", he would say "volunteered" or "assisted", but I find work is the appropriate word. I do not accept that he is an "owner", however, as submitted by Mom. The evidence used to support that submission (the statements of the "bloggers" in the social media posts and the son's information about the receipt) is hearsay and inadmissible.