Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS-20-0173-00 Date: 2025-09-12
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
C.H. Applicant
- and -
M.N. Respondent
Counsel:
- M. Cupello, for the Applicant
- M. Petryshyn, for the Respondent (unrepresented on September 3, 2025)
Heard: September 9-13, 2024; January 3 & 6, April 11 & September 3, 2025 at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Before: Regional Senior Justice W.D. Newton
Reasons For Judgment
Overview
1When this trial began before me, the major issues were parenting time and relocation. After several days of evidence and immediately following the testimony of the assessor from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the parties settled those issues with the assistance of a judicial colleague.
2Submissions on the financial issues remaining—child support, spousal support, and equalization of family property—were adjourned to January 3 and 6, 2025.
3When we resumed on January 3, 2025, counsel had prepared calculations, but had not exchanged calculations. I heard preliminary arguments and adjourned to allow counsel an opportunity to review each other's assumptions and calculations. When we resumed, most calculations were not disputed except in some discrete areas.
4Subsequently, I asked counsel to review their spousal support calculations with respect to the treatment of social assistance, and further submissions were received in writing and orally on April 11, 2025, and finally on September 3, 2025.
Child Support
5After consultation between counsel, the following summary fairly sets out the child support owing by the father to the mother and the amounts paid by the father since separation to the end of December 2024.
| Year | Obligation | Months Owing | Calculation | Amount Paid by Respondent Father |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | $5,248 | September–December | 4 mo @ $1,312 | $5,890 |
| 2018 | $16,632 | January–December | 12 mo @ $1,386 | $12,000 |
| 2019 | $17,280 | January–December | 12 mo @ $1,440 | $11,250 |
| 2020 | $15,948 | January–December | 12 mo @ $1,329 | $8,000 |
| 2021 | $15,972 | January–December | 12 mo @ $1,331 | $14,096 |
| 2022 | $19,428 | January–December | 12 mo @ $1,619 | $11,865 |
| 2023 | $17,292 | January–December | 12 mo @ $1,441 | $15,804 |
| 2024 | $9,120 | January–December | 12 mo @ $760 | $15,804 |
| TOTAL | $132,868 | $94,709 |
6Arrears of child support are $38,159.00 to December 31, 2024. Current child support is based on the father's actual 2024 income of $81,562. Child support going forward will be reviewed annually on June 30th of each year after exchange of income tax returns and notices of assessment.
7Any outstanding s. 7 expenses are to be shared based on the ratio of income for the year prior to the expense.
Spousal Support
Objectives of Spousal Support Order
8Subsection 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act (the "Act") provides that a spousal support order should:
(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;
(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;
(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and
(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.
Entitlement to Spousal Support
9I conclude that the mother is entitled to spousal support on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis, but for a limited period based on the short duration of the marriage and the obligation of the mother to become self supporting.
10Subsection 15.2(4) of the Act provides that the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse including the period of cohabitation, and the functions performed by each spouse during the cohabitation.
11The parties agree that cohabitation commenced on March 15, 2014 and ended on August 15, 2017. The parties were married on August 9, 2014. The period of cohabitation was two years and five months.
12Prior to marriage, the mother was a registered massage therapist and had worked in Thunder Bay from 2003 to 2014. She testified that both parties agreed her career "was over" when she moved to Atikokan to live with the father. The mother did not start working out of the home as a massage therapist until about six months after the move, but she did not have substantial earnings. All family bills were paid by the father. They did not have any joint accounts, and the father was the main wage earner.
13Her income tax returns disclose net self employment income (and social assistance payments) for the years 2015 to 2023 as set out below:
2015 $7,285
2016 $7,928
2017 $6,213
2018 $1,755 ($8,875.40)
2019 $7,668 ($11,022.00)
2020 $ 448 ($9,936.65)
2021 $ (775) ($5,544.40)
2022 ($11,222.40)
2023 ($10,821.60)
14Since 2016, she has drawn $372.00 annually from her RRSPs. She has not reported self employment income since 2021. She started to receive social assistance in 2018, and, during COVID-19, the CERB benefit. The CERB payments are treated as income for spousal support purposes.
15While they were together, she provided massage therapy to the father and his son, and the father submitted the cost of these massages to his insurance company. Apparently, the insurance company disputed these claims as the massage therapist was providing massage therapy to a family member. This resulted in the insurer requesting reimbursement, the termination of the father's employment (he was asked to resign), and a complaint to the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario.
16Consequently, allegations of professional misconduct were referred to the Discipline Committee of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario.
17In October of 2023, the mother voluntarily resigned her membership in the College and undertook to never reapply for registration as a massage therapist in Canada.
18The mother testified that she is unable to work and has been diagnosed with depression and post traumatic stress disorder. The mother said she receives counselling and takes medication to treat a sleep disorder and depression. She was approved for the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) in July, 2024.
19Neither social assistance nor ODSP are considered as income for the calculation of spousal support and counsel resubmitted their calculations to reflect this.
20However, receipt of ODSP is not sufficient proof of inability to work for support purposes and cogent medical evidence in the form of a detailed medical opinion is required to satisfy the court of an inability to work. The mother has not provided any evidence other than her own testimony about her inability to work. Indeed, contrary to her assertion that she is unable to work, she testified that, if she can move to British Columbia, she would be able to work as a nutritional counsellor in a school.
21While I accept that the mother can, for legal reasons not relating to any sacrifices made during the marriage, no longer work as a massage therapist, I am not satisfied that she is completely incapable of working at some capacity, especially in the future.
22I accept that the mother is entitled to compensatory support as the parties intended her to work less and care for their child. I also accept the circumstances of the marriage and the economic consequences to the mother following separation—which resulted in a significant decline in the standard of living—entitles the mother to spousal support on a compensatory basis.
23Because the mother has not satisfied me that she is or will be unable to work, and given the short duration of the relationship, the spousal support should be limited to five years from the date of separation and payable on a "mid range" basis.
24I accept the spousal support calculations submitted by the father. One issue raised by the mother in her most recent submission was that the father had not proven his other child support obligations. I reject that position since the father has always claimed these other support payments in his calculations since January 2025 and the mother only recently challenged these payments. If necessary, I would have granted leave to the father to prove these payments.
25Spousal support owing is therefore as follows:
2017 – 4 months @ $1937/month $7,748
2018 – 12 months @ $2849/month $34,188
2019 – 12 months @ $2605/month $31,260
2020 – 12 months @ $1637/month $19,644
2021 – 12 months @ $1379/month $16,548
2022 – 8 months @ $3744/month $29,952
$139,340
26Applied to that would be a discount for tax not deducted at 30% or $41,802, leaving $97,538 payable for spousal support.
27It is agreed that the father made voluntary payments to the mother between September 2017 and August 2020 that are to be deducted from any spousal support payable, although the father calculates those payments at $28,967 and the mother at $27,278.81. I fix the amount to be credited towards spousal support at $28,000. Therefore, the amount to be paid for spousal support is $69,538.
Equalization
28The parties disagree on the equalization calculations primarily because they cannot agree on the value of the mother's home on valuation day, the value of the engagement and wedding rings, and the claim by the father for repayment of the massage therapy claim he had to repay to his employer.
Value of Thunder Bay Home
29The mother values her Thunder Bay home at $185,000 and the father values it at $273,000.
30Neither party called an appraiser as a witness nor filed a formal appraisal report.
31The father received an email from a realtor friend in June of 2022 which stated that the tax value assessment of the property for 2016 was $174,000 and noted that it was purchased in 2010 for $147,000. The realtor stated an average sale price for comparable properties of $273,749.75 for 2018. However, the valuation date is August 15, 2017. None of the GeoWarehouse "comparables" are prior to 2021 and many are not in areas close to the subject property.
32The father has not satisfied me that the value at valuation date is greater than $185,000. However, the mother's valuation appears to be nothing more than a guess based on the assessment for municipal tax purposes. The parties have left me in a position of having to assign a value based on insufficient evidence. In the circumstances, I will use the midpoint of the two estimates, or $230,000.
The Rings
33The comparison of Net Family Property Statements ("NFP") prepared by the father on January 5, 2025 shows the mother's valuation at $1,400 and the father's at $7,150. This is at odds with the mother's Financial Statement from September 14, 2020 which puts the values at $4,275, and the father's NFP comparison form August 14, 2024 which agrees to that valuation.
34The value of the rings is set at $4,275.
Repayment to Employer
35The father seeks a credit of $18,865 for the amount he claims to have repaid to his employer for the amounts paid to the mother for massage therapy, which were disallowed because the treatment was received by a family member.
36It is not claimed by the father that the claims were fraudulent because no treatments were provided. He claims that since the mother received payment and he had to reimburse his employer, he should be credited for that repayment.
37Since the father received the treatment, he is not entitled to reimbursement from the mother.
Equalization – Conclusion
38With these adjustments, the mother owes the father an equalization payment of $63,000.
Conclusion
39The parties may make an appointment to address any calculation errors.
40Any party seeking costs shall deliver cost submissions within 20 days from the release of the decision. Submissions are to be limited to three pages plus costs outline. Responding submissions are to be delivered within 10 days.
41If no cost submissions are received, then costs will be deemed settled.
The Hon. Mr. Justice W. D. Newton, R.S.J.
Released: September 12, 2025
Footnotes
1To protect the privacy of the parties and their child, non-specific identifiers are used.
2This chart is based on the parties' income from trial, marked as exhibit 14.
3R.S.C. 1985, c. 3.
4The father's affidavit dated August 15, 2024, states: "4. In or about March 2014, shortly after A. was born and released from the hospital, the Applicant Mother and our daughter moved from Thunder Bay to live with me in Atikokan, Ontario." The child was born March 4, 2014, and I have used March 15th as the commencement of cohabitation.
5Canales v. Di Carmine, 2024 ONCJ 625, para. 41(d); Tyrrell v. Tyrrell, 2017 ONSC 6499, para. 13.