Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-20-90 Date: October 2, 2025 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Judith Singh, Applicant – and – Richard Mahatoo, Respondent

Before: The Honourable Justice F. Wood

Counsel:

• Maybelline Massey, for the Applicant
• Paolo De Buono, for the Respondent

Heard: March 25, 26, & 27, 2025

Reasons for Judgment

Introduction

[1] This was a trial about child and spousal support. Mostly, it was about imputing income, with both parties asking the court to impute income to the other. Entitlement to spousal support, along with quantum and duration were also contested, as were other minor matters regarding child support.

[2] For the reasons set out below, I find that:

a. Mr. Mahatoo, the Respondent Husband, should have income imputed to him for child support purposes, as follows:

• i. 2019 - $80,000
• ii. 2020 - $80,000
• iii. 2021 - $80,000
• iv. 2022 - $80,000
• v. 2023 - $47,000
• vi. 2024 - $80,000
• vii. 2025 - $80,000

b. Mr. Mahatoo's income for spousal support purposes shall not include his pension income.

c. Ms. Singh, the Applicant wife, should have income imputed to her for spousal support purposes, as follows:

• i. 2019 $2,885
• ii. 2020 $9,631
• iii. 2021 $7,141
• iv. 2022 $31,460
• v. 2023 $16,120 (employment) plus $35,205 (social assistance)
• vi. 2024 $28,824 (Social assistance) plus $12,792
• vii. 2025 $28,824 (Social assistance) plus $12,792

d. Both children remain entitled to child support from Mr. Mahatoo.

e. Spousal support is payable by Mr. Mahatoo to Ms. Singh at the mid-range of the SSAGs for an unspecified period of time.

f. Mr. Mahatoo is entitled to some credit for support paid, as further particularized below.

Background

[3] The parties were married on February 12, 2000, and separated on September 18, 2019. There are two children of the marriage, Richard Satindra Mahatoo, born August 25, 2006, and Nikita Permaavati Judith Mahatoo, born September 3, 2008.

[4] Richard is currently in his fifth year of secondary school. Although no evidence was tendered as to why he needed to return to school for a fifth year, his entitlement to ongoing child support was not contested. Richard plans to attend university next year, either at Wilfred Laurier University or University of Guelph.

[5] Nikita is a Grade 11 student. She also hopes to pursue post-secondary education.

[6] To their credit, the parties were able to resolve most outstanding issues in this action, including equalization and parenting. Only child and spousal support remained to be determined. I was provided with little information regarding the property settlement, but it is evident that it included a splitting of Mr. Mahatoo's pension from his former employer, Canada Post.

[7] The primary issue at trial was both parties' claims that income should be imputed to the other. Entitlement to and quantum of spousal support were also issues, along with some ancillary matters.

Evidence of Respondent's Income

[8] Mr. Mahatoo held various positions during the marriage but, from 2008 onward, he worked for Canada Post. In the years prior to separation, he worked primarily as a letter carrier delivering regular mail, parcels, and flyers.

[9] In 2017 he earned $60,078, in 2018 his income increased to $70,034, and in 2019 his total earnings were $109,709. The parties agreed that the 2019 income included a retroactive lump sum received by all Canada Post employees after their union negotiated a new contract.

[10] During evidence and in submissions, the parties provided conflicting evidence about this retroactive payment and how it should apply to previous years. During closing submissions, counsel also proposed differing ways of addressing this lump sum payment. What neither the parties nor their counsel appeared to be aware of is that, in Mr. Mahatoo's 2019 Income Tax Return (which was entered into evidence), there is a Statement of Qualifying Retroactive Lump-Sum Payment ("SQRLSP") that provides clear evidence of a) the lump sum payment amount and b) the amounts attributed to prior tax years.

[11] By filing a SQRLSP, a tax payor is able to have a retroactive lump sum income payment taxed as if it had been received in prior years, rather than being taxed all at once in the receiving year. According to Mr. Mahatoo's SQRLSP, the lump sum payment he received in 2019 was $46,295.53. Of that amount, $16,075 was applied to 2016, $18,521 to 2017, and $11,698 to 2018. Relying on this straightforward document, I find that Mr. Mahatoo's income in the years leading up to separation was:

2017 - $60,078 + $18,521 = $78,599 2018 - $70,034 + $11,698 = $81,732 2019 - $109,709 - $46,295 = $63,414

[12] Mr. Mahatoo's T4 slips also show an income of $3,989 from 2236651 Ontario Inc. in 2019. No explanation was provided for this income and no evidence was tendered about this corporation. Whatever the source, it is evident that Mr. Mahatoo had additional income in 2019 that he did not declare in these proceedings.

[13] Mr. Mahatoo was discharged by Canada Post on May 21, 2020, as a result of an allegation of impropriety. He grieved that discharge through his union and the parties ultimately reached a settlement on April 6, 2021. That settlement will be discussed in greater detail below. Mr. Mahatoo's evidence about his income for the balance of 2020 was vague. During his examination in chief, when asked what he did for work pending the outcome of his grievance, he answered that he took on small delivery jobs. He testified that initially he was doing very well. At some point (the date was unclear) he incorporated a numbered company (12504294 Canada Inc.) through which he contracted with ALM Crown to provide delivery services.

[14] The documents put into evidence at trial show that Canada Post paid Mr. Mahatoo $30,596 in 2020. He also received Employment Insurance of about $13,500, increasing his total reported income to $44,651. Despite Mr. Mahatoo's evidence that he was engaging in his personal delivery business for much of 2020, no income from that endeavour was reported to the CRA. In response to disclosure requests, Mr. Mahatoo provided general ledgers showing income from a single client from March 4, 2021, to September 10, 2021. He did not provide any other information for 2020 or after September 10, 2021.

[15] As a result, the court was left to infer Mr. Mahatoo's 2020 income evidence based on his 2021 disclosure.

[16] Despite multiple court orders, including an order in the TSEF, Mr. Mahatoo failed to provide any additional disclosure. No ledgers of any kind were produced for the period before March 2021, or after September 2021. Corporate bank statements were not provided as ordered. No other accounting ledgers were produced showing expenses or other sources of revenue. No corporate financial statements or Income Tax Returns were produced for 12504294 Canada Inc., nor were there any personal Income Tax Returns for 2022 or 2023. Although 2024 Income Tax Returns would not yet be prepared, I take judicial notice of the fact that the various tax filing documents would be available by this time of the year. None were produced for 2024. Mr. Mahatoo stated that he had not yet received them, but he also gave no evidence of any attempts to actually get them.

[17] Based on the limited disclosure available, 12504294 Canada Inc. earned at least $55,814 from March 4 to September 10, 2021. Extrapolated over one year, Mr. Mahatoo's gross annual earnings would have been at least $95,681. Mr. Mahatoo testified that he paid himself a salary of $22,561 in 2021, which was the entire amount left over after expenses. Again, he provided no documents whatsoever showing his alleged corporate expenses. In addition to his income from the delivery business, he had Employment Insurance earnings of $45,176.

[18] As noted above, in May 2021, Mr. Mahatoo and Canada Post reached a settlement of his grievance. Mr. Mahatoo was given the option to either take a payout of $8,000 or remain with Canada Post. Had he remained, he would have had to bid for a new route but would have retained his seniority. He testified that he did not thoroughly explore the routes that might have been available because his delivery business was doing very well at that point in time, and he felt that pursuing his own business was a better option for him.

[19] In cross examination, Mr. Mahatoo suggested that he would only have been able to secure routes that were within 75 km of his residence, which he found to be restrictive. He did not want to move too far away from the children. However, Mr. Mahatoo has moved more than once since separation, and testified that one reason he sees the children so rarely in person is that his home in Wasaga Beach is too far away. He also testified that when the parties first moved to Simcoe, he had to drive to Brampton each day for work. His various statements are internally inconsistent, and I do not accept that his choices at Canada Post would have been overly restrictive had he elected to stay. Rather, I accept that, as he testified, his own business was doing very well and he preferred to pursue that option rather than take the security that working with Canada Post offered.

[20] Mr. Mahatoo's total income for 2022, as shown on a Notice of Reassessment, was $23,145. However, he did not provide a full Income Tax Return and, as before, there are no documents from the business to assist the court in establishing an appropriate income for child support purposes.

[21] In 2023, Mr. Mahatoo secured employment with Ford Canada. He began working in February 2023. He stopped working at Ford in about August 2023, in anticipation of his hip surgery which took place in September 2023. He testified that after his surgery he was in receipt of disability income from Great West Life for a period of time, then in receipt of Employment Insurance and, ultimately, he began to receive social assistance.

[22] No documents were tendered to show what the disability payments from Great West Life were, or whether they were taxable or not. Based on the 2023 Notice of Assessment, it would appear they were not included in income which suggests that they were non-taxable. Mr. Mahatoo testified that he did not return to Ford after his hip surgery for two reasons: first, he had injured his shoulders and Ford could not accommodate him; second, Ford had ceased local operations and his job had been moved to Ottawa, which was too far away. However, he later confirmed that Ford did not move its operations until October 2024.

[23] Mr. Mahatoo testified that he suffered from Perthes disease, which caused one of his legs to stop growing as a youth. Over time, he suffered increased hip pain. While working for Canada Post, his pain was manageable because he was able to alternate between sitting, standing, and walking. Mr. Mahatoo provided no medical evidence whatsoever regarding his hip. No doctors were called to give evidence. I was given no independent evidence, of any kind, with respect to what limitations, if any, he might have had either before or after his hip surgery.

[24] Mr. Mahatoo did tender one ultrasound report regarding his shoulders, from March 13, 2025. However, nothing in that report provided the court with assistance in determining what limitations he might have had with respect to employment, when the injury began, what the prognosis is, or any other information necessary to determine what, if any, impact the shoulder injury has or has had on his employability.

[25] Mr. Mahatoo has applied for ODSP but been denied. He states that he is appealing that decision.

Evidence of Applicant's Income

[26] Ms. Singh testified that throughout the marriage she earned minimal income. At the time of separation, she had not worked outside the home since 2003. She testified that she was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2000 or 2001 and that as a result her ability to work was impaired. She helped Mr. Mahatoo with his Canada Post deliveries but was not paid for that work.

[27] In 2019, she earned less than $3,000 from employment. Although the parties disagreed about whether her lack of employment was a mutual decision or not (discussed in greater detail below), the fact is that at the time of separation Ms. Singh had been out of the workforce for over 15 years.

[28] Ms. Singh has a Grade 12 education. She testified that she had applied to a few jobs after separation, but that she was unemployable due to her physical limitations. She applied for Ontario Works shortly after separation and then eventually for ODSP. She was accepted by ODSP retroactively to the beginning of 2023 and continues to be in receipt of those benefits. Her income is comprised of ODSP, child tax benefits, a housing allowance, and some other small government benefits such as the GST benefit.

[29] I was not provided with a revised income amount for 2023, taking into consideration the retroactive payment, and have therefore been left to reconstruct Ms. Singh's income for that year by reference to the Ontario Works payments received in 2022 and the current benefit payments.

[30] At the time of trial, Ms. Singh's ODSP payments were $2,402 per month, her child tax benefits were $687, her housing benefit was $1,066, and her other benefits totalled $158. Her total monthly income, therefore, is $4,315 ($51,780 annually). Payments from ODSP are non-taxable.

[31] From the evidence provided, I conclude that Ms. Singh's income in the years since separation has been as follows:

a. 2019 - $2,855; b. 2020 - $9,631; c. 2021 - $7,141; d. 2022 - $13,031; e. 2023 - $35,205 (not taking gross up into consideration); and f. 2024 - $51,780 (not taking gross up into consideration).

Evidence re Spousal Support Entitlement

[32] The parties agree about the actual roles they took on during the relationship but disagree about the reasons for same. They agree that throughout the marriage, Ms. Singh was a primary caregiver for the children while Mr. Mahatoo worked outside the home and supported the family financially. They also agree that despite his work obligations, Mr. Mahatoo also took on a significant portion of the cooking for the household.

[33] The parties also agree that while Mr. Mahatoo was working for Canada Post, Ms. Singh assisted him with his duties. She helped to sort the flyers that he needed to deliver and sometimes accompanied him on his route. She was not paid for that work.

[34] Mr. Mahatoo testified that he had wished Ms. Singh would obtain employment outside the home. The parties were living beyond their means and moved frequently in an effort to both consolidate debt and reduce living expenses. Ms. Singh's refusal to work was a significant source of conflict in their marriage and ultimately led to separation. He left when he realized that things would not change, and he could not accept her refusal to contribute financially.

[35] Ms. Singh testified that it was always understood that the parties would take on 'traditional' roles and that she would remain at home to care for the children and manage the household. There was no significant pressure for her to obtain employment until shortly before separation. She had long term pain as a result of her earlier motor vehicle accident and would not have been able to maintain employment outside the home. When Mr. Mahatoo insisted that she find work, she arranged to have her parents come and spend time with the family to assist her in caring for the children so that she could find work.

Analysis, Relating Both to Spousal and Child Support

Entitlement

[36] The first step in determining any claim for support is entitlement. There is no dispute that both children remain entitled to support and no further analysis is required with respect to that.

[37] Spousal support may be granted on a compensatory, non-compensatory and contractual basis. Neither party claimed any contractual basis for support. Non-compensatory support is determined largely based upon a means and needs approach. The goal is to reduce any gap existing between the means and needs of the two post-separation households. Need may result from the roles the parties took on during the marriage, any disability or health challenges, or simply a status quo that existed during the marriage, as a result of which one party has suffered financially either as a result of the marriage itself or the separation.

[38] By contrast, compensatory support aims to compensate one party for sacrifices made during the marriage or following separation, or for economic benefits conferred by one party on the other. It aims to compensate one party for diminished earning capacity and to allow that spouse to share in the economic advances enjoyed by the other. See Bustin v. Vandenberg, 2025 ONSC 1219, Skrak v. Skrak, 2024 ONSC 1574, Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 SCR 813, at paras 68-70; Bracklow, at para 18.

[39] Section 15.2 of the Divorce Act sets out 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.

[40] While all categories are relevant to both compensatory and non-compensatory support, the former particularly addresses a) and b) while non-compensatory support particularly addresses c) and d).

[41] I find that Ms. Singh is entitled to spousal support on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. Whether or not Mr. Mahatoo wanted Ms. Singh to work outside the home, there is no doubt that he and the family unit benefitted from her unpaid labour in the home. The children did not attend daycare, and aside from preparing evening meals, all other household tasks were undertaken by Ms. Singh. Moreover, he benefitted directly from her assistance with his Canada Post route.

[42] Ms. Singh was out of the workforce for close to 20 years at the time of separation. Her ability to earn an income, even without any disability on her part, was significantly impacted by the role she took on, a role which benefitted Mr. Mahatoo materially.

Income Determination

[43] Both parties seek to impute income to the other. Determining income requires consideration of the following key elements.

[44] For child support purposes, income is determined pursuant to s. 15 through 20 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 (the "Child Support Guidelines").

[45] Income for spousal support may differ from income for child support purposes, but the analysis of imputing income is the same: see Chapter 6.1 of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (the "SSAG").

[46] Self-employed parties or those operating solely held corporations have the onus of clearly establishing their income.

[47] A party wishing to establish that a party is intentionally unemployed or underemployed has the onus to establish a basis for this finding.

[48] Once the onus above has been met, it shifts to the other party to establish a reasonable basis for the unemployment.

Mr. Mahatoo

[49] For most of the years leading up to separation, Mr. Mahatoo's income is reasonably easy to determine. He was employed at Canada Post and earned a salary. Nevertheless, there were some issues that required resolution.

[50] Mr. Mahatoo testified that his income increased in 2018 in part because he was given a vehicle allowance. Pursuant to Schedule III of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, certain motor vehicle expenses can be deducted for the purposes of determining the appropriate income for support purposes. However, minimal effort was made by Mr. Mahatoo to quantify any specific amount for those expenses, much less provide any documentary evidence. The burden of proof to establish that Schedule III expenses should be deducted from income when determining support falls on the party claiming the deduction.

[51] This obligation was discussed in Haras v. Camp, 2018 ONSC 3456, at para. 38, wherein Braid J. drew an adverse inference from the failure of the husband to provide adequate information to allow the court to determine the amount of expenses that could be deducted from income pursuant to Schedule III.

[52] Like Braid J., I draw an adverse inference from Mr. Mahatoo's failure to provide any documentation to substantiate his claim for a deduction. Indeed, all he was able to say was that his income increased in part because of a vehicle allowance and in part because he secured a higher paying delivery route. Significantly, as with the SQRLSP, the trial exhibits contain helpful pages of which both the parties and counsel appeared to be unaware. Specifically, there is a June 2020 paystub from Canada Post which shows a net payment to Mr. Mahatoo of approximately $5,000 as a non-taxable vehicle allowance. I take from this document that Mr. Mahatoo's vehicle allowance was not, in fact, part of his taxable income. No deduction for the vehicle allowance is appropriate in the circumstances.

[53] In 2019, the year of separation, Mr. Mahatoo's income from Canada Post decreased (although the actual income was higher than in previous years, when the lump sum retroactive payment is deducted, the amount earned in 2019 is less than in previous years). There was evidence that Mr. Mahatoo had additional income in that year from other sources, although few particulars were provided. Ms. Singh asks that Mr. Mahatoo's income be imputed at $80,000 from the date of separation forward. Accordingly, I must assess whether income should be imputed to him for any of the reasons set out in sections 17-19 of the Child Support Guidelines.

[54] Not only did Mr. Mahatoo fail to provide cogent evidence to explain much of his income after separation, but he also failed to comply with multiple court orders compelling disclosure from him. It should not fall to Ms. Singh to pursue compliance with court orders that compelled Mr. Mahatoo to provide disclosure. Any suggestion to the contrary suggests that a court order, on its own, is insufficient to compel production. As this court has iterated countless times, court orders are not guidelines or suggestions. It is expected that they will be followed. Where a party fails to provide court-ordered disclosure, a court may draw a negative inference against the non-compliant party: see Seifi v. Haiji, 2021 ONSC 3419, at para. 34; V.P. v. P.P., 2011 ONCJ 299, at para. 26.

[55] Having regard to his income in 2017 and 2018, the evidence of unexplained earnings from an unidentified source while he was still employed by Canada Post, and in the face of blatant disregard of multiple court orders, I impute an income of $80,000 to Mr. Mahatoo for 2019.

[56] Mr. Mahatoo worked for Canada Post until May 2020. He then began operating his own courier business. He provided no information about his business earnings for 2020 but did provide some limited information for the first part of 2021. Given his testimony that the business was doing so well in 2021 that he chose to pursue same rather than accept a position at Canada Post, and in light of the dismal lack of disclosure provided, I infer that his earnings for the period of May to December 2020 were at least commensurate with his Canada Post earnings. His income for 2020 therefore consisted of $45,176 (Canada Post & EI) and $55,813 (gross estimated business income for 7 months).

[57] Mr. Mahatoo argued that his expenses should be deducted from his gross earnings, but he failed to provide any documentation to support those expenses. While I accept that as a courier he would have had some legitimate business expenses, it is also the case that if his filings for CRA purposes included any expenses of a personal nature his income would then be grossed up to account for the beneficial tax treatment, as called for in s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines: see A.E. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 8189, at para. 261.

[58] In the absence of any cogent evidence about the alleged expenses, the court is left to determine Mr. Mahatoo's income in an evidentiary void. Ms. Singh asked that Mr. Mahatoo's income be imputed at $80,000. I infer that if his income were, in fact, lower than that amount, he would have provided the requested and court-ordered disclosure. Accordingly, for 2020, I impute an income of $80,000 to Mr. Mahatoo.

[59] Likewise, I see no reason not to impute the same income to Mr. Mahatoo for the years 2021 and 2022.

[60] Mr. Mahatoo earned $20,272 from working for Ford Canada in 2023. He began working there in February 2023. His paystubs reveal an hourly rate of $24/hr. Again, in the absence of clear information regarding income in the first few months, this court finds it appropriate to assume that he continued to earn some self-employment income in those months.

[61] From what little evidence there is, it appears that he was in receipt of non-taxable benefits in the amount of $503/weekly from Great West Life for the remaining 5 months, which benefits would have to be grossed up for the purposes of calculating SSAG income. $503/week over 5 months totals $10,889, subject to gross-up.

[62] I accept that Mr. Mahatoo took the job at Ford Canada when his business was no longer lucrative. That was a sensible decision. However, I cannot accept that he was not able to return after recovering from his surgery. Mr. Mahatoo submitted that I should accept the findings of Hilliard J. who reduced his support obligations on an interim motion on November 22, 2023, shortly before his scheduled surgery. I disagree. Interim motions are intended to do 'rough justice' pending trial. It is anticipated that at trial the parties will be able to lead more fulsome and detailed evidence to permit the court to arrive at a more detailed and accurate picture of the parties' overall income: see Eidse v. Eidse, 2024 ONSC 3421, at paras. 20 and 29.

[63] Decisions made on an interim motion regarding support obligations are not binding on a trial judge.

[64] Where, as here, a party deliberately flouts multiple court orders compelling disclosure, the court is left to rely on a) what limited information it has, b) the ability to draw inferences and, c) burdens of proof.

[65] In the absence of medical information, while I accept that it was reasonable for him to be off work for a time, I do not accept that he was never able to return to work. Taking all of the above into consideration, Mr. Mahatoo's 2023 income shall be fixed at $47,000.

[66] Mr. Mahatoo asks that I fix his income for 2024 and 2025 based upon the Ontario Works benefit that he is currently receiving. He submits that he is unable to work for medical reasons and is pursuing a part-time online diploma course in the hopes of securing less physically demanding employment. He argues that it is reasonable that he be given time to pursue those studies before seeking further employment. Retraining can be an acceptable reason for under/un-employment: see Dryglai v. Pauli, 61 OR (3d) 711, at para. 38. But, the current course is only expected to take about 20 hours per week and is self-directed. In other words, it can be pursued at the student's own pace and on their own schedule. I see no reason why Mr. Mahatoo could not still pursue some employment while taking this course.

[67] Where a party relies on illness or disability as a reason for not working, the onus is on that party to establish that the illness or disability prevents them from working. Cogent medical evidence, including a detailed medical report, is generally required to satisfy this onus. Where a party fails to provide adequate evidence, an adverse inference may be drawn. Maltese v. Coghri, 2016 ONCJ 48, at para. 72; Tyrrell v. Tyrrell, 2017 ONSC 6499, at para. 13; Wilkins v. Wilkins, 2018 ONSC 3036, at para. 50; Gray v. Rossi, 2024 ONSC 6993, at paras. 140-141; and Manji v. Manji, 2025 ONSC 1063.

[68] Mr. Mahatoo provided a single ultrasound report from March 2025, which discussed some findings regarding his shoulders. Not only was there no medical evidence regarding his hip surgery, but there was also no evidence from Ford Canada confirming that it could not accommodate him, or even that any request had been made. In the absence of any documentation whatsoever, I am unable to conclude that Mr. Mahatoo has met the burden of proving that he could not continue to work for Ford Canada until at least October 2024.

[69] Mr. Mahatoo had every opportunity to provide evidence of his actual earnings and the impact of his physical ailments on his ability to earn an income. He elected not to do so. I note as well that Mr. Mahatoo has been living with his current partner for some time. From the material available to me, it is evident that she and her two adult children pay the vast majority of the household expenses. Mr. Mahatoo is able to avoid seeking full time work by relying upon his current partner.

[70] Finally, I note that Mr. Mahatoo has withdrawn approximately $60,000 from his pension since the summer of 2024. He submitted that such withdrawals should not be included in his income. While the court has discretion to exclude non-recurring income such a conclusion is not automatic: see Fraser v. Fraser, 2013 ONCA 715, at para. 105. Generally, even if such income were included for child support purposes, it would not be included in Mr. Mahatoo's income for spousal support purposes, since it derives from property that has already been equalized. I have declined to formally include the pension withdrawals in Mr. Mahatoo's income. It is, however, relevant to this court's overall consideration of what income to impute to him. I find that the availability of the pension income has materially contributed to his continued voluntary unemployment.

[71] I find that Mr. Mahatoo's income for 2024 and going forward should be imputed at $80,000.

Ms. Singh

[72] Ms. Singh's evidence was also sorely lacking. Although I accept that she has some physical limitations, in the absence of any medical information, I cannot accept that she is entirely disabled from working. During submissions I asked both counsel to address the question of whether I could take judicial notice that Ms. Singh's receipt of ODSP meant that she is disabled from working. Previous courts have been clear in holding that I cannot: see Tyrrell, at para. 13.

[73] In the absence of any other documentation, I cannot accept that Ms. Singh is disabled from working. Presenting the court with medical evidence need not be onerous, time consuming, or disproportionately expensive. The Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, provide a mechanism to submit a participant expert report without the formality attached to a typical litigation report, see rule 20.2(14):

A party who wishes to call a participant expert as a witness at trial shall, (a) at least six days before the settlement conference,

• (i) serve notice of the fact on all other parties, and
• (ii) if the party wishes to submit any written opinion prepared by the expert as evidence in the trial, serve the written opinion on all other parties and file it; and (b) serve on any other party, at that party's request, a copy of any documents supporting the opinion evidence the participant expert plans to provide.

[74] Once a medical report has been served, the Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, comes into play. In particular, s. 52 provides as follows:

Medical reports

(2) A report obtained by or prepared for a party to an action and signed by a practitioner and any other report of the practitioner that relates to the action are, with leave of the court and after at least ten days notice has been given to all other parties, admissible in evidence in the action.

Entitlement

(3) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a party to an action is entitled, at the time that notice is given under subsection (2), to a copy of the report together with any other report of the practitioner that relates to the action.

Report required

(4) Except by leave of the judge presiding at the trial, a practitioner who signs a report with respect to a party shall not give evidence at the trial unless the report is given to all other parties in accordance with subsection (2).

If practitioner called unnecessarily

(5) If a practitioner is required to give evidence in person in an action and the court is of the opinion that the evidence could have been produced as effectively by way of a report, the court may order the party that required the attendance of the practitioner to pay as costs therefor such sum as the court considers appropriate.

[75] A Notice of Intention, which addresses both business records and medical reports, should be served (at least 10 days before trial, but ideally well in advance of that) in every action that proceeds to trial. Many clinical notes and records will qualify as business records, although some will not. In short, there is no reason that either party to this action could not have provided adequate medical evidence to establish their inability to work. Although Ms. Singh is not in breach of court orders in the way that Mr. Mahatoo is, she also failed to provide cogent evidence that would have been reasonably available to her.

[76] From the date of separation to December 31, 2021, I decline to impute any income to Ms. Singh. Taking into consideration the length of the parties' marriage, the length of time she was out of the workforce for, and her continued parenting obligations, it is reasonable to allow for some period of time to find work.

[77] For 2022 and the first part of 2023, I impute income of minimum wage to her. Given the time that she has been out of the workforce, that is a reasonable income. In the absence of cogent medical evidence to establish an inability to work, this court simply cannot make a determination that she is disabled from working.

[78] But for her receipt of significant ODSP benefits, retroactive to the start of 2023, I would have been compelled to impute a minimum wage income to Ms. Singh. However, as her ODSP income is actually higher than minimum wage, I will use that income from the date of receipt forward.

Conclusion

[79] This was a long-term marriage. As noted above, this court finds that support is payable on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. In light of the factors described above, spousal support shall be payable at the mid-range of the SSAGs.

[80] Based upon the SSAGs, spousal support is payable as follows:

a) 2019 (3 months) - $830/month b) 2020 - $372/month c) 2021 - $516/month d) 2022 - $1/month e) 2023 - $265/month f) 2024 - $568/month g) 2025 - $1,056/month

[81] Both children remain entitled to child support. Child support shall be fixed from the date of separation and going forward based upon Mr. Mahatoo's income as I have found it for each year.

[82] He shall be given credit for the sum of $2,624 which he paid prior to the first interim support order. Mr. Mahatoo also referred to various loan payments that he had made post-separation, but in the absence of particulars of how these issues were addressed as part of the property settlement, I am not prepared to consider any of those payments as a credit towards support obligations.

[83] Copies of the SSAG calculations used in arriving at the figures above are attached at Schedule "A" hereto.

[84] In the event that the parties are unable to agree on costs, they may make written submissions in accordance with the Rules.

F. Wood J.

Released: October 2, 2025