COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-0153-00

DATE: 2025-12-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Jennifer James, Applicant

v.

Michael Paul, Respondent

HEARD: December 11, 2025

BEFORE: Fitzpatrick J.

COUNSEL: K. Burns for the Applicant/Moving Party, for the Applicant

Michael Paul is self represented

Endorsement on Motion

[ 1 ] Ms. James moves for various relief. At the outset of the motion the parties advised they had reached agreement on the parenting relief sought. Also Mr. Paul says he in fact is maintaining the children and Ms. James on his extended health benefits at work. Proving this should be a simple matter of obtaining a statement from the carrier, Sun Life, identifying the beneficiaries. Mr. Paul is ordered to do this on or before January 9, 2026. The parties indicated they would provide a draft order in due course reflecting the agreement concerning parenting time. Ultimately, they should resubmit the order to reflect the decision I will make here about the other relief requested.

[ 2 ] This was scheduled in regular motions court. Given the nature of the disputes between the parties it should have been scheduled for a long motion. The parties separated in August 2023. The application was started in July 2024. The parties had their first and only case conference in January 2025. There seems to me to be no particular urgency to any of what was left to determined. Also to the extent that the parties appear dug in on several significant issues, taking steps to move the matter either to a settlement conference or to a trial would have been a more efficient way to proceed. In any event, I can understand how counsel may be reluctant to engage a self represented party in any other manner than on the record. In this case, the next steps should be a combined settlement/trial management conference as I see the issues that separate these parties as more likely than not only being resolved at a trial.

[ 3 ] For the purposes of this motion, there were four main areas of relief sought by the Applicant;

1. Interim Child Support and arrears of support

2. Interim payment of Section 7 expenses

3. Interim Spousal Support and arrears of support

4. Sale of a Jointly owned residential property.

[ 4 ] Resolution of Issues 1, 2 and 3 focused on Mr. Paul’s decision since separation to unilaterally impute income to Ms. James. There is no dispute that as the parties are engaged in shared parenting, there is, and should be, a set off of the monthly amount of child support being paid. From the materials filed there is no dispute Mr. Paul has a greater income even under his “imputation model”. He has been paying $640 per month since May 2024 after Ms. James left the joint residence in November 2023 that is also subject of this motion. The parties lived under the same roof despite separating in August 2023.

[ 5 ] The short answer to this “imposed imputation” submission is “no, not for interim purposes”.

[ 6 ] Questioning on this issue was allowed from the case conference order of Fregeau J. in January 2025. It took place in September 2025. Neither party saw fit to put the transcript or transcripts of that questioning before the Court. I agree with the submissions of Ms. James that the submissions of Mr. Paul on the issue are largely speculative and incapable of resolution on an interim motion on an evidentiary record that is less than complete and the facts about the various economic circumstances are contested. The issue is not a trivial one and may well have some merit for Mr. Paul. However, when parties decide to bring matters before the court on days when the time for argument is limited to one hour, and then place before the Court a complex issue that requires a significant evidentiary basis to resolve, they should not be surprised if the issue cannot be resolved. The issue for short motions is not just the time parties have to argue. It involves the preparation time behind the scenes. On this attendance, this matter was considered along with nine others on the short motions list in a week for which I had many other matters to prepare for and deal with.

[ 7 ] That said, I see no basis as to why the parties declared line 15000 incomes should not be the basis for child support payments pending trial. Unfortunately, neither party put their actual tax returns or notices of assessment before the Court in their materials. Apparently, they have been exchanged. That is not good enough on a contested motion. Mr. Paul provided a recent pay stub but it does not seem consistent with his stated annual income. I was therefore left with the parties’ sworn financial statements as the only means to determine income for the purposes of applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines). Useful, but not capable of being verified as representing the best evidence.

[ 8 ] Ms. James financial statement at the income section sets out a total current annual income of $62,127.00. Applying the Guidelines to this income yields an obligation on the latest tables to pay $945 per month for two children.

[ 9 ] Mr Paul’s financial statement sworn December 5, 2025, at the income section sets out a total current annual income of $116,799.96. Applying the Guidelines to this income yields an obligation on the latest tables to pay $1,719 per month for two children.

[ 10 ] The set off means Mr. Paul should be paying $774.00 per month on a temporary basis.

[ 11 ] I order that commencing January 1, 2026, Michael Paul pay periodic monthly child support in the amount of $774.00 per month to Jennifer James for the support of Olivia Louise Paul dob January 5, 2012 and Theoren James Paul dob May 9, 2014. This is based on section 9 of the Guidelines and the respective incomes of the parties set out above. I did not have any other specific evidence on this motion that would allow me to address the issues in section 9(b) or (c) of the Guidelines. I could only set the amount by way of a straight set off. Support deduction order to issue in respect of this aspect of the endorsement.

[ 12 ] Also, because of the circumstances of the separation and the three month period of “non cohabitation cohabitation” I am disinclined to order any payment of arrears of child support on an interim basis. The evidence will be complex on this issue. The income evidence was insufficient for me to feel comfortable setting amounts for the years since separation on an interim basis. I leave the matter of arrears of child support from date of separation to trial with the trial judge.

Section 7 expenses

[ 13 ] I understood from the argument of counsel for Ms. James, she would not be pursuing an order with respect to section 7 expenses on this motion. In any event, it was not clear from the materials what precise section 7 expenses were being sought for either child. Also, as the income information provided by the parties was not as fulsome as would be appropriate. In my view this matter too should be left to the trial judge.

Spousal Support

[ 14 ] I am convinced on the material filed that Ms. James has demonstrated a need for spousal support on a temporary basis. Her financial statement shows an annual deficit. However, there is a serious issue to be tried concerning the imputation of income. The economic history and roles played by the parties during the marriage was subject to conflicting affidavit evidence. Like the imputation of income issue, the circumstances of these parties make spousal support a difficult issue to resolve on a temporary basis on a limited record. The divorce mate calculations provided by Ms. James set her income at a lower amount than I have accepted as the basis for her child support obligations in this joint parenting circumstance. I am not inclined to do my own Divorce Mate calculations for the purposes of resolving this particular issue given the conflicts in the evidence. At this point I am ordering spousal support payable by Mr. Paul to Ms. James to commence as of January 1, 2026 with what I expect would be the low end of the SSAG range. I do this because of the concerns I have that Mr. Paul’s imputation argument may have significant merit, and because I don’t have accurate income information for these parties. It is an order seeking to do the best in the circumstances.

[ 15 ] I find there is a need on the part of Ms. James and an ability to pay on the part of Mr. Paul with respect to spousal support on an interim basis. I fix the quantum of spousal support to be paid commencing January 1, 2026 in the amount of $500.00 per month. Support deduction order to issue in respect of this aspect of the endorsement.

[ 16 ] I decline to make any award of arrears of spousal support on an interim basis because of the lack of a sufficient evidentiary record to do so. That matter is left to the trial judge.

Sale of the Jointly owned Property

[ 17 ] Ms. James asserts her right as a co-owner of a jointly owned property to have this Court order partition and sale further to section 2 of the Partition Act R.S.O. 1990 c. P4. Mr. Paul resists such a temporary order. I exercise my discretion to decline to order a sale at this time for the following reasons.

[ 18 ] In the very useful decision Dhaliwal v. Dhaliwal [2020] O.J. No. 2870 Pazaratz J. summarized the law concerning partition and sale. At paragraph 16 of the decision, he set out 19 different considerations that can be brought to bear where relief is sought under the Partition Act . He notes at paragraphs 16(i)(l)(m)(q) and (s) issues specifically directed at such applications in the context of family law litigation.

[ 19 ] In this matter Mr. Paul makes an unusual statement in his responding affidavit at paragraph 54 (coincidentally responding to paragraph 54 of Ms. James affidavit).

In regard to paragraph 54 of the Applicant's Affidavit, I agree, but, I do not want to sell the home and the Children do not want to lose their home. However, given the likely outcome of child support and the Motion, I agree to the sale of the Family Home.

[ 20 ] I don’t know what he meant by “likely outcome” of this motion. It appears he is prepared to agree to a sale. He continues in his affidavit to depose that he would be unable to obtain another property or get a mortgage without a separation agreement. I am familiar with the interesting position banks take with respect to lending to people who are separated and their belief that somehow a separation agreement is a sine qua non of every separation. It isn’t as those in the profession know. However, I take from Mr. Paul’s affidavit that he recognizes that sooner or later Ms. James is entitled to access her equity in the property, but he is going to have a problem finding a new place to live. I am concerned that ordering a sale now, mid school year and into a winter market does not represent anything that would remotely resemble as being in the best interests of the children. It would unnecessarily upset them when these parties should be focused on a global final settlement or preparing for trial. Delay is not a good thing for children of separated parents.

[ 21 ] I am adjourning this particular request for relief under the Partition Act to a further motion date on or after July 2, 2026, or to the settlement/trial management conference if it gets scheduled earlier. In my view, Mr. Paul has to either make a serious attempt to buy out Ms. James in the near future or start looking for new property. If he doesn’t Ms. James may bring this matter back to be heard on at least a half day fixed long motion date.

Costs

[ 22 ] Success was divided on this motion. There will be no order as to costs.

The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick

DATE: December 15, 2025

COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-0153-00

DATE: 2025-12-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Jennifer James, Applicant v. Michael Paul, Respondent HEARD: December 11, 2025 COUNSEL: K. Burns for the Applicant/Moving Party, for the Applicant Michael Paul is self represented ENDORSEMENT ON MOTION Fitzpatrick J.

DATE: December 15, 2025