SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Baljit Sahi v. Mandeep Kaur Gill
BEFORE: Fowler Byrne J.
COUNSEL: Najma Raza Chatta, for the Applicant
Elissa Gamus, for the Respondent egamus@mpllp.com
HEARD: December 30, 2025, by videoconference
E N D O R S E M E N T
1This motion was brought by the Respondent Mother on an urgent basis, seeking an order for temporary child support, spousal support, a contribution to section 7 expenses, and reimbursement of monies paid by the Mother towards the Applicant Father’s vehicle.
2A conference before a Dispute Resolution Officer was held on September 25, 2025, where child support and spousal support were addressed, but not resolved. On December 16, 2025, Justice McSweeney found that there was urgency and scheduled this matter accordingly.
Issues
3The following issues must be decided by me:
a. What is the Father’s income?
b. What is the Mother’s income?
c. What are the Father’s child support obligations?
d. Is the Mother entitled to spousal support?
e. If so, what are the Father’s spousal support obligations?
f. What retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses should be paid?
g. What security should the Father provide for his support obligations?
h. Should the Mother be reimbursed for car payments she made for the Father?
Background
4The parties were married on January 27, 2010, and separated on September 14, 2024. They both remained in the matrimonial home until March 15, 2025, when the Father left, leaving the Mother with the two children, who are now 12 and 10 years old. In September 2025, the Mother sought exclusive possession of another property, 12038 Heritage Road, Caledon, Ontario (“Caledon Property”). The motions judge found that this property was not a matrimonial home, and thus exclusive possession could not be ordered.
5Following this decision, the Mother decided to vacate the matrimonial home, and on November 8, 2025, moved into a rental apartment with the two children.
6From March 2025, the Father stopped paying the mortgage on the matrimonial home. It is now listed and subject to power of sale proceedings. It is a high-end property currently listed for $3,990,000, but there has not been any significant interest in it. From the date the Father moved out of the matrimonial home, he has not paid any child support or spousal support.
Analysis
Issue 1 – What is the Father’s Income?
7The Father has been significantly deficient in his financial disclosure. As a result, the Mother seeks an order imputing income to the Father in the sum of
$228,432.64.
Disclosure to Date
8The Father is a real estate agent and a mortgage broker. He appears to be both employed and self-employed and has an interest in numerous corporations. The most basic of financial disclosure requires the Father to provide the last three years of income tax returns and notices of assessment, plus the most recent statement of earnings: s. 21(1)(a), (b), (c) Child Support Guidelines (CSG). The Father has produced his personal income tax returns from 2021 to 2023, and his Notices of Assessment from 2021-2023. These tax returns show that his 2021 income was
$104,683, his 2022 income was $173,031 and his 2023 income was $228,436.00. The Father has admittedly not yet filed his tax return for 2024.
9The only evidence of the Father’s current earnings which he produced is a cheque stub from Re/Max Gold Realty Inc. dated April 8, 2025, and payable to his professional corporation Baljit Singh Sahi Personal Real Estate Corporation. It shows gross earnings of $1,650, and earnings to date of $35,426.91 (net of commission split and HST payable). It appears to be commission earnings. He did not provide an up-to-date cheque stub with his December 2025 financial statement.
10As it appears the Father is self-employed, he is also required to produce for the three most recent tax years, financial statements for his professional practice, and
a breakdown of those wages or benefits paid to people or corporations that are not at arm’s length: s. 21(d)(ii) CSG.
11The Father has produced his Statement of Business or Professional Activities for his real estate business in his 2023 income tax returns, which shows his gross earnings and his claimed expenses. There is no statement of Business Activities in his 2022 income tax return, and as indicated, no statement of any kind for 2024 or 2025. There is no breakdown given for non-arm’s length employees, which would include the Mother during the marriage.
12If a spouse controls a corporation, there are further disclosure obligations. The Father is obliged to produce, for the three most recent taxation years, the financial statements of the corporations, and a statement showing all payments to non- arms’ length individuals or entities: s. 21(1)(f) CSG.
13The Father’s financial statements show that in addition to his professional corporation, he has an interest in the following corporations: 2353220 Ontario Inc., 1000098814 Ontario Inc., and 2791056 Ontario Inc., Sara Gas, Variety and Cabin Rental Inc. No information regarding any of these corporations has been produced. There is no way of knowing what, if any income, the Father earns from these corporations.
14Accordingly, what is strikingly absent from the Father’s materials, is any evidence of what he actually earned in 2024 and 2025 to date. Even without an income tax return, there is nothing preventing the Father from attaching an up-to-date commission earning sheet, his last commission cheque stub, or an accounting of his rental income. He provided none of this. When this omission was pointed out, the Father’s response was that he believes he is earning $65,000. This number bears a striking resemblance to the amount of money that the wife currently earns in a job obtained after the Father’s materials were served, but before the argument of this motion.
Law
15I am entitled to impute income to a party under s. 19(1)(f) of the CSG, when a party fails to provide income information when they are under a legal obligation to do so. The test for imputing income is the same for child and spousal support: Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583, at para. 41.
16As stated by Justice Chappel in V.K.G. v. I.G., 2023 ONSC 6329, at para. 258:
…a party cannot ask the court to make income findings that are favourable to them and contrary to another party’s interests while at the same time shielding information that is relevant to the determination of their income behind a protective wall. Every party in a support case must proactively disclose and adduce all relevant evidence required to allow the other party and the court to undertake an accurate assessment of their income for support purposes, including but not limited to their reported earnings, their income earning potential, efforts which they have made to maximize their earnings, and the appropriateness of any deductions that they seek to claim against their self-employment income. This obligation is immediate and ongoing, and court orders should not be required to ensure compliance with it. [Citations omitted].
17The Mother bears the onus of providing the evidentiary basis upon which I can impute income: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, 248 O.A.C. 168 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 28. That being said, the failure of a payor to properly disclose their financial situation would mitigate the obligation of the recipient to provide an evidentiary basis to impute income: Graham v. Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260, at para. 4. Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference to impute income to them: Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548, at para. 57(6). Also, while lifestyle is not income, it is evidence from which an inference may be drawn that a payor has undisclosed income that may be imputed for the purpose of determining child support: Bak v. Dobell, 2007 ONCA 304, 86 O.R. (3d) 196 (C.A.), at para. 43.
Analysis
18Based on the cheque stub of April 8, 2025, the Father had actual earnings to date of $35,426.91 (net of commission split and HST payable). If this was extrapolated for the entire year, I have an evidentiary basis for estimating the Father’s income to be the equivalent of $141,707 for the entirety of 2025. The Mother has provided evidence that the Father had 11 listings this year and that he has advertised that two other properties have already been sold. The Father’s current listings have prices of $599,000 to $10,999,900. While I may be able to take judicial notice of the general downturn in the real estate business, the specific evidence related to the Father shows that his business is continuing with many future sale prospects. The Father provided no evidence that would specifically address his multiple listings or explain how this would not eventually result in commissions. These listings also do not account for when he may earn a commission as the purchaser’s agent.
19Despite having an opportunity to swear and produce two financial statements, the Father has not provided a budget that reflects his current situation. On both his financial statements, he uses income from 2023, (which he says is deferred income from 2019 to 2022), but then lists expenses that appear to be current.
20The Father’s monthly expenses appear to be high. In May 2025, the Father claims monthly expenses of $61,102, leaving a monthly budget deficit of $42,066.30, or
$504,795.56 per year. In December 2025, these monthly expenses were reduced to $35,518, leaving a monthly budget deficit of $16,481.97, or $197,783.64 per year. Despite that, his debt situation improved from May 2025 to December 2025, by approximately $625,000 (from $4,618,358.64 to $3,992,674.23). That would appear to suggest that he can sustain his monthly expenses of $35,518, or
$426,216 per year. These expenses include servicing the mortgage and property taxes on seven properties (which includes the matrimonial home), $2,250 per month on groceries or meals out, $800 per month in taxis or public transportation, while also paying for car loan or lease payments of $2,800 per month.
21It should be noted that the 2023 income that the Father claims is net of his rental income losses of $55,190. It is not clear if that is attributable to 2023, or continues for 2024 and 2025. No disclosure has been provided to prove those losses. If added back in, that would increase his 2023 income to $283,622.64.
22The 2023 income tax returns consist of $220,000 in employment income which is reduced by rental income loss plus self-employment income which equals
$63,626.68, for a total of $228,436.68. His gross sales were actually $156,293 but were reduced by $11,219 in travel expenses, $11,413 in motor vehicle expenses and $55,144 for Capital Cost Allowance. Some of these expenses will require further investigation or calculation in accordance with Schedule III of the CSG.
23As indicated, in each of these financial statements, the Father discloses multiple property and business interests. He is the joint owner of the matrimonial home (12373 Highway 7), and the Caledon Property and is the sole owner of a rental property located at 167 Elmbank Trail, Kitchener (“Kitchener Property”). He also had an interest in four other properties, through corporations, although one has since been sold. In May 2025, the equity in the sold property was approximately
$340,000. He has indicated that he is the sole owner of the company that owned the sold property.
24In his responding materials, the father states that $283,622.64 (his 2023 income without the rental losses) does not reflect the income he actually earned in 2023. He states it is deferred income, earned between 2019 and 2022, which were exceptionally good years to be in real estate. Even if I accept that the Father’s 2023 income was the result of sales in earlier years, that does not mean he was not working in 2023 towards sales that will close in 2024 or 2025. That appears to be the normal course in real estate. He may list a house for months before he actually closes the deal.
25Also, the Father states that in 2023, he spent more time trying to save his marriage. In 2024, he states the real estate market experienced a severe downturn. He states his 2024 income was significantly lower than in previous years. He states that 2025 was worse. Again, no specific evidence of his income was actually given.
26The Father blames his failure to pay support on the Mother. He claims that she wanted to reconcile, and they were working on that. Also, he claims that the Mother has not been cooperative in listing various properties for sale, that would give him the cash he needs to support the family. These are not sufficient reasons to deny the children proper support. Whether or not they were working on their relationship, the Mother was continuing to support the children on her own with no assistance by the Father. Also, the Mother is on title to only two of the properties and one is already listed. The rest of the properties remain under the control, or part control, of the Father.
27Based on the most information that I do have, and based on the information that the Father has failed to provide, I have no difficulty in finding an evidentiary basis that the Father’s income should be imputed at $228,000. His most recent income tax return states that. His most recent pay stub shows he is on target to make at least $142,000 and that does not consider his current real estate listings, his personal rental portfolio and any corporate income. His monthly expenses are significantly more than $228,000, and he appears to be in better financial shape than he was in May 2025.
28Accordingly, for the purposes of his support obligations, I impute income to the Father at $228,432. This amount is subject to variation when the Father produces an income report prepared by a professional.
Issue 2 – What is the Mother’s Income?
29The Mother was working in the Father’s company during the last years of marriage. That ended upon their separation, and she was able to obtain a contract position very recently where she earned $4,000 per month for three months. To her credit, the Mother has just obtained full time employment, where she earns $65,000 per year. For the purposes of her support obligations, I will set her annual income at
$65,000.
30The Father argues that the Mother has assets available to her that she should access in order to support herself first. I reject the Father’s position. A party is not required to deplete their assets to support themselves: Goeldner v. Goeldner (2005), 194 O.A.C. 129 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 8; Yu v. Xiao, 2023 ONSC 4781, at
para. 51.
Issue 3 – What are the Father’s Child Support Obligations?
31This is quite straight forward. In accordance with the CSG, the Father’s child support obligations for two children, at his imputed income, is $3,092 per month. These will commence as of October 1, 2025, the first month after the DRO conference. This is without prejudice to the Mother’s claim for retroactive child support before that date.
Issue 4 – Is the Mother Entitled to Spousal Support?
32I find that on a temporary basis, the Mother is entitled to spousal support on a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. Non-compensatory support entitlement centres on the needs of the spouses and their respective means; compensatory support recognizes an entitlement to support as compensation for the economic disadvantages to the recipient spouse or the economic advantages conferred on the payor spouse as a result of the roles assumed by the parties during their marriage: Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420, at para. 41; R.L. v. M.F., 2025 ONCA 595, at para. 28.
33On a non-compensatory basis, the Mother’s standard of living is significantly below that of the Father. The Father is earning close to four times what the Mother is earning, and she is also supporting the two children. The Father has properties, cars, and exorbitant monthly expenditures. The Mother is living in a basement apartment, borrowing money to survive and only just recently became employed.
34I recognize that the Mother is now working again, earning more than she did when she used to work at Purolator earlier in the marriage. That being said, as recently explained in R.L. v. M.F., at para. 30:
Income imputation and the fact that a spouse has not suffered material career setbacks or prejudice do not preclude a spousal support claim. This is made clear in the provisions of s.15.2(4) and (6) of the Divorce Act. Specifically, as stipulated in s. 15.2(6)(a) and (b), compensatory entitlement may arise where, as a result of the parties’ roles during the marriage, one spouse has conferred economic advantages on the other notwithstanding the absence of economic disadvantage. This typically includes one spouse taking on more of the family’s household or child-rearing responsibilities, freeing the other to focus on career-building and income-earning. The spouse who has shouldered household and family responsibilities may be entitled to compensatory spousal support to share in the augmented earning capacity of the other spouse (citations omitted).
35The evidence is not contradicted that the Mother left her job at Purolator and started working with the Father. Whether or not the Father encouraged her to work elsewhere, the Mother’s support of the Father, for accounting support, or as another real estate agent, allowed the family to build a comfortable lifestyle. She primarily took care of the home and the children. He sold real estate, invested in real estate and developed a significant portfolio.
Issue 5 – What are the Father’s Spousal Support Obligations?
36Attached as Schedule “A” is a Spousal Support Guidelines calculation. It shows that the Father’s spousal support obligations range from $1,899 to $3,280 per month. The Mother seeks a mid-range award of $2,588.
37While the mid-range is not a default outcome, I find that it is appropriate in this situation. There is a strong compensatory claim, and there is a strong need in the Mother’s home, where the children reside. I do not need to encourage the Mother to work, as she has done that on her own, and her income is part of this calculation already. When the family property is divided, this may change, but for now, a mid- range award is appropriate. This is without prejudice to the Mother’s claim for retroactive spousal support prior to October 1, 2025.
Issue 6 – the Father’s Contribution to s. 7 Expenses
38Based on the Father’s imputed income and the Mother’s income, the Father’s contribution towards s. 7 expenses is 67% and the Mother’s contribution is 33%.
39The Mother has provided evidence of dental expenditures, which she has born entirely herself. She has paid $442.80 towards J.S. and $629.10 for A.S. The Father’s 67% contribution would be $718.17. This should be paid immediately.
Issue 7 – Should his Support Obligations be Secured?
40If I make a temporary support order, I may also order that a policy of life insurance designate the Mother as a beneficiary as a method of securing the Father’s obligations: s. 34(1)(i) Family Law Act (FLA). Section 34(4) of the FLA also states that any support order binds the estate of the payor.
41In this situation, it is a matter of common sense that support obligations be secured. Given the Father’s reluctance to date to disclose his income or pay any amount, security for this support becomes even more important. I am sure the Father would want to make sure that his children are looked after in the event of an unexpected death. Given that the children reside primarily with the Mother, it makes sense that she is the beneficiary.
42In the SSAG calculation at Schedule A, it is suggested that life insurance in the range of $500,000 is appropriate.
Issue 8 – Should the Mother be reimbursed for Car Payments?
43The parties agree that money was withdrawn from a joint bank account to pay for a certain car. The Mother sought reimbursement for this amount. The Father did not address it in his responding materials. In his submissions, the Father disagrees about his contribution and his use of the car.
44This appears to be a post-separation adjustment. While the Father did not dispute this expense, it is best left to when the properties are sold, and various adjustments can be made at once.
Conclusion
45For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders:
a. The Father’s income is imputed at $228,432;
b. Commencing October 1, 2025, on the 1st day of each month thereafter, the Father shall pay to the Mother, child support for the two children of the marriage in the sum of $3,092;
c. Commencing October 1, 2025, on the 1st day of each month thereafter, the Father shall pay to the Mother, spousal support in the sum $2,588;
d. The Father shall pay to the Mother the sum of $718.17 within 7 days, for his share of the children’s dental expenses;
e. Until further court order, the Father is responsible for 67% of all section 7 expenses, and the Mother is responsible for 33% of all section 7 expenses;
f. Child support and spousal support is subject to review upon the Father producing a professional income report for his income from 2022 to present, and a valuation report for his various business interests.
g. As long as the Father is obligated to pay child support and/or spousal support to the Mother, he shall maintain a policy of life insurance in the amount of $500,000 as security for the Father’s child and spousal support obligations outstanding as at the date of the Father’s death pursuant to this Agreement (“policy”);
h. If the Father already has such a policy, he shall designate the Mother as the sole beneficiary. If he does not yet have a policy, he shall apply for such a policy and take any medical examinations or tests required to obtain the policy;
i. The Father will pay all policy premiums when due. If he does not and the Mother pays any premiums, interest, or penalties to prevent the lapse of the policy, those amounts will be considered lump sum child spousal child and spousal support and enforceable against the Father. If the policy lapses because the Father failed to pay the premiums, the Father will also pay the Mother all necessary costs incurred by her to reinstate the policy;
j. The Father will:
i. keep the policy in force;
ii. not borrow against the policy and will ensure that the policy remains unencumbered; and
iii. irrevocably designate and maintain the Mother as the beneficiary of
$500,000 of the proceeds of the policy;
k. Within 30 days, the Father will provide the Mother with a copy of the policy and the irrevocable beneficiary designation;
l. The Father will sign an authorization and direction permitting the Mother to confirm directly with the Father’s employer and/or insurer that the policy is unencumbered and in force;
m. If the policy or the full amount of the policy is not in force on the Father’s death, the full amount of the policy proceeds shall be a lien and first charge on the Father’s estate; and
n. Given the outcome, the Mother is entitled to her costs of this motion. Her Bill of Costs has already been uploaded. If she wishes to make written submissions, she may do so by serving and filing these written submissions, limited to 2 pages, double spaced, on or before January 23, 2026; the Father was ordered to upload his Costs Outline by January 2, 2026; if he wishes to make written submissions, he may serve and file these written submissions, limited to 2 pages, doubled spaced, on or before February 6, 2026; the Mother may serve and file reply written submissions, if she choses, limited to 2 pages, on or before February 20, 2026.
Fowler Byrne J.
DATE: January 8, 2026
CITATION: Sahi v. Gill, 2026 ONSC 118
COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-00112366-0000
DATE: 2026 01 08
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Baljit Sahi v. Mandeep Kaur Gill
COUNSEL:
Najma Raza Chatta, for the Applicant Elissa Gamus, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Fowler Byrne J.
DATE: January 8, 2026