Cook v. Chenier, 2026 ONSC 2034

CITATION: Cook v. Chenier., 2026 ONSC 2034

COURT FILE NO.: 14-0581

DATE: 2026/04/02

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Sharleen Yvonne Cook

Applicant

– and –

Ray Denis Chenier

Respondent

Acting in person

Assisted by Duty Counsel

HEARD: November 25, 2025

Justice Maria N. SiriVAR

Introduction

1On November 25, 2025, I dismissed the Respondent’s motion with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

2The motion arises in the context of the Motion to Change the final order of Justice Abrams dated September 22, 2014, issued March 20, 2025. The Respondent seeks to set aside the order of Abrams J. dated August 6, 2025, imputing an annual income of $50,000 and requiring him to pay child support in the monthly amount of $416 commencing April 1, 2025. In support of the motion, the Respondent filed an affidavit and a financial statement. The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the motion. She indicated in submissions that she encountered difficulties with service and relied on her evidence before Justice Abrahams on August 6, 2025.

Summary of Relevant Evidence

3The Respondent was served with the Motion to Change by special service on March 25, 2025, at 5:33 p.m. The Applicant sought to change the parenting and child support terms of the order. The matter was before the Court on June 16, 2025. The Respondent did not attend and, not having filed a Response, was noted in default. Based on an Affidavit for Uncontested Trial, sworn March 20, 2025, the Court made the parenting orders sought, including primary residence of the child with the mother and no parenting time for the father.

4The child support issue was adjourned with the Court noting insufficient evidence to impute income to the Respondent. The Respondent was ordered to appear on August 6, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. and to bring with him a sworn Financial Statement, in accordance with Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules (the “Rules”), identifying his income from all sources as well as tax returns and notices of assessment for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024.

5On August 6, 2025, the Respondent did not appear before the Court as ordered. The Applicant gave vica voce evidence regarding the Respondent's ability to work as an electrician and his history of charging $35 per hour. The Court imputed an annual income of $50,000 to the Respondent based on working 40 hours per week, earning $25 per hour. The Respondent was ordered to pay $461 per month in child support, commencing on April 1, 2025 (the “Child Support Order”).

6The Respondent deposes that he received a copy of the Child Support Order on August 13, 2025. He further acknowledged that "I received paperwork by email about this matter on an earlier date. I was unsure of what to do." He explained that cognitive challenges, caused by a motor vehicle accident in 2012, make it more difficult to understand what steps to take.

7The Respondent argued, with the assistance of duty counsel, that the Child Support Order should be set aside because it was made in his absence. He missed the court date because of inadvertence, as his cognitive issues make dates and schedules challenging. He argues that the income of $50,000 that was imputed is more than he makes. He receives monthly Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) benefits of $1408. His annual income over the last three years has been between $10,000 and $15,000.

Relevant Law

8The authority to set aside an order can be found in Rules 25 and 2. Rule 25(19) sets out the preconditions for the Court to set aside an order and reads as follows:

(19) The court may, on motion, change an order that,

(a) was obtained by fraud;

(b) contains a mistake;

(c) needs to be changed to deal with a matter that was before the court but that it did not decide;

(d) was made without notice; or

(e) was made with notice, if an affected party was not present when the order was made because the notice was inadequate or the party was unable, for a reason satisfactory to the court, to be present. [Emphasis Added]

9Rule 2(2) and (3) provide that the primary objective of the Rules is to enable the Court to deal with cases justly, including ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties, saving expense and time, and ensuring the proportionate allocation of resources to cases. The only subsections of Rule 25(19) that might be engaged in the circumstances of this case are (d) that the order was made without notice, (e) that the order was made with notice, but the Respondent was unable to be present for reasons that are satisfactory to the Court. Ultimately, the question is whether the Respondent should be relieved from the consequences of his default.

Analysis and Conclusion

10I find that the Child Support Order was made with notice. The Respondent received notice of the Motion to Change, as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service filed, which was not challenged. On the first page of the Motion of Change, there is an explanation that the person receiving the documents must respond within 30 or 60 days (depending on jurisdiction), failing which the case will proceed without them, and that a court may make an order in their absence. The warnings, “YOU MUST RESPOND” and “IF YOU DO NOT RESPOND” are in all caps and bolded font.

11Notwithstanding being noted in default and parenting orders being made on June 16, 2025, the Respondent was given an additional eight (8) weeks to file financial information and was ordered to appear on August 6, 2025. He acknowledges receiving documents by email. Although not explicitly stated, the documents would have been the June 16, 2025, order because the Motion to Change was served personally. He does not allege that he did not receive the June 16, 2025, order.

12I am not satisfied that the Respondent was unable to attend court on either June 16 or August 2025. His statement regarding the email he received is vague and self-serving. At a minimum, he could have accessed the email and either been clear about what he received or explained why he could not do so.

13When the Respondent received the Child Support Order, he quickly figured out what to do. He received the order on August 13. In addition to filing a motion in writing seeking leave to bring this motion, he obtained legal advice and prepared an affidavit, a Notice of Motion, and a Financial Statement by September 25, 2025, six (6) weeks after receiving the order. This is two weeks less than the extension of time he was given on June 16, 2025. The Respondent also has experience with family court proceedings. The original order was made in 2014, after the motor vehicle accident caused his cognitive challenges.

14I am not persuaded that the Respondent's uncertainty about the steps justifies failing to attend court on August 6, 2025, when the Child Support Order was made. Additionally, the Respondent remains in breach of Justice Abram’s June 16, 2025, order. In addition to not attending court on August 6, 2025, he has not provided the following documents:

• Tax return for the year 2022;

• Tax return for the year 2023;

• Tax return for the year 2024; and

• Notice of Assessment for the year 2022.

15Although the Respondent filed a Financial Statement in support of this motion, he has not provided the required proof of year-to-date income. The letter from ODSP attached to the Financial Statement, instead of pay stubs, is unsigned and only outlines his monthly eligibility for September 2025 in the amount of $1,408.

16Moreover, the Respondent has failed to set out his income from all sources. He acknowledges engaging in paid work in his affidavit but denies working "under the table". He deposes that the work is sporadic, lasts no more than a day, and that “small jobs” become available every few months. He does not provide any details regarding the type of work, the rate of pay, the amounts earned, the last time he worked, the employers he worked for, or his ability to work.

17Based on the foregoing, I find that none of the preconditions in Rule 25(19) are met. The Respondent is in breach of Justice Abrams' order, having failed to provide full disclosure of his income. Relieving the Respondent of the consequences of his breach would not be just or fair in the circumstances of this case.

Justice Maria N. Sirivar

Released: April 2, 2026

CITATION: Cook v. Chenier., 2026 ONSC 2034