OBREGON MENDOZA v. ESCOBAR BONILLA, et al, 2026 ONSC 2101
COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-00045328-0000
DATE: 20260410
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: YADIRA DEL CARMEN OBREGON MENDOZA, Applicant
AND:
RAUL EDGARDO ESCOBAR BONILLA, and
DAVID FERNANDO ESCOBAR BONILLA, Respondents
BEFORE: K. SAH J.
COUNSEL: Ash Mazinani, Counsel for the Applicant
William H. Abbott and Vivian Merklinger, Counsel for the Respondent Raul Edgardo Escobar Bonilla
Meghan Lawson and Murray Lawson, Counsel for the Respondent David Fernando Escobar
HEARD: March 31, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
[1] This is the return of the applicant’s motion for temporary support and disclosure.
[2] The applicant wife seeks an order that the respondent pay child support on a temporary basis in the amount of $2,501 commencing the day after the sale of the matrimonial home closes or after she and the children vacate the matrimonial home. She also seeks an order for interim spousal support in the amount of $1,912, payable when child support payments commence as set out above.
[3] In the alternative, the applicant seeks an order that the respondent pay an uncharacterized support payment in the amount of $2,700 per month.
[4] The applicant also requests an order that the respondent produce an expert income report detailing his income from all sources for the years 2023, 2024, and 2025 and an expert business valuation report detailing the value of all corporations in which the respondent was a shareholder as of valuation date.
[5] Finally, the applicant requests that the respondent produce outstanding disclosure.
[6] The respondent, Raul Edgardo Escobar Bonilla, asks for a dismissal of the applicant's motion with costs. This respondent claims that the disclosure issues have already settled between counsel and he denies the applicant’s entitlement to spousal support.
[7] The respondent, David Fernando Escobar Bonilla did not participate in the motion. Within this endorsement, all references to “the respondent” shall be understood to refer to Raul Edgardo Escobar Bonilla.
[8] Prior to the argument of the motion, the court directed the parties to discuss what issues could be settled. Counsel and the parties proceeded to spend most of the day resolving the disclosure issues and the respondent agreed to retain an expert to determine his income for support purposes and the value of his business. They are commended for their hard work in narrowing the issues on this motion.
[9] A temporary order shall issue in accordance with the consent filed and the approved draft order submitted as amended on the court’s instruction.
[10] The parties agree that support obligations will flow after the sale of the home. There is no dispute about the applicant’s current income.
[11] The only issues that remain unsettled are: (1) the applicant’s entitlement to spousal support; and (2) the respondent’s income for support purposes.
[12] The court heard submissions on the alternate relief sought – that is, an order for an uncharacterized payment. This Court has made these types of orders before.
[13] However, this court is not prepared to make an order for an uncharacterized payment. The applicable legislation in this case are the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 which empower the court to make interim child and spousal support orders and outline specific factors the court must consider when doing so. These factors assist in determining entitlement and assessing quantum.
[14] While the Court recognizes the appeal of re‑labelling payments at a later stage and delivering “rough justice” in situations with limited evidence, the Court should refrain from making orders for uncharacterized payments when there is sufficient—though not perfect—evidence to resolve the issues.
[15] To do otherwise disregards the legislative framework that exists, undermines the legislative intent behind interim support orders, and potentially creates orders that do not align with the objectives of support.
[16] Further, such uncharacterized payment orders could make appellate review difficult, create enforcement issues, make tax reporting and tax deductibility problematic if later re-labelled, and has the potential to complicate any retroactive adjustments that might be needed.
[17] Therefore, I decline to consider the alternate relief sought by the applicant for an order for an uncharacterized payment.
Issues To Be Determined
[18] The issues to be determined are as follows:
Has the applicant established a prima facie threshold case for entitlement of compensatory and/or non-compensatory spousal support?
If so, what is the income of the respondent for support purposes? What quantum of support is owing?
Brief Background
[19] The parties were married in 2006 and separated in October 2023 when the respondent vacated the matrimonial home. The four children remained in the care of the applicant.
[20] The children were born in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2014 and are currently 19, 17, 14 turning 15, and 12 years old.
[21] The 19-year-old graduated from high school and is currently taking a gap year. The other three children are in school full-time. The 17-year-old will be graduating high school in three months and will not be attending a post secondary educational institution as she plans to participate in a year and a half long religious mission.
[22] The parties agree that any support payable will be based on the shared parenting of the two younger children, with no support payable to the older two children.
[23] Following the parties’ separation, the applicant continued to reside in the matrimonial home and the respondent has maintained the financial status quo with respect to all payments, including the mortgage, property tax, property insurance, and utility bills.
[24] The applicant also uses the respondent’s credit card, which he pays for, for groceries and other expenses.
[25] The applicant is a T4 employee earning approximately $63,000 per year as an accounting clerk. There is no dispute about her income for support purposes.
[26] The applicant took a one year maternity leave after the birth of each child and she did not work from 2015 to 2019, when the youngest child started junior kindergarten. Otherwise, she worked throughout the parties’ marriage. From 2014 to 2021, the applicant worked for the respondent’s business.
[27] The respondent is self-employed, and he works with his brothers at a company called Impact Audio Visual Solutions Inc.
[28] The respondent also has an interest in two other companies: Option 1 AV and Rental and Sunrise Landscaping and Maintenance. His brothers are involved in these companies as well.
Entitlement
[29] On an interim spousal support motion, section 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act requires that a Court take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including the following factors:
a. the length of time the spouses cohabited;
b. the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and
c. any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.
[30] The court noted in Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2015 ONSC 1408, 57 R.F.L. (7th) 402, at para. 8:
[31] Interim support motions are not intended to involve a detailed examination of the merits of the case. Nor is the court required to determine the extent to which either party suffered economic advantage or disadvantage as a result of the relationship or its breakdown. These tasks are for the trial judge. Orders for interim support are based on a triable or prima facie case. An order for interim support is in the nature of a “holding order” for the purpose of maintaining the accustomed lifestyle pending trial
[32] In Driscoll v. Driscoll, 2009 CanLII 66373 (Ont. S.C.), the Court, referring to Robles v. Kuhn, 2009 BCSC 1163 directs that it does not engage in an in-depth analysis of the parties’ circumstances in an interim support motion. It is “rough justice at best”. The court set out the following principles, at para. 14:
On applications for interim support the applicant's needs and the respondent's ability to pay assume greater significance;
An interim support order should be sufficient to allow the applicant to continue living at the same standard of living enjoyed prior to separation if the payor's ability to pay warrants it;
On interim support applications the court does not embark on an in-depth analysis of the parties' circumstances which is better left to trial. The court achieves rough justice at best;
The courts should not unduly emphasize any one of the statutory considerations above others;
On interim applications the need to achieve economic self-sufficiency is often of less significance;
Interim support should be ordered within the range suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise;
Interim support should only be ordered where it can be said a prima facie case for entitlement has been made out;
Where there is a need to resolve contested issues of fact, especially those connected with a threshold issue, such as entitlement, it becomes less advisable to order interim support.
[33] The respondent denies the applicant is entitled to both needs-based and compensatory spousal support. The respondent believes the upcoming equalization of their family assets, combined with the historical roles assumed during the marriage does not justify a support obligation. He also claims that the applicant does not have the need for support, and he does not have the means to pay support.
[34] The matrimonial home has now been listed for sale, and another property has recently been sold with a closing on April 7, 2026. The respondent submits the applicant will have access to significant liquid funds which can provide her with the necessary capital to maintain self-sufficiency.
[35] The parties agreed that once the home sells, they would each receive $50,000. Additionally, it was already ordered that the applicant may withdraw $20,000 from the line of credit for her first and last months’ rent. However, the withdrawal of the $20,000 from the line of credit is not a windfall to the applicant. She was also ordered to pay the $20,000 from her half of the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home. Therefore, while the funds might assist the applicant with securing a rental, it will not provide her with long-term assistance.
[36] The $50,000 each party is to receive may assist with the applicant’s self-sufficiency but does not address her ongoing needs. Additionally, the $50,000 in the hands of the respondent speaks to his means.
[37] The balance of the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home was ordered to be held in trust. Neither party will have access to those funds unless the court so orders or they agree to a further distribution. The respondent recently agreed to obtain a valuation for his businesses and to produce more robust financial disclosure. However, the parties are likely a long away from equalizing their net family property. The sale of the properties does not negate the applicant’s need for support.
[38] The respondent has paid all carrying and operating costs for the matrimonial home since the parties separated in October 2023. The respondent also paid for the applicant and the children's groceries post-separation until the end of 2025, in the approximate amount of $500 per month. The total amount of the respondent’s contribution towards the applicant and the children’s expenses is approximately $2,700 per month.
[39] The parties’ period of cohabitation and marriage is 17 and a half years. In those 17 and a half years, the parties had four children. The applicant is currently 42-years-old and was 40-years-old at the date of separation.
[40] The applicant claims she is in desperate need for interim support arrangements following the sale of the home so that she can budget for future accommodation. The applicant has been looking at three-bedroom units renting in the range of $2,200 to $2,500 per month. This evidence is in line with the respondent’s own evidence about his rental, located close to the matrimonial home for which he pays rent in monthly amount of $2,200.
[41] The applicant claims that she has been responsible for some of the children’s expenses, including lunches and field trips, extracurricular activities, and contributions towards the children’s RESPs.
[42] It is the respondent’s position that he has overpaid support and that he should be credited or reimbursed for the overpayment. He claims that he has been solely responsible for several expenses for the children, including orthodontic treatments, wisdom teeth extraction, private tutoring, piano lessons, swimming lessons, snowboarding, volleyball, club fees for all children, and all of the transportation costs associated with these activities and school.
[43] Neither party has detailed the children’s purported expenses in depth.
[44] The respondent claims he has no means to pay any support and that he is on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.
[45] The respondent submits that he has maxed out all credit available to him and has over $1 million in debt. A review of the respondent’s financial statement, however, reveals that since separation, the respondent secured a mortgage on the Richmond Hill condominium which he claims 50 percent of which is held in trust for his brother. The valuation date debt for the Richmond Hill condominium was listed as “n/a”; however, the debt as at the date of the financial statement was $460,766. No details of that significant post-separation debt were provided.
[46] The respondent’s financial statement also reveals undisclosed debt as it relates to a property in Barrie, increased debt on a line of credit secured against the matrimonial home, and other lines of credit with CIBC, Scotiabank, BMO, and RBC.
[47] The respondent’s financial statement reveals an increase in debt, including credit cards obtained post-separation, and a loan owing to his brother.
[48] The respondent argues that his increased post‑separation debt reflects his limited means and inability to pay support. However, if he has consistently paid $2,700 per month toward carrying costs, this does not account for the substantial debt he now claims. There is no clear connection between the alleged increase in debt and the $2,700 in monthly payments.
[49] Over the two and a half years since separation, payments of $2,700 per month would total approximately $81,000. This figure is significantly lower than the debt the respondent asserts he has accumulated since separation. It is, therefore, unlikely that his increased debt is attributable solely to payments made to the applicant.
[50] The applicant submits that with the income the respondent earned from his businesses he was able to acquire an interest in four properties, including:
a. The matrimonial home, which is jointly owned by the parties and was purchased in October of 2008;
b. 33 Thorah Road, which is jointly owned by the parties and was purchased on or about
2014;
b. The Richmond Hill condominium, which is alleged to be owned by the respondent and his brother and was purchased in 2019; and
c. The Barrie property, which is alleged to be owned by the respondent and his brother and was purchased in February 2023.
[51] The respondent asserts that the properties were financed through lines of credit and that they constitute pre‑construction investment properties jointly held with his brother. He claims that his increase in debt speaks to his inability to pay support.
[52] This explanation is not supported by the financial evidence. The respondent holds title in the Richmond Hill condominium in his name alone, but he alleges that he is holding a 50 percent interest for his brother. The valuation day debt owing on this property is not listed in his financial statement, but the current debt owing is, artificially reflecting an increase in debt.
[53] Similarly, the respondent discloses the current balance owing on the Barrie property, but does not list the valuation debt owing, once again artificially reflecting an increase in debt between valuation date and present.
[54] Two of the five disclosed lines of credit were opened after the parties’ separation, and, on the evidence provided, the personal lines of credit that existed at the date of separation carried minimal balances.
[55] Similarly, the respondent’s financial statement lists eight credit cards, but two of these accounts were opened post‑separation. Of the credit cards that were active at the time of separation, none carried significant outstanding balances.
[56] The respondent’s 2025 T4 reports total income of $37,143.28. His 2024 notice of assessment lists line 15000 income of $32,929. His 2023 notice of assessment lists line 15000 income of $28,511. His 2022 notice of assessment lists line 15000 income of $48,193.
[57] It seems improbable that the respondent could secure eight credits card and five lines of credit on the income reported on his tax returns.
[58] Moreover, post-separation, the respondent acquired a car that he states is driven by the children and a motorcycle.
[59] It is not probable that the acquisition of properties prior to separation or the respondent’s post‑separation spending could be sustained on his income reflected in his T4.
[60] The respondent failed to fill out his proposed budget on his financial statement. This does not assist the court in determining the extent of his means. Along with various other evidence, this court draws an adverse inference to support a conclusion that the respondent has the means to pay support.
[61] The court does not accept that the respondent’s income is as set out in a T4 generated by his own company. Further, the respondent has an interest in three businesses, two which are run with non-arms-length individuals, and two he claims are operating at a deficit.
[62] The applicant disputes that the respondent’s financial circumstances are precarious and notes that, since the separation, the respondent has taken several international trips, including taking all four children to New York State in 2024, taking two of the children to El Salvador in May 2025, taking one child to Utah for eight days in August 2025, taking all four children to El Salvador in October 2025, and then returning to El Salvador the next month.
[63] The respondent alleges the applicant has travelled extensively since separation, claiming that she went on a cruise to Greece which the applicant claims was paid for by his sister, to Nicaragua, drove to Virginia, Michigan, Alberta, New York City, Montreal, and Quebec City.
[64] The applicant claims that she was a passenger in other people's vehicles and that she often shared the cost of gas and accommodation or stayed with friends.
[65] At this time, little turns on the parties’ attempts to discredit one another by referencing travel in an effort to advance a lifestyle argument.
[66] There is no dispute that child support should flow following the sale of the matrimonial home, and that there should be an offset of support based on the parties’ respective incomes, the parties’ positions, and the current shared parenting arrangement.
[67] Assessing means and needs-based support requires a look at the parties’ current financial situations. The applicant’s financial statement reveals that her gross yearly expenses amount to approximately $95,000. While the respondent attempts to discredit this evidence by noting that the total expenses include several expenses he pays for, the applicant submits, and this court accepts, that when the matrimonial home is sold, she will be required to pay the expenses listed in the approximate amount the respondent currently pays.
[68] Once the respondent stops contributing towards the living expenses, the applicant’s income will not enable her to pay for her rent, insurance, and utilities. As noted above, the respondent’s own evidence about his monthly rent supports the applicant’s evidence about her prospective monthly rent.
[69] The applicant earns a gross annual income of approximately $63,000. There is no dispute about the applicant’s income as she is a T4 employee and her income can be determined in a straightforward manner.
[70] The applicant’s annual rent is estimated to be at least $26,400, which represents approximately 42 percent of her total gross income, which indicates a financial need. Rent is a basic and unavoidable expense, and the applicant is likely to face difficulty meeting this obligation when additional accommodation‑related costs are considered.
[71] The respondent also alleges that there has been a decrease in the applicant’s debt by $105,000 and that her assets have increased. However, a review of her financial statement reveals that her assets and bank accounts have only nominally increased since the date of separation and that her debt has not decreased. Her financial statement has left certain debt amounts blank, such as the current mortgage debt, which results in an artificial impression that debt has decreased.
[72] The fact that the respondent has been covering expenses and carrying costs relating to the matrimonial home including groceries and other child related expenses suggests that the parties have had economic interdependence that developed as result of their 17 and a half years together. It is wholly reasonable that the applicant would have developed elements of reliance and expectation as a result of this long marriage.
[73] The respondent disputes that the applicant is entitled to compensatory support as she was not hindered in her ability to pursue her career goals, and he did not realize professional gains at her expense.
[74] The respondent deposes that he was an equal participant in all domestic responsibilities, including household tasks and child rearing.
[75] However, there appears to be no dispute that the applicant took at least four years off during the parties’ 17-and-a-half-year relationship and only returned to work when the youngest child started junior kindergarten.
[76] There also appears to be no dispute that the applicant worked for the respondent’s business for a number of years, though the extent of her contribution to the business was not detailed. The court concludes that there must have been some loss of earning capacity based on the four years the applicant was out of the job market, given that she was out of the job market for almost 25 percent of the parties’ relationship.
[77] The applicant has met the threshold of prima facie entitlement to spousal support. Once the matrimonial home is sold and the applicant vacates the property, there must be some arrangement in place for interim support.
Respondent’s Income
[78] The applicant seeks to impute the respondent’s income to $180,000 which the respondent claims is not grounded in facts. The applicant derived this number from the respondent’s February 18, 2026, Form 13.1 Financial Statement, which lists annual expenses of $180,239. The applicant submits that the respondent’s income should be imputed to an amount equal to his annual expenses because if he can pay the expenses, it follows that his income must be at least that amount.
[79] The respondent asks this court to set his income at $37,143 as reflected on his 2025 T4 income.
[80] I have already determined that the respondent’s T4 income is not an appropriate measure for the reasons outlined above.
[81] The court and parties may benefit from the expert report the respondent agreed to produce to determine his income for support purposes. Until that report is ready, the court must determine what income to impute to the respondent.
[82] Section 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 permits the court to impute income to a party as it considers appropriate.
[83] Parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed: Drygala v. Pauli 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (Ont. C.A.).
[84] The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, 248 O.A.C. 168, at para. 28.
[85] Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663, 15 R.F.L. (7th) 344, at para. 57; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719, at para. 66.
[86] Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to them: Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548, at para. 57; Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583, at para. 38.
[87] On the facts of this case, the court may consider the total yearly expenses disclosed in a respondent’s Form 13.1 Financial Statement to assess whether the reported income is consistent with actual spending. Generally, where the disclosed expenses exceed what could reasonably be supported by the stated income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and impute income accordingly.
[88] Several Form 13.1 Financial Statements were filed in connection with this motion and the motion returnable March 5, 2023.
[89] In his sworn Financial Statement dated January 26, 2025, the respondent reported total yearly expenses of $148,933.44.
[90] In his sworn Financial Statement dated February 18, 2026, the respondent reported total yearly expenses of $180,239.76.
[91] In his sworn Financial Statement dated March 20, 2026, the respondent reported total yearly expenses of $98,621.16.
[92] It is unclear how or why the respondent’s sworn evidence reflected a decrease in his yearly expenses by $80,000 over the course of one month.
[93] The court cannot rely on the respondent’s budget because those details were never provided in his three financial statements.
[94] In exercising discretion to impute income to the respondent, it is important to consider the best evidence of the respondent’s means and the objectives of the Guidelines, which is to establish fair support.
[95] There are no reliable indicators of the respondent’s income, and the court must therefore rely on his own evidence regarding his expenses. However, the unexplained inconsistencies in his reported annual expenses suggest that the information provided may not be reliable.
[96] The court will rely on the respondent’s sworn evidence regarding his yearly expenses, however, rather than accepting the highest yearly expenses as stated in one of the three financial statements filed, this court will average the three listed yearly expenses and set that amount as his income for support purposes on an interim without prejudice basis. The average is $142,598.12.
[97] Based on the respondent’s income of $142,598.12 and the applicant’s income of $63,122, child support payable for the two younger children on a shared parenting regime amount to $1,080 per month. Using the with child support formula, the range of spousal support is as follow: $348 low end range, $968 mid range, and $1,556 high end range
[98] At this interim stage, I see no basis to depart from the mid‑range. This is not being used as a default position rather, it reflects that the strength of the applicant’s compensatory and non‑compensatory claims is yet to be tested, as has the parties’ respective net disposable income.
Orders
[99] Temporary order to issue in the form signed by me today.
[100] Pursuant to the Divorce Act, temporary order to issue as follows:
Commencing the first day of the first month following the sale of the matrimonial home, and on the first day of each month thereafter, the respondent shall pay to the applicant Table child support in the monthly amount of $1,080 per month for the benefit of Juliana Sofia Escobar born April 16, 2011 and Ruben Edgardo Escobar born November 26, 2014, based on a shared parenting regime and the applicant's income of $63,122 and the respondent's imputed income off $142,598.
Commencing on the first day of the first month following the sale of the matrimonial home, and on the first day of each month thereafter, the respondent shall pay spousal support to the applicant in the monthly amount of $968, based on his imputed income of $142,598 and the applicant’s income of $63,122.
On consent, there shall be no order as to costs of this motion.
Support Deduction Order and Support Deduction Order Information to issue.
Separate temporary order to issue in the form signed by me today.
K. SAH J.
Date: April 10, 2026