CITATION: Irvine v. Irvine, 2026 ONSC 2321
COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-35464-000
DATE: 20260423
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JACKLYNE IRVINE
Applicant
– and –
REGAN IRVINE
Respondent
Self-represented Applicant
No one appearing for the Respondent
HEARD: In writing
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
M.D. FAIETA, J.
[1] These reasons relate to an uncontested trial that was heard in writing. The parties separated about seven years ago following a five-year long marriage. There are no children of the marriage. Amongst other things, the applicant claims spousal support.
Background
[2] The parties commenced cohabitation on December 1, 2012. The applicant was about 22 years old (born in December 1990) and the respondent was about 33 years old (born in May 1979). They were married in Toronto on March 29, 2014 and separated in July 2019 after about six and a half years of cohabitation. There are no children of the marriage.
[3] The applicant states that throughout the relationship, she worked full-time as co-owner of their restaurant, The Irv Gastro Pub, managing staff and operations, and contributing extensive unpaid labour through repairs, renovations, and administrative duties. She states that since separation, the respondent has claimed that the applicant never owned the business. The applicant states that she sacrificed her own career opportunities and financial independence in reliance on the respondent's assurances that their joint businesses and investments would provide lasting financial stability.
[4] The applicant states that the respondent used her good credit extensively to secure loans, lines of credit, and property and vehicle financing that he could not have obtained independently.
[5] The applicant states that in 2018, the respondent opened a second restaurant in the applicant's name without her independent consent. She states that, unlike the first restaurant, which the parties built together and initially operated successfully, the second business was mismanaged by the respondent and abruptly shut down just before the COVID-19 Pandemic. This closure left over $100,000 in debts to the vendors and employees which were registered against the applicant. The applicant states that she spent about three years dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency to remove herself from the business title and to be released from liability without assistance from the respondent.
[6] Following their separation in 2019, the applicant made several attempts to have the respondent sign a separation agreement that reflected his responsibility for the outstanding debts. The applicant states that the respondent repeatedly evading signing the agreement.
[7] As a result, the applicant states that she was left with significant personal debt, maxed out credit cards and Lines of Credit, and long-term financial instability. Since their separation, the applicant states that she has had to restart her life, renting an apartment she can barely afford alone and depleting her savings to cover bills, debts, and expenses caused by the respondent's consistent defaults.
[8] The applicant states that the respondent has a history of successfully operating restaurants and other businesses and is fully capable of generating income. However, he consistently mismanages funds, conceals earnings, and avoids financial accountability by placing assets and business interests in his mother's name. The applicant states that the respondent’s pattern of hiding income and delaying or avoiding payment of obligations demonstrates an intentional effort to evade responsibility rather than an inability to pay.
[9] The applicant requests that the respondent be ordered to reimburse her or assume full responsibility for the following debts that she has incurred for his benefit:
(a) RBC Line of Credit (approx. $18,651.74);
(b) RBC Credit Card (approx. $16,705.17); and
(c) The remaining balance of the financed vehicle registered in the applicant's name and used solely by the respondent, as well as any associated late fees, penalties, or interest charges. These amounts include all vehicle-related fines, 407 tolls, and traffic tickets issued in the applicant's name
(d) Payment of $57,000 attributable to the Applicant's equitable interest in their jointly owned matrimonial home that was sold in 2016.
(e) The applicant's legal costs in the amount of $1,500, including the $1,500 in costs previously awarded.
[10] The applicant asks that this court order a “lump-sum spousal support award of $150,000, … to fairly compensate the Applicant for her contributions, recognize the economic disadvantages she has suffered, including the unpaid portion of her equitable interest in the matrimonial home ($57,000), the debts incurred in her name that benefited the Respondent, and promote her financial independence without further reliance on the Respondent.”
[11] Alternatively, if the Court declines to make a lump sum award, the applicant requests that the respondent be ordered to pay monthly support in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, in the amount of $2,657.00 per month, for an unspecified number of months, in addition to full repayment of all debts described above.
Legal Proceedings
[12] This application was commenced in March 2024. The applicant sought an order for divorce, imputation of income to the respondent of $500,000, spousal support, an unequal division of net family property, damages for joint family venture, constructive or resulting trust, unjust enrichment, or quantum meruit.
[13] The respondent’s Answer sought an order dismissing the applicant’s claims other than an order for equalization of net family property. The respondent also sought an order for accounting and reconciliation of all payments made by the respondent to the applicant after the date of separation and for an order for post-separation adjustments in the respondent’s favour.
[14] On March 17, 2025, a case conference was held. The respondent, no longer represented by counsel, did not appear or file materials. The Court ordered that the respondent pay $1,500 in costs, granted leave to the applicant to bring a motion for interim spousal support and to proceed to an uncontested trial should the respondent continue to be unresponsive.
[15] On August 22, 2025, a settlement conference was held. The applicant filed a settlement conference brief, an updated financial statement, and an unsigned, draft Net Family Property Statement. Once again, the respondent did not appear or file materials. The Court ordered that the applicant shall proceed with an uncontested trial by way of a Form 23C (the “August 2025 Order”).
Uncontested Trials
[16] An “uncontested trial” means a trial at which only the party making the claim provides evidence and submissions: r. 2(1), Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (“FLR”).
[17] Rule 23(22) states that at an uncontested trial, evidence by affidavit in Form 14A or Form 23C and, if applicable, Forms 35.1 and 35.1A may be used without an order under clause 1 (7.2) (i), unless the court directs that oral evidence must be given.
[18] The August 2025 Order did not strike the respondent’s Answer. Given the definition of an “uncontested trial”, I find that the Answer, a financial statement, and other materials that the respondent filed in this proceeding shall not be considered at this trial as they are either the respondent’s evidence or submissions.
[19] Nevertheless, at an uncontested trial, a trial judge is not compelled to accept the applicant’s evidence at face value but rather is required to probe the applicant’s evidence to ensure a just result: Manchanda v. Thethi, 2021 ONCA 127, at para. 11.
[20] An uncontested trial “… should never be an invitation to engage in speculation” or “to invite the court to make an arbitrary Order”: K.L. v. T.L., 2024 ONSC 1444, 100 R.F.L. (8th) 159, at para. 6.
[21] Kristjanson J. comments in Cedeno v. Cedeno, 2023 ONSC 6686 are equally applicable here:
4 The Applicant did not file a factum. This is a trial. As a trial judge I must make findings of fact based on evidence. I must apply statutory provisions. I must consider the case law. An uncontested trial by Form 23C takes place in chambers. I was provided no assistance regarding how or why I should decide the case based on the affidavit evidence filed. I have had to make my own determinations of law in the absence of any submissions by the Applicant.
5 … A factum should be filed on an uncontested trial where the facts (a) are not simple, straightforward, and supported by well-organized documentary evidence, or (b) where a determination may depend on arguable issues of law. The factum should set out the evidence, the governing authorities, and statutory provisions, and tie the law to the facts. Otherwise, the risk is that a judge in Chambers, struggling for days (as is the case here) to make sense of a lengthy affidavit and exhibits, dealing with a bewildering number of issues, will draw conclusions the Applicant does not agree with.
7 An uncontested trial is not a rubber-stamp. While judges have discretion to require a party to produce additional evidence, or to provide oral evidence, it is not the judge's responsibility to cure deficiencies in an applicant's record. Busy Family lists mean it is difficult for a judge to engage in multiple rounds of fact-finding through back and forth with counsel or a party. An uncontested trial is a trial, set for a full hearing, and determination, on the date it is assigned to the judge.
[22] The applicant relies on her Form 14A affidavit, and Form 23C affidavit, both sworn October 27, 2025. The applicant did not submit a factum in support of her claims.
Divorce
[23] The relevant legal principles for obtaining a divorce were described by Chappel J. in J.M.M. v. C.R.M., 2025 ONSC 3067, at paras. 224-227. The parties have been separated for more than six years without reconciliation. There is no prospect of reconciliation. There is no evidence in support of any bars to granting a divorce. Having reviewed the marriage and clearance certificates, I am satisfied that neither party has commenced another divorce proceeding. Accordingly, a divorce order shall issue in the usual form.
[24] The means of the parties, including their assets, must be considered under s. 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), when determining spousal support. Thus, as a matter of law, the calculation of the equalization payment must always precede the analysis of a claim for spousal support: Greenglass v. Greenglass, 2010 ONCA 675, 99 R.F.L. (6th) 271, at para. 44. Accordingly, I turn to consider the applicant’s property claim before her spousal support claim.
Property/Financial Claims
[25] The applicant has merged a claim for the repayment of debts and other things, along with her claim for spousal support (past and future), into a single claim for which she seeks a lump sum payment of $150,000.
[26] Aside from spousal support, the applicant seeks:
a) reimbursement of debts related to RBC Line of Credit and RBC Credit Card;
b) payment of $57,000 representing the applicant’s one-half share of the net proceeds of sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home that was sold prior to separation;
c) an order that a 2018 Jeep Wrangler be transferred into the respondent’s name; and
d) reimbursement of vehicle financing, Highway 407 tolls, and traffics related to the respondent’s use of the 2018 Jeep Wrangler.
[27] The first issue to be addressed is whether any of these claims are captured by the equalization of property provisions established under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”) or whether they represent a post-separation adjustment.
[28] If a claim is captured by the equalization provisions of the FLA, then the following principles apply:
(a) Section 5 of the FLA establishes a right to an equalization payment through the division of each spouse’s net family properties. It is designed to remedy unjust enrichment between married spouses arising from the marriage. Thus equalization (and, if needed, an unequal division under s. 5(6) where it would otherwise be unconscionable) in most cases fully addresses any enrichment/deprivation. The principles related to the calculation of an equalization payment are described in J.M.M., at paras. 514-523.
(b) In Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14, 118 O.R. (3d) 522, Hoy A.C.J.O, stated at paras. 64, 66:
[64] In McNamee v. McNamee (2011), 106 O.R. (3d) 401, [2011] O.J. No. 3396, 2011 ONCA 533, at para. 66, this court stated that"in the vast majority of cases, any unjust enrichment that arises as the result of a marriage will be fully addressed through the operation of the equalization provisions under the Family Law Act". …
[66] In my view, if unjust enrichment as the result of a marriage has been found, and it has been determined that monetary damages can suffice, the aggrieved party's entitlement under the equalization provisions of the FLA should first be calculated. Where appropriate, s. 5(6) of the FLA, which provides for an unequal division of net family properties where equalization would be unconscionable, should be invoked.
[29] Thus, the first step is to determine whether the claims advanced by the applicant arise after the date of separation or whether they are claims that arise before the date of separation and therefore are captured by the equalization provisions of the FLA.
Reimbursement of RBC Debts
[30] The applicant seeks reimbursement for her RBC Line of Credit ($18,651.74) and RBC Credit Card ($16,705.17) held in the Applicant's name. No particulars are provided to support this claim. There is no explanation of when these debts arose, how these amounts are calculated and why these are owed by the respondent to her. There is no evidence of whether the respondent has partially reimbursed the applicant for these debts. A copy of the relevant RBC statements were not attached to either of the applicant’s affidavits.
[31] The applicant is granted leave to file additional evidence and submissions in respect of this claim.
Equitable Share of the Matrimonial Home
[32] The applicant states that she is entitled to “…reimbursement of my equitable share of the net proceeds from the sale, approximately $57,000” from the sale of their matrimonial home that was sold about three years prior to the date of separation.
[33] The applicant states that there were net proceeds of sale of about $115,000-$116,000 from the 2016 sale of their matrimonial home in East York. The applicant advances this claim based on “constructive trust/resulting trust, joint family venture, or equitable tracing pursuant to Quantum Meruit or Unjust Enrichment Claims”. The applicant states that the net proceeds of sale were deposited entirely into the respondent's business account and that she did not receive any portion of these funds. The applicant states that the respondent used the net proceeds of sale to repay his business debts owed to his mother.
[34] It appears that this pre-separation inter-spousal transfer of assets would likely be reflected in the calculation of net family property as the use of those funds would have reduced the applicant’s assets and increased the respondent’s assets by decreasing business debt.
[35] Further, the respondent’s use of funds to pay his business debts would not have entitled the applicant to an unequal share of net family property unless the respondent recklessly or intentionally incurred debts in reduction of his net family property: T.N.F. v M.J.V.A., 2018 ONSC 3310, para. 103.
[36] The applicant is granted leave to file additional evidence in respect of this claim.
2018 Jeep Wrangler
[37] The applicant is the sole registered owner of a 2018 Jeep Wrangler which is solely used by the respondent. The applicant states:
The Respondent continues to use and possess the vehicle financed in my name, a 2018 Jeep Wrangler, which he obtained by trading our previous vehicle without my knowledge or consent.
I was not present when this transaction occurred, and I only learned afterward that the new vehicle had again been financed in my name. I do not have paperwork the Respondent originally received from Toronto Chrysler.
[38] There is no indication of when this automobile was purchased.
[39] The applicant asks for an order that:
a) The 2018 Jeep Wrangler be transferred into the respondent’s sole name; or
b) That the respondent pay off the vehicle financing in full to relieve the applicant from all financial and legal responsibility for it.
[40] The applicant has not described the legal authority to make either order.
Automobile Financing, Fines and Tolls
[41] The applicant states that bi-weekly payments of about $400 are withdrawn from her bank account to pay for the 2018 Jeep Wrangler. As noted below, the applicant states that she has suffered financial hardship as a result of “late vehicle payments”. From this statement, I assume that the respondent has reimbursed for such payments, albeit late.
[42] The applicant states:
Since January 2025, the Respondent has incurred approximately 35 speeding tickets linked the 2018 Jeep Wrangler, all issued in my name, as well as numerous parking tickets and traffic-related fines. This repeated conduct demonstrates a disregard for public safety, legal obligations, and my ongoing responsibility, as I continue to receive all tickets, fines, and related notices for a vehicle he alone uses and controls. I continue to receive new fines in the mail to the Respondent's ongoing use of the vehicle, totalling nearly $4,000 so far this year, excluding several newly issued tickets that remain unpaid. Attached and marked as Exhibit "F" is a Credit Karma Report confirming that the vehicle financing remains in my name.
Attached and marked as Exhibit "G" are copies of traffic tickets and fines that I have personally received on the Respondent's behalf, several of which remain unpaid.
I have paid or covered numerous obligations on the Respondent's behalf, including vehicle financing, 407 tolls, and traffic fines. Although the Respondent occasionally reimburses me some of these amounts after constant reminders, the payments are consistently delayed, by months, resulting in accumulating interest and repeated financial stress. Because the vehicle remains registered in my name, I have been compelled to pay certain fines directly avoid consequences to my driver's licence status and my ability to renew my vehicle's licence plates. Attached and marked as Exhibit "H" are copies of text message exchanges, in reverse chronological order spanning from 2025 to 2021, documenting my repeated reminders to the Respondent to fulfill his obligations for the bi-weekly vehicle payments for the 2018 Jeep Wrangler in his sole possession, and the payment of parking and traffic fines issued in my name. I am exhausted from having to constantly monitor, remind, and manage the Respondent's financial responsibilities as though I were his personal assistant rather than former spouse.
As a result of having to regularly pay the Respondent's expenses out of my own pocket, including the bi-weekly vehicle payments, I have been unable to live a normal or enjoyable My financial resources have consistently gone toward covering his obligations rather than own needs. I have had to forgo personal expenses, savings, and opportunities due to this ongoing burden, and have even been forced to live off my own Scotia Credit Card to meet basic living expenses. This has caused continued stress and financial insecurity since our separation.
As of the date of this Affidavit, the Respondent remains in arrears for several of these obligations, including outstanding traffic fines, 407 tolls, and late vehicle payments. His repeated non-compliance continues to cause me financial hardship, damage my credit, and create ongoing stress as I am forced to manage and resolve debts that are solely the result his actions.
Given the Respondent's ongoing pattern of financial neglect and evasion, I respectfully request that any and all Financial Orders be made by this Honourable Court: by enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) pursuant to sections 17 and 18 of the Divorce Act, to ensure compliance and prevent further hardship. [Emphasis added]
[43] The applicant should file proof of the amount that she has paid towards this automobile loan and the amount that she has been reimbursed.
[44] The applicant has attached to her affidavit about 36 notices of violations issued by speed cameras from about October 2024 to October 2025. Even though she seeks reimbursement for these fines, the applicant did not calculate the total amount of these fines, proof that she has paid these amounts nor proof of any amounts that she has reimbursed for these fines.
[45] The applicant also attached a five-page statement to her affidavit that lists 55 traffic ticket violation notices from March 2017 to November 2024 which indicate that each of the fines has been paid. The list does not indicate the car involved or the amount of the fine. Once again, even though she seeks reimbursement for these violations, the applicant did not calculate the total amount of these fines, proof that she has paid these amounts nor proof of any amounts that she has reimbursed for these fines.
[46] The applicant reference Highway 407 fines but provided no proof of any fine, payment or reimbursement.
[47] In short, the applicant has not indicated how much of the various fines she has paid nor has she stated how of that amount she has been reimbursed by the respondent given that she acknowledges some reimbursement.
[48] The applicant is granted leave to file additional evidence in respect of this claim.
Imputation of Income
[49] The applicant, at para. 36(b), submits that the respondent’s income should be imputed at $300,000 “… given his failure to provide a full and complete financial disclosure, including business income and related records”.
[50] The applicant states that the respondent has only provided the Court with a single T4 from one of his businesses, reflecting a self-paid salary of approximately $124,000, which does not accurately represent his true income or profits. Based on his lifestyle and available evidence, the applicant requests that the Court impute an annual income of $300,000 for the purposes of determining spousal support.
[51] A payor’s income for spousal support purposes is calculated in the same manner as income for child support purposes under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 (“Guidelines”): Slongo v. Slongo, 2017 ONCA 272, 137 O.R. (3d) 654, at para. 130.
[52] Sections 15, 16 and 19 of the Guidelines state, in part, that:
Determination of annual income
15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a spouse’s annual income is determined by the court in accordance with sections 16 to 20.
Calculation of annual income
16 Subject to sections 17 to 20, a spouse’s annual income is determined using the sources of income set out under the heading “Total income” in the T1 General form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency and is adjusted in accordance with Schedule III. …
Imputing income
19 (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following:
(a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse;
(b) the spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax;
(c) the spouse lives in a country that has effective rates of income tax that are significantly lower than those in Canada;
(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these Guidelines;
(e) the spouse’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate income;
(f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so;
(g) the spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income;
(h) the spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax; and
(i) the spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or other benefits from the trust. [Emphasis added.]
[53] In Mason v. Mason, 2016 ONCA 725, 132 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 161, Simmons J.A. stated:
The purpose of ss. 15 to 20 [of the Guidelines] is to arrive at a number that fairly and fully reflects the payor's income. The default is that this number will simply be determined using line 150 income. Where, however, the court determines that this default determination would be unfair, the Guidelines permit an expanded view of income.
[54] Additional principles for the imputation of income, whether retroactively or prospectively are summarized in Evans v. Evans, 2023 ONSC 3919, at para. 77.
[55] In Kohli v. Thom, 2025 ONCA 200, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated, at para. 108:
The decision to impute income as part of the calculation of support is discretionary. The only limitation to that discretion is that there must be some evidentiary basis for the amount of income imputed.
[56] The respondent’s financial statement is not in evidence given that this is an uncontested trial that uses only the evidence that the applicant has placed before this Court. Had the applicant wished, she could have put the respondent’s financial statement, tax returns, and notices of assessment (assuming they were provided with the financial statement) into evidence to explain why it would be unfair to rely on the respondent’s stated income of $124,000. The applicant states that it would be unfair to do so based on “… on his lifestyle and available evidence”. There is no such evidence before the Court. As noted, income cannot be arbitrarily imputed. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that explains why an annual income of $300,000, as opposed to any other amount, should be imputed to the respondent.
[57] The applicant is granted leave to file additional evidence in respect of this claim.
Spousal Support
[58] If a lump sum payment of $150,000 is not awarded, the applicant claims $2,658 per month in spousal support. According to the calculations that she provided, this amount is based on the applicant’s income of $10,083 and the respondent’s imputed income of $300,000.
[59] The principles related to spousal support were outlined by Chappel J . in J.M.M., at paras. 721-759.
[60] Spousal support may be awarded on a compensatory, non-compensatory, or contractual basis: Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1999 715 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420, at paras. 15, 43.
[61] In R.L. v. M.F., 2025 ONCA 595, 19 R.F.L. (9th) 39, at para. 28, Roberts J.A. explained the difference between compensatory and non-compensatory grounds for spousal support as follows:
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.
[62] There is no evidence that the parties entered a contract which provided that the respondent would provide spousal support to the applicant, and thus the entitlement must be based on or more of the other two grounds.
[63] In her affidavit, the applicant states
I believe I am entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory basis. I was financially dependent on the Respondent throughout the marriage, and at the end of our relationship has left me bearing significant business-related debts incurred for his benefit. The resulting financial hardship and disparity in living standards between us justify a spousal support award that fairly recognizes these circumstances.
[64] In her Form 14A affidavit, the applicant claims spousal support for the following reasons:
Since separation, the Respondent has not made regular or adequate contributions toward my living expenses and has left me responsible for numerous shared debts. After nearly five years of marriage, and seven years of cohabitating, I have been left in a position of significant financial disadvantage and ongoing hardship.
The Respondent has a history of failing to make payments on-time and of placing assets or business interests under his mother's name to avoid financial responsibility. His conduct during and after the marriage has left me with substantial personal debt, high interest obligations, and continued financial stress.
Following our separation, I was left in a position of significant financial disadvantage. I continue to struggle to meet my basic needs while maintaining payments on debts from the marriage and the vehicle financing, that remain solely in my name. The Respondent continues to live a comfortable lifestyle, with high personal and business expenses suggesting he is capable of earning at the very least, $300,000 per year from all sources.
During our marriage, I worked full-time at our jointly owned restaurant, The Irv Gastro Pub, serving/bartending, managing staff, handling operations, and performing extensive unpaid work such as renovations, and administrative duties. I relied on the Respondent's assurance that our shared business and investments would provide long-term financial stability, and I sacrificed my own independent career and income opportunities to support his ventures.
Many of the debts in my name were incurred for the Respondent's benefit and used for his businesses, which he later claimed I had no ownership or interest in. Because he had poor credit, he persuaded me to open a Line of Credit and a credit card in my name during our relationship to support his ventures. As I was much younger and inexperienced at the time, I relied on his assurances that he would make all payments and that the debt would be temporary. Since separation, I have been forced to carry on these debts alone to protect my credit and avoid default.
[65] The applicant’s Notice of Assessment for 2024 shows a total Line 15000 income of $10,086. For 2023, this figure was $13,605. The applicant’s financial statement sworn August 14, 2025 states that she lives alone on an income of $33,300 per year with $50,592 per year in expenses. However, debt (primarily credit card debt and a line of credit) has only increased by about $18,000 since the date of separation.
[66] The amount and duration of spousal support is informed by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAG”): Carol Rogerson & Rollie Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2016).
[67] The applicant should have particular regard to pages 24-28 of the SSAG regarding short marriages where there are no dependent children and pages 45-48 to determine the appropriate range for spousal support. The spousal support calculation provided by the applicant was not a DivorceMate calculation and did not show the ranges for spousal support. If the applicant seeks an amount of spousal support outside the range suggested by SSAG, then she shall explain why the SSAG does not an appropriate result: Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11, at para.103.
[68] The applicant is granted leave to file additional evidence in respect of her income, the justification for the payment of spousal support on a compensatory and non-compensatory basis, and the appropriate amount/range for spousal support. I also direct that applicant file her tax return and notice of assessment, if available, for 2025.
Order
[69] Order to go that:
(a) By May 29, 2026, the applicant: (1) may file additional evidence in support of her claims; and (2) shall file her income tax return and notice of assessment, if available, for 2025; (3) shall file a DivorceMate calculation in respect of her claim for spousal support; and (4) shall file a factum that addresses each of the applicant’s claims other than her claim for a divorce.
(b) A divorce order shall issue in the usual form.
[70] The applicant should seek legal advice. Further, the applicant may wish to review the information for self-represented persons in a family law proceeding available on this Court’s website:
https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/areas-of-law/family/help-self-represented/
Justice M.D. Faieta
Released: April 23, 2026
CITATION: Irvine v. Irvine, 2026 ONSC 2321
COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-35464-000
DATE: 20260423
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JACKLYNE IRVINE
Applicant
– and –
REGAN IRVINE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice M.D. Faieta
Released: April 23, 2026