Court File and Parties
CITATION: KULKARNI v. GUPTA 2026 ONSC 2887 COURT FILE NO: FS-21-00099480-0000 DATE: 2026-05-22
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton ON L6W 4T6
Reasons for Decision on Motions Heard: April 16, 2026
Applicant: Vishal Kulkarni Counsel: Self-represented (vishal.kulkarni.ca@gmail.com)
Respondent: Meenakshi Gupta Counsel: Hannah Kazman (hannah@sdslawfirm.com)
Before: Justice McGee
Result
1These reasons
a. Follow on the final Order of Justice Kumaranayake dated November 26, 2024, (“the final Order,”) and the resulting Costs decision of May 21, 2026,
b. dismiss Mr. Kulkarni’s urgent Motion dated March 31, 2026 to stay the potential enforcement of monies payable by him to his former spouse, Ms. Gupta pursuant to the final Order,
c. grant a stay of the enforcement of child support and arrears pending further submissions on whether arrears and/or ongoing child support payable by Ms. Gupta should be set off against the monies owed by Mr. Kulkarni pursuant to the final Order.
2In doing so, I analysis two issues:
a. What are the steps available to enforce property terms in a final Order, and when can a stay of enforcement be granted?
b. When can child support arrears and ongoing child support be set off against monies (such as equalization, costs and post separation adjustments) owed by the recipient spouse to the payer spouse?
Brief Background
3The parties are former spouses who separated in June of 2018 after 11 years of marriage. They are the parents of two children now 15 and 11.
4Mr. Kulkarni issued this Application on January 25, 2021 seeking only an Order for Divorce, and Ms. Gupta answered on March 1, 2021 with a claim for parenting terms, child and spousal support, an equalization payment and other terms arising from the end of their relationship.
5A difficult and protracted course of litigation ensued over the next three years.
6Ms. Gupta sought basic disclosure from Mr. Kulkarni through a series of conferences and motions, including a motion to strike his pleadings. Mr. Kulkarni proved to be an elusive opponent. Usually representing himself, he acted at every instance to hinder and delay the determination of any financial obligations to his former spouse. He was largely able to do so because he gained primary residency of the children, and as a business system analysist for a major bank, was able to change the nature of his income from that of a T4 employee to a self-employed contractor.
7Ms. Gupta, always on the back foot and devastated by her lack of contact with their children was an unorganized, on-again, off-again self-represented litigant who did not always complete the legal tasks necessary to advance her case.
8The matter limped onto the January 2024 Trial sittings despite Mr. Kulkarni’s repeated and sustained efforts to obtain an adjournment. On four separate occasions he asked for an adjournment of the Trial after failing to appear, not filing materials and citing various hardships. At no time did he ever file a Trial Record.
9The matter was in such disarray that on the first day of Trial, Justice Kumaranayake had to conduct a Trial Management Conference. Both parties were self represented. She organized the Trial and provided the parties with a further period to prepare. Only then did Mr. Kulkarni file a sworn Financial Statement, which it appears from Case Centre that he had never previously done.1
10At Trial, Ms. Gupta testified that she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic depression attributable to the events of the marriage and that a series of major depressive episodes had resulted in a hospitalized in July of 2022. At the time of Trial, Ms. Gupta had been qualified for an eight-month leave of absence from her work.
11The Trial was ultimately heard over nine days from January 15 to 26, 2024.
12In her comprehensive and lengthy Reasons for Judgment released November 26, 2024, Justice Kumaranayake set out the background of the marriage, how each party and the children had fared since the date of separation, noted the net sale proceeds remaining in trust from the January 2020 sale of the parties’ jointly owned matrimonial home, and made the following final Orders which are relevant to the two s before me this day.
a. The children were to continue to primarily reside with Mr. Kulkarni.
b. Ms. Gupta was to pay table child support of $1,655 per month from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023, being the table amount for two children on her income of $115,000, with credit for any amounts already paid. Child support was suspended from January 1, 2024, to August 31, 2024 while she was on an unpaid leave of absence, and was to recommence on September 1, 2024 in the continuing amount of $1,655 per month.
c. Mr. Kulkarni was to pay $7,303 to Ms. Gupta in arrears for his share of childcare expenses incurred between 2019 to 2020.
d. Mr. Kulkarni was to pay to Ms. Gupta an equalization payment of $11,605.97.
e. Mr. Kulkarni was to pay $94,010.81 to Ms. Gupta calculated as follows:
i. $55,598.81 in post separation adjustments related to the joint mortgage,
ii. $4,500, being the total of four unpaid costs Orders,
iii. $27,063 to reimburse Ms. Gupta for Mr. Kulkarni’s unauthorized use of her credit card, and
iv. $6,849 to reimburse Ms. Gupta for her payment of Mr. Kulkarni’s tax arrears and accounting fees.
f. To partially satisfy the amount of $94,010.81, Mr. Kulkarni’s one-half share of the remaining sale proceeds from the jointly owned home: $29,534.58, was to be paid to Ms. Gupta. The remaining balance of $64,476.23 was to be paid to Ms. Gupta within 30 days.
13No spousal support was ordered at Trial because neither party had made a claim for spousal support. Moreover, Justice Kumaranayake found that the parties’ incomes were almost the same: Mr. Kulkarni had a history of earning $112,000 plus benefits and bonus as a T4 business systems analysis and could be presumed to be earning at least that amount as a self-employed contractor, and Ms. Gupta’s income had consistently been in the amount of $115,000 but for her period of leave.
14Neither party successfully appealed the final Order (Mr. Kulkarni attempted but failed to complete the steps necessary) and after a period of time, the final Order and the Support Deduction Order were issued and entered by court staff.
15Enforcement of the parties’ obligations under the final Order quickly grew asymmetrical. While the Family Responsibility Office enforced the monthly child support amount of $1,655 payable by Ms. Gupta, Mr. Kulkarni refused to pay the amount of $64,476.23.
16He also refused to close the joint bank accounts the parties previously held at the CIBC, the TD and the State Bank of India, and to acknowledge to the FRO monies that Ms. Gupta paid to him for child support in 2023.
17In reasons released May 21, 2026, Justice Kumaranayake ordered Mr. Kulkarni to pay costs of $35,000 inclusive to Ms. Gupta towards her costs for the trial.
Confirming Terms in the final Order
18I will take this opportunity to clarify and confirm two issues from the final Order: crediting the monies paid by Ms. Gupta to Mr. Kulkarni in 2023 for child support, and the payment of daycare costs.
Crediting of Monies Paid in 2023
19In ordinary course, the FRO would internally address this issue through a Statement of Arrears. Counsel for Ms. Gupta indicates that there has been some breakdown in communication with the FRO, primarily because the support recipient, Mr. Kulkarni, refuses to acknowledge deemed credits to the FRO.
20In the record before me on this motion, Ms. Gupta attaches proof of payment of two amounts totalling $12,531.00 to Mr. Kulkarni in February of 2023. In his reply affidavit dated April 14, 2026, Mr. Kulkarni agrees that $12,531 was paid to him but disputes to what purpose they should be a credit. I find there is no other purpose to which the monies can be credited. Neither does Mr. Kulkarni suggest that there is any other purpose.
21Order to issue that pursuant to paragraph 8 of the final Order dated January 26, 2024, the amount of $12,531 is a credit to the payment of child support.
Crediting of the Daycare Costs
22In the ordinary course, a separate Support Deduction Order would have been issued by Court Staff, requiring Mr. Kulkarni to pay Ms. Gupta the amount of $7,303 as his proportionate share of daycare costs incurred from 2019 to 2020.
23This step appears to have been overlooked or perhaps is yet to progress. Counsel for Ms. Gupta indicated during the motion that she was making efforts to correct this oversight. Out of an abundance of caution, I will make an Order that achieves this end without the need to issue a second SDO.
24Order to issue that pursuant to the final Order dated January 26, 2024, the amount of $7,303 is a credit to the payment of child support.
Mr. Kulkarni brings an Urgent Motion for a Stay of the Amounts he is Ordered to Pay to Ms. Gupta
The Motion
25As set out in the brief factual background, Mr. Kulkarni refused to pay the monies owed by him pursuant to the final Order. Ms. Gupta retained counsel to write to him from time to time, demanding payment.
26On March 23, 2026, counsel for Ms. Gupta wrote to Mr. Kulkarni on a final basis seeking payment of the outstanding monies, failing which, enforcement steps would be taken. Counsel proposed that the amount owing be reduced by Ms. Gupta’s child support arrears, stated in the letter to be $33,808.51. That amount was in error because the FRO case report before me on this motion dated April 9, 2026 shows a balance of $45,690. The balance must again be corrected because I have now ordered that the amounts of $12,531 and $7,303 are a credit to the child support arrears.
27A week after counsel’s demand letter, on March 31, 2026, Mr. Kulkarni brought this urgent Notice of Motion asking the court for a temporary stay of enforcement of the monies owed by him under the final Order. Specifically, he asks that
a. Pending further Order of the court, enforcement of the financial provisions of the Order shall be temporarily stayed, and that
b. No garnishment or further collection or enforcement steps shall be taken against wages, bank accounts, income or other assets pending further Order of the court.
28He states in his affidavit of the same date that he is experiencing severe financial hardship and is unable to “absorb further enforcement without serious prejudice to [his] ability to meet basis living expenses.” He cites fairness concerns with the final Order and hardship occasioned by his obligation to pay his share of daycare costs owing since 2020, the equalization payment; and the amount of $64,476.23 which the reader is reminded includes his wrongful use of Ms. Gupta’s credit card, unpaid costs, and her assumption of his tax arrears and accounting fees.
29Mr. Kulkarni does not serve a current Financial Statement. The last Financial Statement filed in this proceeding is dated January 21, 2024.
30Mr. Kulkarni does file:
a. A November 13, 2025 Offer of Employment from Cognizant as a Guidewire Consultant, at the Manager level. The base salary is $135,400 with an additional Cost of Labour Adjustment of $229.17 per day, performance pay and benefits.
b. A self prepared, unsworn financial summary acknowledging after tax income of $93,840 offset by expenses of $8,257.
c. A March 31, 2026 Offer from National Credit Recovery Inc. to settle a MBNA Mastercard balance of $12,807.77 by payment of $6,500,
d. CRA arrears statement dated March 10, 2026 for $51,320.53, and
e. CRA Arrears Statement for Datartists Inc. of $47,536.35 presumably being a corporation in which Mr. Kulkarni is a shareholder, but for which there is no evidence that he is personally liable.
f. An offer from CIBC to extend his payment plan for a further six months.
Analysis
31Once a judgment or order for payment is issued, it becomes a debt enforceable by law. A creditor can enforce a judgment immediately upon issuance, unless the court grants a stay of enforcement pending appeal.
32Rule 60.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 provides that an order for the payment or recovery of money may be enforced by:
a. a writ of seizure and sale
b. garnishment
c. a writ of sequestration or
d. the appointment of a receiver.
33A stay of enforcement is a court order that temporarily stops a judgment creditor from collecting on a judgment. Section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 provides that a court, on its own initiative or on motion by any person, whether or not a party, may stay any proceeding in the court on such terms as are considered just.
34A stay of enforcement has limited application because it merely pauses collection activity, not the debt itself, giving the losing party time to appeal or to resolve related legal proceedings, such as an assignment in bankruptcy.
Conclusion – The Motion is Dismissed
35Here, there is no pending appeal or related legal proceeding. Mr. Kulkarni has brought his motion for a stay in the absence of any enforcement proceeding. A demand letter is not an enforcement proceeding. In effect, he asks the court to pre-emptively halt any intended enforcement of the final Order date January 26, 2024 because he is in a state of financial hardship. Such an order is not available in law.
36Moreover, the payment of monies pursuant to a court order is not a needs-based exercise. A court order is a court order irrespective of a parties’ ability to pay. The motion is dismissed.
Ms. Gupta’s brings a Motion to Set off Child Support
The Cross Motion
37Ms. Gupta responds to Mr. Kulkarni’s request to be relieved from his financial obligations by again proposing that the amounts owing to her be set off against her financial obligations for child support.
38As of the writing of this decision, the outstanding amount is $76,081.23 without interest. I calculate this as the equalization of $11,605 and the unpaid amount of $64,476.23 because the amount of $7,303 in daycare is now satisfied by a reduction in child support arrears owing by Ms. Gupta.
39If the amount of Trial costs is added, the outstanding amount owed is $111,081.23 ($76,081.23 + $35,000) of which $39,500 is costs ($4,500 + $35,000.)
40The amount of $111,081.23 is equivalent to a prepayment of just over 67 months (5 years and 7 months) of child support of $1,655 per month.
Analysis
41Section 111 of the Courts of Justice Act fully permits the set off of unrelated debts between the same parties:
Set off
111 (1) In an action for payment of a debt, the defendant may, by way of defence, claim the right to set off against the plaintiff’s claim a debt owed by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Same
(2) Mutual debts may be set off against each other even if they are of a different nature.
Judgment for defendant
(3) Where, on a defence of set off, a larger sum is found to be due from the plaintiff to the defendant than is found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to judgment for the balance.
42For set-off to succeed as the defence, the defendant must lead evidence that the two obligations are so closely connected that it would be unconscionable if the court did not permit set-off to apply to non-debtor obligations, such as unliquidated claims, against amounts at issue in the action. See Agwad Metals Inc. v. Dufferin Roofing Ltd. (1991), 46 C.P.C. (2nd)133 (Gen. Div.) and CIBC World Markets Inc. (CIBC Wood Gundy) v. Burgess, 2009 20342.
43In family law, courts have traditionally drawn a “bright white line” around setting off payments owed to a support payor against ongoing child support because child support is the right of the child and should therefore be unaffected by outstanding debts between the parents. But over time, that approach has lost traction as courts increasing recognize that economic interdependence between parents continues throughout the post separation parenting period. When a debtor spouse defaults on the property terms of a final Order, it directly impacts on the creditor spouse’s ability to meet her and the children’s financial needs.
44Starting with Peers v. Poupore, 2008 ONCJ 615, Justice Spence declined to follow previous caselaw and exercised his discretion to order set-off of ongoing child support obligations. At paragraph 61, he stated that the imposition of a blanket prohibition against such set-off orders would in some cases “give a support recipient licence to litigate and act as unreasonably as he or she saw fit, possibly with complete impunity.”
45By 2007 it was well established through appellate jurisprudence that costs awards payable by a child support recipient could be set off against arrears of child support owed by the payor, see Burisch v. Gosal, 2007 ONCA 569.
46In Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 7476, Justice Pazaratz considered the broader question what other amounts could be set off against child support, suggesting at para. 66 that:
…There may be some circumstances in which an equitable set-off of costs against child support may be appropriate: for example, where the claim was in relation to child support; where the set-off is against arrears of child support; and where it is clear that the set-off will not harm or diminish the child's lifestyle. But child support is a right of the child and should not be traded against unrelated obligations of a parent.
47In Collins v. Garmoe, 2012 ONCJ 643, Justice O’Connell determined that the court had jurisdiction to order set-off, adopting Justice Spence’s review of the case law in Peers v. Poupere. She reasoned that the children could suffer hardship if the court set off costs against ongoing child support, but that the same was not true regarding the setting off of costs against past child support arrears.
48In Ignjatov v Di Lauro, 2014 ONSC 7362, Justice Harvison Young also followed Peers and ordered set-off of child support. She noted that while courts should generally be reluctant to encroach on the child’s right to child support, in this case, the mother’s pattern of past conduct indicated a serious concern that she would not pay her outstanding costs: see paras. 25-28.
49In Berry v. Berry, 2014 ONSC 4146, the court ordered costs of a three-day Trial of $15,277.02, and that the costs be wholly set off against the applicant’s ongoing child support obligation.
50The Court of Appeal noted in Rego v. Santos, 2015 ONCA 540, that a set-off of costs against ongoing child support is unusual, but upheld a decision in which the motions judge had clearly made the order with the best interests of the child in mind. They quoted the motion judge’s decision which set out the unreasonable litigation conduct of the appellant (failure to pay the section 30 assessor’s retainer and being found in contempt of a parenting Order), stating at para. 12 that the set-off could be “structured to ensure the child does not suffer unduly adverse economic consequences.”
51In M.B. v. A.F., 2021 ONCJ 45, Finlayson J. further developed the analysis with respect to costs orders, reasoning that a costs order is a debt within the meaning of section 111 of the Courts of Justice Act, and that child support arrears owed to a recipient parent are likewise a debt owed to the recipient within the meaning of section 111. Accordingly, he held that a costs award in favour of the payor parent can be set off against child support arrears owed to a support recipient pursuant to section 111 of the Courts of Justice Act.
52Most recently, Justice Chappel summarized the law of set-off as it relates to child support and costs in M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2023 ONSC 3748. She ultimately exercised the court’s discretion to do so as a form of equitable relief writing at para. 82:
82If the court concludes that a significant costs award is appropriate in a Family Law case involving individuals of limited or modest means, it must give careful consideration to how the costs should be paid and the appropriate timeframe for payment. The determination of these issues is a highly discretionary exercise that requires the court to carefully weigh the objectives of costs awards, the factors relevant to the assessment of costs, the impact of the costs award on the liable party and any child in their care, the interest of the other party in obtaining redress for their costs in a timely manner, and the impact of delaying payment of the costs on that party. The ultimate goal in crafting an appropriate payment plan is to achieve a fair and just result that balances the rights and interests of all parties in a manner that respects the objectives of costs, so as to safeguard the integrity and efficiency of the administration of justice.
53She goes on at paragraph 83 to describe how the right of set-off arises in three circumstances: by agreement of the parties, by operation of statute (legal set-off) or in equity, citing M.P.A.N. v. J.N., 2018 ONCJ 769, at para. 271, per Finlayson J.; Telford v. Holt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 193 (S.C.C.), 1987 18 (SCC), at paras. 23-38.
54She concludes the following at para. 86 that:
86The determination of whether it is appropriate to set off costs against child support arrears or an ongoing child support obligation is ultimately a matter of judicial discretion that involves a careful consideration of the facts of each case, and a delicate balancing the interests of the parties involved, the best interests of any children in the support recipient’s care, all of the objectives of costs awards and the importance of ensuring that costs awards are in fact paid. This latter consideration must remain central to the analysis, since crafting a costs order that is doomed to be breached from the start erodes the legitimate expectation of litigants and the public that court orders will be respected, sends an inappropriate message to unreasonable litigants that they may litigate with impunity without financial consequences, and undermines the administration of justice as a whole.
55Ms. Gupta presents a compelling case that Mr. Kulkarni does have the means to pay the amounts owing to her pursuant to the final Order, but choses not to do so, while benefiting from the tax-payor funded enforcement of child support and his receipt of the Child Tax Benefit. She contrasts his personal and corporate debt levels disclosed in January 2024 to those contained in the exhibits attached to his affidavit to show that at a minimum, he has been able to reduce his corporate taxes by $35,887.65 over the past two years.
56She has also looked at his income as set out in the November 13, 2025 employment contract, deducted the statutory employment deductions and reduced his net income by his stated expenses (which include the children’s expenses.) The result is a net positive.
57I note in her calculation that she has missed the daily cost of living adjustment in the employment contract, which if accrued 365 days in a year totals an additional $83,647.05 net of tax income.
58Because Mr. Kulkarni has chosen not to serve and file a current Financial Statement, the actual value of that benefit is unknown. It may only accrue on days in which he is required to travel or be present in the office. In the absence of a sworn Financial Statement, it is also unclear if his current income generates a range of spousal support – an entitlement that has not been released and for which there is no limitation period.
59Mr. Kulkarni vociferously argues that he cannot meet the children’s financial needs without a full monthly payment of child support. He asks that no enforcement steps be taken against him because the balance of his finances are in peril.
Conclusion – A Stay is Granted Pending Further Calculations
60Child support is the right of a child and must not be conflated with the creditor-debtor relationship between the parents. At the same time, equity demands that debts be enforced between former spouses in equal measure provided that such enforcement does not materially disadvantage the children.
61The history of this proceeding fully supports an inference that Mr. Kulkarni will use every means available to him to defer and defeat financial obligations to his former spouse. I find that a blanket prohibition against set-off in these circumstances would provide Mr. Kulkarni with “a licence to litigate with impunity” as coined by Justice Spence in Peers v. Poupore.
62It is well settled that child support arrears can be set off against outstanding costs awards. As calculated in paragraph 39 above, $39,500 of the $111,081.23 owed to Ms. Gupta is for costs. With the adjustments of $12,531 and $7,303 also set out above, the child support arrears may now be at or nearing elimination.
63Should the ongoing child support also be set off against the balance owed to Ms. Gupta?
64I cannot answer whether it is possible to structure a set-off of ongoing child support in a manner that insures the children do not suffer a material disadvantage because Mr. Kulkarni has chosen not to place a current Financial Statement before me.
65The parties are to continue this Motion before me as set out below. In the interim, I stay the enforcement of child support arrears and ongoing child support payable by Ms. Gupta pending my further Order. In this manner, I incentivize Mr. Kulkarni to come to court with a full accounting of his income and his expenses.
66Order to issue staying the enforcement of any child support arrears and ongoing child support payable pursuant to the final Order.
67Support Deduction Order to issue accordingly.
Next Steps
68Mr. Kulkarni shall immediately serve and file a sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement with proof of current income, his full Income Tax Return and Notices of Assessment for 2024 and 2025 and proof of any section 7 expenses incurred for the children, if any.
69Within 60 days of service of his Financial Statement, Mr. Kulkarni may be questioned under oath, but only with respect to the veracity of his income and expenses.
70Within 30 days of serving his Financial Statement, Ms. Gupta shall serve a sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement with proof of current income, her full Income Tax Return and Notices of Assessment for 2024 and 2025.
71Within 60 days of service of her Financial Statement, Ms. Gupta may be questioned under oath, but only with respect to the veracity of her income as her expenses are not relevant to answering whether it is possible to structure a set-off of ongoing child support in a manner that insures the children do not suffer a material disadvantage.
72After each party has served a Financial Statement and questioning has been completed or waived, the parties may contact the Trial Coordinator to obtain a two hour in-person hearing before me. The purpose of the hearing shall be to determine
a. The remaining monies owed by Mr. Kulkarni which he is strongly encouraged to discharge in the interim. Should he do so, the hearing is cancelled, and the stay is lifted. An order to that effect can be obtained by 14B motion, to my attention.
b. The updated child support arrears, if any, that are owed by Ms. Gupta. To this end, she is to serve and file an updated Statement of Account from the FRO.
c. Whether it is possible to structure a set-off of child support arrears and/or ongoing child support in a manner that insures the children do not suffer a material disadvantage.
d. I will also determine any consequences arising from Mr. Kulkarni’s ongoing failure to close the joint bank accounts.
73Costs submissions on the dismissal of Mr. Kulkarni’s motion to pre-emptively stay the enforcement of the payments owed by him in the final Order, and costs on the result in Ms. Gupta’s motion for set off shall be timetabled at the hearing.