CITATION: Loundja v. Tshibitshiabu, 2026 ONSC 3161

COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-102534

DATE: 20260529

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Randy Loundja

Applicant

Amiteshwar Singh, for the Applicant

• and -

Kadima Tshibitshiabu

Respondent

Self Represented

• and -

Jefka Loundja

Respondent

Self Represented

• and -

Horby Loundja

Respondent

Self Represented

HEARD: March 25 and April 27, 2026

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Wilkinson J.

[1] This uncontested trial proceeded over two days. At the conclusion of the first day, I made several orders that are set out in my Judgment dated March 27, 2026.

[2] The balance of the issues for which there was insufficient time to address on March 25, 2026, were presented on April 27, 2026. The Applicant Father provided detailed affidavit evidence, and some oral evidence, to establish support for the relief that he seeks.

[3] The parties were originally married on January 20, 1990, and later divorced in May 2002. They reconciled and married again on November 9, 2006. They eventually separated on October 1, 2021 on a permanent basis. A divorce for the second marriage was granted on February 19, 2025. In total, the parties spent twenty-seven years in a marital relationship.

[4] In this trial continuation, the Father seeks partition and sale of the property located at 3 Colchester Road in Brampton, Ontario, and a declaration that he has a beneficial interest in the property. He also seeks the payment of occupation rent from the Mother for the period of time that she lived in the matrimonial home from the date of separation until the date of its sale. The Father also seeks an order for spousal support, and an order requiring him to pay child support. The issue of equalization of net family property cannot yet be addressed, as the net proceeds of the sale of the various properties owned by the parties has yet to be determined.

Partition and Sale of 3 Colchester Road in Brampton, Ontario

[5] The Respondent Mother has not provided the Father with the details of any tenant agreements or leases at 3 Colchester Road, despite giving an undertaking to do so, and despite several judicial orders requiring her to do so, including orders from Justice LeMay, Justice Doi, and me.

[6] The Mother has also failed to reply to several Requests for Information served upon her.

[7] This failure to provide basic financial information regarding the rental income earned at this property is inexcusable, and justifies a negative inference being drawn as to the quantum of rental income earned where appropriate.

[8] The Father provided financial documentation to establish that the property at 3 Colchester Road was purchased for $1,025,000 on August 3, 2021.

[9] The Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated June 21, 2021 states that a deposit of $70,000 was to be made by the parties to Remax Real Estate. The Father provided a bank statement from his TD account ending in 7166 which confirms $70,000 was withdrawn from that account on June 22, 2021. The Father also provided a copy of a bank draft in the amount of $70,000 in favour of Remax Real Estate. The Father has therefore established that he paid the $70,000 deposit for the property on June 22, 2021.

[10] The Father provided documents to confirm that he and the Mother provided an additional $165,000 towards the purchase on the date of closing on August 3, 2021.

[11] The parties therefore provided a total sum of $235,000 for the purchase of the property.

The Father’s Financial Contribution to the Purchase of 3 Colchester

[12] The Father provided a copy of the statement from his TD account ending in 7166 which shows $44,000 being removed from the account on the day of the closing. The Father also provided a copy of the bank draft for $44,000 dated August 3, 2021, which is made out to Sanjeev Dahiya in trust, who was the lawyer handling the parties’ purchase of the property.

[13] The Father also provided a statement from his CIBC account ending in 5191 which shows $16,000 being withdrawn on August 3, 2021, along with a copy of a bank draft in the amount of $16,000 made out to his lawyer, Sanjeev Dahiya, in trust.

[14] The Father further provided a statement from his BMO account ending in 7396 that shows $40,000 being removed from the account on August 3, 2021, along with a copy of a BMO bank draft dated August 3, 2021 in the amount of $40,000 made out to Sanjeev Dahiya in trust.

[15] The statement from the BMO account ending in 7396 also shows a $30,000 withdrawal being made to the account ending in 9772 on July 29, 2021. The Father stated in his affidavit that the money was transferred to the account of the Mother. He also provided a copy of the Mother’s bank statement with BMO for this account ending in 9772 which shows $30,000 being received on July 29, 2021 from the BMO account ending in 7396.

[16] The Father provided a copy of the bank draft in the amount of $40,000 dated July 29, 2021 to Sanjeev Dahiya in trust which was drawn from the Mother’s BMO account ending in 9772. Her account statement also shows $40,000 being withdrawn from her account on August 3, 2021.

[17] The documentation provided by the Father establishes that he paid for $30,000 of the $40,000 payment made by the Mother at the time of the closing on August 3, 2021.

[18] The Father provided transcripts from the Mother’s questioning in which she admitted that the Father provided $200,000 towards the purchase of the Colchester property.

[19] The Father has therefore established that he provided an additional $130,000 towards the purchase of 3 Colchester on the closing date, for a total contribution to the purchase of the home of $200,000, including the $70,000 deposit.

The Mother’s Financial Contribution to the Purchase of 3 Colchester

[20] In addition to the $10,000 provided by the Mother for the purchase through her BMO account, the Father also stated in his affidavit that the Mother provided an additional $25,000 towards the purchase of the property. He provided a copy of a bank draft from RBC in the amount of $25,000 payable to Sanjeev Dahiya in trust, along with a copy of the Mother’s RBC account statement ending in 7038 which shows a $25,000 withdrawal on August 2, 2021.

[21] At her questioning, the Mother agreed that she provided $35,000 towards the purchase of Colchester.

[22] The Father has therefore established that the Mother provided a total of $35,000 towards the purchase of the property.

Horby Loundja Placed on Title

[23] The parties gave their son, Horby Loundja, 99% ownership of the property, which he held as a tenant in common with the parties, who shared the remaining 1% ownership of the property between them as joint tenants.

[24] Horby paid nothing towards the purchase of the property. However, the parties put Horby’s name on title to assist him in developing good credit, and because the Father was having difficulty obtaining credit for that size of a mortgage due to his age. The Mother admitted at her questioning that Horby did not pay anything towards the purchase of the property. The Father deposed that the purchase of the property was never intended to be a gift to Horby.

[25] Horby has not filed an Answer to the Father’s Application, nor has he provided any evidence to establish that he contributed financially to the purchase of the Colchester property. On the evidence before me, I find that the Horby’s 99 percent interest in the property was being held as a resulting trust in favour of the parties.

Transferring 3 Colchester to Jefka Loundja

[26] At the time of the purchase, the parties obtained a mortgage for $807,060.58 from Sinclair-Cockburn Mortgage Investment Corporation.

[27] The mortgage was an interest-only mortgage set at 5.99% per annum, with interest payments of $4,093.17 per month. The balance of the mortgage was due after one year, on August 31, 2022.

[28] Neither party lives at the Colchester property. The Father deposed that the property is fully rented, although he has no involvement in managing the property, nor does he receive any rental income from the property. The Mother admitted at her questioning that she is responsible for managing the Colchester property.

[29] Due to the Mother’s failure to disclose financial information, the Father does not have complete records regarding the mortgage payments made on the property, or the rental income earned on the property. He has, however, provided a statement prepared by the Mother in 2022, which reflects the mortgage payments increasing dramatically to over $6,500 per month after the mortgage was renewed in August 2022.

[30] When the mortgage renewed again in August 2023, the interest rates were even higher. The Father provided a statement from the mortgage company dated August 30, 2023, in which interest for two weeks is listed as totaling $3,852.32, which, by extension, would have equated a monthly mortgage payment of twice that; in excess of $7,000 per month.

[31] The parties therefore arranged to move the mortgage to CIBC, which was an “A” lender, which provided a more competitive interest rate. However, the parties required the participation of their son Jefka, who had a good job and good credit, to secure the mortgage with CIBC. The Father, the Mother, and Horby therefore discharged the original mortgage, and transferred 100 percent of the title of the property to Jefka Loundja on September 1, 2023, in exchange for Jefka signing for the mortgage of $759,700 with CIBC.

[32] That same day, a payment of $79,907.87 was withdrawn from the joint RBC account of the Mother and Jefka. The Mother confirmed at her questioning that she was the one who provided these funds to Jefka. The Father stated in his affidavit that he was willing to have Jefka hold the property in trust for him, given the savings in interest for the mortgage. He deposed that it was never his intention to gift the Colchester property to Jefka.

[33] The transfer of title of the Colchester property to Jefka took place almost two years after the date of separation, which occurred on October 1, 2021.

[34] Jefka has not provided an Answer to the Father’s Application, nor has he provided documents or other evidence to establish that he contributed any funds to the purchase or upkeep of the Colchester property. Based on the evidence before me, I therefore find that the Father and the Mother were the sole contributors to the purchase of the Colchester property.

[35] I accept the Father’s evidence that he has not paid for any of the mortgage payments or other expenses relating to the Colchester property, but he also has not received any of the rental funds generated from the property. I therefore find that the Mother has been managing this property, paying for its expenses, and receiving 100 percent of the rental income generated from the property since the time of its purchase.

[36] The Mother has made no claim for a beneficial interest in the Colchester property as she has chosen not to participate in these proceedings. The Father seeks a ruling that he is the beneficial owner of 85 percent of the Colchester property, as he provided 85 percent of the purchase funds. He also seeks a ruling for partition and sale of the property, based on his beneficial interest in the property.

[37] The Father deposed that at least $100,000 of the funds provided by him for the deposit on the Colchester property came from credit lines, for which he has paid approximately $67,000 in interest to date.

[38] The Father also submits that the $79,907.87 paid by the Mother on September 1, 2023 can be allocated to her as a post-separation adjustment.

Analysis

[39] The Father has established that he provided $200,000 which contributed to the purchase of the Colchester property. Jefka Loundja has provided no evidence to rebut a finding that he holds the property in trust for the parties.

[40] I accept the Father’s evidence that he did not intend to gift the Colchester property to Jefka. The Father has established that he has a resulting trust in the property.

[41] As a beneficial owner of the Colchester property, the Father is entitled to an order for partition and sale pursuant to s. 2 of the Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4. The Mother agreed at her questioning that the Father provided $200,000 to purchase the Colchester property, and that she provided $35,000. I therefore find that the Father provided 85 percent of the deposit funds provided by the parties as purchasers at the time that the Colchester property was acquired. The Father is therefore entitled to 85 percent of the net proceeds of sale of the Colchester property.

[42] The Father deposed that the Colchester property is currently fully rented. As the Mother continues to fail to comply with my order that she provide copies of the rental agreements with the tenants, the Father does not know if the tenants at the Colchester property have leases. If the tenants have valid leases, the property shall be sold as a tenanted property.

[43] Once the Colchester property is sold, the net proceeds of sale shall be retained in the trust account of the lawyer representing the Father on the sale, pending a determination of equalization of net family property as between the parties.

Occupation Rent

[44] The Father seeks occupation rent from the Mother for the period that she lived post-separation in the matrimonial home at 7 Dupont Court in Brampton from October 1, 2021, until it was sold pursuant to the order of Justice Doi on October 14, 2024.

[45] The Father acknowledges that the Mother paid the utilities for the property while she lived there, but there is no evidence before me from her as to the quantum paid for utilities.

[46] It is also acknowledged by the Father that the Mother also made the mortgage payments of approximately $1,600 per month, as per the Annual Mortgage Statement dated December 29, 2023.

[47] The Mother did not, however, pay all the property taxes owed for the property, because $12,297.02 was paid in property taxes out of the net proceeds of sale at the time that the property was sold.

[48] The Mother lived in the upstairs area of the home and rented out the basement. The precise amount of rental income received by her is unknown because of the Mother’s blatant disregard of court orders made requiring her to produce this information.

[49] The Father relies upon the Mother’s Financial Statement from November 5, 2024 to establish that she received rental income totaling $37,760 per year. Although the Financial Statement is unsworn, the Mother stated at her questioning that the contents of the Financial Statement were true.

[50] The Father provided hearsay evidence in his affidavit regarding the conversations he had with the six tenants living in the basement of the matrimonial home. The Father submits that the statements from these tenants establish that the Mother earned approximately $3,300 per month in rental income from the following individuals:

a) Jyotasna Subedi Tiwari - $530

b) Subina Nepali - $530

c) Samuel Nwaobi - $560

d) Kirill Chemodurov - $560

e) Tushar - $560

f) Opuku Isaac - $560

[51] Because the Mother has failed to comply with court orders and has not provided adequate documentation regarding the rental amounts received, the Father has limited banking information to support the statements he says were made to him by the tenants.

[52] The Father did, however, provide a statement from RBC ending in 231 from December 2023 which reveals two e-transfers, each in the amount of $530, being received in the Mother’s account from Jyotasna Subedi Tiwari, and Subina Nepali. This information aligns with the evidence attributed to these individuals in the Father’s affidavit.

[53] The Father also provided a statement from RBC for the Mother’s account ending in 231 dated October 3, 2023, in which a payment of $560 was received from Samuel Nwaobi. The Father also produced a statement from an RBC account ending in 738, in which $560 was received by e-transfer in December 2023 from Kirill Chemodurov.

[54] The Father provided a further bank statement from TD, covering the period of November 17, 2018 to August 29, 2025, which demonstrates numerous e-transfers for $560 and $530 being received.

[55] A rental income of $3,300 per month multiplied by twelve months totals $39,600 rental income annually, which is very close to the Mother’s reported rental income of $37,670 in her November 5, 2024 Financial Statement.

[56] The Father also obtained a market appraisal to assist with determining a reasonable assessment of rent during the relevant time periods. The Father provided a report and a sworn affidavit from Sabrina Poon, who is a professional appraiser certified by the Appraisal Institute of Canada. Ms. Poon also acknowledged her duty as an expert in her affidavit. I am satisfied that her opinion evidence is reliable with respect to the rental values of the properties in question.

[57] Ms. Poon opined that the total value of rental income for the matrimonial home would likely be in the range of $4,050 to $4,200 per month as of the date of separation in October 2021.

[58] Ms. Poon prepared a second appraisal of the Dupont Court property as of September 1, 2024, which was one month prior its sale, in which she opined that the rental value of the property was $5,500 to $5,800 per month.

[59] The average between the two rental appraisals between the date of separation and the date of sale is therefore $4,900 per month.

[60] The Father submits that if the Mother had not been living in the property, they could have jointly rented the property for an average of $4,900 per month. He therefore claims 50 percent of this amount, or $2,450 per month, as the occupation rent he is entitled to from October 1, 2021 to October 2024 when the property was sold. The Father is therefore claiming occupation rent from the Mother totaling $2,450 x 36 months = $88,200.

[61] As the Mother did not file an Answer to the Application, she was not permitted the opportunity to cross-examine the Father, or provide further evidence at this uncontested trial.

Analysis

[62] I accept the opinion of Ms. Poon regarding the rental value of the matrimonial home in both October 2021 and September 2024, which results in an average anticipated rental income of $4,900 per month.

[63] I have no evidence before me as to the quantum paid by the Mother for utilities each month, nor do I have any evidence as to whether the $12,297.02 paid for property taxes at the time of the sale was the total amount owed for property taxes for the entire three years that the Mother lived alone at the home. As the Mother failed to provide the court ordered financial information that would have answered these questions, I am not prepared to credit her for the amounts she paid towards utilities or amounts that were paid towards property taxes while the Mother was occupying the matrimonial home post-separation.

[64] The Father has provided sufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities to establish that the Mother was earning approximately $3,300 per month in rental income during the time she occupied the property. Having found that the rental income for the entire home ought to have been $4,900, it follows that the rental cost attributed to the Mother for her portion of the matrimonial home should be approximately $1,600 per month.

[65] Had the parties rented out the upstairs of the property, they would have each received half of the $1,600 rent charged. The Mother is therefore required to pay the Father occupation rent during the time that she lived at 7 Dupont Court post-separation, at the rate of $800 per month for thirty-six months, which totals $28,000.

[66] I find that the net income earned by the Mother from the tenants of the matrimonial home once the mortgage payments were deducted was approximately $1,700 per month, or $20,400 per year. This amount will be considered when determining the Father’s claim for spousal support.

Spousal support

[67] Justice LeMay made an order on October 4, 2024 imputing the Mother’s income to $80,000 per year on an interim basis. Justice LeMay also found that the Father’s income was $11,000 per year. Justice LeMay ordered that the Mother pay spousal support at the low end of the SSAG range on an interim basis, at the rate of $1,048 per month.

[68] The parties were married on two separate occasions, for a total of twenty-seven years as married spouses. The Father is presently 67 years old and is retired. On the date of separation, the Father was 62 years old, and already receiving payments through Canada Pension.

[69] At the Mother’s questioning, she admitted that she receives income from three sources: her job at Cerelia; the rent paid by her tenants; and interest collected by her regarding loans made to undisclosed individuals, at the rate of 20%. The Mother did not disclose the specifics of the rental income that she receives, nor did she provide details regarding the interest income she receives from loaning money.

The Mother’s Income from Her Job at the Bakery

[70] The Mother is currently sixty years old and works full-time as a production assistant at a bakery. The Father provided a letter from the Mother’s employer, Cerelia, dated March 4, 2025, that confirms that the Mother has been employed with the company on a full-time basis since May 6, 2017, earning $17.20 per hour. The Father provided a pay stub from Cerelia for the period ending December 27, 2024, which indicates that the Mother’s gross pay for 2024 was $30,661.96 as of that date.

[71] I impute the Mother’s income from Cerelia since the date of separation in October 2021 to be $33,712 per year on average, which is calculated as follows: $17.20/hour x 40 hours x 49 weeks, recognizing that there may be reasons why the Mother did not work a full 52 weeks. I make this finding in part based on the quantum of annual income totaling $30,661.96 reflected in the Mother’s December 27, 2024 paystub.

Rental Income Earned by the Mother for 7 Dupont Court, Brampton

[72] As per my findings above, the Mother has been attributed a net rental income of $20,400 per year for the rental income she received for the three years that she resided in the matrimonial home post-separation, until the property was sold in October 2024.

Rental Income Earned by the Mother for 3405 Jolliffe Avenue, Mississauga

[73] The parties each own fifty percent of the Jolliffe Avenue property. The Mother has been living at this property since the Dupont Court property was sold in October 2024. The Mother has not provided the specifics regarding rental income that she earns from this property, or the specifics of the carrying costs for the property.

[74] The Father provided a report from Ms. Poon, which provided appraisals for the Jolliffe Avenue property from October 2021 and February 2026. Ms. Poon provided the opinion that the rental market value for the property in October 2021 was between $2,600 and $3,500 per month, for an average of $3,050 per month. Ms. Poon also offered the opinion that the rental value of the Joliffe property in February 2026 is between $3,200 to $3,900 per month, for an average of $3,550 per month.

[75] The Father stated in his affidavit that prior to moving into the Jolliffe property, the Mother was receiving $1,700 and $1,500 per month for each of the two basement units respectively, and an additional $2,880 for the upper level of the home, for a total rental income for the property of $6,080 per month. The Father did not provide documentation to establish the source of this evidence.

[76] In the absence of other reliable evidence, I accept the opinions of Ms. Poon regarding the appraised rental rates for the Joliffe property in October 2021 and February 2026. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that the monthly rental value of the Joliffe property was $3,300 per month on average, from the date of separation until the present.

[77] There is no evidence before me regarding the operating expenses for the property.

[78] As the Mother has failed to provide the court ordered disclosure, and refused to respond to the Father’s Request for Information, I infer that the rental revenue generated through the Jolliffe Avenue property exceeds the expenses associated with the property by $1,000 per month. I therefore find that the Mother earned $12,000 per year net rental income for the Jolliffe property, prior to moving into the property in October 2024.

[79] Recognizing that the Mother has been occupying the upper level of the Jolliffe Avenue property since October 2024 and that the expenses for the property are not all deductible, I infer that, at minimum, she continues to receive net rental income of $1,000 per month from the two basement units, for an annual net rental income of $12,000.

Rental Income for 1246 Fairview Road, Cambridge

[80] The Father is not seeking to have rental income from this property attributed to the income of the Mother, as his evidence is that it is his son, Jefka, who has been managing the property, including paying the carrying costs, and retaining any rental payments. Accordingly, rental income derived from the Fairview Road property will not be factored into the imputation of the Mother’s income for the purpose of calculating spousal support.

Rental Income for 3 Colchester Avenue, Brampton

[81] The Father provided a Rental Property Statement prepared by the Mother for 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 which sets out the rental income earned for the property during those years. The documents suggest that the following rental payments were received for the property:

a) 2021 – $19,350 (October to December 2021)

b) 2022 - $49,200

c) 2023 – $58,800

d) 2024 – $69,800

[82] The Father deposed that the mortgage payments made on the property are $4,700 per month, but he did not provide evidence for the source of his information and belief. However, the Rental Property Statement indicates that the mortgage interest for 2023 was $57,097.50. If the same quantum of mortgage interest continued in 2024, the rental income from the property surpasses the mortgage payments by almost $13,000, which equates to approximately $1,100 per month.

[83] There was no reliable evidence before me as to the utility costs or other carrying costs for the property. Accordingly, I find that the Mother earns a minimum of $13,000 rental income per year from the Colchester property.

Calculating Rental Income to be Imputed to the Mother

[84] The total amount of annual net rental income for the properties located at Dupont Court, Jolliffe Avenue, and Colchester total $45,400 from October 2021 to October 2024 as follows:

a) Dupont Court: $20,400

b) Jolliffe Avenue: $12,000

c) Colchester Avenue: $13,000

[85] After the Dupont Court property was sold in October 2024, and the Mother moved into the Jolliffe property, I impute the annual net rental income earned by the Mother totaled $25,000 per year from 2025 to present, as follows:

a) Jolliffe Avenue: $12,000

b) Colchester Avenue: $13,000

Interest Income Earned by the Mother from Loans to Third Parties

[86] The Mother admitted at her questioning that she receives interest income at 20% for loans that she has advanced to third parties. The Mother also testified that sometimes the loans are not repaid. The Father has no specific evidence regarding the quantum of income earned through interest by the Mother because of the Mother’s failure to provide adequate financial disclosure, including a failure to produce her tax returns.

[87] The Father did not ask for a specific sum to be allocated to the Mother’s income from rental income and interest payments received. Instead, he suggested that the Mother’s rental income and income from investments be imputed to $50,000 annually.

[88] I have insufficient evidence before me to precisely calculate the interest income earned by the Mother. Given her evidence during the questioning that some borrowers paid her 20%, and others failed to pay her, and given my findings regarding the imputed rental income earned by the Mother, I am prepared to accept the Father’s submission that the Mother’s annual net income from rental payments received and interest payments received shall be imputed to be $50,000 per year.

Total Income Imputed to the Mother

[89] My findings regarding income imputed to the Mother for rental income and payment of interest are supported by charts provided by the Father that demonstrate unexplained deposits in the Mother’s bank account, totaling approximately $200,000 between 2021 and 2025. Again, the Mother’s failure to provide the necessary financial documents has made it impossible for the Father to make specific arguments regarding rental income and interest income received by the Mother.

[90] The Mother’s imputed income from the date of separation in October 2021 to the present is therefore calculated to be $33,712 + $50,000 = $83,712 per year.

Retroactive Spousal Support Owed by the Mother to the Father

[91] The Father provided affidavit evidence that his T4 income for 2021 was $32,535. The Mother’s imputed income is $83,712. The Spousal Support Advisory Guideline (“SSAG”) sets the range of spousal support at the low end of $792, middle point of $924, and a high of $1,055.

[92] The Father stated in his affidavit that in 2022 income was $69,978, which included income from moving around RRSPs. The Father did not provide any further detail as to how his income was calculated. The Mother’s imputed income remains $83,712. The SSAG range of spousal support is $214 at the low end, $250 at the middle point and $285 at the high end.

[93] The Father stated in his affidavit that in 2023 his income was $60,727, which included income from moving around RRSPs. Again, no details were provided as to how the Father calculated this income. The Mother’s imputed income remains $83,712. The SSAG range of spousal support is $360 at the low end, $420 at the middle point and $480 at the high end.

[94] The Father stated in his affidavit that his income was $10,667 in 2024, which he deposed was income related to CPP payments. The Mother’s imputed income remains $83,712. The SSAG range of spousal support is $1,120 at the low end, $1,306 at the middle point and $1,493 at the high end.

[95] The Father stated in his affidavit that his income was $17,704.50 in 2025. The Mother’s imputed income remains $83,712. The SSAG range of spousal support is $1,011 at the low end, $1,180 at the middle point and $1,348 at the high end.

[96] The Father stated in his affidavit that his income in 2026 is projected to be $23,979.84 including CPP and the Old Age Security payment. The Mother’s imputed income remains $83,712. The SSAG range of support is $914 at the low end, $1,067 at the middle point and $1,219 at the high end.

[97] The Mother has been paying interim monthly spousal support to the Father in the amount of $1,048 since she was ordered to do so by Justice LeMay on October 4, 2024. In his affidavit the Father deposed that he is willing to have retroactive spousal support assessed on a final basis at $1,048 per month as ordered by Justice LeMay, retroactive to October 2021, which totals $1,048 x 55 months = $57,640.

[98] The Father is now retired, and receives an income which is significantly less than the income being earned by the Mother. It is appropriate that she pay him spousal support until such time as the properties from which she derives a rental income are sold.

[99] The parties were married for a total of twenty-seven years. In addition, the Mother has failed to provide necessary financial disclosure which has forced an imputation of her income. It is therefore appropriate to award the Father spousal support at the high end of the range. The spousal support owed by the Mother to the Father retroactive to October 2021 is calculated as follows:

a) 2021: $1,055 x 3 months = $3,165

b) 2022: $285 x 12 months = $3,420

c) 2023: $480 x 12 months = $5,760

d) 2024: $1,493 x 12 months = $17,916

e) 2025: $1,348 x 12 months = $16,176

f) 2026: $1,219 x 5 months = $6,095

TOTAL: $52,532

[100] The Father submits that the Mother has paid $15,953.02 in spousal support to date, which has been paid through the Family Responsibility Office. The Father shall therefore be paid lump sum retroactive spousal support from the Mother of $52,532 - $15,953.02 = $36,578.98.

[101] The retroactive spousal support payment of $36,578.98 owed to the Father by the Mother shall be paid by the Mother from her share of the net proceeds of sale of 7 Dupont Court, which is currently being held in trust by Lexaltico LLP.

[102] The Mother shall continue to pay the Father spousal support at the rate of $1,219 per month commencing June 1, 2026, until such time as the Jolliffe Avenue and Colchester Avenue properties are sold. At that time, the Mother will no longer be required to pay spousal support to the Father, because a significant source of her annual revenue from rental income will no longer be available to her.

Child Support Owed by the Father to the Mother

[103] The Father proposes that an order shall issue requiring him to pay retroactive and ongoing table child support to the Mother for the care of Enoc, the parties’ nineteen year-old son, who was born on December 12, 2006. Enoc has his primary residence with the Mother. He is presently attending post-secondary education.

[104] The Father owes $17,539 in child support retroactive to the date of separation, based on his reported income as follows:

a) 2021: $278 per month from October to December, based on an income of $32,525 = $834;

b) 2022: $654 per month x 12 months based on an income of $69,978 = $7,848;

c) 2023: $563 per month x 12 months based on an income of $60,727 = $6,756;

d) 2024: nothing, as his income was $10,667;

e) 2025: $103 per month x 12 months based on an income of $17,704.50 = $1,236;

f) 2026: $173 per month x 5 months based on a projected income of $23,979.84 = $865.

[105] The Father provided affidavit evidence that he has paid a total of $1,364 in child support to date. The total amount of child support that the Father owes the Mother from October 1, 2021 to May 31, 2026 is therefore $17,539 - $1,364 = $16,175. This lump sum amount shall be paid to the Mother from the Father’s share of the net proceeds of sale of 7 Dupont Court, currently being held in the trust account of Lexaltico LLP.

Ongoing Child Support Owed

[106] The Father shall continue to pay monthly child support to the Mother at the rate of $173 per month for the care of Enoc until such time as:

a) Enoc ceases to be a “child of the marriage” pursuant to the Divorce Act;

b) Enoc no longer lives with the Mother;

c) Enoc turns 21;

d) Enoc becomes self-supporting;

e) Enoc dies; or

f) Enoc marries.

[107] Commencing in 2027, no later than August 31 of each year, the Mother shall share the details of the enrollment of Enoc in a full-time education course (if any), details of Enoc’s employment (if any), and plans for education, including his residence arrangement, for the purposes of reviewing the arrangements for Enoc’s child support payments. In the event that the Mother fails to share this information with the Father, the child support payments to the Mother shall terminate.

Costs

[108] The Father is entitled to his costs for the uncontested trial. In addition, he is entitled to his costs for court appearances on March 7, 2025 and April 4, 2025, which were reserved to be determined by the trial judge.

[109] The Father seeks costs for court attendances on March 7, 2025 and April 4, 2025 on a full indemnity basis totaling $4,589.21 including HST. The Father also seeks his costs of the uncontested trial on a full indemnity basis totaling $23,565.49 including HST.

[110] Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules creates a presumption of costs in favour of the successful party of a motion, trial, or appeal: Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867, at para. 12.

[111] Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules sets out the factors the court should consider in awarding costs, including (a) each party’s behaviour, (b) the time spent by each party, (c) settlement offers, (d) legal fees, (e) expert fees, if any, and, (f) other expenses, properly paid or payable.

[112] Modern costs rules aim to foster three fundamental purposes: (a) to partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation; (b) to encourage settlement; and (c) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants: Mattina v. Mattina, at para. 10.

[113] Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act allows the court wide discretion when awarding costs.

[114] The March 7, 2025 motion was brought by the Father to release funds for costs awards owed to him by the Mother from the Mother’s share of the net sale proceeds of the sale of 7 Dupont Court. The Father also sought an order compelling the Mother to answer undertakings and provide financial disclosure to him. The Mother ultimately consented to allowing payment of the Father’s cost awards to be released from her share of the net proceeds of sale. The disclosure portion of the motion was adjourned to permit the Mother to file responding materials.

Costs for the March 7, 2025 and April 4, 2025 Motions

[115] It is appropriate that the Father be paid costs on a full indemnity scale for his attendance at the motion on March 7, 2025. The Mother was in breach of previous court orders to pay costs. The Father ought not to have been forced by her to incur additional legal fees by having to bring the motion to enforce the costs award. The Father is awarded costs of $2,500 + HST = $2,825 for the preparation of motion materials and attending court on March 7, 2025.

[116] On April 4, 2025 the Father’s motion to compel the Mother to answer undertakings and provide disclosure returned. In his motion materials the Father also sought the release of funds from the sale of 7 Dupont Court to both parties. Although the Mother again ultimately consented to the relief sought by the Father he ought not to have been required to prepare for a contested hearing and attend court to obtain the relief requested. In addition, I note that the Mother has still not provided the documentation she was ordered to provide in the April 4, 2025 order of Justice Doi. It is appropriate that the Father receive costs on a full indemnity scale for this court appearance, totaling $1,500 + HST = $1,695.

Costs for the uncontested trial

[117] The Father was required to prepare substantial materials for the uncontested trial, and was required to attend court on two different dates to fully present the evidence. The work of the Father and the work for the court was significantly increased by the Mother’s failure to provide court-ordered disclosure.

[118] The Father was successful in obtaining a significant portion of the relief that he sought in the uncontested trial.

[119] The Father’s counsel was well-prepared and organized during the uncontested trial. He successfully managed the extensive documentation that was introduced into evidence through 49 exhibits.

[120] Having reviewed the Father’s Bill of Costs, I find that it is just and appropriate to award him costs for the uncontested trial on a full indemnity basis totaling $16,000 + HST = $18,080.

[121] The Father is also awarded his disbursements for the uncontested trial in the amount of $4,039.39.

Conclusion

[122] This Judgment should be read in conjunction with my Judgment of March 27, 2026. I make the following orders:

1. The Father is granted an order for partition and sale of 3 Colchester Road in Brampton, Ontario;

2. The Father is entitled to 85 percent of the net proceeds of sale from the sale of Colchester;

3. If the tenants in the property have valid leases, the property shall be sold as a tenanted property;

4. The Mother is to pay the Father $28,000 in occupation rent for the period October 1, 2021 to October 2024, which shall be paid out of the Mother’s share of the net proceeds of sale of 7 Dupont Court, presently being held in the trust account of Lexaltico LLP;

5. The Mother is to pay the Father retroactive spousal support in the amount of $36,578.98, which shall be paid out of the Mother’s share of the net proceeds of sale of 7 Dupont court, presently being held in the trust account of Lexaltico LLP;

6. Commencing June 1, 2026, the Mother is to pay the Father ongoing spousal support in the amount of $1,219 per month, until such time as the Jolliffe Avenue and Colchester Road properties are both sold;

7. The Father shall pay the Mother retroactive child support in the amount of $16,175, which shall be paid to the Mother from the Father’s share of the net proceeds of sale of the Dupont Court property;

8. Commencing June 1, 2026, the Father shall pay the Mother ongoing child support payments at the rate of $173 per month, until the need for child support payments terminates as set out in para. 105 of this Judgment;

9. The remaining net proceeds of sale of the parties’ former matrimonial home located at 7 Dupont Court in Brampton, Ontario, shall be retained in trust until the equalization payments between the parties have been agreed to or determined, subject to each party immediately receiving a $50,000 disbursement from the funds held in trust, on consent. Further funds may also be disbursed with the consent of both parties;

10. The Mother shall pay the Father costs totaling $26,639.39 broken down as follows:

a) $2,825 including HST for the March 7, 2025 motion;

b) $1,695 including HST for the April 4, 2025 motion;

c) $18,080 including HST for the uncontested trial;

d) $4,039.90 for disbursements.

[122] The Applicant has leave to contact the trial office to bring a virtual motion before me at 9:00 a.m. for directions in the event that further orders are required to effect the sale of the properties ordered to be sold. The Applicant may also request a virtual attendance before me to determine which payments shall be made from the net proceeds of sale of 7 Dupont Court in the event that the funds being held in trust are insufficient to satisfy the payments each party is ordered to make in this Judgment.

[123] If the parties are unable to resolve the issue of equalization of net family property once the jointly owned properties are sold, the Father may contact the trial office to request a 9:00 a.m. virtual attendance before me to schedule a continuation of this uncontested trial.

Wilkinson J.

Released: May 29, 2026

CITATION: Loundja v. Tshibitshiabu, 2026 ONSC 3161

COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-102534

DATE: 20260529

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Randy Loundja

Applicant

• and -

Kadima Tshibitshiabu

Respondent

Jefka Loundja

Respondent

Horby Loundja

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Wilkinson J.

Released: May 29, 2026