CITATION: Maharajh v. Mathura, 2026 ONSC 3284
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KAVITA MAHARAJH
Applicant
– and –
MIGUEL MATHURA
Respondent
Self-represented
Self-represented
HEARD: February 23-27 and March 2, 2026
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WASSENAAR J:
1This six-day trial addressed decision-making, parenting time, child support, s. 7 expenses and arrears, divorce, and whether there should be a restraining order. Equalization was settled prior to trial.
Background and allegations
2The parties were married on December 29, 2011, and separated on February 22, 2021. They have three daughters: G.M. (born in 2014), S.M. (born in 2017) and G.M.M. (born in 2019).
3During the marriage, the parties decided to work from home and homeschool their children. At one point they owned a business together. The applicant is an artist, and the respondent assisted with a business relating to her art. The respondent had previously worked as a data analyst.
4There has been a great deal of conflict between the parties, prior to separation and continuing to the present day. The applicant alleges two violent incidents, one in 2020 and one in 2022. She also says that the respondent is controlling. The respondent denies any violence or controlling behaviour.
5The parties currently maintain a shared parenting schedule, alternating weeks every Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. The applicant lives in Brampton and the respondent lives in Pickering. In October 2022, the respondent lost his driver’s license after a conviction for drinking and driving. My understanding is that that prohibition is over, but there was a subsequent license suspension through the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) due to non-payment. The respondent says there are no current prohibitions or suspensions, but he has not reinstated his license. He intends to do so. His lack of a license caused logistical issues during the separation, particularly when the applicant was living in Lindsay with her parents. Currently, the respondent uses the GO bus or train to pick up the children in Brampton. The applicant picks up the children in Pickering.
6One key point of contention at trial concerns the children’s education. The parties were initially in agreement that the children should be homeschooled. The applicant believes that the children have now reached the age where they would benefit from attending public school. The respondent says that homeschooling should continue. This issue has significant implications for the parenting schedule. If the children attend public school, the alternating week arrangement will no longer be feasible given the distance between the two homes.
General Legal Principles
7The underpinning for my analysis is the best interests of the children. Section 16(2) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), states that I must give primary consideration to the children’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security, and well-being. Section 16 goes on to provide as follows:
(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including
(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following into account:
(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;
(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;
(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;
(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;
(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;
(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;
(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
(h) any other relevant factor.
(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.
(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
8The girls are currently 6, 8 and 12. If they were in school, they would be in grades one, three and six. S.M. has Down syndrome.
Positions of the Parties
9The applicant seeks sole decision-making, retroactive and ongoing child support, s. 7 expenses, s. 7 arrears, a restraining order, and a divorce. The applicant asks that the current parenting time schedule continue until September 8, 2026. At that time she wants the children enrolled in school, for her home to be the primary residence, and for the children to see their father on alternating weekends.
10The respondent seeks joint decision-making, a continuation of the current shared parenting schedule, the determination of child support based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, shared s. 7 expenses proportionate to income, no restraining order, and a divorce. The respondent asks that the current homeschooling arrangement continue.
Analysis
11The issues of decision-making, primary residence, and parenting time are interconnected with the question of the children’s education. My analysis on all of those issues must be focused on the best interests of the children: Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, at s. 24(1); Grove v. Fahad, 2024 ONSC 2143, at paras. 8-11. In Thomas v. Osika, Justice Audet provided helpful guidance on how to assess best interests in the context of the choice of school: Thomas v. Osika, 2018 ONSC 2712, 13 R.F.L. (8th) 191, at para. 37. That guidance is of assistance in this case and includes the following:
In developing an educational plan, the unique needs, circumstances, aptitudes, and attributes of the children must be taken into account.
The court should consider each parent’s ability to support the educational plan.
The focus is the best interests of the children, not the interests or rights of the parents.
The court should consider how the educational plan will maintain the children’s cultural and linguistic heritage.
Any impact on the stability of the children should be assessed.
If an educational plan involves disruption, there should be a good reason for the change.
12Moving the children into public school would be a significant change for the children. It would impact their living arrangements and the amount of time they spend with both parents. Any negative impact on the children’s stability must be considered, particularly given their young ages and the conflict they have experienced as a result of their parents’ separation. The respondent provided considerable evidence to show the various ways in which he educates the children. That included more traditional learning through workbooks and reading, as well as less formalized approaches. The latter included playing with Lego, baking, taking the children to the library, helping the children to navigate public transit, exploring parks and downtown Toronto, visiting with friends, and learning about technology. The technology included photography, videography and the use of 3-D printers. The respondent described himself as a life-long learner. He said that he has set up his home to facilitate the children’s learning.
13This analysis is not about the relative merits of homeschooling as compared to a public school education. It is about the particular needs of these children at this time and with a view to the future. Key considerations in assessing whether there is a good reason for the change proposed by the applicant include the following:
The children are getting older. In September 2026, they should be in grades two, four, and seven. The complexity of the subjects they need to learn is increasing.
The evidence indicated that to date, there had been limited efforts to assess the children’s progress beyond periodic spelling and math tests. While this may be appropriate in younger years, and formalized testing is not necessarily essential, some ability to assess the children would allow for a better understanding of the children’s particular needs and abilities. That would increase the ability of the educational approach to maximize the children’s potential.
As the applicant acknowledged, any parent is limited in the scope and breadth of what they are effectively able to teach their children.
I accept the applicant’s evidence that the children have thrived when provided with structure and a schedule, such as when they attended camps.
S.M. would have access to any supports that are available in the public school system for children with special needs.
This has been a high conflict separation. Being in school full-time will provide a positive focus outside of the home environment, and reduce the children’s exposure to any conflict between the parties.
The evidence at trial indicated that the children have a relatively limited social circle beyond family. Public school would expand their social connections.
In addition to making friends, the applicant was of the view that exposure to a wider variety of people would develop the children’s ability to interact effectively with a range of personalities. I agree. I also agree with the applicant that talking to other children of divorce might assist them in processing their experiences.
The parents do not communicate effectively, hampering their ability to coordinate on issues related to the children’s education. The applicant expressed some specific concerns about lack of communication in relation to the children’s education. For example, workbooks were no longer being transferred with the children, and she was not clear whether math was being adequately covered by the respondent, which she had understood to be an area he was covering.
The respondent admitted that he does not always send weekly educational updates to the applicant. I also found that the respondent’s updates were often general in nature, particularly when compared to the applicant’s more detailed updates.
For one of her workbooks, G.M. was using a grade five book even though, based on her age, she would be in grade six. The respondent’s evidence of the history of books borrowed from the library seemed well below age for G.M. In addition, G.M. and G.M.M.’s French learning were both below grade level. The respondent acknowledged that his knowledge of French is limited. S.M. does not read yet, but is being exposed to books. There was minimal evidence on realistic expectations for S.M., nor was there a clear plan on how to maximize her learning.
14In assessing the evidence, I had some credibility concerns in relation to the respondent. For example, the respondent referred to library programs to assist S.M. However when I asked when the last time was that she attended one of those programs, he said it was two years ago. He also said he had introduced the children to piano through a friend up the street. When I asked if the children were taking music lessons, he said no. The respondent also talked about music therapy. He explained that there is no formal teaching, and the children learn by observation. The respondent provided the court with a homeschooling schedule. It showed “therapy (if needed)” at 11:30 on Wednesdays. He elaborated in his testimony that S.M. previously engaged in online music therapy but they no longer do that. Instead, he said he now does the therapy himself. The respondent testified that he takes the children swimming at a hotel with a large pool. He then clarified that they had done that once. I pause to emphasize that there is nothing wrong with informal learning or alternative approaches to education. My concern was that the respondent had a pattern of overstating an educational area or activity that, upon further clarification, was much less substantial than initially indicated. The respondent was also evasive and defensive during cross-examination. In general, where there was a difference in the evidence of the parties, I preferred the evidence of the applicant.
15A separate concern arising from the respondent’s testimony outlined above is that several of the educational experiences discussed by the respondent involved the children in a relatively passive or observational role. Similarly, he testified that the children have watched others participate in dance, gymnastics, and swimming. In my view, as they get older the children may benefit from increased stimulation and focus.
16While the respondent was of the view that the children should continue homeschooling, he acknowledged that when the children were younger, he and the applicant had discussed various options for when the children got older. The respondent testified that there are public schools within walking distance of his home. Thus, it would be possible for the children to attend public school at live at the respondent’s residence. The respondent also discussed the option of private school. When asked about the financial aspect of that possibility, he was confident that he could make it work.
17The respondent was vague about his work plans. He said he wanted to obtain a remote position so that he could continue to homeschool the children. He said he had applied for one position in the past year. I am not convinced that it is realistic for the respondent to work while he is homeschooling three children. At the same time, there is an impact on the family finances if the respondent is not employed.
18The focus of my analysis thus far has been on the children’s education. Since the issue of education is closely tied with decision-making and parenting time, I will now address those issues more generally beyond the issue of education.
Decision-making and Parenting Time
19I will review the factors in s. 16(3) of the Divorce Act in order to assess the children’s best interests in relation to decision-making and parenting time.
(a) The children’s needs, given their ages and stages of development, such as the children’s need for stability
20The children are now all school-aged. Their needs are becoming more complex. S.M. has Down syndrome and would benefit from educational experiences and health supports that are focused on her particular needs. Both parents testified about the variety of activities the children engage in as part of their homeschooling regime. The variety of activities discussed by the respondent was very broad. The applicant was realistic about her limitations in terms of what she can provide as the children get older.
21As the children get older, the importance of activities and opportunities outside the home will increase. To date, the applicant has been primarily responsible for making the children’s appointments and arranging and paying for any activities. The respondent confirmed in cross-examination that the children do not participate in any outside programs when they are homeschooled by him, other than online programs. The applicant seems better placed to recognize the children’s changing needs and determine how best to address them.
(b) The nature and strength of the children’s relationship with each spouse, each of the children’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life
22Both parents have close and meaningful relationships with the children. The applicant was candid about concerns she has with her relationship with G.M., discussed further below. Both parties have been very actively involved in the children’s upbringings. Both parties have maintained the children’s relationships with extended family to some degree.
(c) Each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the children’s relationship with the other spouse
23While the applicant does not allow video calls due to the issues that will be discussed below in relation to the restraining order, the respondent testified that he speaks to the children regularly when they are with the applicant. The respondent had previously suggested that the applicant would not let him speak to the children when he wished. The applicant testified that bedtime calls were disruptive for the children so she wanted to stick to daytime calls to ensure they got a proper sleep. She also said there were times that she did not have her phone or they were on the way to camp. The applicant prefers more structure to the respondent’s contact.
24The applicant expressed concerns that G.M. is sometimes aggressive toward her. She attributes that in part to the nature of the respondent’s relationship with G.M. and his willingness to involve her in the parties’ conflicts. This is difficult for me to assess based on the evidence before me. However, the respondent did not directly address that concern in his evidence, and I note that the children were present during the two incidents of violence recounted by the applicant and discussed below.
(d) The history of care of the children
25The respondent testified that throughout the marriage he was actively involved in the children’s care, including “routines, meal preparation, homeschooling instruction, medical appointments, therapy participation and extracurricular engagement”. The applicant testified that both parents were working from home when G.M. was born. She was more involved in G.M.’s care when G.M. was very young. When the other children arrived, the respondent spent more time with G.M. and the applicant looked after the younger children.
26The parties separated on February 22, 2021. The schedule had considerable flexibility until August 26, 2022, when Justice Nakonechny made an interim order for joint decision-making. She also ordered parenting time for the respondent Monday to Wednesday or Thursday, depending on the week. On December 9, 2022 Justice Nakonechny ordered a four day rotating schedule. This evolved into a week-on/week-off rotation, which was still in place at the time of trial, with exchanges on Wednesdays.
27As noted, throughout the children’s lives the applicant has been primarily responsible for making any of the children’s medical appointments and arranging and paying for any activities.
(e) The children’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the children’s ages and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained
28I did not have any reports indicating the children’s views and preferences.
29The applicant believes that G.M. has the drive and intelligence to succeed in the public education system, S.M. would benefit from additional instruction and supports in the public system, and G.M.M. is bright but needs to be pushed. The applicant says the children are resilient, but the current education plan is not sustainable over the long term.
30The respondent believes the children would be devastated if his parenting time were to be reduced.
(f) The children’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage
31This was not a significant aspect of the trial. Both parents share a variety of beliefs and experiences with the children. Both appear to have fostered relationships with their extended families.
(g) Any plans for the children’s care
32The applicant testified that the alternating week schedule has made it difficult for the children to participate in weekly activities. The applicant intends for the children to attend the public schools near her current residence. The elementary school is across the street. G.M.’s school would be a 10-minute walk. The applicant says that S.M. can receive speech therapy through the school if she is registered in public school. The applicant candidly acknowledged that she would like to find better housing, which might impact the school choice, but her intention is for the children to attend a local public school.
33The respondent is confident that the homeschooling arrangement is meeting the children’s needs and providing a positive environment for them to thrive. While S.M. has received speech therapy in the past, the respondent said that she was not currently receiving any speech therapy. The respondent said that since he had a speech impediment as a child, he was able to assist S.M. with her speech based on his experience and self-taught methods. I am not convinced that that is an appropriate replacement for a qualified speech therapist. However, I note that the respondent said she was doing well and I had no independent evidence about S.M.’s current needs in relation to speech therapy or otherwise.
(h) The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the children
34The applicant testified that G.M. sometimes returns from the respondent’s house tired. She believes this is because regular, age-appropriate bedtimes are not followed. The applicant said that he only deviated from regular bedtimes on special occasions. The applicant also observed G.M.’s emotional dysregulation after being at the respondent’s house. The applicant noted a time that the respondent tried to convert S.M’s in-person speech therapy session to a virtual session, without consulting the applicant. The applicant’s view was that S.M. benefitted more from in-person speech therapy.
35The respondent lives in his parents’ four-bedroom home, which has a backyard with a rear deck. He testified that he has “curated” spaces in the home to suit the children’s needs and educational endeavours. He argued that this environment was preferable to the applicant’s basement apartment. While the physical residence has some relevance, I note that the respondent testified that the three girls share his sister’s old bedroom and the respondent also sleeps in there. He clarified that his old bedroom is also available for him to use at night. The applicant testified that she hopes to find better housing now that the equalization issue has been settled.
36The respondent said he had a general practitioner in Pickering, but the children had never attended there. He did not remember the last time the children went to the doctor. The respondent testified that he is able to monitor S.M.’s milestones and her sleep apnea. The respondent has no medical training.
(i) The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the children
37As discussed previously, the parties do not communicate well. There has been a great deal of conflict in their relationship. On April 10, 2023 Justice Akazaki made a no contact order. I have already discussed the impact of poor communication on the homeschooling arrangement. The communication issues and high conflict also raise serious concerns about the practicality and efficacy of joint decision-making. The applicant testified about instances in which the respondent communicated directly with third-party service providers, causing confusion or problems. To be clear, the respondent is entitled to information about his children’s health. However, the absence of effective coordination between the parties has not led to a productive approach to meeting the children’s health related needs.
(j) Any family violence
38The applicant described the respondent as aggressive and confrontational during the breakdown of their relationship. She said he acted that way in the presence of the children. The applicant alleged two incidents of violence. She provided three photographs of an injury to her lip from December 2020, when the relationship was unraveling. She also alleged that the respondent stomped on her foot when he was saying goodbye to the children after a backyard visit at the applicant’s home in Lindsay in August of 2022. The respondent was evasive in his testimony on both incidents. I find that these incidents occurred.
39The applicant says the respondent has continued to be verbally aggressive and confrontational post-separation. She provided text messages from May of 2023 in which the respondent used degrading and inappropriate language directed at the applicant. The respondent filed an affidavit that chronicled what he characterized as the applicant’s “abusive communications”.
40The respondent testified about an incident in which the applicant’s current partner was said to have pulled the youngest child’s ear. His evidence about this incident was hearsay. I asked the applicant whether she had any safety concerns in relation to her partner; she said no.
41As noted, s. 16(4) sets out a list of factors that the court shall consider in relation to family violence in assessing the best interests of the children. I must be careful in my approach to that issue, as s. 16(5) states that “[i]n determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.” There is no suggestion that the respondent has been violent toward any of the children. However, it is significant that the violence against the applicant occurred in the presence of at least some of the children. This is concerning and adds credence to the applicant’s testimony that the respondent has not sufficiently shielded the children from the conflict between the parties.
42While the violent incidents are somewhat dated, I find that they are part of a larger pattern of behaviour. In text messages, the respondent referred to the applicant as “a fucking waste of a life”, a “cunt”, the “king of kunts”, and a “pussyhole coward”. The two violent incidents and the aggressive text messages are coercive and controlling behaviour, a pattern that could also be seen in the approach to various aspects of the family litigation: S.S. v. R.A., 2024 ONSC 2870, at para. 420; M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207, at para. 183. The respondent did not offer any insights into this behaviour (he denied the two violent incidents) nor did he express a plan to address it going forward.
Conclusion on Decision-Making and Parenting Time
43In my view, the children’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being will be best addressed by giving the applicant mother sole decision-making. The children’s primary residence should be with the applicant so that they are able to attend public school near her residence.
44The applicant submitted that the respondent should have the children every other weekend, since she would also have less time with them when they were in school. The applicant’s plan means a significant reduction in the respondent’s parenting time. I order that the respondent have the children three out of every four weekends. The respondent can pick up the children after school on Fridays and bring them to his home in Pickering. The applicant shall pick up the children in Pickering at 4:00 p.m. on Sundays. Where the respondent’s weekend is adjacent to a PD day or holiday, they respondent shall also have the children on the Friday and/or Monday.
45The applicant agreed that it would appropriate for the respondent to have additional time with the respondent in the summer. The applicant was agreeable to a 4/10 schedule over 14 days: the children would be with the applicant Monday to Thursday, and the respondent would have them for ten days, until the following Sunday. The applicant shall pick up the children in Pickering on Mondays at 10:00 a.m. The respondent shall pick up the children on Thursdays at 4:00 p.m. at the GO station or another agreed upon public location.
46The parties will each be entitled to extend their parenting time in the summer once, in order to facilitate a family vacation. The respondent will be able to extend his 10 days to two weeks and the applicant will be able to extend her four days to one week. The parties will inform each other of their proposed extended week by January 1 of the same year.
Child Support
47The applicant is a self-employed artist. The applicant’s Notice of Assessments show income of $6,329 (2019), $15,399 (2020), $5,334 (2021), $1,335 (2022), $12,180 (2024). The applicant provided a list of invoices for 2023 totaling $7,854.15. She provided invoices for 2025 totaling $15,363.71.
48The respondent was previously employed at Rogers but has done a variety of different things since 2015. The respondent says that he has applied for one job in the past year. As noted, he wants to obtain a remote position so that he can continue to homeschool the children. He says he is currently upgrading his coding skills in order to obtain employment.
49In his February 2026 affidavit, which he adopted as part of his evidence, Mr. Mathura stated:
Beginning in approximately 2015, I was placed on long-term disability due to documented medical issues.
That status was recognized by my insurer and former employer and resolved by settlement in 2020.
My employment history since 2015 has been medically interrupted.
I continue to manage residual symptoms.
My current income reflects medical capacity and functional limitations.
I have worked when able and sought employment consistent with my capacity.
I have not intentionally refused reasonable employment.
I have made financial disclosure to the best of my ability.
50His affidavit goes on to say that he is prepared to contribute to child support obligations proportionately based on his “actual income and capacity”.
51The Notice of Assessments for the respondent show net income of: $0 (2019), $72,681 (2020), $40,508 (2021), $31,583 (2022). The respondent testified that his income in 2023 was $3,500 and in 2024 was $4,300. He had not yet calculated his 2025 income but estimated it would be between $3,000 to $5,000. A Record of Employment for March 8, 2021 to May 22, 2022 showed total insurable earnings of $13,218.74 at Naan and Chai Inc.
52The respondent was cross-examined on various deposits into his bank account. He said his father was assisting him financially. During cross-examination, he agreed with the suggestion that updated and truthful income verification must be disclosed in order for child support to be calculated. No additional income information was forthcoming.
53On December 9, 2022 Justice Nakonechny ordered each party to pay the other $602 per month in child support based on an imputed income of $29,000 each.
54Both of the parties are educated and have work experience. In my view, both are underemployed. Both expressed an intention to work more. I impute income for each of the parties of $29,000 each. Starting in September, the applicant will have the children more often than the respondent. Starting September 1, 2026 the respondent will pay the applicant the table amount of child support, $632 per month.
55The parties shall exchange income information annually on June 1 of each year, starting on June 1, 2026. They shall use this information to adjust the child support payable under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
Child Support Arrears and Retroactive Child Support
56In Vidal v. Dunn, 2018 ONSC 2801 the court explained, at para. 7:
There is a difference between enforcing child support arrears properly owing and ordering retroactive child support. Child support arrears are a debt resulting from a failure to pay an existing, identified legal obligation by prior court order or contract. Retroactive support looks backwards and imposes a new debt for a past time.
57The applicant argued that the respondent was in “significant arrears” and also seeks retroactive child support “based upon [the respondent’s] actual or imputed income…retroactive to the date of separation”. The applicant testified that she received a total of $3,000 from March 1, 2021 to December 2022. When cross-examined on past child support payments, the respondent said he made some payments but could not remember exactly how much or when he paid. When it was suggested that he made one payment of $1,000 and three payments of $675 but no other payments, he could not remember and did not know. He thought he gave the applicant $1,000 “a few times”. The respondent testified that he did not remember the $817 payments but remembered the $675 payments.
58Trial Exhibit 36 is a letter to the respondent dated April 16, 2025 from FRO stating: “The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) has closed your case 1118803 because the support obligation order dated Sep 26, 2023 has ended and you do not owe any support arrears.” In my view, the applicant has not made out her claim for child support arrears.
59Turning to the issue of retroactive support, Section 34(1) (f) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, states that:
In an application under section 33, the court may make an interim or final order,
(f) requiring that support be paid in respect of any period before the date of the order;
60The relevant period of time is from the date of separation, February 22, 2021, to today.
61On March 18, 2022 Justice Kraft ordered the respondent to pay child support of $674 per month to the applicant, with payments to start March 1, 2021. On August 26, 2022, Justice Nakonechny ordered the respondent to pay interim child support of $817 per month based on an income of $40,653. On December 9, 2022 Justice Nakonechny ordered each party to pay the other $602 per month in child support based on an imputed income of $29,000 each.
62When Justice Nakonechny ordered each party to pay the other $602 per month in child support based on an imputed income of $29,000 each, she also ordered a four-day rotating schedule. This evolved into a week-on/week-off rotation. Thus, from December 9, 2022 onwards, the parties each had the children about 50 percent of the time.
63I next consider the period from March 1, 2021 to December 2022. Below is a summary of what the respondent would have paid, as compared to the table amount using the respondent’s salary based on the evidence at trial. The respondent’s income was $40,508 in 2021 and $31,583 in 2022. I have imputed income to the applicant of $29,000.
interim
actual
10 months in 2021 at $674
$6,740
10 months in 2021 at $817
$8,170
8 months in 2022 at $674
$5,392
8 months in 2022 at $652
$5,216
4 months in 2022 at $817
$3,268
4 months in 2022 at $652
$2,608
$15,400
$15,994
64The respondent must pay the applicant $594 in retroactive child support.
Special and Extraordinary Expenses
65The applicant prepared a chart of s. 7 expenses. It includes costs for camp, glasses, dental care, and extracurricular activities for the period May 2022 to December 2025 and totals $5,338.27. During the trial, the respondent acknowledged that these expenses were incurred for his children and he should pay half. I order the respondent to pay the applicant $2,669.14 for s. 7 arrears.
66The parties also agreed that s. 7 expenses should be divided equally going forward. The applicant said that these would likely be minimal at first, as the children would be adjusting to full-time school so she would not want to overload them with extracurricular activities. They will likely be for health and medical related expenses, such as S.M.’s glasses. I order that, going forward, s. 7 expenses will be shared equally between the parties. When an expense is incurred, the party who paid the expense will provide the other party with a copy of the receipt. The other party will pay 50 percent of the total expense, within one week of receiving a copy of the receipt. Any expenses over $1,000 will require advance notification and consultation with the other party.
Divorce
67The applicant shall serve and file a Form 36, Affidavit for Divorce, or the parties shall serve and file a joint application for a simple divorce so the divorce can be processed.
Restraining Order
68The applicant sought:
An Interim and Final Order restraining the Respondent from molesting, annoying, harassing or communicating either directly or indirectly with the Applicant, and that he shall not communicate with her except through legal counsel: he shall not come within 20 ft of her, or any other place where she may reasonably be. The police may be directed to enforce the Order if requested by the Applicant pursuant to section 46 and any other applicable sections of the Family Law Act.
69The applicant alleged two incidents of violence against her by the respondent. As previously stated, I find that they occurred.
70On April 10, 2023 Justice Akazaki made the following no contact order:
The Respondent/Father, Mr. Miguel Mathura, shall be prohibited from communicating with the Applicant/Mother, Ms. Kavita Maharajh directly or indirectly, except for the purposes of arranging parenting time and/or any urgent parenting issues through a third party app such as Our Family Wizard or Appclose.
71The applicant seeks a restraining order to protect her physical safety and the children’s emotional safety. The applicant says that the respondent frequently engaged the Children’s Aid Society and the police unnecessarily, resulting in the children experiencing excessive police involvement in their lives. The applicant is also concerned about the respondent or the police coming to her home, as it might cause concern for the people who live upstairs. I understand that argument to be grounded in her desire to provide stable housing for her children. The applicant also described the respondent as aggressive and confrontational.
72The test for a restraining order is whether the applicant has reasonable grounds to fear for her safety or the safety of the children of the marriage: Family Law Act, s. 46; Azimi v. Mirzaei, 2010 ONCA 455, 2010 CarswellOnt 4033, at para. 3. The physical altercations are obviously troubling but somewhat dated. While I am in no way minimizing those incidents, they do not appear to be part of an ongoing pattern of physical abuse; however they are part of a pattern of coercive control. My consideration of safety includes psychological safety: Lawrence v. Bassett, 2015 ONSC 3707, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 207, at para. 12; Malik v. Malik, 2019 ONSC 5959, 33 R.F.L. (8th) 447, at paras. 18-19. This is a particularly important consideration in relation to the children, as they have witnessed considerable conflict prior to and during separation, including police involvement. I am not suggesting that the conflict is solely caused by the respondent, however, I am addressing the issue of a restraining order so I am focused on his conduct. In addition, the applicant has repeatedly demonstrated efforts to de-escalate conflict, which is not something I have seen from the respondent. Indeed, he repeatedly made unproductive comments during the course of the litigation, including at trial. The respondent’s history of not participating productively in the court process has exacerbated and perpetuated stress and uncertainty, which can fuel conflict.
73I am satisfied that there is a basis to issue a restraining order in this case.
74Section 46(3) of the Family Law Act allows me to include, “[a]ny other provision that the court considers appropriate.” I impose the following terms:
The respondent/father, Mr. Miguel Mathura, shall restrain from annoying or harassing the applicant/mother, Ms. Kavita Maharajh.
The respondent shall be prohibited from communicating with the applicant, directly or indirectly, except for the purposes of arranging parenting time and any urgent parenting issues.
All communications between the parties shall be through Our Family Wizard, except in the case of an emergency impacting the health or safety of any of the children.
Indirect communication includes communication with the family of Ms. Maharajh. The respondent’s communication with Ms. Maharajh’s family is limited to the logistics of any pick up or drop off involving her family, or in the case of an emergency impacting the health or safety of any of the children.
Costs Arrears
75Justice Mathen ordered the respondent to pay costs of $4,288.91 on the motion that she heard. During cross-examination, the respondent agreed that he had not paid these costs. I order the respondent to pay $4,288.91 in costs arrears.
Other
76There were a number of ancillary matters requested in the applicant’s draft order that were not addressed in submissions at trial. Section 16.1(4) of the Divorce Act states that “the court may, in the order,… provide for any other matter that the court considers appropriate.” On that basis, I also make the following orders:
The applicant may travel with the children during her parenting time, without the respondent’s consent or signature.
The applicant must notify the respondent two weeks in advance of any travel with the children outside Canada or over seven days. An itinerary must be provided in advance, and the applicant shall notify the respondent when the children have returned.
The applicant must consent in order for the children to be able travel with the respondent for more than three days or outside Canada, and such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The applicant may obtain and renew government issued identification for the children, without the respondent's consent or signature.
The respondent shall return the collected and personal items on the parties’ shared computer, namely photographs of the children and relating to the applicant’s sole proprietorship, including historical tax information.
Costs
77If the applicant seeks costs, the parties shall provide written submissions to a maximum of two pages (not including attachments), 15 days after the receipt of these reasons.
Orders
78I have made the following orders:
The applicant shall have sole decision-making.
The children’s primary residence shall be with the applicant.
The respondent shall have the children every three out of four weekends, as set out above.
The respondent shall have the children 10 out of every 14 days in the summer, starting the first Monday after the last day of school when the applicant will have the children Monday to Thursday, as set out above.
Each party will notify the other by January 1 if they wish to extend their parenting time for a full week for the purposes of have a vacation, as set out above.
The respondent shall pay the applicant child support of $632 per month, starting September 1, 2026.
The respondent shall pay the applicant $594 in retroactive child support.
A restraining order shall issue.
The respondent must pay $4,288.91 in costs arrears.
79Support Deduction Order to issue.
The Honourable Justice B. Wassenaar
Released: June 04, 2026
CITATION: Maharajh v. Mathura, 2026 ONSC 3284
COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-00025072
DATE: 20260604
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
KAVITA MAHARAJH
Applicant
– and –
MIGUEL MATHURA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice B. Wassenaar
Released: June 04, 2026