CITATION: Sinclair v. Sinclair , 2026 ONSC 3361

COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-00108108-0000

DATE: 20260608

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Natasha Simone Sinclair

Ukhuegbe Solomon, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

Andre O’neil Sinclair

Ravital Khardas, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: March 9 -12, 2026

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CUDJOE J.

1I will use the former couples’ first names in the judgment, not out of a sense of familiarity but for ease of reference because they share a surname.

2I was provided an agreed statement of facts for this trial.

3Natasha and Andre Sinclair met in 2007. Their first child, Deandre was born in March 2008.

4The couple married in December 2009. They had three more children, Elijah (April 2010) Evin (January 2014) and Ava (August 2015).

5The couple separated on January 1, 2023.

6Parenting, child support and equalization issues were all resolved before trial. The details can be found in Justice Emery’s order dated September 6, 2025.

7Andre resides at the former matrimonial home located at 1 Ocean Avenue in Brampton. Title of the home was transferred to Andre on January 29, 2025.

8Natasha moved out of the matrimonial home on July 31, 2025. Natasha purchased a home located at 116 Mill Street North, Brampton.

9The purchase of the Wife’s Property closed on August 5, 2025. The purchase price was $710,000. Natasha has a mortgage with National Bank of Canada.

10During the marriage, the parties had an investment property held in their joint names located at 9 Hazelglen Court, in Brampton. The investment property sold for $682,000 and on December 20, 2024, the transaction closed. After payment of all encumbrances and fees, Andre received net proceeds totalling $149,119.47 and Natasha received net proceeds totalling $148,243.00.

INCOME

11For the last 7 years, Andre, worked at Zayo Canada as an IT Security Analyst. He still works there. In 2025, he earned $117,864.04.

12Natasha worked for Air Canada Rouge from 2018 till 2021. She was laid off during the pandemic. Natasha does not suffer from any health-related issues that preclude her from working.

13Natasha pays about $2,765.78 a month for her mortgage. She is the only person on title.

14For the purposes of determining retroactive spousal support (1^st January 2025 to 31^st May 2025) Natasha’s income should be imputed to an income of $35,000.

15Natasha owes Andre an equalization payment of $37,525.96

POST SEPARATION ADJUSTMENTS

16Following the parties’ separation until the former matrimonial Home was transferred into his sole name, Andre solely paid for all expenses associated with the former matrimonial home including hydro, water, Enbridge, Reliance (water tank, heating & cooling), internet, mortgage payments, property tax, and home insurance.

17With respect to the former matrimonial home, between January 1, 2023 and January 31, 2025 (the date the former matrimonial home was transferred into his sole name), Andre paid:

a. a total of $82,079.88 towards the mortgage. Half of the payments were paid on behalf of the Natasha totalling $41,039.94.

b. a total of about $15,618 towards the property taxes on the Former Matrimonial Home. Half of the payments were paid on behalf of the Wife totalling $7809.

c. a total of $2,675.49 towards home insurance. Half of the payments were paid on behalf of the Wife totalling $1,337.74.

18Natasha owes Andre $4,686.42 for post-separation payments for the investment property.

19Both Natasha and Andre testified. Andre was the income earner and Natasha was the homemaker.

20Natasha testified that she dropped out of high school to give birth to Deandre and raise him. Three more children in quick succession left her stuck at home and unable to upgrade her skills. She worked for minimum wage in the fast -food industry in the past. She is capable of earning close to minimum wage.

21Natasha testified that Andre did not encourage her to upgrade her skills. He was content to have her doing all the house chores and he did not assist her.

22Natasha’s testimony was that there were always tenants in the basement post separation.

23Andre testified that he encouraged Natasha to upgrade her skills. He supported her to try and get into PSW training that could lead into nursing but she did not want to do so.

24The outstanding issues that were argued in this trial were spousal support, imputation of income and post-separation adjustments.

POST SEPARATION ADJUSTMENTS

25Andre’s position is that Natasha owes him $50,186.68 in post separation payments for his keeping up the maintenance of the matrimonial home until January 29,205 (the date title was transferred to him).

26Natasha says she owes nothing because for the family the basement was rented, and Andre omitted the payments from his calculations.

27The carrying costs of the investment property are not in issue.

28The costs of maintaining the matrimonial home are to be shared equally between the parties. The costs are calculated from the date of separation to the date of the disposition of the home – see Saroli v. Saroli 2021 ONSC 4450 at paragraph 149.

29The real issue was, does Andre’s calculations adjust for the rental income from the basement apartments? They do not.

30Andre admits to putting down $2,200 a month for rent on his financial statement. The total income generated 25 months should be $55,000 (half should be attributed to Natasha and deducted from the carrying costs she owes).

31Andre testified that in actual fact only one room in the basement was occupied with the second unit needing repairs. He said he only sporadically collected $800 from a difficult tenant. Andre did not back this statement up with any financial documents.

32Andre was very evasive on simple questions like whether the tenant or tenants used a door visible to the members of the upstairs home. He also said that he did not want to fight with the one tenant and so he did not push for the rent.

33I did not find Andre credible on this point. I also did not accept that when he put down $2200 a month on his financial statement, he really meant it as an estimate. This was the rental income for the units in the basement.

34Natasha’s adjusted carrying costs for the matrimonial home will be $50,186.68 minus $27,500 = $22,686.68. Her total post separation adjust will be $22,686.68 + $4,686.42 = $27,373.10.

35The parties agreed on the outstanding equalization payment owed by Natasha - $37,525.96.

36Section 15.2 of the DA gives the court to make an order requiring a spouse to pay such lump sum or periodic sums as the court thinks is reasonable for the support of the other spouse – see Auciello v. Auciello, 2026 ONSC 2485 at 23.

37A spousal support order should recognize “among other things, the advantages and disadvantages arising from the marriage or its breakdown and relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage.” – see Racco v. Racco, 2014 ONCA 330 at 22.

38The objectives are set out in s. 15.2 (6) of the DA

An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;- emphasis mine.

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

39In Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1992 25 (SCC), the court recognized compensatory, non-compensatory and contractual entitlements to support.

40The parties agreed on retroactive post-separation spousal support at an imputed income of $35,000.

41Should spousal support be ongoing and if so for how long.

42Andre argues that Natasha’s income should be imputed at $70,000 or at the very least $60,000.

43Andre argues that Natasha obviously has other sources of income. She listed her monthly income as over $10,000 monthly in her mortgage application. She provided late disclosure of her pay stubs and work information and was not forthright on the stand.

44Ms. Khardas, Andre’s counsel, asks me to draw an adverse inference from Natasha’s testimony. Natasha mentioned two further workplaces on the stand, World Financial Group and Dave’s Hot Chicken.

45I agree that Natasha’s explanation about her mortgage forms (she said she did not see the amounts put in the form, she left it all to her broker) was unsatisfactory.

46I did accept Natasha’s explanation about not earning any money from her World Financial Group ventures and no more hours from Dave’s Hot Chicken. Her explanation is supported by the current employment market.

47Mr. Ukhuegbe, Natasha’s counsel, argues that Natasha was the primary caregiver for four children. She could only work part-time and sporadically. She did not get a chance to further her career. Someone had to see to the children’s needs. She gave up her chances in life to be with Mr. Sinclair and raise their children.

48In reality, Natasha was the primary caregiver for four children. She is still the primary caregiver. She dropped out of high school to take care of Deandre at 19.

49Andre argues she is intentionally unemployed. He argues that she had job with Air Canada, she was laid off in 2020 but recalled in 2021. She did not return when recalled. She said one of the children was facing medical problems and it was not an ideal time.

50Andre argues that given her extensive experience in the service industry as well as her volunteer work at the hospital should give her ample opportunities and any lack of income is due to her unwillingness to try.

51I would not go so far. The reality is that she has been sporadically employed since she was 19. She was looking after four children while Andre carried on in his career. He covered the finances for the family, and she looked after the children. That was the arrangement.

52I was not convinced that Andre tried to get her back to the work field. By mutual agreement, Natasha worked for a short period of time when Andre was laid-off. She was prepared to work then and went back home to take care of the children when Andre returned to work.

53Now Natasha is starting from the ground up. What can she realistically earn?

IMPUTATION OF INCOME

54I cannot arbitrarily impute an income on Natasha. “There must be a rational basis underlying the selection of any such figure. The amount selected as an exercise of the court’s discretion must be grounded in evidence.” – see Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 41868 at 44

55Andre argues that Natasha did not invest wisely when she received her settlement funds. He argues that had she earned more than minimum wage when she worked at Air Canada. Yes, but she would only be guaranteed 75 hours a month.

56I am not sure how I can in good faith impute an income of up to $60,000 to a stay-at-home mother who dropped out of high school to have a child and have 3 more children in quick succession while the father had the luxury of forwarding his career and being successful.

57However, Natasha is in good health and can earn minimum wage in the service industry. It will take her time to get on her feet. I note that the youngest child is now 11 years old and will still need some attention.

SPOUSAL SUPPORT

58In R.L. v. M.F., 2025 ONCA 595 at 30, the court stated “The spouse who has shouldered household and family responsibilities may be entitled to compensatory spousal support to share in the augmented capacity of the other spouse.”

59This was a 15-year marriage. By the time the couple had their first child, Natasha was 20 and Andre was 27. Natasha is 38 now and still has a working life ahead of her.

60Mr. Ukhuegbe is requesting a lifetime spousal support award or in the alternative ten years. He says Natasha has a non-compensatory entitlement to spousal support. Her standard of living has declined post-separation.

61Natasha also has a compensatory entitlement to spousal support for her 15 years of marriage and childcaring that stunted her employment opportunities and augmented Andre’s career.

62Spousal support figures for this former couple at $35,000 earnings for Natasha and Andre’s income of $117,864.00 at the mid range come to $533 a month. I shall order support payments of $533 a month.

SUPPORT DURATION

63I must consider the length of the marriage, a sufficient period in which to overcome any economic disadvantage suffered by Natasha for giving up a career for home life as well as any economic disadvantages suffered post-separation.

64The marriage was not a long one (15 years). Natasha is able-bodied and the children are older. She is only 38. I find that 6 more years of spousal support is fair.

65The question is should this be a lump sum award. I have the discretion to make the support a lump sum payment – see Davis v. Crawford, 2011 ONCA 294 at 69.

66I did not hear submissions on a lump sum payment. In this case the lump sum would be the agreed upon retroactive payment of $9167.50 plus a mid range ongoing payment of $27,647.00 for a total of $36,814.50.

67Counsel can provide me maximum two- page written submissions on whether this spousal support payment should be a lump sum payment or not. Written submissions are due two weeks of the date this decision is received.

68In summary, Natasha owes $27,373.10 for post-separation costs, Natasha owes Andre and equalization payment of $37,525.96. Andre shall pay Natasha $533 month for 6 years and owes Natasha retroactive spousal support of $9167.50 or in the alternative a lump sum payment of $36,814.50.

69There shall be no order for costs. Success was split between the two parties.

Cudjoe J.

Released: June 08,2026

CITATION: Sinclair v. Sinclair, 2026 ONSC 3361