Drzazga v. Drzazga, 2026 ONSC 3418
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
Wojtek Vojtek John Drzazga
Applicant
Self-Represented
- and -
Anise Amenda Drzazga
Self-Represented
Respondent
HEARD: May 22, 25, and 26, 2026
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J. R. HENDERSON
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1Both the applicant, Wojtek Vojtek John Drzazga, and the respondent, Anise Amenda Drzazga, bring motions to change the final order of MacPherson J. dated May 11, 2023 (“the 2023 order”), primarily with respect to parenting and child support issues.
2The parties were married in 2009 and separated in March 2020. They have three children, namely Dustin born April 22, 2009, Deacon born September 19, 2011, and Anna born October 6, 2014.
3The separation of the parties in 2020 was difficult and fraught with conflict. Initially, in March 2020, the respondent left Ontario with the youngest child, Anna, and drove to British Columbia. This led to a court order, dated April 2, 2020, that granted temporary sole custody of the three children to the applicant and required the respondent to return Anna to the applicant’s care.
4The three children remained primarily in the applicant’s care throughout the year 2020. After the respondent returned to Ontario in the summer of 2020, the respondent exercised parenting
time with the children for two hours per week at a neutral location. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer became involved on behalf of the children. Eventually, the parties moved to a shared parenting arrangement.
5In addition to parenting issues, the parties also raised significant property and financial issues in the original court proceedings. Among other things, both parties took the position that the opposite party was underemployed or was not disclosing all of his/her income. These issues were all resolved on consent, which resulted in the 2023 order.
THE 2023 ORDER
6The 2023 order is lengthy and detailed. It contains a total of 68 paragraphs.
7Among other things the 2023 order provides:
That the matrimonial home shall be sold by the applicant, and that the applicant shall pay the respondent a sum of money out of the proceeds of sale.
That the primary residence of the three children shall be shared on a week about schedule with the exchanges taking place on Fridays as set out in paragraph 17 of the 2023 order. However, paragraph 18 of the 2023 order contains six subparagraphs that give Dustin the right to make changes to the regular parenting schedule depending upon Dustin’s views and preferences.
That the applicant and the respondent shall have joint decision-making responsibility for the children with each party having final say regarding certain specific issues.
That the children shall be enrolled in therapy with Barb Hotson.
That the incomes of the parties for child support purposes will be calculated according to a three-year plan with a formula as set out in paragraphs 3-5 of the 2023 order.
That the applicant’s income for child support purposes in the third year of the plan will be the higher of an imputed income of $100,000 or his actual 2024 income, and that the respondent’s income for child support purposes in the third year of the plan will be the higher of an imputed income of $30,000 or her actual 2024 income.
That a modest amount of spousal support shall be paid by the applicant to the respondent for the first three years following the date of the order. The amount of spousal support shall also be calculated according to a three-year plan as set out in paragraphs 8-10.
That the applicant’s contribution toward section 7 expenses shall be $500 per year per child, but that no section 7 expenses shall be incurred by either party without the consent of the non-paying party, such consent to not be unreasonably withheld.
THE ISSUES
8It is apparent that there have been ongoing conflicts between the applicant and the respondent since the 2023 order.
9In particular, there have been conflicts with respect to the appropriate therapy for the children, the residence of the children, the routine expenses of the children, section 7 expenses, and the children’s participation in extracurricular activities. The parties continue to dispute their respective actual incomes, and the applicant believes that the respondent is being supported by her new partner.
10Regarding parenting time, the two youngest children, Deacon and Anna, have generally followed the week about schedule that is set out in the 2023 order. Dustin has exercised his right to make changes to the regular parenting time, such that Dustin now spends more time with the respondent than the applicant.
11A Voice of the Child report indicates that Deacon and Anna would both like to have the same flexibility with respect to parenting time that Dustin enjoys.
12There have been problems enforcing payment of the child support orders that are set out in the 2023 order. The 2023 order provides that each of the applicant and the respondent is to pay an amount to the other for child support based upon shared parenting. Both of the parties are shown to be in arrears by the FRO records. At the trial, the respondent testified that she was prepared to pay the amount of child support required of her in the 2023 order, but that she could not do so because the amount of child support payable by the applicant, which is a much larger amount, was not being paid.
13Moreover, I am informed that the FRO has not adjusted the amounts of child support payable on a yearly basis as set out in the 2023 order because the order is unclear as to the specific amounts that are to be paid after the first year. As a result, the FRO records are based on the amounts that were payable in the first year.
14Reimbursement of section 7 expenses is also a problem. The respondent testified that she has paid a large amount of section 7 expenses in each of the last three years, but she has received no reimbursement for same from the applicant. The respondent testified that she sought the applicant’s consent for most of the section 7 expenses, but the applicant has not consented. The applicant’s testimony was ambivalent; he testified that he was not aware that his consent was required and later testified that he was not aware that the respondent had asked for his consent.
15In addition, the applicant made a request in his motion to change for an order that he have sole decision-making responsibility for the two youngest children. The respondent strongly opposed the applicant’s request and submitted that the existing order for joint decision-making responsibility should remain in place. When I questioned the applicant during the trial, he said that he was content with the current order for joint decision-making responsibility. Accordingly, I will not change the 2023 order on this point.
16In her submissions, the respondent also asked that the applicant provide information to her as to the whereabouts of the family dog. The dog had been living at the matrimonial home when the home was sold by the applicant, and the applicant apparently arranged for the dog to be relocated. Although I have sympathy for the respondent’s request, in my view I have no jurisdiction under the legislation to order disclosure of information about a former family pet. Therefore, I will not deal with that request in this decision.
17Regarding the balance of the issues raised by the parties, I accept that there have been material changes in circumstance that provide a foundation for some, but not all, of the changes requested by the parties. In my analysis, I will review each of the requested changes individually.
18In summary, I will address the following issues that have been raised:
The respondent asks that I determine the applicant’s actual income or impute income to the applicant for child support purposes.
The applicant asks that I impute income to the respondent over and above her actual income for child support purposes.
After I determine the incomes of the parties, the respondent asks that I change the existing order that requires separate child support payments by each of the parties to an order that requires one set-off child support payment from the applicant to the respondent.
Both of the parties ask for retroactive adjustments to child support and for an order fixing the amount of arrears. The respondent asks that her arrears be reduced to zero.
The respondent requests that Deacon and Anna be permitted to have the same flexibility regarding parenting time that Dustin enjoys.
The respondent asks for the 2023 order to be corrected at paragraph 19 as to which parent is responsible for pickup or drop-off.
The respondent asks for an updated order regarding enrolling the children in therapy.
The respondent asks for a change as to how the children’s important documents are shared.
The respondent asks for new terminology to allow her to properly access the applicant’s medical benefits for herself and the children.
The respondent asks for reimbursement for the applicant’s share of the section 7 expenses for each of the past three years, and for a change in the way the section 7 expenses are paid in the future.
ANALYSIS
The Applicant’s Income
19The applicant asks that I make a change to his income for child support purposes retroactive to January 2024. In my view, any retroactive change to the applicant’s income for support purposes would undermine the integrity of the 2023 order.
20That is, the parties and the court were clearly concerned in 2023 about the actual income that was earned or could be earned by both of the parties. Therefore, the parties agreed upon, and the court accepted, a three-year plan with a specific formula for the calculation of the parties’ incomes for support purposes.
21In particular, the 2023 order provided for child support commencing on April 15, 2023, and continuing with a formula for a three-year period that commences on the earlier of the date of the sale of the matrimonial home or September 15, 2023. That formula provided, among other things, that the applicant’s income for each of the first three years would be imputed at the higher of $100,000 or his actual income as set out in his income tax returns.
22The applicant’s submission is simply that his actual income was less than the $100,000 threshold. I find that the 2023 order anticipated that the applicant’s actual income could be less than $100,000 in each of the three years after the order was made, but because of the difficulties ascertaining the applicant’s true income, or his ability to earn an income, the court accepted the three-year plan that was proposed by the parties.
23The 2023 order is detailed and comprehensive as to the way in which the incomes of both parties should be calculated for support purposes. There has been no material change in circumstance that would permit a court to return to the same income imputation issues that arose in 2023 after those issues had been resolved in the 2023 order.
24Therefore, I will not make any retroactive changes to the applicant’s income for child support purposes.
25Regarding the applicant’s income for prospective child support, I accept the applicant’s evidence that he was employed by the Ontario Public Service (“OPS”) as a correctional officer, but that he was injured on the job in 2019, and that he has received WSIB benefits since that time. I accept his evidence that he remains on the OPS payroll, but that he has not yet returned to work.
26The applicant’s primary submission on prospective child support is that he does not make enough money to pay the amount of child support set out in the Child Support Guidelines. He submitted that I should deduct his rental expense of $30,000 per year from his actual income, which he estimated at $70,000 per year, before I calculate his child support payments. With respect, it is inappropriate to deduct rental expenses from a parent’s income before calculating the amount of child support. The Guidelines make it very clear that a parent’s responsibility is first and foremost to support his/her children. The amounts that are set out in the Guidelines are based upon gross income, prior to any deductions for a parent’s living expenses. Therefore, I reject the applicant’s request to reduce his actual income by his rental expenses before calculating child support.
27As to his actual current income, the applicant’s testimony was vague and confusing. He testified that he receives payments from OPS for the first few months of every year as OPS uses credits that he may have for vacation pay and other benefits. Thereafter, he receives payments from WSIB for the balance of each year.
28He testified that he receives income in this way, from either OPS or WSIB, on a biweekly basis. However, he stated that he was unable to provide any relevant documents to show the gross amount of his income from OPS and WSIB and the deductions, if any. He was only able to refer me to his bank statements that show deposits on a biweekly basis that range from $2,131 in 2023 to $2,328 in 2026.
29Further, the applicant did not produce a copy of his tax returns for 2023, 2024, or 2025, and he did not produce his Notices of Assessment for 2024 or 2025. He was able to produce a T4 slip for 2025 showing that he had income of $25,698 from OPS. He has no documentation regarding his WSIB income for 2025.
30The applicant did produce copies of his Notices of Assessment for 2021, 2022, and 2023. Those Notices of Assessments show income at line 150 of $71,816 for 2021, $70,744 for 2022, and $76,109 for 2023. For the year 2024, I have a T4 slip showing employment income from OPS of $29,070 and I have a T5007 statement showing WSIB benefits of $57,757. I received no evidence as to whether the WSIB income should be grossed up for support purposes. On this evidence I find that the applicant’s total income for 2024 was $86,827.
31Given that the applicant has received modest increases in both employment income and WSIB benefits on an annual basis, I find that the applicant’s income for 2025 was approximately $90,000. Accordingly, I will impute income to the applicant for prospective child support purposes at $90,000 per year.
The Respondent’s Income
32The three-year plan set out in the 2023 order also provides for the calculation of the respondent’s income on an annual basis at the higher of an imputed income or her actual income as set out in her income tax returns. I find that the respondent’s income over the past three years has never exceeded the threshold income. In the third year, the respondent’s income for support purposes is imputed at $30,000.
33The respondent does not ask for any retroactive adjustment to her income for child support purposes. Although the applicant asks for retroactive adjustments to the respondent’s income for support purposes, for the reasons I previously discussed, I will not agree to that request.
34Regarding respondent’s actual current income for prospective child support payments, I find that the respondent’s testimony was also vague and confusing. I accept the respondent’s evidence that she has been working as a self-employed hairdresser, primarily working out of the basement of her current residence. However, she testified that she did not necessarily work full time, that she often receives payments in cash, and that she is employed by her own corporation. I accept her evidence that she simply provides her books to her accountant who then prepares her tax returns.
35I reject the applicant’s position that the respondent could earn $360 per day as a hairdresser based on her price list, and that this would equate to approximately $90,000 per year in income. In my view, the applicant’s position is not realistic as the respondent cannot be expected to have customers for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks of the year. Further, the applicant’s position does not take into account the fact that the respondent has overhead expenses.
36In the respondent’s most current financial statement she deposes that she earns $658 per month. Her Notices of Assessment at line 150 show income of $17,250 for 2023, zero income for 2024, and $22,900 for 2025. On the witness stand, the respondent could not explain the discrepancy between her financial statement and her declared income for the past three years. Moreover, the respondent did not provide financial statements for her corporation, nor did she provide any tax returns for her corporation. She also did not provide any statements that set out her overhead expenses.
37The parties had previously agreed that $30,000 per year would be an appropriate imputed income for the respondent. I find that it is reasonable to continue to use this figure. Therefore, for prospective child support payments I will impute income to the respondent in the amount of $30,000 per year.
Retroactive Adjustments and Arrears of Child Support
38As discussed above, I will not make any changes retroactively to the incomes of the parties for child support purposes as those incomes are calculated in the 2023 order. Therefore, I will not make any retroactive changes to the child support payable to date. Any change with respect to child support will commence on June 15, 2026.
39Regarding the applicant’s arrears, the FRO statement shows that the applicant owes $16,847.16 as of April 15, 2026. The payment due on May 15, 2026, in the amount of $1,604, was not made by the applicant. Therefore, I find that the applicant’s arrears of child support pursuant to the 2023 order as of June 14, 2026, is $18,451.16.
40Regarding the respondent’s arrears, the FRO statement shows arrears of $3,435 as of April 15, 2026. Adding the payment of $170 that was due on May 15, 2026, I find that the respondent’s arrears of child support pursuant to the 2023 order as of June 14, 2026, is $3,605.
41Going forward, I will change the protocol set out in the 2023 order so that there will not be payments going back and forth between the two parties; rather, there will be one set-off payment. Accordingly, I will also set off the amount of the arrears owed by each party.
42I make the following orders:
The arrears of child support owed by the applicant as of June 14, 2026, is fixed at $14,846.16.
The arrears of child support owed by the respondent as of June 14, 2026, is fixed at zero.
The applicant shall make payments toward the arrears of child support in the amount of $300 per month on the 15th day of each month commencing on June 15, 2026.
Prospective Child Support
43Even though Dustin has chosen to spend more time with the respondent than the applicant, both parties agree that the Guideline amount of child support for all three children should be used to calculate the set-off amount of child support payments.
44The Guideline support payable by the applicant based on his income of $90,000 per year is $1,764 per month. The Guideline support payable by the respondent based on her income of $30,000 per year is $621 per month.
45Therefore, I make the following orders regarding prospective child support for the three children:
- Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the 2023 order will be removed and replaced by the following, “The applicant shall pay child support for the three children in the amount of $1,764 per month based on imputed income of $90,000 per year, and the respondent shall pay child support for the three children in the amount of $621 per month based on imputed income of $30,000 per year. Those amounts will be set off against each other so that the applicant shall pay to the respondent net child support in the amount of $1,143 per month, payable on the 15th day of each month commencing June 15, 2026.”
Parenting Time
46The respondent requests that all three of the children have the same rights that Dustin enjoys, as set out in paragraph 18 of the 2023 order, to make changes to parenting time based upon his views and preferences. The applicant submits that he has tried to be flexible with respect to all three of the children, but he is concerned that Dustin’s choices were influenced by the lifestyle that was offered to him by the respondent.
47I accept the evidence from both parties that Deacon and Anna are well aware that their older brother, Dustin, has the right to make changes to parenting time based upon his preferences. It is only natural that the two younger children wish to have the same input into parenting time that is enjoyed by their older brother.
48However, in my view the provisions of the 2023 order that permitted Dustin to have input into parenting time have contributed to the current situation in which Dustin tends to avoid parenting time with the applicant. I hope that the current situation as it relates to Dustin is temporary, but I would also like to avoid exacerbating the situation. Therefore, I will not make an immediate change to the 2023 order regarding parenting time.
49Dustin is now 17 years of age, and he has had input into parenting time since he was 13 years old. Therefore, I am not going to change paragraph 18 of the current order as it relates to Dustin’s rights. Further, in my view there should be a presumption that there is parenting time for all three of the children on a week-about basis. Still further, I will permit Deacon and Anna to have input into parenting time when they reach their respective 16th birthdays.
50Therefore, I make the following orders:
Paragraph 17 of the 2023 order will be amended to show that the week about schedule set out at paragraph 17 applies to all three children; and
Subparagraphs 18(a)-(f) of the 2023 order regarding Dustin’s right to have input into parenting time will remain in place with respect to Dustin. Subparagraph 18(g) will be added as follows, “Deacon and Anna will be entitled to the rights set out in subparagraphs 18(a)-(f) when they respectively reach their 16th birthdays.”
Correcting pickup and drop off responsibility
51I accept the submission that the first line of paragraph 19 should be changed. I hereby order that:
- Paragraph 19 of the 2023 order will be amended to read, “The parent finishing their parenting time shall be responsible for dropping off the children.”
The Children’s Therapy
52Paragraph 36 states that the children shall be enrolled with Barbara Hotson for therapy. I accept that Ms. Hotson has never been the children’s therapist. I find that the applicant made inquiries of Ms. Hotson, and her response led him to believe that Ms. Hotson had treated either the respondent’s boyfriend or members of his family. Therefore, I agree that Ms. Hotson is not an appropriate therapist. The parties have not been able to agree on a new therapist.
53The history is that the children saw a therapist at West Niagara Psychology Clinic (“WNPC”) for about six months at around the time of the separation. Recently, Deacon has been sent by his school for an assessment at the same WNPC facility.
54I find that therapy would be beneficial for all of the children. I therefore make the following orders:
The parties shall cooperate with one another so that Deacon may attend and participate in therapy at WNPC.
The applicant shall have final decision-making responsibility as to whether, and to what extent, Anna shall attend and participate in therapy.
The respondent shall have final decision-making responsibility as to whether, and to what extent, Dustin shall attend and participate in therapy.
The Children’s Important Documents
55The respondent asks this court to change the provisions of the 2023 order as it relates to the sharing of the children’s important documents such as passports, birth certificates, and OHIP cards. In my view, the 2023 order sets out comprehensive provisions for the sharing of these documents at paragraphs 39-41. I heard no evidence that would suggest that there has been any difficulty sharing these documents. Accordingly, I reject the respondent’s request to make a change to this part of the order.
Terminology regarding Accessing the Applicant’s Medical Benefits
56The respondent requests that I add a provision to the existing order to allow her to make direct claims on her behalf and on behalf of the children against the applicant’s medical and health benefit plan that is available through the applicant’s employment. The evidence shows that the respondent and the children have had difficulties accessing this coverage. Therefore, I am prepared to amend the existing order by adding the following terms:
Anise Drzazga shall be the beneficiary to the children’s health benefits in order to be directly reimbursed by Manulife for psychologist services and health services for the children Dustin Drzazga, Deacon Drzazga, and Anna Drzazga, and herself Anise Drzazga.
Anise Drzazga shall be able to submit claims and be reimbursed directly by Manulife in lieu of policyholder Wojtek Drzazga of group policy number 0015900, policyholder Province of Ontario, Ministry of Public Safety and Correctional Services, certificate number 336019, for the children Dustin Drzazga, Deacon Drzazga, and Anna Drzazga, and for Anise Drzazga for all benefits pertaining to the insurance plan. Coverage under the policy for all dependants listed will cease when their eligibility for dependant status under the policy terminates and/or when the plan member is no longer eligible for coverage under the policy.
Section 7 Expenses
57I find that the respondent has spent significant amounts for section 7 expenses in the past three years, without reimbursement from the applicant. In particular, I accept that the respondent spent $6,069 in 2023, $4,209 in 2024, and $9,563 in 2025. I find that those amounts are all reasonable section 7 expenses, that the respondent has requested reimbursement from the applicant, and that the applicant has not provided any contribution to these expenses.
58In the 2023 order, the applicant’s contribution to section 7 expenses was capped at $500 per year per child. I find that the amount of section 7 expenses that should have been paid by the applicant has far exceeded the amount at which the applicant’s contribution is capped. The applicant should have reimbursed the respondent in the amount of $1,500 per year for these section 7 expenses.
59Therefore, I make the following orders:
- The applicant shall forthwith pay the sum of $4,500 to the respondent, representing his contribution to section 7 expenses for the three children for the past three years.
60In order to reduce the friction between the parties, I am also going to change the way in which section 7 expenses are handled. It is clear that the section 7 expenses will exceed $500 per year per child for the foreseeable future. Therefore, I am going to require the applicant to contribute to section 7 expenses in the amount of $125 per month, which will total $1,500 per year. I hereby make the following orders:
Paragraph 12 of the 2023 order will be removed regarding section 7 expenses, and replaced with the following, “On the 15th day of each month commencing June 15, 2026, the applicant shall pay to the respondent the sum of $125 per month as his contribution toward the section 7 expenses of the three children.”
Paragraph 13 of the 2023 order regarding section 7 expenses will be amended such that the respondent will not be required to obtain the applicant’s consent in advance of any section 7 expense; however, paragraph 13 will continue to apply to section 7 expenses that may be incurred by the applicant.
CONCLUSION
61In summary, orders will go in accordance with the numbered orders set out herein. In addition, a Support Deduction Order will issue.
J. R. Henderson J.
Released: June 11, 2026
Drzazga v. Drzazga, 2026 ONSC 3418
COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-00000172-0001
DATE: 2026-06-11
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
Wojtek Vojtek John Drzazga
Applicant
- and -
Anise Amenda Drzazga
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
J. R. Henderson J.
Released: June 11, 2026