Pontallier v. Ibironke, 2026 ONSC 3429
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Leontine Lesly Pontallier
Applicant
– and –
Abiodun Peter Ibironke
Respondent
Acting in person
Acting in person
HEARD: March 30 and 31, 2026
Justice Maria n. sirivar
OVERVIEW
1The trial in this matter relates only to child support and section 7 expenses for the parties’ two children. All other issues have been resolved on a final basis.
2The mother seeks child support and contributions to childcare expenses, retroactive to the date of separation, July 2021. The father opposes the mother’s claim and asks that there be no order for child support until he finds employment.
UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE
Background
3The parties began cohabiting in 2014 and were married in July 2018. They have two children: Keelane Divine Ibironke Pontallier (born March 9, 2016) and Akolade Raphael Ibironke (born March 10, 2020). They separated on July 1, 2021.
4On January 3, 2025, a temporary order was made on consent for a 50/50 parenting schedule. The order also provided for child support to be paid by the father in an unspecified amount in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines, as well as a proportionate share of section 7 expenses, subject to income confirmation. Following a settlement conference in July 2025, the parties agreed to settle all issues other than child support on a final basis. An order was made on July 7, 2025.
5In August 2025, the father advised the mother that he was moving to Toronto and that the children would have to be in her full-time care. He also suggested that she allow the children to go with him and arrange visits if his proposal was not accepted. In January 2026, the father returned to Ottawa and resumed the 50/50 parenting schedule.
Child Support
6The father’s financial documents reveal the following annual income:
Year
Line 150 Income
2021
$52, 489
2022
$67, 861
2023
$65, 604
2024
$68, 539
2025
$43, 514
Current
Unknown
7In or about March 2025, the father lost his employment. He received Employment Insurance (“EI”) benefits for the period of March 2, 2025, to November 9, 2025, in the gross weekly amount of $695. He received payments for 36 weeks, totalling $24,514 over eight months.
8The mother’s financial documents reveal the following annual:
Year
Line 150 Income
2021
$47, 216
2022
$46, 221
2023
$50, 795
2024
$47, 718
2025
$55, 665
Current
$55, 665 per year
9The children attended daycare or after-school care when they were younger. In 2021, the family received a subsidy that covered the entire cost of childcare. In 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, the children attended after-school childcare.
10The father did not agree with the children continuing to attend after-school care or to pay for it. He advised the mother that during the weeks he had the children, they would not attend. The mother then cancelled the daycare after the subsidy was cancelled because she could not afford to pay for the whole month on her own.
CONTESTED EVIDENCE
The Mother
11The mother testified that following the parties’ separation in 2021, the children resided primarily with her and spent time with the father on weekends. In February 2023, the parties agreed that the children would spend one week of each month with the father. The text messages between the parties, filed by the mother, include a message dated December 7, 2022, in which the father says that he should have the children for one week out of four rather than only on weekends. In the text message dated February 22, 2023, the mother asks the father to confirm that one week, every second week of the month, was agreed to.
12According to the mother, it was not until January 2025 that they had a 50-50 parenting schedule (two weeks on, two weeks off). The arrangement remained in place until August 2025. On August 18, 2025, the father sent her an email stating that, effective August 30, the children would be with her until further notice because he was relocating to Toronto.
13The father returned to Ottawa in January 2026, and he sought to resume the 50-50 shared parenting schedule. The mother refused, indicating that it was better to leave the matter to the Court to decide, as it was set for trial. The father advised the mother that he intended to resume the schedule, then picked up the children from school without the mother’s consent and resumed the schedule.
14The mother testified that the children attended daycare and after-school care in 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 while the mother worked. The family received a subsidy, which was applied directly to the cost of daycare. She was then advised of the amount she was required to pay. She filed the tax receipts she received for the childcare expense.
15The mother testified that the father did not pay child support consistently or in accordance with his income. He sent her email money transfers (“e-transfers”) in 2022 and 2023. The mother filed copies of 11 e- transfers that the father sent her. They ranged from $14 to $500 and were sent between April 12, 2022, and August 31, 2023. The total amount sent by the father in the email money transfers was $2,868.00.
16In January 2025, when the shared parenting order was made, according to the mother, the judge calculated a $397 set-off amount that the father was to pay her for child support. The father only made the payment in February 2025. The order is not enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”).
17The mother testified that, in addition to refusing to pay child support or any expenses for the children, the father contacted the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) on two occasions and claimed that they had a shared parenting schedule. First, he claimed that the schedule began in July 2024, then he claimed it started in 2023. Consequently, the mother received a bill from CRA for $6,000 for a Canada Child Benefit (“CCB”) overpayment. She provided information to CRA to demonstrate that the children were in her care, and the issue was resolved.
The Father
Parenting Schedule
18The father testified that the parties have had a 50-50 parenting schedule since they separated in July 2021. In cross-examination, he conceded that the 2023 text message indicated he would have parenting time one week out of four. He maintained, however, that prior to the 2023 text messages, there had been a 50-50 parenting schedule.
19The father acknowledged having contacted CRA to advise that the parties had a shared parenting schedule. He explained that he believed it was fair for the parties to share the CCB, which had not previously been shared. As such, in March 2025, after losing his job, he advised CRA of the shared parenting schedule. CRA then divided the CCB between the parties.
Education and Employment
20The father holds a Bachelor of Science in Computer Systems from Nigeria. Since moving to Ottawa, he has held several jobs in his field. Beginning in August 2020, he worked for Shareweb Inc. as a System Administrator. He worked full-time and earned $21 per hour. He lost the position in August 2021, shortly after separation.
21From February 2022 to December 2022, the father worked for the Ottawa Hospital as a Network Engineer. Although he worked full-time, he was a contractor and paid by the hour. The number of hours depended on the need. He left this position to take a permanent full-time position with Fortra, a cybersecurity and software development company. His position was Infrastructure Engineer, and he earned $68,000 per year.
22The father testified that he attended George Brown College pursuing a two-year Diploma in Computer Systems Networking. He attended from September 2023 until June 2025, although he had to repeat two courses in the summer of 2025. The program was online, but he travelled to Toronto every two weeks or once a month for group assignments and exams.
23According to the father, tuition for the entire program was $5,500. When asked how he funded his education, the father testified that he received assistance from the Ontario Student Assistance Program (“OSAP”). He applied in September of 2023 and disclosed that he was working full-time. He was initially approved for $7,000 as a single person. However, the amount was increased to $10,000 after he advised that he had a shared parenting arrangement with the mother. He must repay $6,000 of the OSAP received, and $4,000 was a grant.
24The father testified that he lost his job at Fortra in March 2025 due to workforce reduction. He explained that he did not receive any severance or notice of termination pay. He was unable to challenge the termination because he lacked the resources to hire a lawyer. He has not found employment since that time.
25The father testified that he has been actively looking for work. He applied to 750 jobs from March until December 2025. He applied widely in the Ottawa area, Montreal, and Toronto. He applied for a variety of positions, including administrative and customer service roles, as well as positions through employment agencies.
26In support of his position, the father filed a document containing what he described as proof of his job search. He created a spreadsheet populated with an extraction from his email. According to the father, the document specifies the application date and the email subject line.
27Initially, the father testified that he had 15 interviews. He later revised the number to 10 and explained that six interviews were in Toronto, three in Montreal, and one in Kanata. His efforts did not yield any job offers. He explained that it was a difficult time in his industry with many layoffs.
28The father explained that he moved to Toronto in August 2025 because he had a series of back-to-back interviews. Going back and forth between Toronto and Ottawa was difficult, in addition to travelling to Montreal for interviews at times. While in Toronto, the father lived with his cousin in North York. He did not pay rent, and he was able to focus on finding a job. He returned to Ottawa because his search efforts were unsuccessful, and he wanted to be present for his children.
Financial Statement
29In the Financial Statement dated January 2, 2026 (the “Financial Statement”), the father deposes that he pays $1000 per month in rent. At trial, the father testified that he does not pay rent. He is living at the home on Palmerton with a close friend and his friend’s brother, who lives in the basement. The father explained that he and the children stay upstairs. His only expenses are electricity, internet, and food for himself and the children. He also has a second home in Gatineau that belongs to his girlfriend. He does not pay rent there either.
30The father further deposes in the Financial Statement that he has a $700 a month car loan or lease payment. The only vehicle identified, a 2021 Audi Q7, has a value of $60,000. There is also a $60,000 car loan. At trial, the father testified that he paid $50,000 for the vehicle in June or July of 2025. Prior to purchasing this vehicle, he drove a 2019 Mercedes CR300.
31The father testified that at the time of purchasing the vehicle, he had $12,000 to $15,000 in savings. He used his savings towards the purchase of his vehicle and for vacations in June or July 2025. He travelled to the Ivory Coast and to the Dominican Republic with the children.
32The father explained that he is able to pay his expenses by earning income through Uber food deliveries. His family friend, who resides in Gatineau, lends him his Uber account. He also receives support from family members, particularly his sister and his mother. His sister, who works two jobs, gives him approximately $200 to $300 per month. His mother, who lives in the United States, provides support of approximately 300 USD every two to three months.
Child Support Paid
33The father testified that he paid child support from the time of separation, by e-transfer, and cash. He acknowledges that he did not pay support consistently. He stopped paying when he lost his job in late 2021 and resumed when he started working again, and “she came to ask for support.” He then stopped paying support again when he lost his job in March 2025. The father estimates, based on the documents filed by the mother, that he paid a total of $5,000 in support. He also paid for activities for the children, but the mother refused to take them.
34The father does not agree to contributing to the childcare expenses because the mother was reimbursed by the subsidy. He is familiar with the process and explained that the receipts the mother provided do not reflect what she was out of pocket. He also testified that he “won’t pay for the service she needs.” He can pick up the children at 2:30 p.m. every day and does not require childcare.
LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Shared Parenting
35Section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines1 applies where each parent exercises not less than 40% of parenting time over the course of a year. In such cases, the court must:
a. Determine the table amount each parent would pay to the other.
b. Determine the increased costs of the shared parenting arrangements.
c. Consider the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent and any child for whom support is sought.2
36Section 9 recognizes that higher costs incurred by one parent do not necessarily reduce the costs borne by the other. To determine what, if any, increased costs arise from shared parenting arrangements, the expenses in each household should be examined. Increased costs generally result from the duplication of child-related expense.3 The court must assess fairness, including the standard of living of the children in each household and each parent’s ability to absorb the costs necessary to maintain an appropriate standard of living.
Loss of Employment
37A parent claiming reduced income must demonstrate a reasonable and genuine job search. Failure to do so may result in a finding of intentional underemployment. Superficial efforts such as submitting only a list of applications without supporting details have been found to be insufficient.4
Imputing Income
38Parents are expected to earn to their capacity and cannot avoid support obligations through voluntary reduction of income. Courts may impute income where a party is intentionally underemployed or unemployed pursuant to subsection 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines. In Drygala v. Pauli,5 the Court of Appeal for Ontario set out a three-part test which requires the court to ask:
a. Is the party intentionally underemployed or unemployed?
b. If so, is the situation justified by reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child, or health considerations?
c. If not justified, what level of income should be imputed?
39The party seeking imputation bears the initial onus to establish intentional underemployment or unemployment. Once a prima facie case is established, the onus shifts to the other party to justify their income level. Failure to provide full financial disclosure reduces the evidentiary burden on the moving party.6
40While lifestyle itself is not income, evidence of lifestyle may support an inference of undisclosed income. Courts may also treat regular financial gifts as income.7
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Mother
41The mother submits that the father’s evidence is neither credible nor reliable. It was inconsistent, evasive, and he was frequently unable to provide supporting documentation. The mother argues that the evidence does not support the father’s assertion that they had a 50-50 parenting schedule prior to January 2025.
42The mother further submits that the evidence contradicts the father’s claim that he is unable to pay child support. According to the mother, the evidence demonstrates that he has access to funds beyond what he has disclosed. In support of this position, the mother points to the following:
a. Although he claims to have been terminated in March 2025 without severance, the father had approximately $15,000 in savings.
b. He receives ongoing financial support from his sister and mother.
c. The father received $2078 per month in EI.
d. There is undeclared income the father earned using his friend’s Uber account.
e. He undeclared income from using his friends’ Uber account.
f. The father paid to travel to the Dominican Republic with the children in April 2025.
g. The father paid to travel to the Ivory Coast in 2025.
43The mother contends that a retroactive child support award is appropriate as the father initially made child support payments on his own initiative. The issue is that the payment did not align with his income.
44The mother argues that the Court ought to impute income to the father where necessary. Section 7 expenses should be awarded net of taxes and a proportionate contribution.
The Father
45The father submits that the majority of the mother's claims are incorrect, and her evidence is untrue. The parties have always had a shared parenting schedule. He has been an active presence in the children’s lives since birth, and this continued following the separation.
46The father submits that he is not claiming inability to work. He has made significant efforts to find work. The situation, however, is out of his control. Although he currently lacks the funds to pay child support, he remains capable of caring for the children. There was never a time he was not there for the children, and he cannot recall a time they lacked anything.
47The father submits that, despite the shared parenting schedule, he is not seeking child support from the mother. She earns more than he and was also able to purchase a new vehicle. When he finds work, he will advise the mother.
48With respect to his source of income and financial support, the father submits that it is not wrong to receive money from family to be comfortable.
49The father does not object to contributing to section 7 expenses. However, the mother has been fully reimbursed through the subsidy for the childcare expenses she claims. Requiring him to contribute would result in double recovery for the mother.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Shared Parenting
50I find that the parties did not have a 50-50 shared parenting arrangement following separation. I accept the mother’s evidence, which is corroborated by the text messages, that there was no 50-50 parenting arrangement before the January 2025 order. The father conceded that in February 2023, the parties agreed that he would have parenting time one week out of four. I reject the father’s evidence that prior to that, the parties had a 50-50 shared parenting schedule. If that were the case, he would not have asked for one week out of four, rather than only on weekends, in the December 7, 2022, text message. As such, section 9 is not engaged for that period. The presumptive table amount, therefore, applies.
51The 50-50 shared parenting arrangement continued only until August 30, 2025, when the father relocated to Toronto. From August 2025 until January 2026, the children were primarily in the mother’s care. While I accept that the father visited the children, I reject his evidence regarding the frequency of those visits because it was inconsistent. In one instance, he testified that he travelled to Ottawa to see the children every weekend, then he said every other weekend, and then he said that between October and December, he travelled three or four times. In these circumstances, I find that the father’s parenting time was significantly reduced during that period and did not meet the 40% threshold throughout 2025. Consequently, the presumptive table amount applies for this period.
The Father’s Income
52I reject the father’s evidence regarding his income, where it is not corroborated, as it is characterized by material inconsistencies and a lack of candour. For instance, the father testified that he lost his employment due to workforce reduction in March of 2025. He did not, however, provide a letter of termination or a Record of Employment. Similarly, he did not provide a T4 from his former employer despite being ordered to do so and given additional time at trial.
53The father testified about his efforts to find work. However, the spreadsheet he filed does not permit a meaningful review of those efforts. There are no names associated with the emails; the email bodies are not visible; the entries run from January (before he lost his job) to December 2025; and many entries refer to the Canadian Armed Forces, which he did not mention in his evidence. It is unclear which specific jobs he applied for, where he interviewed, the application results, or the resumes he used. I find the evidence of the job search to be vague and insufficient to support the claim that he has made a reasonable effort to find employment.
54Other examples of the father’s lack of candour include:
a. There is no evidence regarding his attendance at George Brown College, such as proof of his enrollment, diploma earned, courses taken, tuition, or OSAP funding.
b. The tax returns and HST returns for the corporation, filed for 2022, or evidence that the corporation was closed, were not disclosed.
55There are several inconsistencies between the father’s evidence at trial and his financial statements, which include the following:
a. He testified that his vehicle was purchased for $50,000, but the Financial Statement indicates a current value of $60,000.
b. He testified about attending school, receiving OSAP funding beginning in the fall of 2023. There is no reference in his financial statements from December 2024 and January 2026 to OSAP loans, tuition expenses, or expenses associated with travelling to Toronto for school.
c. The father testified that he does not pay rent at either of the two homes, but in the Financial Statement, he deposes that he pays $1,000 per month.
d. He testified that he uses his friend's Uber account to earn income to pay his expenses. This Uber income is not included in the Financial Statement.
e. He testified that his EI ended in November 2025. However, in the Financial Statement, he lists an EI income of $2,085 per month.
56The evidentiary record established that it is both necessary and appropriate to impute income to the father pursuant to section 19 of the Guidelines. Specifically:
a. The father has failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure.
b. I find that the father is intentionally underemployed or unemployed. The evidence fails to establish that he made reasonable efforts to find employment.
c. His lifestyle is inconsistent with his asserted lack of income. Notwithstanding his claim that he has no income following the loss of his employment, the father purchased a luxury vehicle valued at approximately $60,000, travelled internationally twice, including once with the children, receives ongoing financial support from family, and works using his friend’s Uber account.
57Given the father’s education, work history, demonstrated ability to maintain a significant lifestyle, and access to income-generating opportunities, I find that he has the capacity to earn at least the income he earned in 2024, $68, 539.
58Accordingly, I impute annual income to the father in the amount of $ 68,639 for 2025 and 2026. This imputed income shall be used for the purposes of determining his table child support obligation and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.
Set Off
59Following the father’s return to Ottawa, the parties resumed the 50-50 shared parenting arrangement. Although the 40% threshold would be met if the schedule were followed, after weighing the factors set out in section 9, I find that a set-off would be inappropriate and undermine the objectives of the Guidelines.
60The table support owed by each parent to the other is set out in the table below.
2025 Income
Table amount
Mother
$55, 655
$838
Father
$68,539 (imputed)
$1,049
61The father has not demonstrated any increased costs associated with shared parenting. His expenses have decreased. The expenses in the Financial Statement are less than those identified in the financial statement dated December 31, 2024. For example, his rent, groceries and utilities expenses decreased. He also testified that he has access to two homes where he does not pay rent.
62Consideration of the parties’ respective means and circumstances militates strongly against a set-off. The father maintains a lifestyle inconsistent with the financial hardship he alleges. He drives a luxury vehicle and takes international trips, including a 2025 trip to the Dominican Republic with the children and to the Ivory Coast. He receives gifts from his mother and sister totalling up to $600 per month. He also has the use of his friend’s Uber account to generate income.
63Additionally, I find that the father used the children, claiming to government authorities that he had a shared parenting arrangement when he did not, for financial gain. According to his own evidence, he received an additional $3,000 in funding from OSAP and 50% of the CCB, which resulted in a $6,000 debt for the mother.
64Conversely, the mother has maintained stability for the children since separation. Following the commencement of the shared parenting arrangement, the father was able to relocate to Toronto with two weeks’ notice because the mother assumed full-time care of the children. The mother’s financial statements reflect consistent expenses for rent, debt payments, and a car loan payment. She does not have savings. She testified that she could not afford after-school care after the father refused to contribute.
Retroactive Child Support and Childcare Expenses
65I accept the mother’s argument, which was not disputed by the father, that retroactive child support should be ordered. The father testified that he has paid child support since the separation, although not consistently due to job losses. I find that the father was aware of his obligation to pay child support and made efforts to meet it. There is no basis to deny the retroactive child support claimed.
66I accept the mother’s evidence, which is corroborated by receipts, that she incurred the childcare expenses claimed. The children attended daycare and after-school care while the mother was working. The subsidy received did not pay the full cost. I reject the father's argument that the mother was reimbursed. She was given tax receipts for her payment. The father has not provided any evidence to contradict the mother’s evidence.
DISPOSITION
67The father shall pay table child support to the mother for the parties’ two children based on his line 150 income for the years 2021 to 2024 and based on an imputed income of $68,539 commencing January 1, 2025.
68The father shall contribute proportionally to the daycare expenses incurred by the mother, commencing on January 1, 2022, and continuing.
69A detailed endorsement containing the orders made shall follow under separate cover.
Justice Maria N. Sirivar
Date: June 12, 2026
COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-1349
DATE: 2026/06/10
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Leontine Lesly Pontallier, Applicant
-and-
Abiodun Peter Ibironke, Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
SIRIVAR J.
Released: June 12, 2026
Footnotes
- SOR/97 – 175 [Guidelines]
- Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63 [Cantino] at para 37
- Contino, supra at para 52
- See Filippetto v. Timpano, 2008 CanLII 3962 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 417 (SCJ); De Francesco v. De Francesco, 2010 ONSC 594
- 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731 at para. 23
- Mpamugo v. Nyeche-Woluchor, 2022 ONCJ 488 at para 89
- See Bak v. Dobell, 2007 ONCA 304; Korman v. Korman, 2015 ONCA 578; Marello v. Marello, 2016 ONSC 835.